Part II: Substantive Comments Received During 

Public Comment Analysis Process of the Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project 
Table II-A. Persons Submitting Comments on the JIDP DEIS

Submittal ID Last Name First Name Organization Address City State Zip Form of Comment EmE-01 Acri Armond Jackson WY Email anE-02 Anderson David Email anE-03 Archer Glenn Email gaE-04 Belton Charlotte Sheridan WY Email chbE-05 Bloom Greg Kinder Morgan, Inc. 330 South Center, Suite 200 Casper WY 82601 Email GrE-06 Boril Ronna Equity Brokers GMAC Email rboE-07 Bower Roger PO Box 185 Riverton WY 82501 Email rboE-08 Brabec Dennis Nerd Gas Company LLC P.O. Box 3003 Casper WY 82602 Email dbE-09 Brause Ryan 2120 Milleg Lane Big Piney WY 83113 Email ryaE-10 Bridges Ben PO Box 417 Mesquite NV 89024 Email beE-11 Bullington George Email geE-12 Butler Brandy EnCana Email braE-13 Clark Ron PO Box 1964 Pinedale WY 82941 Email ronE-14 Combs Ralph Email ralE-15 Cooper Stan

State Senator, Sublette/Lincoln/Sweetwater/Uinta

Senate District 14 Email tolk

E-16 Danze Jennifer Email jdaE-17 Delap Justin Email wvE-18 Dufek Eric 369 N. 6th, Apt 2 Laramie WY 82072 Email usdE-19 Erb Barbara PO Box 316 Wilson WY 83014 Email BaE-20 Fandek John Email jl@E-21 Fandek Lucy Email jl@E-22 Hawkins Sabine La Barge WY Email sasE-23 Herz Barbara Sierra Club - Teton County PO Box 211 Moose WY 83012 Email CHE-24 Huffman Clark Email cla

1
Table II-A. Persons Submitting Comments on the JIDP DEIS (cont’d) 

Submittal ID Last Name First Name Organization Address City State Zip Form of Comment EmE-25 Irons Forest Casper WY Email fi@E-26 Jenkins Mary Rock Springs WY Email maE-27 Jensen Jennifer Email JenE-28 Jetkoski Maria Email stliE-29 Jolovich Bonnie Email astE-30 Kallas Angelo Green River WY 82935 Email ANE-31 Kerasote Ted PO Box 100 Kelly WY 83011 Email tedE-32 Kesselheim Donn 22 Pheasant Run Dr. Lander WY 82520 Email ouE-33 Knox Ben J.W. Williams, Inc. Email bknE-34 Kourbelas Neil Rock Springs City Council Rock Springs WY 82901 Email nko

m

E-35 Larsen Tori Email hoE-36 Laybourn Jim PO Box 11951 Jackson WY 83002 Email JimE-37 Leake Caleb 6568 South Oak Circle Littleton CO 80127- 5857 Email leaE-38 Mapel Daniel Email dmE-39 Marshall Rick Email MTE-40 McKeever Alice Email alicE-41 Mehle Patrick 1037 Cypress Circle Rock Springs WY 82901 Email smE-42 Morzenti Steve Wold Oil Email gaE-43 Mosher James

North American Grouse Partnership

Email Na

E-44 Mourer Echo Email emE-45 Organ Bill 5964 South Kearney Street Centennial CO 80111- 4233 Email BVE-46 Peterson Ben Email blpE-47 Purves Cathy Wyoming Wildlife Federation PO Box 1387 Lander WY 82520 Email capE-48 Rea Tom 1756 S. Chestnut St. Casper WY 82601 Email tre

2
Table II-A. Persons Submitting Comments on the JIDP DEIS (cont’d) 

Submittal ID Last Name First Name Organization Address City State Zip Form of Comment EmE-49 Roberts Luke Encana Pinedale WY 82941 Email lukE-50 Roberts Luke Email lukE-51 Rogers Suzan PO Box 3115 Jackson WY 83001 Email sroE-52 Routh Ken 1518 Albany Circle Rock Springs WY 82901 EmailE-53 Sachau B. 15 Elm St. Florham Park NJ 07932 Email jeaE-54 Samuelson Doug Wyoming Legislature Email dswE-55 Sharp Beverly Email bshE-56 Sims Jimmy Email jhsE-57 Sommers Albert PO Box 266 Pinedale WY 82941 Email somE-58 Cluff Steve 647 Center St. Evanston WY 82930 Email creE-59 Thompson Craig Email cthE-60 Van Engel Emily Email evaE-61 Volney Greg Email GrE-62 Watts Sean B&B Oilfield Services Email swE-63 Weidensee Derek Email suE-64 White Monte Encana 317 Agate St. Rock Springs WY 82901 Email moE-65 Williams Don Dynamic Drilling Fluids, Inc. 216 16th St., Suite 915 Denver CO 80202 Email dwE-66 Turner Mark 6801 West Yale Ave. Lakewood CO 80227 EmailF-01 Hagenstein Paul PO Box E Pinedale WY 82941 FormF-02 Nichols Nick 2552 CR 118 Boulder WY 82923 FormF-03 Schledwitz Tom Caza Drilling PO Box 17805 Denver CO 80217 FormF-04 Smith Ron PO Box 1434 Pinedale WY 82941 FormF-05 Thornhill Chris PO Box 2141 Pinedale WY 82941 FormF-06 Volner Tom 3421 Monterey Dr. Rock Springs WY 82901 FormFL1-0 *Document Master* Form Letter 1FL1-01 Grimes Stephen PO Box 17805 Denver CO 80217 Form Letter 1

3
Table II-A. Persons Submitting Comments on the JIDP DEIS (cont’d) 

Submittal ID Last Name First Name Organization Address City State Zip Form of Comment EmFL1-02 Hanks David PO Box 44 Farson WY 82932 Form Letter 1FL1-03 Jenkins Mary 2924 Sundance Ln. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 1FL1-04 Siddoway Blaine 355 Birch St. Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 1FL1-05 Abeyta Dan 815 Walnut Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 1FL1-06 Berscheit Ken PO Box 1487 Evanston WY 82930 Form Letter 1FL1-07 Carter Roger PO Box 1475 Evanston WY 82930 Form Letter 1FL1-08 Castor Charles 510 Cheyenne Dr. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 1FL1-09 Elverud Edward 50 Valley View Ave. Evanston WY 82930 Form Letter 1FL1-10 Fauber Bill 416 Mohawk Dr. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 1FL1-11 Halter Jeffery PO Box 2493 Rock Springs WY 82902 Form Letter 1FL1-12 Johnson D.M. 1801 Broadway, Suite 310 Denver CO 80202 Form Letter 1FL1-13 Johnson Tamara PO Box 624 Whitehall MT 59759 Form Letter 1FL1-14 Kelley Scott 351 East 4th South Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 1FL1-15 Magagna Michael 1612 Overland Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 1FL1-16 Mortensen Danny 2552 N. 500 E. Vernal UT 84078 Form Letter 1FL1-17 Saavedra, Jr. Raul 110 Colonial Evanston WY 82930 Form Letter 1FL1-18 Stevenson Brett 136 S. 4th W. Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 1FL1-19 Thornhill Chris PO Box 2141 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 1FL1-20 Vincent Bruce 5957 Champion Rd. Libby MT 59923 Form Letter 1FL1-21 Wales Sharon 1030 Thorpe St. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 1FL1-22 Zimmerman Richard 1660 #11 Blair Ave. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 1FL1-23 Zumbrennen Robert 500 South 5th East Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 1FL1-24 Blake James PO Box 1671 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 1FL1-25 Gross Gary 190 Mesa Dr. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 1FL1-26 Hale Ryan PO Box 432 Lyman WY 82937 Form Letter 1FL1-28 McGowan Clifford PO Box 85 Farson WY 82932 Form Letter 1FL1-29 Prater Tony Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 1

4
Table II-A. Persons Submitting Comments on the JIDP DEIS (cont’d) 

Submittal ID Last Name First Name Organization Address City State Zip Form of Comment EmFL2-0 *Document Master* Form Letter 2FL2-01 Grimes Stephen PO Box 17805 Denver CO 80202 Form Letter 2FL2-02 Vincent Patti 5957 Champion Rd. Libby MT 59923 Form Letter 2FL2-03 Ballard Jamie PO Box 1101 Whitehall MT 59759 Form Letter 2FL2-04 Bersheit Ken PO Box 1487 Evanston WY 82930 Form Letter 2FL2-05 Chidester Jennifer 145 Del Rio Dr. Evanston WY 82930 Form Letter 2FL2-06 Clark Ron PO Box 1964 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 2FL2-07 Cooper Kenny 1134 Morslee Evanston WY 82930 Form Letter 2FL2-08 Johnson D.M. 1801 Broadway, Suite 310 Denver CO 80202 Form Letter 2FL2-09 Kelley Scott 351 East 4th South Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 2FL2-10 Magagna Michael 1612 Overland Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 2FL2-11 Mortensen Danny 2552 N. 500 E. Vernal UT 84078 Form Letter 2FL2-12 Putnam Phillip 118 Bellview Dr. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 2FL2-13 Siddoway Blaine 355 Birch St. Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 2FL2-14 Steffen Dana 206 Marble Evanston WY 82930 Form Letter 2FL2-15 Stevenson Brett 136 S. 4th W. Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 2FL2-16 Thornhill Chris PO Box 2141 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 2FL2-17 VanNorman David 380 Hackberry Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 2FL2-18 Vavra Troy 311 Van Buren #1 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 2FL2-19 Zimmerman Richard 1660 #11 Blair Ave. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 2FL2-20 Zumbrennen Robert 500 S. 5th E. Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 2FL2-21 Blake James PO Box 1671 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 2FL2-22 Gross Gary 190 Mesa dr. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 2FL2-23 Hale Ryan PO Box 432 Lyman WY 82937 Form Letter 2FL2-24 Jenkins Mary 2924 Sundance Ln. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 2FL2-25 McGowan Clifford PO Box 85 Farson WY 82932 Form Letter 2FL2-26 Prater Tony Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 2

5
Table II-A. Persons Submitting Comments on the JIDP DEIS (cont’d) 

Submittal ID Last Name First Name Organization Address City State Zip Form of Comment EmFL2-27 Saavedra, Jr. Raul 110 Colonial Evanston WY 82930 Form Letter 2FL3-0 *Document Master* Form Letter 3FL3-01 Aarts Robert 2030 E. 11th Ave, Suite 1202 Denver CO 80206 Form Letter 3FL3-02 Anderson, Jr. Stephen V. 1416 1st SE, Apt 1 Minot ND 58701 Form Letter 3FL3-03 Archer Patrick 13 Daisy Ave. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-04 Arnett Billy 688 Antelope Dr. #65 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-05 Bostick E. K. PO Box 2258 Cody WY 82414 Form Letter 3FL3-06 Boue Pat 3275 Roosut Way Rock Springs WY 82902 Form Letter 3FL3-07 Bowen Ted PO Box 985 Victor NH 59875 Form Letter 3FL3-08 Callahan Davie J. 1508 9th St. Apt. 67 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-09 Campbell Dan 114 First St. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-10 Cawsey Jeffrey 403 E. 6th St. Marbleton WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-100 Brewer Keith PO Box 1693 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-101 Briggs Mary Alice PO Box 4427 Marbleton WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-102 Brink Judith PO Box 582 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-103 Broce James 3079 Yellow Creek Rd. #1508 Evanston WY 82930 Form Letter 3FL3-104 Brown Bryon 1020 Pinto Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-105 Brown Gary 625 N. Maybell Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-106 Brown Jason 1526 W. 9th Ave. Spokane WA 99204 Form Letter 3FL3-107 Brown Mike 1804 Elk St. #177 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-108 Brown Patricia 4 Par Ct. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-109 Buckendorf Cal PO Box 2685 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-11 Christopher Shane PO Box 4322 Marbleton WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-110 Buckner Douglas 7318 W. Majestic Way Magna UT 84044 Form Letter 3FL3-111 Buckner Mike 375 E. 3rd N. Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-112 Bulk Ben PO Box 818 Challis ID 83226 Form Letter 3

6
Table II-A. Persons Submitting Comments on the JIDP DEIS (cont’d) 

Submittal ID Last Name First Name Organization Address City State Zip Form of Comment EmFL3-113 Bundy Stacey 2621 Popo Agie Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-114 Burch Steve 4 N. Shoshone Tr. Boulder WY 82923 Form Letter 3FL3-115 Burdick James 755 Wilkes Dr. Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-116 Butler Brandy 12255 Garfield Pl Thronton CO 80241 Form Letter 3FL3-117 Butner Joe PO Box 1564 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-118 Byers Gary PO box 135 Farson WY 82932 Form Letter 3FL3-119 Byers Gary Amerifox Industries, LLC PO Box 135 Farson WY 82932 Form Letter 3FL3-12 Clawson Hershell 241 Pinion Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-121 Cagle H. D., Jr 2425 Cripple Creek Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-122 Campbell Larry PO Box 1499 Vernal UT 84078 Form Letter 3FL3-123 Capps Sandra PO box 242 Bondurant WY 82922 Form Letter 3FL3-124 Carpenter Joseph 173 S. Hwy 389 Shoshone WY 82932 Form Letter 3FL3-125 Carroll George 331 North 100 West Heber UT 84032 Form Letter 3FL3-126 Carter Kevin PO Box 9 Jeguitz NM 87062 Form Letter 3FL3-127 Carter Roger PO Box 1475 Evanston WY 82930 Form Letter 3FL3-128 Casias Michael 3800 Sunset Dr. #46 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-129 Castor Charles 510 Cheyenne Dr. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-13 Coble William 703 C St. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-130 Castor Charles H. 510 Cheyenne Dr. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-131 Cessal Wayne PO Box 561 Evanston WY 82930 Form Letter 3FL3-132 Cheeney Brent PO Box 488 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-133 Cheezum Sarah 622 Massachusetts Ave. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-134 Christensen Michael PO Box 1814 Rock Springs WY 82902 Form Letter 3FL3-135 Christoffeese Tera 634 Purple Sage Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-136 Clark Dallas 1236 Clark St. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-137 Clark James 1411 1st St. SE, Apt 1 Minot ND 58702 Form Letter 3FL3-138 Clark J.T. PO Box 1964 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-139 Clark Roger PO Box 4263 Marbleton WY 83113 Form Letter 3

7
Table II-A. Persons Submitting Comments on the JIDP DEIS (cont’d) 

Submittal ID Last Name First Name Organization Address City State Zip Form of Comment EmFL3-14 Critsek Darrell PO Box 369 Rock Springs WY 82902 Form Letter 3FL3-140 Clark Ronald PO Box 1964 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-141 Clark Ron PO Box 1964 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-142 Clark Ty 568 Turret Dr. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-143 Clayton Myra 734 D St. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-144 Cole Michael 667 Blake St. Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-145 Cole Thomas PO Box 4143 Marbleton WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-146 Collins Kathy 2020 Wyoming Dr. Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-147 Colvin Kary 64 Grass Valley Evanston WY 82930 Form Letter 3FL3-148 Coneybeer Daniel 1015 Mountain View, Apt 

C Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3

FL3-149 Contreras Lorenzo 520 Crossbow Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-15 Guzman Z. 3930 Dorset Ct. Casper WY 82609 Form Letter 3FL3-150 Cordle Nathan 518 Walnut St. SE Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-151 Cortes Mario PO Box 248 Boulder WY 82923 Form Letter 3FL3-152 Cothern Eric 216 N. Fremont Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-153 Cox Boyd 1162 N. 3000 W. Vernal UT 84078 Form Letter 3FL3-154 Crowder Kiram 2255 S. Jefferson St., Apt D Casper WY 82601 Form Letter 3FL3-155 Crowell Larry 1900 Iowa Cir. Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-156 Cunningham Jim 1188 Palisades Ct. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-157 Danze George PO Box 158 Boulder WY 82923 Form Letter 3FL3-158 Danze Jason PO Box 1592 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-159 Danze Shane PO Box 964 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-16 DePoyster Jerry PO Box 3029 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-160 Danze Travis PO Box 2202 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-161 Datteri David 218 Hayden Ave. Evanston WY 82930 Form Letter 3FL3-162 Davis Dalis PO Box 1722 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-163 Davis Michael PO Box 1722 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3

8
Table II-A. Persons Submitting Comments on the JIDP DEIS (cont’d) 

Submittal ID Last Name First Name Organization Address City State Zip Form of Comment EmFL3-164 Dean Andrea 1804 Elk St. #118 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-165 DeFries Richard PO Box 1376 Evanston WY 82930 Form Letter 3FL3-166 Delap Devon, Jr PO Box 66 Boulder WY 82923 Form Letter 3FL3-167 Dennis David 116 Chandler Ln. Evanston WY 82930 Form Letter 3FL3-168 Diaz Auden 3145 N. Adams Odessa TX 79763 Form Letter 3FL3-169 Dietrich Dorian 801 Cedar Ave. Kemmerer WY 83101 Form Letter 3FL3-17 Doak Christy 1129 Converse Ct. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-170 Dimit Scott PO Box 3 Big Piney WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-171 Dowley T.J. 370 Burch St. Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-172 Downing Jonathan 7770 Aztec Dr. Cheyenne WY 82009 Form Letter 3FL3-173 Dub Andre 1959 East 900 South Salt Lake City UT 84108 Form Letter 3FL3-174 Duginski Richard 1027 Sportsman Loop Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-175 Duginski Sheila PO Box 1027 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-176 Duncan David 1993 Dewar Dr. #1-129 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-177 Duncan Wade 300 Trail Dr. Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-178 Dunne Stephen 3461 E. 15th St. Casper WY 82609 Form Letter 3FL3-179 Dutra Cory 174 Junes Ave Evanston WY 82930 Form Letter 3FL3-18 Dominguez Normando 45 Purple Sage Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-180 Eldredge David 272 Waterside Rd. Heber City UT 84032 Form Letter 3FL3-181 Elkins Chancy 72 2nd Ave. Evanston WY 82930 Form Letter 3FL3-182 Ellifritz Becky 1008 Continental Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-183 Elliott John 2035 Colorado Dr. Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-184 Ellis Patricia PO Box 1177 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-185 Ellwood Bonnie 13475 Monroe St. Thornton CO 80241 Form Letter 3FL3-186 Ensign Scott 688 Antelope #66 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-187 Erickson Bryan 1617 B St. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-188 Erickson Douglas 271 Las Flores Dr. Bakersfield CA 73305 Form Letter 3FL3-189 Erwin Joe 919 Adams Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3

9
Table II-A. Persons Submitting Comments on the JIDP DEIS (cont’d) 

Submittal ID Last Name First Name Organization Address City State Zip Form of Comment EmFL3-19 Durham Andrew 3528 Cleveland Dr. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-190 Estell Liberty 2502 Otter Miles City MT 59301 Form Letter 3FL3-191 Etcheverry Al PO Box 51 Boulder WY 82923 Form Letter 3FL3-192 Etcheverry Al PO Box 51 Boulder WY 82923 Form Letter 3FL3-193 Etcheverry Al PO Box 51 Boulder WY 82923 Form Letter 3FL3-194 Ethridge Greg 7433 S. Clarkson Circle Centennial CO 80122 Form Letter 3FL3-195 Etzel Jim PO Box 2293 Rock Springs WY 82902 Form Letter 3FL3-196 Fairbanks Eric PO Box 10 Boulder WY 82923 Form Letter 3FL3-197 Farmer Scott 180 N. 2nd E. Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-198 Faulkner Larry PO Box 1498 Rock Springs WY 82902 Form Letter 3FL3-199 Fear Jay PO Box 1085 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-20 Erickson Byron 1040 McMillian Dr. Belgrade MT 59047 Form Letter 3FL3-200 Feezer Rusty 1338 Kimberly Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-201 Ferris Daniel 3 White Dove Dr. Daniel WY 83115 Form Letter 3FL3-202 Fica Brennon PO Box 2682 Rock Springs WY 82902 Form Letter 3FL3-203 Fisher Vernon 1620 W. 2nd, #42 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-204 Fitzloff Dan PO Box 3029 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-205 Floyd Justin 1830 Idaho St. #12 Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-206 Ford Terence PO Box 1022 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-207 Foster Randy Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-208 Franklin Donnie 2032 Carter Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-209 Gaddis Jade 2002 16th Wheatland WY 82201 Form Letter 3FL3-21 Evans Trevor 916 S. 3rd Ave. / PO Box 3053 Mills WY 82644 Form Letter 3FL3-210 Gailey Marcus 110 Steamboat #24 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-211 Garcia Alonso 905 W. Spruce Rawlins WY 82301 Form Letter 3FL3-212 Gardner Matt 1331 Cornwall Casper WY 82609 Form Letter 3FL3-213 Garner John 525 Fremont Ave. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-214 Garriott Tim, Jr. PO Box 2261 Rock Springs WY 82902 Form Letter 3

10
Table II-A. Persons Submitting Comments on the JIDP DEIS (cont’d) 

Submittal ID Last Name First Name Organization Address City State Zip Form of Comment EmFL3-215 Gebes Thomas 709 Central Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-216 Gentry Ray PO Box 25 Boulder WY 82923 Form Letter 3FL3-217 Gibbs Debbie 1345 Sage Ct. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-218 Gilbert Peter 3400 Hill Ave. #1103 Butte MT 59701 Form Letter 3FL3-219 Gines Travis PO Box 3341 Farson WY 82932 Form Letter 3FL3-22 Farrington Daryl 667 1/2 W. Main St. Lander WY 82520 Form Letter 3FL3-220 Godfrey Jonathan 3113 Scott Cir. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-221 Goodman R.J. PO Box 33 La Barge WY 83123 Form Letter 3FL3-222 Gray Louis 93 Reliance Rd. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-223 Green James 4749 C. St. Cummings MI Form Letter 3FL3-224 Green Mark PO Box 161 Boulder WY 82923 Form Letter 3FL3-225 Grover Dave 2020 Filmore Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-226 Guffey Shannon 702 Ludwig St. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-227 Gunsch Jay 800 59th Lander WY 82520 Form Letter 3FL3-228 Gustin Klay 4840 S. Kove Ln. Heber City UT 84032 Form Letter 3FL3-229 Gustin Matthew 835 Mocassin Lane Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-23 Fisher Brenda PO Box 1625 Rock Springs WY 82902 Form Letter 3FL3-230 Gutierrez James 300 W. 123rd St. Westminister CO 80234 Form Letter 3FL3-231 Gutierrez Macedonio 166 Foothill Blvd, Lot 6 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-232 Hammers Sam Dubois WY 82513 Form Letter 3FL3-233 Hammond Robert 1210 W. Teton Blvd. #2 Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-234 Hampton William PO box 1790 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-235 Handley Marcy 123 Tyler Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-236 Hardegree James 5535 W. 18th Odessa TX 79763 Form Letter 3FL3-237 Harding David 3810 Swanton Ave. Casper WY 82609 Form Letter 3FL3-238 Hardman J. 320 S. Wagonwheel Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-239 Hardy Mary R. 376 Prospect Dr. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-24 Fisher Sharie PO Box 4263 Marbleton WY 83113 Form Letter 3

11
Table II-A. Persons Submitting Comments on the JIDP DEIS (cont’d) 

Submittal ID Last Name First Name Organization Address City State Zip Form of Comment EmFL3-240 Hart Michael PO Box 42 Story WY 82842 Form Letter 3FL3-241 Hauskjold Carl #230 1700 Swanson Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-242 Hawkins Justin 710 Riverview Dr. Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-243 Hayes Alan PO Box 3029 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-244 Heaton Matt 415 E. St. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-245 Hendricks Jodi PO Box 42 Big Piney WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-246 Hendricks Tom PO Box 42 Big Piney WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-247 Herrmann Jon 222 Gateway #46 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-248 Hettinger Ryan 2513 Westridge Dr. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-249 Hoch Jerry 1824 Fillmore Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-25 Garduno Brian 1804 Elk St. #138 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-250 Hocker Ross PO Box 848 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-251 Hole Steve Lyman WY 82937 Form Letter 3FL3-252 Hooks Jim PO Box 1148 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-253 Hoskins Chris 152 A. St. Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-254 House Tina PO Box 1681 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-255 Hughes Darrin PO Box 174 Boulder WY 82923 Form Letter 3FL3-256 Hughes Mike PO Box 366 Big Piney WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-257 Hulsey Guy 710 Saratoga Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-258 Hunter Roderick PO Box 72 Daniel WY 83115 Form Letter 3FL3-259 Izatt Ben 1340 Sage St., Apt 0 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-26 Gibbs Erin 211 Virginia Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-260 Jacobs Mike 1375 Goodrich Dr. Lander WY 82520 Form Letter 3FL3-261 Jenkins Justin PO Box 322 Farson WY 82932 Form Letter 3FL3-262 Jenkins Kent PO Box 101 Freedom WY 83120 Form Letter 3FL3-263 Jenkins Trinity PO Box 322 Farson WY 82932 Form Letter 3FL3-264 Jennings Beth Ann PO Box 145 Farson WY 82932 Form Letter 3FL3-265 Jensen Clyde 830 Hoover St. Montpelier ID 83254 Form Letter 3

12
Table II-A. Persons Submitting Comments on the JIDP DEIS (cont’d) 

Submittal ID Last Name First Name Organization Address City State Zip Form of Comment EmFL3-266 Jeppesen Jarrol, Sr. PO Box 436 Ft. Bridger WY 82933 Form Letter 3FL3-267 Jerald Steve PO Box 991 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-268 Johnson Heath PO Box 1331 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-269 Johnson Shane 1103 McKinley Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-27 Gray Jay 1405 California Circle Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-270 Johnson Shawn 414 S. 5th St. Douglas WY 82633 Form Letter 3FL3-271 Johnston Glen 12660 Roosevelt Ln. Apt. E-3 Englewood CO 80112 Form Letter 3FL3-272 Jones Brandon PO Box 1727 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-273 Jones Mark 1889 Big Sandy Rd. Boulder WY 82923 Form Letter 3FL3-274 Jones Roger PO Box 142 Farson WY 82932 Form Letter 3FL3-275 Jones Troy PO Box 293 Farson WY 82932 Form Letter 3FL3-276 Jones Troy 58 W. 2nd Ave. Eden WY 82932 Form Letter 3FL3-277 Kappes John Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-278 Kappes John L. 50 Reliance Rd., lot 64 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-279 Keefe Pat 1214 Granada Casper WY 82601 Form Letter 3FL3-28 Griggs Alice PO Box 649 Big Piney WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-280 Keelin Carlos PO Box 65 Reliance WY 82943 Form Letter 3FL3-281 Kelly Bill 254 East Fort Big Sandy Road Boulder WY 82923 Form Letter 3FL3-282 Kelly Lonnie 2006 Arthur Ave. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-283 Kemp Robert 715 Saratoga Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-284 Kessel Henry PO Box 763 Bowman ND 58623 Form Letter 3FL3-285 King Jason 688 Antelope Dr. #23 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-286 Kingsbury Bret PO Box 85 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-287 Kirk Kimberly 1024 Oak Way Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-288 Kirkwood Allan PO Box 312 Big Piney 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-289 Kirkwood Catherine PO Box 692 Big Piney WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-29 Harjo Paul 8474 County Rd. J Lena WI 54139 Form Letter 3

13
Table II-A. Persons Submitting Comments on the JIDP DEIS (cont’d) 

Submittal ID Last Name First Name Organization Address City State Zip Form of Comment EmFL3-290 Kirkwood Randy PO Box 692 Big Piney WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-291 Klein Michael 2 CR 5559 Farmington NM 87401 Form Letter 3FL3-292 Klier Jared 44 Beaver Rd Wheatland WY 82201 Form Letter 3FL3-293 Knapp Paul PO Box 1004 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-294 Knapp Paul PO Box 1004 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-295 Kouri Bob 121 Ball Lane Big Piney WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-296 Kubischtan Arnie 362 4th Ave SW Dickinson ND 58601 Form Letter 3FL3-297 Kujat Dane PO Box 143 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-298 Kulp Linda 613 Walnut Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-299 Taylor Chris Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-30 Hawkey James PO Box 776 Big Piney WY 83113- 0776 Form Letter 3FL3-300 Lamoureux Dennis PO Box 54 Boulder WY 82923 Form Letter 3FL3-301 Lawson Garrick 2340 W. Teton Blvd. Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-302 Ledford Nicole 580 Yellowstone Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-303 Lee Brent 3481 E. 18th St. Casper WY 82609 Form Letter 3FL3-304 Lee Tim 594 W. Flaming Gorge Way Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-305 Lenling Marlow 1008 McCarty Ave. #D Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-306 Leon Juan 2245 Cumorah Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-307 Lev Thomas 1425 E. Teton Blvd. #3 Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-308 Leverich Michael PO Box 583 Dubois WY 82513 Form Letter 3FL3-309 Linares Cesar 2245 Cumorah, Apt 4 Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-31 Heil Richard PO Box 438 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-310 Linares Francisco 2245 Cumorah #4 Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-311 Linares Mario 700 Schultz Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-312 Longmire Nichole PO Box 471 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-313 Loredo Javier 1660 Blair Ave #50 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-314 Lowry Terry 10 Daisy Ave. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3

14
Table II-A. Persons Submitting Comments on the JIDP DEIS (cont’d) 

Submittal ID Last Name First Name Organization Address City State Zip Form of Comment EmFL3-315 Lusch John 1804 Elk #49 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-316 Lusk Jimmie Joe PO Box 104 Wamsutter WY 82336 Form Letter 3FL3-317 Lusk Jimmie Joe PO Box 104 Wamsutter WY 82336 Form Letter 3FL3-318 Lyman Jon 316 Lexington Andover KS 67002 Form Letter 3FL3-319 MacGill Anita PO Box 2002 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-32 Hollis Charlotte 407 C St. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-320 Mahan Rodney 7483 Hwy 789 Lander WY 82520 Form Letter 3FL3-321 Mair Kerry 124 B Skyline Dr. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-322 Marincic Desira PO Box 184 Cora WY 82925 Form Letter 3FL3-323 Markham James 1700 Imperial Dr. B111 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-324 Marshall Rick PO Box 818 Rock Springs WY 82902 Form Letter 3FL3-325 Martin Neil PO Box 1181 Lyman WY 82937 Form Letter 3FL3-326 Martinez Ramon Jr. PO Box 102 Farson WY 82932 Form Letter 3FL3-327 Marx A. Richard PO Box 148 Farson WY 82932 Form Letter 3FL3-328 Matlock Rich 1700 Swanson Dr. #156 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-329 Matthew Steve 4618 Crockett Midland TX 79703 Form Letter 3FL3-33 Kester Eric 1700 Imperial Dr., B-308 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-330 Mauch Josh 688 Antelope Dr. #38 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-331 McAdams Nathan PO Box 202 Daniel WY 83115 Form Letter 3FL3-332 McBee Jamie PO Box 25 Big Piney WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-333 McDonald Paul 107-60 Promenade Way SE Calgary Alberta T2E3V4 Form Letter 3FL3-334 McDonald Calvin 188 Robinson Ln. Bedford WY 83112 Form Letter 3FL3-335 McGahey Brian Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-336 McGuire Eric 14 Stubbs Ln. Bozeman MT 59718 Form Letter 3FL3-337 McKellar Cliff 200 Wild Rose Lane Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-338 McKinney Loni 409 Reed St. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-339 McKinzie T. J. 405 Evans Dr. Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-34 Kettle Michael 8 N. Monkey Rd. Glenrock WY 82637 Form Letter 3

15
Table II-A. Persons Submitting Comments on the JIDP DEIS (cont’d) 

Submittal ID Last Name First Name Organization Address City State Zip Form of Comment EmFL3-340 McLaren Joan 2720 Briarwood Ln Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-341 McLaren Neil 2720 Briarwood Ln. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-342 McLaughlin Greg PO Box 271 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-343 McMillen Cathy PO Box 4025 Marbleton WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-344 McMillen Lance PO Box 4025 Marbleton WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-345 Megahey Kevin 317 Pinon St. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-346 Menard Shannon 1575 S. Riverbend Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-347 McNutt Nathen 1012 Patten Creek Rd. Glendo WY 82213 Form Letter 3FL3-348 Meyer Josh E1531 Cnty Ln Rd Luxemburg WI 54217 Form Letter 3FL3-349 Milatovich George PO Box 2542 Rock Springs WY 82902 Form Letter 3FL3-35 Keetch Darren 33 S. Main Bennington Montpelier ID 83254 Form Letter 3FL3-350 Miller Chris 118 Falcon Ave. Mills WY 82644 Form Letter 3FL3-351 Miller Shane 375 S. Wagon Wheel Dr. Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-352 Mines Vicki 501 Coldwater Creek Dr. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-353 Minor Robert Jr. 332 P St. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-354 Messier Andy Hwy 191 Eden WY Form Letter 3FL3-355 Mitchell Shawn 222 Gateway, #153 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-356 Moberly James 615 N. 5th St. Douglas WY 82633 Form Letter 3FL3-357 Monroe Cody 1614 E. Shield Laramie WY 82072 Form Letter 3FL3-358 Morales Julian 166 Foothill Blvd. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-359 Morrison Dan 1361 Alpine Rock Springs WY 82902 Form Letter 3FL3-36 Kincaid Ronald PO Box 45 Big Piney WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-360 Morrison Linda 1361 Alpine Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-361 Mosbey Mike 1109 Adams Ave. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-362 Mullen Cody PO Box 14 Boulder WY 82923 Form Letter 3FL3-363 Mullen John 15 N. Shoshone Tr. Boulder WY 82923 Form Letter 3FL3-364 Mullen Stephanie PO Box 14 Boulder WY 82923 Form Letter 3FL3-365 Mullen Tillie 604 Gobel St. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3

16
Table II-A. Persons Submitting Comments on the JIDP DEIS (cont’d) 

Submittal ID Last Name First Name Organization Address City State Zip Form of Comment EmFL3-366 Mullen Tyler PO Box 14 Boulder WY 82923 Form Letter 3FL3-367 Mulvaney James PO Box 4535 Marbleton WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-368 Mumm William PO Box 691 Big Piney WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-369 Murchison Larry PO Box 1893 Evanston WY 82931 Form Letter 3FL3-37 Lane Natalie 1325 Edgar St. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-370 Myhre Brian 4286 S. Cabin Creek Rd. Casper WY 82604 Form Letter 3FL3-371 Myhre David 4404 Gray Gable Laramie WY 82070 Form Letter 3FL3-372 Myhre Pam 4286 S. Cabin Creek R. Casper WY 82604 Form Letter 3FL3-373 Nate Brady 814 Range Rd. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-374 Nate Brian PO Box 122 Cokeville WY 83114 Form Letter 3FL3-375 Nenna Lisa PO Box 4069 Marbleton WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-376 Newmeyer Daniel PO box 865 Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-377 Nichols Lora Buckskin Crossing Ranch Boulder WY 82923 Form Letter 3FL3-378 Nielsen Lewis 310 Wilson Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-379 Nichols Nick 2552 CR 118 Boulder WY 82923 Form Letter 3FL3-38 Larsen Howard 10115 50th Ave. NW Kenmare ND 58746 Form Letter 3FL3-380 Nicodemus Betty Jo PO Box 283 Daniel WY 83115 Form Letter 3FL3-381 Niper Peter 342 N. Park Casper WY 82604 Form Letter 3FL3-382 Noel Daniel 1800 Iowa Cr. Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-383 Obley James PO Box 506 Big Piney WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-384 O'Connell David 906 Lee St. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-385 O'Connell Kevin 34676 Circle Dr. Pine CO 80470 Form Letter 3FL3-386 Ogle Floyd PO Box 374 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-387 O'Harrow Tami 505 W. Virginia Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-388 Oldfield Joseph

Sweetwater County Commissioner

237 Jade St. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3

FL3-389 Organ Bill 5964 South Kearney St. Centennial CO 80111 Form Letter 3

17
Table II-A. Persons Submitting Comments on the JIDP DEIS (cont’d) 

Submittal ID Last Name First Name Organization Address City State Zip Form of Comment EmFL3-39 Lee Jerry 635 Jefferson Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-390 Ortiz Charlie PO Box 248 Boulder WY 82923 Form Letter 3FL3-391 Ortiz Joaquin 700 Schultz #61 Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-392 Ortiz Jose PO Box 248 Boulder WY 82923 Form Letter 3FL3-393 Osborn Linda 2962 E. Phillips Dr. Centennial CO 80122 Form Letter 3FL3-394 Page Dana 489 Old Clyde Park Rd. Livingston MT 59047 Form Letter 3FL3-395 Parkyn Ted PO Box 997 Mt. View WY 82939 Form Letter 3FL3-396 Patterson Jeff PO Box 1126 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-397 Pattison Timothy 584 Gannett Dr. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-398 Pechin Edgar Pechin Engineering 104E College Court Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-399 Peckler Matthew PO Box 3312 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-40 Leftwich Charles 50 Reliance Rd, Lot 120 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-400 Pedersen Brian 922 Hays St. Montpelier ID 83254 Form Letter 3FL3-401 Perotti R.W. PO Box 1575 Evanston WY 82931 Form Letter 3FL3-402 Peterson David 1237 North St. Reliance WY 82943 Form Letter 3FL3-403 Peterson Dusty 655 Barnhart Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-404 Pew Alfess 536 K. St. Casper WY 82605 Form Letter 3FL3-405 Phillips Tanya 445 Waggener St. Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-406 Piaia Duce 1311 Virginia St. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-407 Pilch Scott 107 Mesa Dr. Evanston WY 82930 Form Letter 3FL3-408 Pinter Stephen 1423 Canyon Rd. Kemmerer WY 83101 Form Letter 3FL3-409 Pitts Andrew 85 S. Harlan St. Lakewood CO 80226 Form Letter 3FL3-41 Lewis Douglas PO Box 472 / 202 Arthur Ave. Rock Springs WY 82902 Form Letter 3FL3-410 Postema Steve 1441 S. Nebraska #1 Casper WY 82609 Form Letter 3FL3-411 Powers Kevin 1804 Elk St. Lot 121 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-412 Price Darrell 1700 Swanson Dr. #92 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-413 Price Will PO Box 196 Fortine MT 59918 Form Letter 3

18
Table II-A. Persons Submitting Comments on the JIDP DEIS (cont’d) 

Submittal ID Last Name First Name Organization Address City State Zip Form of Comment EmFL3-414 Proa Jaime 166 Foothill Blvd, #61 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-415 Quickender Ty 515 Emerald St. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-416 Quintard Callie PO Box 4246 Marbleton WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-417 Quintard Tucker PO Box 366 Big Piney WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-418 Radosevich Dorothy 210 Virginia Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-419 Rascon Edmundo Flores 549 W. Colorado UT 84116 Form Letter 3FL3-42 Morley Deborah PO Box 425 Big Piney WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-420 Ratcliff Eddie (Rusty) PO Box 4545 Marbleton WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-421 Ratti Gary 2240 Mountain Rd. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-422 Rediger- Blackburn Susan PO Box 3440 Cora WY 82925 Form Letter 3FL3-423 Reeves Steve 1012 Oak Way Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-424 Reints Lloyd PO Box 871 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-425 Richards Charles 611 Second St. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-426 Richardson Robert 34 Jonquil Casper WY 82604 Form Letter 3FL3-427 Richardson C. Warren 231 Petersen Rd. Riverton WY 82501 Form Letter 3FL3-428 Roberts Jay Form Letter 3FL3-429 Roberts Mark PO Box 114 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-43 Neill William 1140 Kentucky St. Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-430 Robinson Jim 221 W. 1st Marbleton WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-431 Rode Robert 317 Cedar Ave. Kemmerer WY 83101 Form Letter 3FL3-432 Rose Kenneth 688 Antelope Dr. #83 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3 kroFL3-433 Rosendahl Monte 1303 E. Montana St. Livingston MT 59047 Form Letter 3FL3-434 Ruch Jim 2345 Mississippi St. Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-435 Sagrero Carlos PO Box 248 Boulder WY 82923 Form Letter 3FL3-436 Salazar Antonio PO Box 248 Boulder WY 82923 Form Letter 3FL3-437 Salazar Jose PO Box 248 Boulder WY 82923 Form Letter 3

19
Table II-A. Persons Submitting Comments on the JIDP DEIS (cont’d) 

Submittal ID Last Name First Name Organization Address City State Zip Form of Comment EmFL3-438 Sample George 87 M&M Dr. Farson WY 82932 Form Letter 3FL3-439 Sample Sharon 87 M&M Dr. Eden WY 82932 Form Letter 3FL3-44 Norviel Erick 2334 McCanne Cheyenne WY 82007 Form Letter 3FL3-440 Sanchez Angelica 1660 Blair Ave. #22 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-441 Sanchez Roberto 1660 Blair Ave. #22 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-442 Sanders David PO Box 367 Big Piney WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-443 Schilowsky Damon 2170 Quailstone Dr. Taylorsville UT 84118 Form Letter 3FL3-444 Schmid Pat 240 Fairview Lane Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-445 Schmid Pat 240 Fairview Ln. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-446 Schmidt Tom 13 Basco Ave. Eden WY 82932 Form Letter 3FL3-447 Schubert Jeff 2013 S. Jackson Casper WY 82601 Form Letter 3FL3-448 Schultz Jill 1695 N. Mill Cr. Rd Casper WY 82604 Form Letter 3FL3-449 Schulze Denise 1504 Elk St. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-45 Page Zack 1180 Trona Dr. Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-450 Sechrist Eric PO Box 255 Boulder WY 82923 Form Letter 3FL3-451 Shado Da-Costa 2908A Plumtree Dr. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-452 Shepard Larry Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-453 Sherbrook Mary Ann PO Box 301 Big Piney WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-454 Sherwood Robin PO Box 950 Big Piney WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-455 Short Steve PO Box 222 Lakespur CO 80118 Form Letter 3FL3-456 Siddoway Blaine 355 Birch St. Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-457 Simmons Matthew PO Box 781 Kirbyville TX 75956 Form Letter 3FL3-458 Skinner Michael Comfort Inn, Rm 333 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-459 Skoriz Danny 3221 Magnolia Dr. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-46 Parish Scott 1070 Mo. Va. Rd. Riverton WY 82501 Form Letter 3FL3-460 Skrbich Mike 9 Fairway Dr. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-461 Sleight Thomas 1620 W. 2nd St. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-462 Smart Thomas 159 S. 7th Montpelier ID 83254 Form Letter 3

20
Table II-A. Persons Submitting Comments on the JIDP DEIS (cont’d) 

Submittal ID Last Name First Name Organization Address City State Zip Form of Comment EmFL3-463 Smith Alyssa PO Box 273 Big Piney WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-464 Smith David L., II PO Box 273 Big Piney WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-465 Smith Earl Henry III 169 23rd St. Battle Creek MI 49015 Form Letter 3FL3-466 Smith Jacquelynn PO Box 273 Big Piney WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-467 Smith Jake 520 W. State St. Rawlins WY 82301 Form Letter 3FL3-468 Smith John 311 Van Buren #4 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-469 Smith Justine PO Box 273 Big Piney WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-47 Paterniti Jacob 17010 E. Carlson Dr. Apt. #1533 Parker CO 80134 Form Letter 3FL3-470 Smith Ron PO Box 1434 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-471 Smith Terah PO Box 335 Big Piney WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-472 Smith Terry PO Box 335 Big Piney WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-473 Smonse Forrest PO Box 5 Vernal UT 84078 Form Letter 3FL3-474 Smuin Neldon PO Box 1499 Vernal UT 84078 Form Letter 3FL3-475 Solis Ramiro, III 506 San Antonio Ave. Mission TX 78573 Form Letter 3FL3-476 Sowers Bryan 115 Freedom Evanston WY 82930 Form Letter 3FL3-477 Spotted Horse Elton, Jr. 811 Center St. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-478 Stead Dan 23 Shelley Rd. Boulder WY 82923 Form Letter 3FL3-479 Steffen Dana 206 Marble Dr. Evanston WY 82930 Form Letter 3FL3-48 Pedersen Sally 811 Valley Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-480 Stephenson Troy 240 Fayette Pole Creek Rd. Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-481 Stevens Mike 411 W. 600 N Vernal UT 84078 Form Letter 3FL3-482 Stewart Lloyd 4108 W. Oak Broken Arrow OK 74012 Form Letter 3FL3-483 Stoddard Monte 4062 Hwy 411 Fort Bridger WY 82933 Form Letter 3FL3-484 Stout Gerald PO Box 35 Farson WY 82932 Form Letter 3FL3-485 Stringfellow Dustin PO Box 403 Newton TX 75966 Form Letter 3FL3-486 Strother Robert 11 W. Buffalo Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3

21
Table II-A. Persons Submitting Comments on the JIDP DEIS (cont’d) 

Submittal ID Last Name First Name Organization Address City State Zip Form of Comment EmFL3-487 Suftko Jo 1695 Sunset Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-488 Swank Bethany 1700 Imperial Dr. Bldg B #311 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-489 Swann Gregory 301 Taylor #3 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-49 Prinisle Kevin 440 Andrews St. Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-490 Tarbet Matt 423 N. 200 E. Bennington ID 83254 Form Letter 3FL3-491 Tardoni Ed 509 Lewis Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-492 Tatman Rich PO Box 4097 Marbleton WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-493 Telck James 1660 Blair Ave #45 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-494 Thomas Eunice 625 N. Maybell Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-495 Thompson Raymond 510 W. Morase Lewiston MT 59457 Form Letter 3FL3-496 Thompson Scott 76 Gilcrest Rd. Marbleton WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-497 Thoren Bradley PO Box 357 Farson WY 82932 Form Letter 3FL3-498 Thornhill Chris PO box 2141 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-499 Timmens Martin 242 Lane 10 Powell WY 82435 Form Letter 3FL3-50 Rends Craig E. Riverview Cutoff Riverton WY 82501 Form Letter 3FL3-500 Tipps Kenneth 120 W. Garfield Bozeman MT 59715 Form Letter 3FL3-501 Tomich Andrew 3600 US Hwy 191N Eden WY 82932 Form Letter 3FL3-502 Torgersen Roger 379 Yellowstone Rd. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-503 Townsend Chad PO box 954 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-504 Trigg Jack 817 Valley Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-505 Trujillo Robert PO Box 644 Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-506 Ulrich Shirley Fossil Station #308 Kemmerer WY 83101 Form Letter 3FL3-507 Uptain Joseph 3171 E. Crest Rd. West Valley City UT 84120 Form Letter 3FL3-508 Uranker Gerald 1620 W. 2nd St., #92 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-509 Vega Oswaldo PO Box 1965 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-51 Sandoval James 4017 Utah Butte MT 59701 Form Letter 3FL3-510 Virden Frank PO Box 1972 Rock Springs WY 82902 Form Letter 3

22
Table II-A. Persons Submitting Comments on the JIDP DEIS (cont’d) 

Submittal ID Last Name First Name Organization Address City State Zip Form of Comment EmFL3-511 Vogel Matt 534 Highland Ave. Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-512 Volner Tom 3421 Monterey Dr. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-513 Volney Greg 3750 E. 14th St. Casper WY 82609 Form Letter 3FL3-514 Vouros Michael 810 N. 8th St. Montpelier ID 83254 Form Letter 3FL3-515 Wade Morgan PO Box 1253 Rock Springs WY 82902 Form Letter 3FL3-516 Wadman Adam 660 Evers Green River WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-517 Walker Rich PO Box 248 Boulder WY 82923 Form Letter 3FL3-518 Walker Rich PO Box 248 Boulder WY 82923 Form Letter 3FL3-519 Walker Scott 1200 Midwest Dr. Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-52 Scott James 114 3rd St. #3 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-520 Wall David 10415 W. Coalmine Pl. Littleton CO 80127 Form Letter 3FL3-521 Walsh Mark 2505 Silver Creek Dr. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-522 Wasson Rockey PO Box 409 Evanston WY 82931 Form Letter 3FL3-523 Webster Dan 505 5th W. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-524 Weil Paul 335 N. 4th Lander WY 82520 Form Letter 3FL3-525 Weisgerber David 5010 E. 20th Casper WY 82609 Form Letter 3FL3-526 Welch Mike PO Box 1086 Evanston WY Form Letter 3FL3-527 Westenkow Devin 283 B. Ave. Evanston WY 82930 Form Letter 3FL3-528 Whicker Glenn PO Box 232 Farson WY 82932 Form Letter 3FL3-529 Whicker Glenn PO Box 235 Farson WY 82932 Form Letter 3FL3-53 Siegel Jeanne PO Box 3029 Rock Springs WY 82902 Form Letter 3FL3-530 Whicker Richard PO Box 105 Farson WY 82932 Form Letter 3FL3-531 White Zane PO Box 1997 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-532 Whitman Ben PO Box 4485 Marbleton WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-533 Wilkie Fred PO Box 1186 Baker MT 59313 Form Letter 3FL3-534 Williams Allen 1040 Elm Way Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-535 Wilson Ronald PO Box 2403 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-536 Winters Lloyd PO Box 124 Dubois WY 82513 Form Letter 3

23
Table II-A. Persons Submitting Comments on the JIDP DEIS (cont’d) 

Submittal ID Last Name First Name Organization Address City State Zip Form of Comment EmFL3-537 Wolffing Emily 415 Centennial Dr. Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-538 Wood Carolyn PO Box 2072 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-539 Woods Terry 604 Meadow Dr. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-54 Smith Justin 1804 Elk St. #136 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-540 Workman Paddy 701 Antelope Dr. #4 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-541 Wright Jamie 1700 Swanson Dr. #280 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-542 Wright Ron 3981 Swingle Rd. Casper WY 82604 Form Letter 3FL3-543 York Jamison 215 Riverview Dr., Apt E Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-544 York Tyrell 500 Logan St. Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-545 Zinda Jim PO Box 85 Wibaux MT 59353 Form Letter 3FL3-546 Zumbrennen Robert 500 S. 5th E. Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-547 Zumbrennen Robert 500 South 5th East Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-548 Cooper Robert 210 Park Ave. Oklahoma City OK 73003 Form Letter 3FL3-549 Hernandez Rogelio 700 Schultz #61 Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-55 Stafford Caryl K. 924 Bonnie Brae Casper WY 82601 Form Letter 3FL3-550 Alatorre Jose Enrique 2250 Comorah Way, Apt D. Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-551 Vega Floro PO Box 1965 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-552 Alatorre Manuel 700 Schultz #53 Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-553 Vega Arsenio 369 S. Cole Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-554 Alatorre Guillermo 700 Schultz #65 Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-555 Loredo Carmelo PO Box 2303 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-556 Linares Alfonso 1930 Alabama St. Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-557 Vega Jose PO Box 493 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-558 Lopez Carlos PO Box 1965 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-559 Soria Sergio 1722 Imperial Dr. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-56 Stafford Duane 924 Bonnie Brae Casper WY 82601 Form Letter 3FL3-560 Torres Maria 1722 Imperial Dr. #A 105 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3

24
Table II-A. Persons Submitting Comments on the JIDP DEIS (cont’d) 

Submittal ID Last Name First Name Organization Address City State Zip Form of Comment EmFL3-561 Mullen John 15 N. Shoshone Trail Boulder WY 82923 Form Letter 3FL3-562 Jones Mark 1889 Big Sandy Rd. Boulder WY 82923 Form Letter 3FL3-563 Hocker Ross PO Box 848 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-564 Kessel Henry PO Box 763 Bowman ND 58623 Form Letter 3FL3-57 Sassi Mike 509 Antelope Kemmerer WY 83101 Form Letter 3FL3-58 Terrill Joey 211 Virginia Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-59 Trujillo Penny 1619 Overlaad Dr. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-60 Vichi Michael PO Box 181 Big Piney WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-61 Wylie Jane 335 H Street, #B Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-62 Yazzie Albert II PO Box 25 Houck AZ 86506 Form Letter 3FL3-63 Abeyta Dan 815 Walnut Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-64 Abodnage Sharif 134 Magnolia Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-65 Abrahamson Lynn 6484 S. Jericho Cir. Centennial CO 80016 Form Letter 3FL3-66 Adams Loren 1252 Dewar #12 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-67 Aichele Mike 2111 Rose Ln. Liberal KS 67901 Form Letter 3FL3-68 Alatorre Jose PO Box 248 Boulder WY 82923 Form Letter 3FL3-69 Alatorre Lorenzo PO Box 248 Boulder WY 82923 Form Letter 3FL3-70 Alexander Fred PO Box 313 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-71 Allen Adam PO Box 466 Boulder MT 59632 Form Letter 3FL3-72 Alvord Terry

Sterling Construction MGT, LLC

25 Gannett Dr. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3

FL3-73 Amos Frank PO Box 172 La Barge WY 83123 Form Letter 3FL3-74 Anderson Brent 1301 S. Forrest Dr. Casper WY 82609 Form Letter 3FL3-75 Anderson John 312 Angle St. Rock Springs WY 82902 Form Letter 3FL3-76 Anderson Ralph 2210 Piney Dr. Big Piney WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-77 Andersen Robert 109 Locust St. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-78 VOID Form Letter 3FL3-79 VOID Form Letter 3

25
Table II-A. Persons Submitting Comments on the JIDP DEIS (cont’d) 

Submittal ID Last Name First Name Organization Address City State Zip Form of Comment EmFL3-80 Arcand Douglas 75 Center St. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-81 Archer Glenn 336 Emerson Evanston WY 82930 Form Letter 3FL3-82 Arndt Edna 6 Daisy Ave. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-83 Atchley Bret 85 Orcutt Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-84 Banks Stephen 605 C St. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-85 Bartosh Anita PO Box 4134 Marbleton WY 83113 Form Letter 3FL3-86 Bates Rick PO Box 446 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-87 Batmaz Taner 93 Reliance Rd. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-88 Beardsly Steve 1092 Crear Lane Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-89 Beaver Debbie 655 W. 2nd N. Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL3-90 Belless Jason 301 Taylor St., Apt 3 Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-91 Benge Fred PO Box 212 Farson WY 82932 Form Letter 3FL3-92 Benge Fred PO Box 212 Farson WY 82932 Form Letter 3FL3-93 Bertram Terry 6442 Monaco Commerce City CO 80022 Form Letter 3FL3-94 Bevans Larry 9343 Notts Court Lone Tree CO 80124 Form Letter 3FL3-95 Biggins Michelle 358 Douglas Dr. Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-96 Blaisdell Ray 3826 Blue Heron Rock Springs WY 82901 Form Letter 3FL3-97 Bohnet Lynn PO Box 418 Pinedale WY 82941 Form Letter 3FL3-98 Bonogafsky Gary PO Box 1225 Miles City MT 59301 Form Letter 3FL3-99 Bourgeois Allen 160 Apache Ave. Green River WY 82935 Form Letter 3FL4-0 *Document Master* Form Letter 4FL4-01 Ackman Edward Advantage Resources, Inc. 1775 Sherman St., Suite 1700 Denver CO 80203 Form Letter 4 edFL4-02 Adair Patty 18720 W. 60th Ave. Golden CO 80403 Form Letter 4 paFL4-03 Ball Kenneth Oxbow Mining LLC 1801 Broadway, Suite 1200 Denver CO 80202 Form Letter 4 kenFL4-04 Barron Francis Bill Barrett Corp. 1099 18th St., Suite 2300 Denver CO 80202 Form Letter 4 fba

26
Table II-A. Persons Submitting Comments on the JIDP DEIS (cont’d) 

Submittal ID Last Name First Name Organization Address City State Zip Form of Comment EmFL4-05 Brown Mark Cameron, Northern Rockies District PO Box 429 Vernal UT 84078 Form Letter 4 broFL4-06 Buckley Ryan Evergreen Energy 1512 Larimer St., Suite 1000 Denver CO 80202 Form Letter 4 rbuFL4-07 Castetter John Baker Hughes, Inc. 1575 Broadway, Ste 1500 Denver CO 80202 Form Letter 4 johFL4-08 Cavanaugh Tom ASCG Inc. 12596 W. Bayaud Ave. Lakewood CO 80228 Form Letter 4 tcaFL4-09 Clark Robert Bear Cub Energy, LLC 1625 Broadway, Ste 2400 Denver CO 80202 Form Letter 4 rjclFL4-10 Crouch Jane White Eagle Exploration 621 17th St. Ste 2255 Denver CO 80293 Form Letter 4 jcroFL4-11 Crouch Marshall White Eagle Exploration, Inc. 621 17th St. Ste 2255 Denver CO 80293 Form Letter 4 mc

m

FL4-12 Crusius Julia 1313 Steele St. #706 Denver CO 80206 Form Letter 4 jmcFL4-13 Dolar Mark Dolar Energy LLC 935 E. South Union Ave. Midvale UT 84047- 2393 Form Letter 4 doFL4-14 Dugan Thomas Dugan Production Corp. PO Box 420 Farmington NM 87499- 0420 Form Letter 4 tom

m

FL4-14 Fielding Bob Wellogix, Inc. 2425 West Loop South, Suite 765 Houston TX 77027 Form Letter 4 bfieFL4-15 Ebener Richard Padco, LLC PO Box 5275 Beverly Hills CA 90209- 5275 Form Letter 4 rebFL4-16 Eccleston Kathleen

Independent Petroleum Assoc. of Mountain States

410 Seventeenth St., Ste 1920 Denver CO 80202 Form Letter 4 kec

FL4-18 Fisher Robert Ballard Petroleum Holdings, LLC 845 12th St. Billings MT 59102 Form Letter 4 bfisFL4-19 Franklin Angela Pruitt Gushee 1800 Beneficial Life Tower Salt Lake City UT 84111 Form Letter 4 alfFL4-20 Freeman Joe 3415 S. Clayton Blvd. Englewood CO 80113 Form Letter 4 freFL4-21 Grummon Mark Samson Resources 370 17th St. Denver CO 80202 Form Letter 4 mgFL4-22 Hanson Evan 943 E. Conner Ridge Cove Midvale UT 84047 Form Letter 4 he

27
Table II-A. Persons Submitting Comments on the JIDP DEIS (cont’d) 

Submittal ID Last Name First Name Organization Address City State Zip Form of Comment EmFL4-23 Helm John Helm Energy Company 6104 E. 32nd St. Tulsa OK 74135 Form Letter 4 heFL4-24 Henke Darrin 9363 E. Atlantic Place Denver CO 80231 Form Letter 4 dhFL4-25 Hollingshead Mindy Bill Barrett Corp 1550 Platte St., #469 Denver CO 80202 Form Letter 4 mhFL4-26 Icenogle Joseph

Fidelity Exploration & Production Company

2585 Heartland Dr. Sheridan WY 82801 Form Letter 4 joe

FL4-27 Keller Pete 3933 Garnet Pl. Highlands Ranch CO 80126 Form Letter 4 peFL4-28 Krupp Dawn EXCO Resources, Inc. 1775 Sherman St, Suite 2000 Denver CO 80203 Form Letter 4 dkFL4-29 Lewellen Laura Lewellen Consulting, Inc. 540 S. Forest St., #6-203 Denver CO 80246 Form Letter 4 llewFL4-30 Lockridge John Mountain Petroleum Corp 1801 Broadway, Ste 1250 Denver CO 80202 Form Letter 4 maFL4-31 Luneau Barbara

Schlumberger Data & Consulting Services

6501 S. Fiddler's Green Ste 400

Greenwood Village CO 80111 Form Letter 4 blu

FL4-32 McDonald Nancy 4219 E. Lark Sparrow St. Highlands Ranch CO 80126 Form Letter 4 nlmFL4-33 Merritts Jack Burns Wall Smith & Mueller, P.C. 303 E. 17th Ave. - #800 Denver CO 80203 Form Letter 4 jmeFL4-34 Nuss Mike Caza Drilling 1801 Broadway Denver CO 80202 Form Letter 4 mikFL4-35 Peay Jim PO Box 1673 Denver CO 80201 Form Letter 4 jamFL4-36 Petrie David 4054 W. 61st Place Arvada CO 80003 Form Letter 4 naFL4-37 Reinecke Kurt Bill Barrett Corp. 1099 18th St., #2300 Denver CO 80202 Form Letter 4 kreFL4-38 Reisser Kurt Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Corp. 1999 Broadway, Ste. 3600 Denver CO 80202 Form Letter 4 kreFL4-39 Rogers Doug

Patterson-UTI Drilling Company, LP

1512 Larimer St., Ste 730 Denver CO 80202 Form Letter 4 mu

FL4-40 Schindler Troy Bill Barrett Corp. 1099 18th St. Denver CO 80202 Form Letter 4 tscFL4-41 Sell Donald Bill Barrett Corp. PO Box 65 Powder River WY 82648 Form Letter 4 dse

28
Table II-A. Persons Submitting Comments on the JIDP DEIS (cont’d) 

Submittal ID Last Name First Name Organization Address City State Zip Form of Comment EmFL4-42 Smith Marc 2260 S. Clarkson Denver CO 80210 Form Letter 4 msFL4-43 Sprinkle Stan Sprinkle & Associates, LLC 1520 W. Canal Court, Suite 220 Littleton CO 80120 Form Letter 4 staFL4-44 Taylor Jeane EOG Resources, Inc. 600 17th St., #1100 North Denver CO 80202 Form Letter 4 JeaFL4-45 Viviano Mary 21648 Mountsfield Dr. Golden CO 80401 Form Letter 4 MaFL4-46 Wenke Vickie Iron Creek Energy Group, LLC PO Box 2850 Cody WY 82414 Form Letter 4 vicFL4-47 Wilson Floyd Bill Barrett Corp. 1901 Energy Ct., Suite 170 Gillette WY 82718 Form Letter 4 fwiFL4-48 Bremner Andrew 6466 S. Ivy Court Centennial CO 82111 Form Letter 4FL4-49 Cox Vaughn

Fidelity Exploration & Production Company

2585 Heartland Dr. Sheridan WY 82801 Form Letter 4

FL4-50 Donato Scot Bill Barrett Corp. 1099 18th St. Ste 2300 Denver CO 80202 Form Letter 4FL4-51 Jameson Glen Bill Barrett Corp 1099 18th St., Suite 2300 Denver CO 80202 Form Letter 4FL4-52 Paules Michael 1424 Belford Ct. Evergreen CO 80439 Form Letter 4FL4-53 Rainbolt Bill 12410 Sonata Canyon Ln. Houston TX 77041 Form Letter 4FL4-54 Skaer Laura Northwest Mining Association 10 N. Post St., Suite 220 Spokane WA 99201 Form Letter 4FL4-55 Stanberry Debra 18664 E. Progress Ave. Centennial CO 80015 Form Letter 4FL4-56 Stewart Gary Melange International 475 17th St., Ste 540 Denver CO 80202 Form Letter 4L-01 Adams Eric

Sweetwater Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife

Personal Letter

L-02 Albert Alex

Schlumberger, US Land Western Region

6501 S. Fiddler's Green Circle, Suite 400

Greenwood Village CO 80111 Personal Letter

L-03 Amundson Jim Personal Letter

29
Table II-A. Persons Submitting Comments on the JIDP DEIS (cont’d) 

Submittal ID Last Name First Name Organization Address City State Zip Form of Comment EmL-04 Ault Brian Ultra Resources, Inc. Personal Letter baL-05 Benge Fred PO Box 212 Farson WY 82932 Personal LetterL-06 Boomgaarden Lynne

Office of State Lands and Investments (WY)

122 West 25th St. Cheyenne WY 82002 Personal Letter

L-07 Bousman Cotton

EnCana (Rangeland Consultant)

Personal Letter ckb

L-08 Bousman Joel Boulder WY 82923 Personal LetterL-09 Bower Dru

Petroleum Association of Wyoming

951 Werner Court, Suite 100 Casper WY 82601 Personal Letter

L-10 Bremner Andrew IPAMS 410 Seventeenth St., Suite 1920 Denver CO 80202 Personal LetterL-11 Brown David

BP America Production Company

1660 Lincoln St., Suite 3000 Denver CO 80264 Personal Letter

L-12 Brus Cary 3210 Bella Vista Casper WY 82601 Personal LetterL-13 Burton- Bacheller Kristine PO Box 264 Pinedale WY 82941 Personal LetterL-14 Davison Kathleen

Wyoming Legislature (House)

PO Box 602 Kemmerer Wy 83101 Personal Letter

L-15 Degenfelder D. Steven Double Eagle Petroleum Co. PO Box 766 Casper WY 82602 Personal LetterL-16 Delap Deven PO Box 2154 Pinedale WY 82941 Personal LetterL-17 DiBrito Larry 5915 W. 59th St. Chicago IL 60638 Personal LetterL-18 Donham Rita Box 33 Cora WY 82925 Personal Letter reeL-19 VOID Personal Letter wyL-20 Erramouspe John P. G & E Livestock, Inc. Personal LetterL-21 Erramouspe John G&E Livestock, Inc. WY Personal Letter

30
Table II-A. Persons Submitting Comments on the JIDP DEIS (cont’d) 

Submittal ID Last Name First Name Organization Address City State Zip Form of Comment EmL-22 Etchepare John Wy Dept of Agriculture 2219 Carey Ave. Cheyenne WY 82002 Personal LetterL-23 Fairbanks Eric Boulder WY 82923 Personal LetterL-24 Fear Betty Sublette County Commissioners PO Box 250 Pinedale WY 82941 Personal LetterL-25 Filkins Marilyn Sublette County Attorney PO Box 1010 Pinedale WY 82941 Personal LetterL-26 Freeman David 706 Muir Ave. Rock Springs WY 82901 Personal LetterL-27 Freudenthal Dave Office of the Governor State Capitol Cheyenne WY 82002 Personal LetterL-28 Gagnon Thomas PO Box 2643 Rock Springs WY 82902 Personal LetterL-29 Gardner Cindy Uinta County WY Personal LetterL-30 Gosar A.J. PO Box 701 Pinedale WY 82941 Personal LetterL-31 George Gene Gene R. George & Associates, Inc. PO Box 2775 Casper WY 82602 Personal LetterL-32 Hajba-Miner Jacqueline PO Box 2593 Cody WY 82414 Personal LetterL-33 Harkness Carol PO Box 386 Teton Village WY 83025 Personal LetterL-34 Hay John, III

Rock Springs Grazing Association

PO Box 247 Rock Springs WY 82901 Personal Letter

L-35 Hayden-Wing Larry Hayden-Wing Associates 2308 South 8th St. Laramie WY 82070 Personal LetterL-36 Henderson Leslie 317 College Lane Rock Springs WY 82901 Personal LetterL-37 Henley Kenneth Log Inn Supper Club 529 B Street Rock Springs WY 82901 Personal LetterL-38 Holdsworth Kevin 32 West 2nd North Green River WY 82935 Personal LetterL-39 Howland Philip 403 NE 10th St. Abilene KS 67410 Personal LetterL-40 Johnson Wally Sweetwater County Commision 80 West Flaming Gorge Way Green River WY 82935 Personal LetterL-41 Johnston J. Thomas PO Box 1877 Pinedale WY 82941 Personal LetterL-42 Jones Renee 1889 Big Sandy Rd. Boulder WY 82923 Personal Letter

31
Table II-A. Persons Submitting Comments on the JIDP DEIS (cont’d) 

Submittal ID Last Name First Name Organization Address City State Zip Form of Comment EmL-43 Justus J.R. Shell Exploration & Production Co. 4582 S. Ulster St. Parkway, Suite 500 Denver CO 80237 Personal LetterL-44 Kail Carmel Kail Consulting PO Box 684 Pinedale WY 82941 Personal LetterL-45 Kaumo Timothy City of Rock Springs Personal LetterL-46 Kunard Nylla Town of Pinedale PO Box 709 Pinedale WY 82941 Personal LetterL-47 Lemich George

Greenhalgh, Beckwith, Lemich, Stith & Cannon, P.C.

205 C Street Rock Springs WY 82901 Personal Letter

L-48 Likwartz Don

Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Commission

2211 King Bouldevard Casper WY 82604 Personal Letter

L-49 Manatos Joseph 321 College Lane Rock Springs WY 82901 Personal LetterL-50 Miller Neil O. PO Box 742 Basin WY 82410 Personal LetterL-51 Mineheine James 555 Yellowstone Rd. Rock Springs WY 82901 Personal LetterL-52 Morrison Mary Lou 845 E. 3rd Casper WY 82601 Personal LetterL-53 Mortensen Clark Rat Hole Managers, Inc. 2530 West 1700 South Vernal UT 84078 Personal LetterL-54 Mortensen Dan Rat Hole Managers, Inc. PO Box 131 Vernal UT 84078 Personal LetterL-55 Mortensen Kent Rat Hole Managers, Inc. PO Box 26 Vernal UT 84078 Personal LetterL-56 Mortensen Rory Rat Hole Managers, Inc. PO Box 131 Vernal UT 84078 Personal LetterL-57 Moseley Claire Public Lands Advocacy 1410 Grant St., Suite C- 307 Denver CO 80203 Personal LetterL-58 Murphy Bill Wyoming Business Alliance 145 S. Durbin, Suite 101 Casper WY 82601 Personal LetterL-59 Myers James EnCana Personal Letter dryL-60 Painovich Mary Ellen Brokerage Southwest 601 Broadway Rock Springs WY 82901 Personal Letter

32
Table II-A. Persons Submitting Comments on the JIDP DEIS (cont’d) 

Submittal ID Last Name First Name Organization Address City State Zip Form of Comment EmL-61 Pendery Bruce

Wyoming Outdoor Council- Utah Office

444 East 800 North Logan UT 84321 Personal Letter bp

L-62 Pope Bob Rat Hole Managers, Inc. PO Box 717 Rock Springs WY 82902 Personal LetterL-63 Puckett Joe Rat Hole Managers, Inc. PO Box 717 Rock Springs WY 82902 Personal LetterL-64 Radke A. L. PO Box 1731 Pinedale WY 82941 Personal LetterL-65 Ratner Jonathan Western Watershed Project PO Box 1160 Pinedale WY 82941 Personal LetterL-66 Reynolds Stephen 427 Sioux Dr. Cheyenne WY 82009 Personal LetterL-67 Richter John PO Box 1443 Pinedale WY 82941 Personal LetterL-68 Robbins Patricia

Sweetwater Economic Development Assoc.

1400 Dewar Dr., Suite 205A Rock Springs WY 82901 Personal Letter

L-69 Rogers, Jr. Donald W. Personal LetterL-70 Schmid Pat 240 Fairview Lane Rock Springs WY 82901 Personal LetterL-71 Schramm Donald 422 Lewis St. Rock Springs WY 82901 Personal LetterL-72 Shipman Randy Rocky Mountain Region PFUSA PO Box 1331 Rock Springs WY 82902 Personal LetterL-73 Smith Bob Personal LetterL-74 Lewis Suzanne

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

PO Box 1512 Laramie WY 82073 Personal Letter

L-75 Smith Robin Mountaintop Consulting, LLC Personal Letter rsmL-76 Smith Ty Lesair Environmental, Inc. 10394 W. Chatfield Ave, Ste. 100 Littleton CO 80127 Personal Letter

33
Table II-A. Persons Submitting Comments on the JIDP DEIS (cont’d) 

Submittal ID Last Name First Name Organization Address City State Zip Form of Comment EmL-77 Stalling David

Trout Unlimited, Public Lands Initiative

401 E. Spruce St. Missoula MT 59802 Personal Letter

L-78 Stout Gerald PO Box 35 Farson WY 82932 Personal LetterL-79 Surdam Ronald Wy State Geological Survey PO Box 1347 Laramie WY 82073 Personal LetterL-80 Trosclair Heather Boulder WY 82923 Personal LetterL-81 Trosclair Stephen Personal LetterL-82 Walker Ronald PO Box 224 Daniel WY 83115 Personal LetterL-83 Wasson Rockey Uinta County WY Personal LetterL-84 Wichers Bill Wyoming Game & Fish Dept. 5400 Bishop Boulevard Cheyenne WY 82006 Personal LetterL-85 Wilkinson Betty Flaming Gorge PFUSA PO Box 1063 Rock Springs WY 82902 Personal LetterL-86 Wilkinson Betty Flaming Gorge PFUSA PO Box 1063 Rock Springs WY 82902 Personal LetterL-87 Williams Eric Environomics 203 First St. Cheney WA 99004 Personal LetterL-88 Wise Ward Personal Letter wyL-89 Trapp Cammy 187 Mesa Drive Rock Springs WY 82901 Personal LetterL-90 Schopp John EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) 370 17th St, Suite 1700 Denver CO 80202 Personal LetterL-91 Caddell Joseph 740 Mockingbird Lane Brighton CO 80601 Personal LetterL-92 Delap Sherril Jo PO Box 2154 Pinedale WY 82941 Personal LetterL-93 Roberts Robert E.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8

999 18th St., Suite 300 Denver CO 80202 Personal Letter

L-94 Mortensen Rick Rat Hole Managers, Inc. PO Box 717 Rock Springs WY 82902 Personal Letter

34
Table II-A. Persons Submitting Comments on the JIDP DEIS (cont’d) 

Submittal ID Last Name First Name Organization Address City State Zip Form of Comment EmL-95 Thomson Janice L. The Wilderness Society 1424 Fourth Ave., Suite 816 Seattle WA 98101- 2217 Personal LetterL-96 Keefe Pat 1214 Granada Casper WY 82601 Personal Letter

35
Table II-B. Substantive Comments on the JIDP DEIS 

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

E-01 1 A Air Quality Each individual well is small source of pollutants, so the 

current plan ignores the contribution from the well. The problem is that this ignores the cumulative effect of multiple wells. There is already deterioration of air quality in the Pinedale region. 

Ptswe

E-08 4 D Performance 

Objectives 

Compensatory Mitigation 

Mineral Resources 

I recommend the following actions be taken; 1. The completion of the EIS be expedited. 2. Off-site mitigation measures be immediately implemented to help with future disturbance activities with the wildlife habitat improvement. 3. Out-come based objectives be established that allow flexibility for the operator to ensure responsible development of the resource and hold the operator responsible to achieve these objectives. 4. Proceed with maximum development of the resource using the mitigation measures developed in 2 above to compensate for additional disturbance and provide wildlife habitat enhancement. 5. Implement reclamation procedures as rapidly as possible following drilling, completion and pipeline activities. 

TupcatF

E-17 2 A Compliance Economics Technical 

Information 

The document mandates multiple impractical regulations associated with development of the field, required closed mud systems for drilling, not practical as the cuttings and flow back frac fluid need to be disposed of onsite in a pit, I guess this does follow along with the direction of the document to move the issues somewhere else, i.e. outside Jonah/Sublette County. The requirement of removal of fluids etc from reserve pits in 60 days is not feasible or economical unless the document is driven towards economically restricting the development activity. The closed mud systems, for drilling and completing the wells, needs to be on an as needed basis when requested by the operator only not as a mandated practice. Restricting the height of spoil/topsoil piles to 3 feet is highly contradicting, as it will cause the unnecessary consumption of acreage. Spoil/topsoil stockpiles are temporary and should not have a height restriction. 

TsaichOdpetrtsJsTc
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Ct

E-17 3 A Health / Safety Technical 

Information 

The pad size restrictions are of inadequate size to safely drill and complete the wells. Central site fracing needs to be on an as needed/when requested by the operator not as a mandated practice. Flare less flow back while currently @ 100% utilization in the Jonah field by EnCana Incorporation, is not the charge of the BLM and can not be mandated by the BLM. 

TSuddatOHCauis FrsemwsOsoscttiiCeateodo

E-17 5 A Air Quality Analysis Mandating the use of specific emission type engines for 

drilling rigs that are not available should not be mandated and should be removed from the document. 

ToT

2
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

I(vWervBemStDtI2wfaae

E-23 4 D Alternatives Air Quality Cut to 1000 the number of new wells to be allowed in the 

Jonah Field. Require that all new wells be dug through diagonal drilling, which at least limits the "footprint" on the land, though it does not help with air pollution. 

Tin(3ERd(TmiSrnf

E-23 5 D Air Quality On-Site 

Mitigation 

Require that all wells adopt "BACT" (Best Available Control Technology) to limit pollution, as some of the more progressive companies are already doing. Enforce clean air standards rigorously, with better 

EBWa

3
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

monitoring of air quality (including carcinogens) and adding several more testing sites to the current two. T

arWToP

E-23 6 D Wildlife Exempt from drilling critical wildlife migration and 

wintering grounds -- roughly two percent of BLM land near Pinedale. (Over 90 percent is already leased for drilling.) 

Cwrs

E-36 4 A Recreation Analysis Livestock/ 

Grazing 

I believe that the negative effects of additional drilling on the quality of life to area residents, in both the areas of air quality, noise and odor, as well as degradation of the area for recreation, livestock grazing, and scenic values have been grossly underestimated in this EIS. Specifically, the assumptions and dollar values given for both hunting and other forms of recreation are unacceptably low and do not truly reflect the actual value of citizen's free time and quality of life as related to recreation activity. I personally can attest that I and everyone that I know find the value of our recreational activity to be at least ten times higher than the values listed on Table 3.53, if not more. 

TeTvdfrocinypUaadtaa

E-41 1 D Wildlife Compensatory 

Mitigation 

I am generally not a supporter of offsite mitigation, but in this case, it is the best option. At the March 21 meeting, your biologist made the revelation that little is known about grouse habits regarding populating (and abandoning) lek sites. Perhaps a good compromise would be to mitigate the impacts by using some of the money EnCana has previously committed to wildlife projects. I suspect that it would be viable for the operators to dedicate some grant money to researching this aspect. This approach seems to me to have much more potential to ensure the future of the sage grouse than the (most certainly temporary) "avoidance" 

Rw

4
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

schemes being proposed to date. 

E-43 1 A Wildlife On-Site 

Mitigation 

Impacts to sage grouse have already surpassed those considered likely in the decision documents of 2001. In particular, results of monitoring studies have shown a steady decline in sage grouse lek attendance during each of the four years of development. After denial of appeals for greater protective measures for sage grouse, an unexpected contribution of the Jonah field development so far has been evidence that the half-mile buffers as mitigation around leks are inadequate. Data presented to BLM and operators in March indicate four years of progressive abandonment of monitored leks. Aside from continuing apparently ineffective buffers at leks, the primary mitigation offered with the Infill appears to be the different rates of development in segments of the field and attempts to cluster development to preserve blocks of undisturbed sage habitat. These offer little or no current relief to sage grouse. No specific future plan for habitat and population restoration is included. With no specific plans or performance dates, it seems likely that another listing proposal may precede such restoration if this kind of development continues. 

TmtTleat

E-43 2 A Wildlife Compensatory 

Mitigation 

At its current level of development, and certainly with the Infill, off-site mitigation strategies deserve consideration. No detailed proposals are provided in the EIS and a sound foundation is lacking to plan beyond the narrow boundaries of intensive development. We recommend that a basin-wide geographical information system (GIS) database for sage and related habitats is necessary to allow intelligent formation of specific habitat management strategies. Those should be matched with sage grouse population data on distribution within those habitats to support specific geographically based conservation strategies to manage habitats to sustain strong populations throughout the Upper Green to offset losses at Jonah and other developed sites. Such GIS data will serve all parties and allow the tradeoffs inherent in off-site mitigation. 

Rw

E-57 1 A Livestock/ 

Grazing 

On-Site Mitigation 

Alternatives According to Table 4.19, the Proposed Alternative would 

potentially affect 673 more AUMs during new construction than the Preferred Alternative. I am not sure how you derived that number, and the document does not clearly state how those potentially affected AUMs will 

PF

5
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

be determined. Any adjustments to grazing AUMs, as a result of the infill project, should be determined through monitoring (Use and Trend), and not through some method which utilizes loss of range acres. If there needs to be an adjustment in AUMs, then that should occur as Temporary Non-Use, and not as Suspended Non-Use. How the grazing program will be handled during the infill process should be clearly established in the Record of Decision. 

E-57 2 A Livestock/ 

Grazing 

Compensatory Mitigation 

I believe all the oil and gas operators involved in the project should be required to mitigate the loss of the vegetative resource and the impacts to livestock permittees who are grazing in the Jonah. Currently, only one operator (EnCana) is interested in the impact the project is having on the range resource and livestock permittees. 

PFlow

E-59 2 D Wildlife On-Site 

Mitigation 

The “operators” should declare a no-net-loss of wildlife policy for this area. They should hire as many wildlife biologists as necessary to insure that their on-site and off-site habitat enhancement and wildlife mitigations work. Those operator-hired biologists should use as their guide the recently developed WY Game and Fish standards and guidelines for wildlife impact mitigation and the Wildlife Monitoring Task Group Report to the Pinedale Anticline Working Group. The BLM and WY Game and Fish biologists should monitor their activities and studies and present an annual progress report. An independent panel of wildlife experts should be empowered to hear the progress annual report working toward the goal of no-net-loss of wildlife. In addition, this independent panel of wildlife experts [including community representatives] should be empowered to order and direct research necessary to insure that this sustainable wildlife resource is guaranteed in perpetuity to subsequent generations. Further, they would be empowered to direct company wildlife mitigation activities like habitat purchase or other any other means necessary to achieve the goal if, in their sole judgment, satisfactory progress toward that goal is not being made.

RwcwWdPcCP

E-59 3 D Air Quality On-Site 

Mitigation 

The “operators” should declare a no-net-degradation policy of air quality. Contractors using objective, measurable parameters should do air quality monitoring. The contractors should submit an annual report to the WY Department of Environmental Quality – Air Quality

TtC

6
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Division [DEQ-AQD]. The DEQ-AQD should determine compliance with state and national standards and submit a report to an independent panel of air quality experts including local citizen representatives. This independent panel should be empowered to hear the progress annual report working toward the goal of no-net-degradation of air quality. In addition, this independent panel should be empowered to order and direct research necessary to insure that this sustainable resource is guaranteed in perpetuity to subsequent generations. Further, they would be empowered to direct company air quality mitigation activities like technological or operational solutions to problem or other any other means necessary to achieve the goal if, in their sole judgment, satisfactory progress toward that goal is not being made.

E-66 2 A Technical 

Information 

OperatorCommitted Practices 

One requirement is that operators would use closed drilling systems (no reserve pits) for all wells unless proven on a case-by-case basis that to do so would be technologically or economically infeasible. If reserve pits are approved, Operators would remove/vacuum fluids from reserve pits within 60 days of all wells on a pad being placed into production, to accelerate pit closure and reclamation. Issues with closed drilling systems are as follows: Cost incremental is $25,000 to $50,000 per well. Need Cost Effective Alternative for Cuttings Handling -- Burying on Location Requires a Pit. 60 days to remove fluids from pit is unreasonable -- Pits are frozen 4 months of year. Increases environmental liability due to transportation and disposal. The existing method of utilizing reserve pits for fluids and drill cuttings is working well, there is not reason to modify this procedure. Should be Operator-Committed Practice where feasible, practical, and economic. 

TsaichOdpetrrwroIpnrTc

E-66 3 A Surface 

Disturbance 

Technical Information 

Another requirement is that well pad surface disturbance would be limited to a maximum of 7.0 acres for parent and multi- well pads, 4.0 acres for single-well well pads,

Tps

7
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

and 2.0 acres for satellite well pads. These acreages include well pad, access road, pipeline, and topsoil and spoil piles. This specification eliminates operator flexibility to adjust to the needs of the well site. In addition, and I know this from my everyday experience, satellite locations are an unproven technology. Plus we estimate only about 20% of Jonah would be suitable for the matted locations due to topography limitations. The operator should be given more flexibility to make optimum use of allowed surface disturbance. 

aiAtdwdhtTirsemwsOsoscttii

E-66 4 A Technical 

Information 

Surface Disturbance 

Hard-line fracturing processes would be required for all well pads when surface density is = 1 well pad/40 acres, and recommended when well pad surface density is < 1 pad/40 acres. This is not practical at a well spacing of 40 acres. 40-acre locations would probably not be drilled concurrently making centralized fracing impossible. It would result in additional disturbance— it is not feasible to follow roads and pipelines on 40-acre well spacings. This should be an operator committed practice where practical, feasible, and economic. We think that the Hub and Spoke concept will work on the 10-acre satellite concept. 

BwaisemrtuWtit bpfpw“t

8
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

AmtOstrewcBiOeas

E-66 5 A Technical 

Information 

OperatorCommitted Practices 

Health/ Safety 

Operators would be required to use flareless completions for all wells within the JIDPA unless proven on a case-by-case basis that flareless completions would be unsafe. Points I would like to make on this are the following: • This is not within BLM's jurisdiction—Wyoming DEQ regulates this issue. • Incremental cost of $50,000/well for Multiple Wells and $100,000 for single well pads. • Flaring requires pipeline and pipeline quality gas. • It should be Operator-Committed Practice where economically viable, feasible, and safe 

TNOofCcnpcwuipfnfeateodo

E-66 6 A Mineral 

Resources 

Technical Information 

OperatorCommitted Practices 

Centralization of development and production facilities would be maximized as a requirement in the JIDPA. This is not practical in Area 3 (19% area) - right now there is 40 acre surface spacing. It will require additional 

PAF

9
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

disturbance to consolidate facilities, it is not practical to follow roads and it is limited by topography. This will work well in the 10 acre or less spacing in Area 1 (34%) and it will work with the Hub and Spoke Concept. It should be an Operator-Committed Practice where practical, feasible, and economic. The BLM’s Preferred Alternative severely restricts Full Field development in one-half of the project area in order to protect “World Class” sagebrush habitat. Up to approximately 19% (118 acres) of new surface disturbance per 640-acre section within a 14,310-acre area (see Map 2.2 in the Draft EIS) will be allowed. This limits the development of this part of the field to 16 parent well pads per section. The wells in this part of the field are lower EUR wells not capable of economically using directional drilling potentially leaving only 16 wells per section to be drilled. This would leave a large amount of gas not being recovered. 

FL1-0 2 A Wildlife Surface 

Disturbance 

Alternatives Everyone agrees that development must have some 

restrictions. However, impractical limitations harm development without benefiting the public or the environment. For example, the BLM's suggested plan currently prohibits surface activity within a quarter mile of all sage grouse leks, whether they are active or not. Such a restriction should apply only to active sage grouse leks. The BLM should revise its Preferred Alternative to include only necessary and practical limitations on development. 

T“a

FL2-0 3 A Air Quality Technical 

Information 

One of the main environmental concerns is air quality. Unfortunately, directional drilling actually poses more risks to air quality than does conventional straight-hole drilling. That's because directional drilling requires more time with rigs running, additional vehicle trips to and from a pad, and additional activity. These and other benefits of straight-hole drilling would be fully considered in the final decision. 

BiqtiFLpA1he

FL3-448 2 A Technical 

Information 

The BLM has impractical requirements regarding removing fluid from the reserve pits within 60 days when 4 months of the year is frozen (winter conditions) 

Tsa

10
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

ichOdpetrrwroIpnrTc

FL3-462 2 D Alternatives Economics Mineral 

Resources 

Work out a multiple wellpad program on directional drilling. But let's get all the gas out that's available. A tax break for directional multi-wellpads. 

SdwpwdOpAahdswdbwaEhrtbr

11
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

L-04 1 A Compliance Air Quality Performance 

Objectives 

Item: pp. 2-26, First Bullet; Airborne Emissions Comment: This section contains a number of air quality related objectives BLM wants to achieve. The BLM does not have jurisdiction for many of these programs. It is also important that the Wyoming DEQ would be the agency that would work with the USFS on issues involving acid deposition. We also think that air quality performance objectives should only be based on monitoring data not predicted modeling impacts because modeling is too subjective. 

BaHrBaqTpmc

L-04 2 D On-site 

Mitigation 

Surface Disturbance 

Conditions of Approval 

Item: pp. 2-27, 1st Bullet Comment: This requires tracking new surface disturbance every 30 days. This will interfere with field surveying required to permit wells during the potentially limited timeframe provided to stake pads. This also seems like an unduly burdensome requirement unless you have data that shows that construction is outside of that authorized by the approving document. In this case the APD. If it must be tracked, Ultra recommends that it be done on a seasonal basis i.e. once each field season.

BrctcmeaBtEacredta

L-04 3 A On-site 

Mitigation 

Compensatory Mitigation 

Performance Objectives 

Item: pp. 2-27, 8th Bullet Comment: This bullet states: “Encourage Operators to participate in and support peer-reviewed research that evaluates impacts from development and effectiveness of applied mitigation.” This is an effort to require operators to conduct even more studies and monitor what we are already required to monitor. It is too broad and should be dropped. 

BrsOw

L-04 4 D Technical 

Information 

Economics Conditions of 

Approval 

Item: pp. 2-28, 1st Bullet Comment: This bullet states: “Operators would begin 

TF

12
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

piping produced water and condensate from all wells in the JIDPA to appropriate treatment or disposal facilities beginning no later than January 1, 2008; this would supersede previous decisions related to method of condensate disposal.” This requirement must include an economic consideration. There are some cases that the amount of water and condensate is so small that the justification for including it into a gathering system cannot be justified. At the same time, those locations would have low traffic volume from haul trucks due to the low volumes of water and condensate produced. In addition, this requirement should only apply to new facilities yet to be built and consideration must be given to extend the 1/1/08 deadline. Item: pp. 2-28, 1st Bullet Comment: This requires that each well be treated the same regardless of water volume. There are numerous wells on the fringes that do not produce enough water to warrant this requirement. You also assume that the technology is in place in less than 3 years to accommodate this requirement. Perhaps this is true for some operators but it could be large cost for limited gain for some operators. 

L-04 5 A Conditions of 

Approval 

Compliance Soils Item: pp. 2-28, 2nd Bullet 

Comment: This bullet states: “To eliminate or minimize surface sediment discharge, all well pad and road construction shall comport WDEQ storm water discharge specifications, standards, and permitting requirements. Existing well pads and roads shall be retrofitted to meet this requirement as directed by the Authorized Officer. Based on site-specific analysis, BLM may require more stringent sediment control measures be implemented.” This requirement is not necessary because Wyoming DEQ has primacy for the stormwater program in Wyoming. As such, that program would be the applicable requirement and should be stated as such in the FEIS. In addition, the BLM has not completed the model for soil erosion and thus this reference is premature until that project is completed. Item: pp. 2-28, 2nd Bullet 

Afhmpransmaptwsaiisrs

13
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Comment: The requirement that all existing well pads and roads be retrofitted to meet zero runoff requirements as directed by the Authorized Officer is not possible to meet. There is no area in Sublette County other than the granite peaks of the Wind Rivers that are even close to zero runoff even without any added surface disturbance. It is virtually impossible to meet zero runoff standards on flat, undisturbed, ground. There are some options to minimize excess runoff that are viable, but the zero runoff goal is not attainable if water moves through a site. Once again, permits from WYDEQ-WQD are applied for and permitted by that agency. This implies that our efforts are satisfactory provided we follow plans laid out in our APD submissions. 

Baswis aaaIterCaWrtfrr

L-04 8 F Wildlife Conditions of 

Approval 

Item: pp. 2-29, 1st Bullet Comment: The requirement asks that “Surface disturbing and disruptive activities in greater sagegrouse winter concentration areas would be avoided from November 15 through March 14.” The WAFWA Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Assessment, winter habitats for sage–grouse are not limiting. Crawford et al 2004 states that “During winter, sagegrouse utilize medium to tall sagebrush communities (25-8- cm, or 25-25 cm above the snow) on south and west facing slopes (Ihli et al. 1973,: Table 2) .... It continues to say that” Unless snow completely covers sagebrush (Hupp and Braun 1989), severe winter weather conditions have little effect on sage-grouse populations (Call and Maser 1985) and sage-grouse may actually gain weight during the winter months(Beck and Braun 1978) 

As stated in section 3.2.1.1 on pages 3-52, table 3.17 

Aa

14
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

and map 3.12 on page 3-53, the low and moderate density sagebrush heights are 7.9 and 9.8 inches respectively. This indicates that the majority of the forage, except along Sand Draw, are not suitable winter foraging areas for sage-grouse. In addition, during severe winters of prolonged, deep snow, there are only a few areas where sagebrush is tall enough to remain available to sage-grouse above the snow. These areas, termed Severe Winter Relief (SWR) Habitats in a study conducted by Hayden-Wing Associates and the Rawlins Office of the BLM, are described in HWA (2004). It is important that these SWR habitats be identified as soon as possible to avoid the unnecessary protection of large areas of winter habitat that are not critical to sage-grouse survival. Except on the SWR areas it would seem that grouse are generally content and gain weight during winter months, have reduced fidelity to home ranges (Welch et al. (1990) cited in Connelly et al. 2004. One is led to wonder why sage-grouse are protected during winter months at all. They are healthy and gain weight during that period as opposed to ungulates which are obviously on the decline during that period of time. 

L-05 2 A Compliance Conditions of 

Approval 

The next point I would like to present is the requirement of no flare pits. Without flare pits we will have to work with higher pressures increasing the risk to personnel. Also the BLM does not have authority over flare pits this is under the DEQ. 

TcTbTNOofCcnpcwuipf

15
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

nfeateodo

L-05 3 C Surface 

Disturbance 

Health / Safety Conditions of 

Approval 

The next point I would like to make is the requirement of no reserve pits. Without reserve pits the tracking pollutions will at least triple as we will have to haul H20 in as needed and out as they finish with each phase. Also, try to pipe this out causes extreme hazards for leaks, spills, or harmful release of contaminated fluids. 

TsaichOdpewdlopTc

L-07 1 A Livestock/ 

Grazing 

My professional opinion is that the DEIS inadequately analyzed the impact to the livestock industry. On pg. 4-132, under 4.5.2, I state that the level of detail with respect to statements about impacts to livestock grazing is inadequate. 

PF

L-07 2 D Livestock/ 

Grazing 

Public Participation 

I comment that the BLM should immediately enter into consultations with the permittees in these affected allotments and that the Final document should reflect the results of those consultations. 

Tcwi

L-07 3 A Livestock/ 

Grazing 

On-Site Mitigation 

Public Participation 

I also comment that this Draft should have included an extensive narrative describing the intent of the BLM to inter into a Joint/Cooperative Monitoring program with the permittees as soon as this document has been decided. This monitoring program should include technical procedures to evaluate impacts & trends on rangeland resources and economic impacts to ranches that hold the grazing permits in these allotments. 

PFA iD

16
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

L-07 4 A Livestock/ 

Grazing 

Please note that Table 4.19 on pg. 4-133 indicates under the preferred alternative that there will be a total loss of 1,410 AUMs with new development and over the lifetime of the project, within the infill area. This is inconsistent with pg. 2-33 Table 2.12 that states there 

will be a total 1312 AUMs lost. It also inconsistent with pg 4.-136, under 4.5.2.11 that states 1766 AUMs would be “lost”. Please provide explanation for these inconsistencies. Also, please provide the rational that 550 AUMs will be the maximum long-term cumulative loss. We are under the opinion that AUMs in addition to current stocking levels will likely become permanently available to permittees after reclamation efforts are successful and complete. On pg. 4-152, please confirm that the statement in item 5 that states that “Compensation for the impact by replacing, or providing substitute resources or environments.” Applies to livestock grazing in the Infill Area. 

PFTap

L-07 5 D Livestock/ 

Grazing 

Public Participation 

Land Use Under item 4.8.1, pg. 4-152, we request that the 

permittees in the allotments affected by this Infill project be invited to serve on any independent advisory board that deals with the issue of compensation and or mitigation of impacts to current multiple uses. 

Rotm

L-07 6 A Livestock/ 

Grazing 

On pg. 5-9, please add a bullet to this page to read, “Develop livestock habitat improvement projects designed to increase the stability of ranching operations that depend on the use of federal forage, and intermingled private and State owned forage, in the Infill Area.” 

TD“iiofpt

L-07 7 F Livestock/ 

Grazing 

In pg. 3-125, I note that the calculation for the value of an AUM should be done with locally collected data, not from a BLM study done in 2003. 

TUt

17
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Ac

L-07 8 A Livestock/ 

Grazing 

Table 4.19 states that the total acres for each allotment are: Stud Horse Butte Common—15590; Sand Draw—31740; Boundary—31994. The boundary allotment is in the Rock Springs district, so I haven’t had near the access to the Boundary allotment files as I have on the other two, and am lacking some information. However, the Pinedale Field office allotment files show different numbers of total allotment acreage than the ones stated in the Draft. Sand Draw and Stud Horse Butte allotments are part of the 4-C’s voluntary permittee monitoring program. The 4-C’s files in the Pinedale office show allotment acreage in Stud Horse Butte—15088; and Sand Draw—32380. This is a difference of 502 for Stud Horse Butte and 640 for Sand Draw. Consider finding the exact acreage for each allotment. 

Cm

L-07 9 A Livestock/ 

Grazing 

Surface Disturbance 

I cannot find in detail how the calculation of loss of AUMs was conducted. My following comment will attempt to discuss this and provide a detailed approach to accurately calculate the surface disturbance and convert it to an AUM factor. It appears on Table 4.19 on pg. 4-133, that some factor of surface disturbance was applied across the board for each allotment. This approach is simplified, and unscientific. I recalculated the surface disturbance and have much LESS loss of AUMs than what is stated under the preferred alternative in Table 4.19. The following breaks down my calculations The DEIS table 4.19 uses an AUM conversion factor (acres/AUM) for each allotment (Stud Horse Butte Common—8.2 Acres/AUM; Sand Draw—13.2 Acres/AUM; Boundary—10.0 Acres/AUM; Blue Rim Desert 14.6 Acres/AUM) that seems accurate and consistent to my calculations. The AUMs affected by the proposal are a direct calculation from the acres of surface disturbance for each allotment. Therefore I would like to focus on the method for calculating the surface disturbance. On pg. 2-22, the narrative under 2.14, the Draft breaks down the preferred alternative’s acres of surface disturbance by the density of well spacing. At 10 acre 

PF

18
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

spacing the Draft states that for each section (640 acres) there would be 214 acres of disturbance; at 20 acre spacing there will be 150 acres surface disturbance per section; and at 40 acre spacing there will be 118 acres of disturbance. For each category of spacing, the disturbance includes a resource road and pipeline. Using these disturbance acres per section, the following tables (Table 1=Sand Draw; Table 2=Stud Horse Butte; Table 3=Boundary) analyze the surface disturbance for each allotment on a section-by- section basis for each well spacing density. [see letter for tables] Table 4.19 indicates that the surface disturbance for each allotment is: Stud Horse Butte Common=3,132 Acres; Sand Draw=10,887 Acres; Boundary=1,945. These numbers are much larger than my numbers calculated in the tables above. The difference in acres between the numbers calculated in the Draft and my tables above for each allotment are: Sand Draw=5532; Stud Horse Butte Common=1778.02; Boundary=1037.2. When each allotment acreage is calculated into AUMs and added together, calculations on a section-by-section basis show a total 662 AUMs affected under the preferred alternative. There is a 748 AUM difference than the 1410 AUMs stated in the Draft. Would you please consider recalculating the acres of surface disturbance on a section-by-section basis for each allotment. 

L-07 10 A Livestock/ 

Grazing 

On-Site Mitigation 

Public Participation 

The draft appears to assume that there is no excess forage available for grazing with the proposed increase in surface disturbance due to the drilling activity. During the summer of 2004 I participated in the voluntary and informal monitoring program with the permittees that indicates there is more on the ground forage available than what is currently being grazed. Our collective experience agrees with that; the past 5 years the utilization levels have been at moderate to low level, indicating large amounts of forage are not being consumed. I believe that BLM’s own records agree with this. After finishing my calculations showing that there are only 662 AUMs affected, I believe that there is no need 

PF

19
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

for a reduction in AUMs. Also, when the utilization is in the moderate to low level there is no need for reduced grazing. What we need is a possible change in the grazing management such as adding range improvements and working with permittees. Please consider working with the permittees on a monitoring program and improving the management of these grazing allotments. 

L-07 12 D Livestock/ 

Grazing 

On-Site Mitigation 

Vegetation It is my professional rangeland opinion, that the 

reclamation standards of 50% restored in 5 years and 80% in10 years, is not practical and achievable in the Jonah Field. The Jonah field is dominated by the sagebrush ecosystem and based upon my data collected the summer 2004, the total vegetative ground cover is about 30-35%. Sagebrush consists of about 15-20% of the canopy cover. This is very dense and decadent sagebrush. Note that I believe to achieve this density of sagebrush will take approximately 15-20 years. To achieve 50% reclaimed in 5 years barring no drought conditions doesn’t seem achievable. The draft does not state on the reclaim standards if the conditions for successful reclamation is based upon aerial or basal ground cover. At current levels of aerial cover of sagebrush (15–20%) is only about 2% basal cover. This level of measurement must be distinguished and understood in the Final EIS. Is the BLM currently conducting range surveys and running transects to determine successful reclamation? I comment that when determining when a site meets reclamation standards, sound rangeland science measurements such as point-intercept transects and collection of baseline data for comparison must be employed, not just an ocular estimate. Consider that livestock grazing can be used as a tool to help ensure successful reclamation. This doesn’t mean eliminating grazing, but grazing reclaimed sites at specific times during the growing season to enhance production of those reclaimed areas. 

TRoTeJrcF

L-08 1 A Livestock/ 

Grazing 

The JIDP DEIS does an inadequate job of properly analyzing the impact of intense drilling activities on livestock grazing within the affected grazing allotments. The analysis of the loss of livestock AUMs is 

PF

20
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

questionable, and you have not indicated the process you will use to determine the loss of AUMs as they occur, or what action will be taken by BLM as a result of any loss of grazing AUMs. On pg. 4-132, under 4.5.2, I comment that the level of detail with respect to statements about impacts to livestock grazing are inadequate. 

L-08 2 D Livestock/ 

Grazing 

On-Site Mitigation 

Public Participation 

I recommend you encourage the development of a cooperative joint monitoring program involving the operators, permittees, and BLM range staff that would include utilization mapping and long term plant community trend transects placed both within the project area as well as on the affected grazing allotments outside the project area. Previous monitoring on these allotments indicates there may be significant amounts of forage not being consumed by either livestock or wildlife. Perhaps by placing more watering facilities in the unused areas of the allotments not affected by intense drilling, you may help offset the impact to the disturbed areas during the reclamation process. 

PF

L-08 4 A Livestock/ 

Grazing 

On pg. Vi, Under Land Use Impacts, we feel it is premature to state that historic land uses such as livestock grazing will not be as "suitable" as before this Infill Proposal. At this time, the level and intensity of use by livestock during the Infill project has yet to be either evaluated or Decisioned. It may well be that the current level and/or historic levels of livestock use can be sustained throughout the life of this project with additional intensity of management & appropriate mitigation. 

PF

L-08 5 A1 Livestock/ 

Grazing 

Land Ownership 

Wildlife Please add a definition of "Base Property", defined as 

the lands owned or controlled by the grazing permittee to which the Preference number of Adjudicated federal livestock AUMs are attached. Please add a definition of the term "drought" as defined by the Society for Range Management, "Glossary of Terms, 4th Edition." Please note that the SRM definition does NOT refer to a lack of snowfall having anything at all to do with a drought on rangelands, and that the published literature pertinent to cool season ranges like those in the Pinedale area of Wyoming state that the shortage of 

RNheBsiBTaT

21
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

water must be fore a time period DURING multiple, sequential, growing seasons to an extent that plant health is adversely affected. Under "No-Surface Occupancy," please clearly state in this definition that range improvements do NOT fall under this definition. Please add a definition of the term "Preference" to be the total number of federal livestock AUMs adjudicated to a grazing permittee of lessee, and includes the sum of both active use and suspended use AUMs. My comment on the definition of "species of concern is that there is NO statutory basis in the Endangered Species Act for a BLM designation of species into a list of "sensitive species". Please remove the reference to "BLM sensitive species" in this definition. 

tRaaTw

L-08 6 A Livestock/ 

Grazing 

Conditions of Approval 

Surface Disturbance 

On pg. 2-29, I believe that the statement in the second bullet that prohibits "surface disturbing activities" outside the 2 mile buffer area from March 1 to July is too restrictive to all legitimate multiple uses. This narrative should clearly state that this prohibition does NOT apply to normal and necessary livestock grazing management activities during that time period. 

TBsrRnwaas

L-08 7 A Livestock/ 

Grazing 

In Table 2.12, pg. 2-33, there is no explanation of how the number of livestock AUMs affected by each Alternative was compiled. In addition, after direct consultations with these permittees, I request that this Draft contain a narrative describing the probable impacts on each livestock permittee as a result of the "loss" of AUMs under each of these Alternatives. 

PFd

L-08 8 A1 Wildlife On pg. 3066, please add to the narratives on this page, 

the importance of forbs and insects to the viability of sage grouse chicks. 

N

L-08 9 F Livestock/ 

Grazing 

On pg. 3-125, I comment that the calculation of the value of an AUM should use locally collected data, not a generic BLM study done in 2003. That value should reflect the actual value to each ranching operation. 

PL

L-08 10 A1 Livestock/ On pg. 3-143, the narrative under 3.8 should state that B

22
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Grazing compensatory mitigation plans will be developed for 

each of the Multiple Uses approved by Congress on federal lands, including livestock, as soon as the Final Plan has been Decisioned. 

A

L-08 11 E Livestock/ 

Grazing 

Surface Disturbance 

On pg. 4067, please provide the procedure used to determine that an increase of 16,200 acres would be disturbed under the Proposed Action. On pg. 4-72, the narrative under 4.2.1.10 states that the BLM's Preferred Alternative would result in an increase of 8316 acres of surface disturbance. Please provide the procedure used to calculate this number. On pg. 4-136, under 4.5.2.11, please provide the rational for the statements that 1766 AUMs would be "lost". Also, please provide the rational that 550 AUMs will be the maximum long-term cumulative loss. I believe that AUMs in addition to current stocking levels will likely become permanently available to permittees after reclamation efforts are successful and complete. The BLM should encourage a close working relationships between the operators, grazing permittees, and BLM to jointly develop grazing strategies to be used in the reclaimed areas that are workable for the permittees, operators, and BLM range staff. On pg. 4-152, please confirm that the statement in item 5 that states that "Compensation for the impact by replacing, or providing substitute resources or environments." Applies to livestock grazing in the Infill Area. 

TAwBtTtpDtToPTA

L-08 12 A1 Livestock/ 

Grazing 

On pg. 5-6, under 5.4.14, please add a bullet that says, "develop a livestock compensation fund to be administered by the State of Wyoming Department of Agriculture." My comment mirrors an existing bullet statement currently in this section with respect to wildlife, and there is no reason why the BLM should discriminate.

BA

L-08 13 A Land 

Ownership 

On pg. 5-8, Conservation Easements should not be considered as any part of off-site mitigation. 

TsSMcc

23
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

cTtb

L-08 14 A1 On-site 

Mitigation 

Vegetation OperatorCommitted 

Practices 

On pg. 5-9, please add a bullet to this page to read, "Develop livestock habitat improvement projects designed to increase the stability of ranching operations that depend on the use of federal forage, and intermingled private and State owned forage, in the Infill Area." On pgs. B-20 & 21, please include a narrative that states that the number one objective of reclamation is to provide a soil cover of plants as soon as possible and that non-native species are included in the plant mix authority if it would serve that paramount objective of soil protection until such time as natives can be reestablished. 

Tt“iiofptPOcsmpp2b

L-08 15 D Vegetation On-Site 

Mitigation 

I comment that the seed mixture during reclamation be designed to accomplish the "Desired Plant Communities" as determined by the BLM range staff and permittees. On pg. B-24, please provide the logic for a doubling of the seeding rate on the land areas Stated in the first paragraph. The condition of the seed bed, site by site, is a more important consideration than is the seeding rate. 

Tttrasis oscbas

L-09 5 A Surface 

Disturbance 

Analysis Mineral 

Resources 

For this substantive comment, see also: L-10, IPAMs letter. 

Ta

24
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

By limiting new initial surface disturbance to only 19%, restricting the number and size of well pads, the BLM's Preferred Alternative will not allow the Operators to responsibly and efficiently recover the substantial natural gas resource present in the Jonah Infill Project Area. Although the JIDP DEIS suggests that the Preferred Alternative will result in the waste of approximately 71 BCF of natural gas, the BLM recently disclosed, during public meetings in Rock Springs and Pinedale that the Preferred Alternative will actually result in the waste of 761 BCF of natural gas and 7,230,000 barrels of oil. 

nF

L-10 5 A Surface 

Disturbance 

Analysis Mineral 

Resources 

For this substantive comment, see also: L-09, Petroleum Assoc. of Wy. Letter IPAMS believes the BLM’s Preferred Alternative unreasonably stifles development in the Jonah Project Area by unnecessarily restricting surface disturbance in the northern part of the Jonah Field. By limiting new initial surface disturbance to only 19%, restricting the number and size of well pads, the BLM’s Preferred Alternative will not allow the Operators to responsibly and efficiently recover the substantial natural gas resource present in the Jonah Infill Project Area. Although the JIDP DEIS suggests that the Preferred Alternative will result in the waste of approximately 71 BCF of natural gas, the BLM recently disclosed, during public meetings in Rock Springs and Pinedale, that the Preferred Alternative will actually result in the waste of 761 BCF of natural gas and 7,230,000 barrels of oil. 

TanF

L-11 3 B Surface 

Disturbance 

Transportation Item: pp. 2-22, 2.14 BLM Preferred Alternative; 1st 

Bullet Comment: Within the first bullet is a reference to “a satellite well pad”. The description includes an assumption of 2.0 acres of disturbance including a resource road and gathering pipeline. It is unclear if the 2.0 acres is short term or long-term disturbance. Regardless, it is important to note that 4.0 acres will be necessary for just the well pad in order to drill a satellite well. Also, a road will likely need to be maintained which in our case would need to be an all-weather road. While the pad will be in the interim reclaimed for production, as we describe in other comments, maintaining an all weather road and leaving the anchor area around the 

TSuddatOHCauis Fr

25
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

wellbore available for well repairs and workovers leads one to believe that surface disturbance may not be as small as anticipated with the satellite well concept. The total acreage disturbance as described here should be closely assessed before pursuing this as part of the FEIS. 

semwsOsoscttiiTtp

L-11 4 A1 Surface 

Disturbance 

Economics Mineral 

Resources 

Item: pp. 2-24; 2.14 BLM Preferred Alternative; 1st Bullet Comment: The preferred alternative discusses several scenarios of surface disturbance within the JIDPA. One scenario of serious concern to BP reads: “up to approximately 19% (118 acres) new surface disturbance per 640 acre section within a 14,310 acre area (Map 2.2) based on 16 parent well pads per section (as many as 128 well bores per section). There are also two subbullets that read: “2,576 acres of new initial disturbance and 716 acres of LOP surface disturbance” with the second sub-bullet reading: “well pad density limitation would be applicable until monitoring data, with up to 10 year trends, conclusively show that denser than 40-acre surface spacing can meet performance-based field development and production objectives.” BP is requesting that the 34% disturbance area be adjusted to include the following sections (currently included in the 19% disturbance area) and more fully described as follows: Section 7 T29N-R108W: S/2 E/2 Section 8 T29N-R108W: S/2 

TanF

26
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Section 9 T29N-R108W: S/2 Section 10 T29N-R108W: S/2 Section 11 T29N-R108W: S/2 Section 12 T29N-R108W: S/2 Section 18 T29N-R107W: All Section 19 T29N-R107W: E/2 Section 13 T29N-R108W: All Section 14 T29N-R108W: All Section 15 T29N-R108W: N/2 Section 17 T29N-R108W: E/2 E/2 Section 19 T29N-R108W: W/2 E/2 Section 21 T29N-R108W: W/2 Our reasons for this request are based upon a number of factors which are presented below: The 19% disturbance limitation will place BP in a competitive disadvantage. This area encompasses a large percentage of BP acreage and will require directional drilling to be used extensively. BP continues to assess directional drilling techniques to better understand the use of it in the JIDPA. However, to have directional drilling mandated through the use of a 19% disturbance threshold presents technical and economic burdens. There are cost considerations. We have experienced an incremental cost to directionally drill in the JIDPA to range between $270,000 and $400,000. To drill directional wells take longer and can lengthen drilling operations by 25%. This could extend drilling operations by 2-3 years compared to vertical wells and defer interim reclamation by the same time frame. Directional drilling does increase mechanical risk and 

27
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

has resulted in the inability to place casing at the bottom of the well in approximately 30% of our directional wells. This can preclude any completions in the lower portion of the well. During completion, complications have been documented in 10% of the wells and when this occurred it extended the time frame for completing the well by a factor of 2 to 3 times longer than average to complete drilling operations. There have been problems with differential sticking in the Fort Union formation. Options to correct this challenge include running intermediate casing through the Ft. Union at a significant cost of between $670,000 and $770,000 per well or changing from a water-based mud system to oil-based. The concern for changing mud systems is the added environmental precautions that must be exercised with managing that type of mud system. Loss of reserves is another major concern. This can occur either by not being able to complete in all available pay, due to the casing not being set at bottom, or by potential well locations not being drilled because they will not support the incremental costs associated with directional drilling. BP has estimated that in this area a loss of natural gas resource could range between 300-500 BCF if the 19% disturbance area is not adjusted as requested. This is a significant loss to the federal treasury as well as to the State of Wyoming and Sublette County. This area of the JIDP will, based upon information obtained to date, have poorer reservoir quality than the southern portion of the field. This suggests that this area will require a higher well density to achieve the same recoveries as the southern portion of the field and, because of the poorer reservoir quality, is less able to support the incremental cost of directional drilling. Being required to meet the 19% threshold will preclude achieving similar well densities and ultimately recovering the resources. BP is committed to reducing our surface disturbance 

28
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

footprint. However, the use of directional drilling is a complex technical challenge and an expensive endeavor in the JIDPA. We will continue to address the challenges, but mandating directional drilling is something that must be re-assessed in the preferred alternative. The requested extended area to 34% would encroach near two leks, but still remain sufficiently away from five other identified leks. This request, if accepted, would still leave a 2.5-mile buffer of the 19% disturbance area in the northern portion of the JIDPA. Further, it is important to note that if the 34% disturbance area was extended as requested, an ongoing evaluation of resource impacts, as described in the DEIS, would take place. If those impacts were determined to be significant and adverse, offsite mitigation would be an alternative available to address those concerns. We fully support that approach as an important aspect in re-assessing the preferred alternative and adjusting the disturbance areas as requested. 

L-11 5 A1 Performance 

Objectives 

Air Quality Item: pp. 2-26, 1st Bullet; Airborne Emissions 

Comment: This section contains a number of air qualityrelated objectives BLM wants to achieve. These include avoiding near-field concentrations that exceed WAAQS or NAAQS, avoiding cumulative near-field concentrations greater than PSD Class II increments, avoiding cumulative far-field concentrations in Class I and Class II areas greater than PSD increments, avoiding decreases in visibility in Class I and II areas greater than established standards, avoiding decreases in Acid Neutralizing capacity in sensitive regional lakes greater than USFS levels of acceptable change, avoiding increases in total acid deposition in sensitive areas greater than deposition analysis thresholds; and avoiding cumulative deposition total loadings greater than USFS levels of concern. The BLM does not have jurisdiction for many of these programs. For example, meeting the WAAQS or the NAAQS as well as PSD compliance remains the jurisdiction of the Wyoming DEQ. It is also important that the Wyoming DEQ would be the agency that would work with the USFS on issues involving acid deposition. It would be recommended that these objectives be rewritten to acknowledge the Wyoming DEQ’s jurisdiction. Air quality performance objectives should only be based on monitoring data and 

BaHrBaqTpmc

29
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

not predicted modeling impacts. 

L-11 6 B Performance 

Objectives 

Soils Item: pp 2-26, 3rd Bullet 

Comment: This bullet states: “Maintain sediment erosion (salt and silt discharge rates) at WDEQ- and BLM-acceptable levels.” It is important that BLM provide what constitutes “acceptable levels” of sediment erosion. While not clear, the reference to erosion modeling that is being deferred until the FEIS could be a basis for these levels, although this is not stated. Once this has been accomplished, the BLM should work with the operators, with input from the Wyoming DEQ, to identify appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to accomplish this objective. Ultimately, the DEQ has primacy for the stormwater program in Wyoming which is designed to address this issue. Therefore, anything relating to sedimentation controls must defer to DEQ’s jurisdiction and responsibility for administering this program. 

EccmfspabspihrwrmcrIcoacpso

L-11 7 A1 Performance 

Objectives 

Wildlife Item: pp. 2-27, 1st Bullet 

Comment: This bullet states: “Plan development activities and interim and final reclamation to maximize and increase habitat patch sizes and reduce habitat fragmentation for sagebrush-obligate species.” This requirement is vague and somewhat confusing. It goes without saying that any interim and final reclamation would serve to reduce any fragmentation since the previous disturbance would be either partially reduced, or in the case of final reclamation, eliminated. This would be better worded to state: “Plan development activities to maximize and increase habitat patch size and reduce habitat fragmentation for sagebrush obligate species taking into account spacing requirements for the Jonah 

Mssdpsm

30
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Field.” 

L-11 8 E Performance 

Objectives 

Noise Item: pp. 2-27, 2nd Bullet 

Comment: This bullet states: “Limit any increase in production activity noise levels to 10-decibel or less increase above background noise levels, as measured at noise-sensitive resource locations (e.g., greater sagegrouse leks, occupied raptor nests).” First, a question exists how the noise readings will be taken. There is no information regarding a protocol to follow in taking the readings. For example, are the readings to be taken at the center or the outside edge of a lek or is to be taken at multiple locations in and around the lek then all the numbers averaged? Are wind screens to be used and is a limit on wind speed to be considered? Wind speeds typically over 5 mph are considered by many sound experts too high to avoid interference with obtaining an accurate sound reading. Is an averaging period to be used such as using a 10 or 15 minute duration? It is also important to note that background noise levels vary by time of day and seasonally. How and when are the readings to be taken and how are the variabilities in background noise to be accounted for in determining whether the 10 decibel level is met or exceeded? How will natural variables in sound be reflected in determining a baseline/background reading? Is the “A” weighted scale the sound meter setting for use in taking these readings? These questions and statements demonstrate the need to develop a protocol on how these noise readings are to be taken. 

LatpsNinhcaA m

L-11 9 A1 Performance 

Objectives 

Wildlife Item: pp. 2-27, 3rd Bullet 

Comment: This bullet states: “Minimize or reduce impacts to sagebrush and other habitats to maintain or minimize losses in the number of male greater sagegrouse on leks, numbers of sagebrush-obligate listed and sensitive species, and other wildlife”. This item is too broad and is not necessary. There are a large number of specific items regarding specific species in the DEIS that are more concise and useful than this language. For example, there are a number of seasonal restrictions in place for specific species that when followed meet this objective. There is no need to place an all-encompassing requirement that really adds very little toward accomplishing what is already being

BiTnba

31
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

achieved with other specific mitigation. Consequently, this item should be deleted from the FEIS. 

L-11 10 B Performance 

Objectives 

Wildlife Item: pp. 2-27, 4th Bullet 

Comment: This bullet states: “Maintain or improve currently active big game migration routes.” While maintaining is understandable, we are unclear as to what is anticipated for “improving” the routes. We are unaware of any biological criteria in existence for “improving” migration routes. If BLM has recommendations for improvement, these should be presented in the text or in the appendices. 

IuNcdat

L-11 11 B Performance 

Objectives 

Item: pp. 2-27, 5th Bullet Comment: This bullet states: “Reduce human activity per well pad in the JIDPA below current levels during both the development and production phases.” Again, this is a measure that is lacking specific definition. For example, what is considered “human activity”? What is the baseline to compare present human activity compared to future activities? There are already specific measures regarding traffic, car-pooling and telemetry at well sites that are all specific to meeting this objective. This measure has little value in light of the other more specific requirements and should be eliminated in the FEIS. 

TacahrToirpip

L-11 12 B Performance 

Objectives 

Water Resources 

Item: pp. 2-27, 6th Bullet Comment: This bullet states: “Prevent contamination of all surface and ground water.” It is unclear what criteria would be applied to this measure. Even if it was provided, it would be generated from the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality since they have jurisdiction for maintaining the quality of surface and groundwater in Wyoming. Therefore, this item is already in existence in the various state regulations administered by the DEQ and should be deleted from the FEIS. 

TtrjcwaEtarmWa(e

32
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

w

L-11 13 A1 Performance 

Objectives 

Technical Information 

Item: pp. 2-27, 7th Bullet Comment: This bullet states: “Utilize state-of-the-art technologies to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts.” This measure is too broad and provides no specificity as to how this would be achieved. What some perceive as the state of the art may be economically and technologically infeasible. Therefore, if this measure is to remain in the FEIS, the end of the sentence should include “...if economically and technologically feasible.” 

S

L-11 14 A1 Performance 

Objectives 

Item: pp. 2-27, 8th Bullet Comment: This bullet states: “Encourage Operators to participate in and support peer-reviewed research that evaluates impacts from development and effectiveness of applied mitigation.” This requirement should specify the intentions of the BLM and how this will be accomplished. It is difficult to determine if the operators will be expected to “support” research by being required to incur the costs. There should be caveats as to how this process will be administered to ensure flexibility; otherwise the measure should be stricken from the FEIS. Further, it is imperative that the information be reviewed by the agency to determine if any modifications are warranted. Therefore, an additional sentence should be added that reads: “BLM will review the information on a regular ongoing basis to determine, with input from the operators, where modifications in research plans are warranted. 

BrsOw

L-11 15 A Conditions of 

Approval 

Surface Disturbance 

On-Site Mitigation 

Item: pp. 2-27, 1st Bullet Comment: This bullet states: “Tracking surface disturbance area would be implemented by Operators, and Operators would provide BLM with federal geographic data committee (FGDC) –compliant metadata and geographic information system (GIS)/global positioning system (GPS) location data for all newly developed facilities and reclaimed areas within 30 days of completion of disturbance and reclamation activities. BLM would randomly verify these data.” This requirement requests that surface disturbance areas would be tracked by the operators. It requires that data for all newly developed facilities and reclaimed areas be 

BrctcmeaBtEacr

33
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

submitted within 30 days to BLM upon completion of disturbance and reclamation activities. It is recommended the information should only apply to longterm disturbance figures since that should be the ultimate measure of impact. The need to provide this information on all disturbance is not really relevant since the goal should be to track interim and final reclamation figures. Further, why require the information every 30 days? It would be easier and more efficient to catalogue the information once a year rather than every month. Any trends or thresholds could be better tracked in this manner. BP already submits interim reclamation information on an annual basis to the BLM and this would be a continuation of that procedure. We do not believe it is necessary to utilize FGDC/GIS/GPS techniques to track reclamation progress. If BLM feels strongly about acquiring data using site coordinates, then BLM should fund that effort. 

edbr

L-11 16 A Conditions of 

Approval 

Surface Disturbance 

Vegetation Item: pp. 2-27, 2nd Bullet 

Comment: This bullet states: “Well pad surface disturbance would be limited to a maximum of 7.0 acres for parent and multi- well pads, 4.0 acres for single-well well pads, and 2.0 acres for satellite well pads. These acreages include well pad, access road, pipeline, and topsoil and spoil piles.” These acreage limitations are too small when considering all the activities that are being combined. Of particular concern is the inclusion of topsoil and spoil piles as part of the disturbance figures. These items should not be included because they are typically stored on the perimeter of the cleared pad and do not require vegetation removal. In fact, our experience has shown that once the top soil and spoil material is removed from these areas, re-establishment of vegetation occurs relatively soon. In addition, while BP is striving to reduce our footprint, it is not possible to meet these disturbance figures when including pipelines also because of the varying length that may be needed. It is also questionable to include pipelines anyway considering the fact the disturbance is reclaimed so quickly. Further, the size of wellpad will vary depending upon whether the pad encounters complex terrain where more cut and fill translates to larger locations. Assuming topsoil and spoil material is removed from inclusion in the total disturbance, this section should have a 

TSuddatOHCauis FrsemwsOsosctt

34
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

sentence added at the end that reads: “These figures are averages across the field and some variability will be allowed depending upon terrain and other factors.” The 2.0 acres is too small for drilling a satellite well and instead 4.0 acres would be necessary. 

iiTtp

L-11 17 A Conditions of 

Approval 

Technical Information 

Item: pp. 2-27, 3rd Bullet Comment: This bullet states: “Hard-line fracturing processes would be required for all well pads when surface density is > 1 well pad/40 acres, and recommended when well pad surface density is < 1 pad/40 acres.” This is an emerging technology that is still being evaluated for all-weather application. Until this technique is further evaluated, assuming it will be used on a broad basis is inappropriate. Further, BP is concerned about what BLM is placing as a restriction in a project level EIS regarding completion techniques. If BLM has concerns about what type of completion technique should be used, this should be dealt with at the APD stage and should consider technical and economic feasibility. If adopted, this could potentially eliminate the use of newer technologies that could be less damaging to the environment. Fracturing based upon density then including as an overall field requirement is not necessary and should be eliminated from the FEIS. 

BwaisemrtuWtit bpfti“tAmtOstrewcBiOeas

L-11 18 A1 Conditions of 

Approval 

Technical Information 

Item: pp. 2-27, 4th Bullet Comment: This bullet states: “Operators would utilize 

TNO

35
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

flareless completions for all wells within the JIDPA unless proven on a case-by-case basis that flareless completions would be unsafe.” There is no need for the BLM to regulate flareless completions. The Wyoming DEQ is already in the process of developing a rule regarding this practice. This bullet should be either eliminated or be revised to reference Wyoming DEQ jurisdiction. 

ofCcnpcwuipaboouccjeodo

L-11 19 A Conditions of 

Approval 

Water Resources 

Surface Disturbance 

Item: pp. 2-28, 1st Bullet Comment: This bullet states: “Operators would begin piping produced water and condensate from all wells in the JIDPA to appropriate treatment or disposal facilities beginning no later than January 1, 2008; this would supersede previous decisions related to method of condensate disposal.” This requirement must include economic, operational and environmental considerations. There are some cases that the amount of water and condensate is so small that the justification for including it into a gathering system cannot be justified. At the same time, those locations would have low traffic volume from haul trucks due to the low volumes of water and condensate produced. There would also be concerns about the amount of surface disturbance needed. In addition, this requirement should only apply to new facilities yet to be built and consideration must be given to extend the 1/1/08 deadline until 3 years after the ROD is issued. There should also be a provision to allow exceptions to this requirement. 

TF

36
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

L-11 20 A1 Conditions of 

Approval 

Water Resources 

Soils Item: pp. 2-28, 2nd Bullet 

Comment: This bullet states: “To eliminate or minimize surface sediment discharge, all well pad and road construction shall comport WDEQ storm water discharge specifications, standards, and permitting requirements. Existing well pads and roads shall be retrofitted to meet this requirement as directed by the Authorized Officer. Based on site-specific analysis, BLM may require more stringent sediment control measures be implemented.” The DEQ has jurisdiction for storm water discharge and permitting requirements. Further, BLM has not completed the model for soil erosion and thus anticipating more stringent requirements is premature until the modeling is completed. 

AfhmpransmaptwsaiisrsBaswis aaaTtfisif 

L-11 21 A1 Conditions of 

Approval 

Economics Item: pp. 2-28, 4th Bullet 

Comment: This bullet states: “Centralization of development and production facilities would be maximized in the JIDPA.” This requirement should include a reference to economic, environmental, and technical feasibility. There could be areas of the field where centralization is not appropriate due to economic and technical factors. In addition, there could be cases 

TF

37
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

where environmental sensitivities make central facilities inappropriate (i.e., proximity to sensitive habitat). 

L-11 22 A1 Conditions of 

Approval 

Water Resources 

Item: pp. 2-28, 5th Bullet Comment: This bullet states: “All hydraulic structures would be engineered and designed by a certified civil engineer, utilizing hydraulic runoff modeling software, to ensure the structures are stable and erosion is minimized throughout the LOP.” This item is questionable for inclusion since this type of structure would be subject to the jurisdiction of the Army Corp of Engineers and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. If this type of oversight is necessary, it is something that would fall within the primacy of the COE. It should not be included in the FEIS. 

IwCipsprueuotctat

L-11 23 A1 Conditions of 

Approval 

Soils Item: pp. 2-28, 6th Bullet 

Comment: This bullet states: “All engineering for construction would be designed to minimize or mitigate cumulative impacts and minimize sedimentation at the JIDPA boundary.” BP recognizes the importance of controlling sediment, but this is regulated by the Wyoming DEQ through the stormwater management program and applicable best management practices. 

AfhmpransmaptwsaiisrsBas

38
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

wis aaat

L-11 24 A1 Conditions of 

Approval 

Technical Information 

Item: pp. 2-28, 7th Bullet Comment: This bullet states: “Operators would utilize closed drilling systems (no reserve pits) for all wells unless proven on a case-by-case basis that to do so would be technologically or economically infeasible. If reserve pits are approved, Operators would remove/vacuum fluids from reserve pits within 60 days of all wells on a pad being placed into production, to accelerate pit closure and reclamation.” BP is concerned this requirement is being mandated. BP will commit to consider the use of closed mud systems whenever appropriate, but there may be cases it is not feasible. It is important that closed systems do not eliminate the need to dispose of cuttings. As such, cuttings should be disposed of from the drill pad from where they were generated. Hauling these offsite will cause more traffic and would require a central facility for handling which would result in more surface disturbance. Pits are also crucial to our ability to perform completion operations. The 60-day limit is not appropriate since wintertime operations would not make meeting this obligation feasible or safe and is far too short a period to accomplish this task. Finally, there is no information in the DEIS that justifies imposing this requirement. The drilling mud systems being used by BP are water based and the risk to surface water or groundwater, based upon the nature of the drilling mud, is virtually nonexistent. Consequently, we would recommend the following change: “Operators are encouraged to utilize closed drilling mud systems as an option to reserve pits. If operators choose this option, they are allowed to dispose of cuttings onsite using a pit. If reserve pits are used, operators would remove/vacuum fluids within 180 days unless constrained by cold temperatures which would defer the 180 day requirement until such time as weather conditions allow the safe removal of liquids.” 

TsaichOdpetrtsJsTc

L-11 25 B Conditions of 

Approval 

Noise Item: pp. 2-28, 8th Bullet T

N

39
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Approval Comment: This bullet states: “New compressor sites 

would be located away from noise-sensitive resources or muffled appropriately to minimum noise standards.” This requirement is too vague. What is the definition of a “noise-sensitive receptor”? This can mean many different things. Further, a reference is made to noise standards. What are the noise standards? We are not aware of any noise standards either BLM or the State of Wyoming has developed. If they are developed, it should be done in a manner that allows a review by the regulated community before they are imposed. Therefore, this bullet should be eliminated until the definition of a receptor or standards are developed through a rulemaking process. 

rmisNinhcaA is le

L-11 26 A1 Conditions of 

Approval 

Wildlife Item: pp. 2-28, 10th Bullet 

Comment: This bullet states: “Well pads, access roads, and other above-ground facilities would not be located within 825 feet of any raptor nest, within 1,000 feet of ferruginous hawk nests, and within 2,640 feet of bald eagle nests.” This requirement must have the word “active” inserted before “raptor nest”, “ferruginous hawk nests” and “bald eagle nests”. Further, a sentence should be included that discusses the procedure to obtain exceptions to these setbacks. It should be noted that it is not uncommon to have a raptor species nest on equipment on one of our locations. In these cases, we would notify the USFWS before disturbing or moving a nest site. 

TchAdis dhc

L-11 27 F Conditions of 

Approval 

Wildlife Item: pp. 2-28, 11th Bullet 

Comment: This bullet states: “The following seasonal restrictions for activities near active raptor nests/roosting sites/foraging areas would be imposed: February 1 through July 31, within 0.5 mile of all active raptor nests; February 1 through July 31, within 1.0 mile of all active ferruginous hawk nests; February 1 through August 15, within 1.0 mile of all active bald eagle nests; November 1 through April 1, within 1.0 miles of active bald eagle communal winter roosts; and; November 15 through April 1, within 2.5 miles of all bald eagle winter foraging areas.” A concern exists with the bald eagle foraging areas. The 2.5-mile buffer around bald eagle winter 

AaApf

40
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

foraging areas is excessive. Bald eagles forage up to17.6 miles between their night roosts and their daytime feeding areas (Swisher 1964). To put a 2.5-mile buffer around such an extensive foraging area would not be reasonable or effective. Bald eagles forage over most of the state of Wyoming during the winter, including the suburbs of some towns, and most of the highway system. Such a 2.5-mile restriction would shut down most of the state of Wyoming during the winter; therefore this restriction should be eliminated from the FEIS. Finally, as above, a statement that exceptions to these seasonal restrictions can be obtained should be included in this bullet. 

L-11 28 A1 Conditions of 

Approval 

Wildlife Item: pp. 2-29, 1st Bullet 

Comment: This bullet states: “Surface disturbing and disruptive activities in greater sage-grouse winter concentration areas would be avoided from November 15 through March 14.” The current winter use stipulation as we understand it from other areas of Wyoming is to “avoid ephemeral draws dominated by basin big sage greater than 3 feet tall where possible.” This language should be adopted in the FEIS to clarify the concept of winter use areas. This language is more closely aligned with what is known about the limited severe winter relief habitat used by the birds during the deepest snows. 

Sbo

L-11 29 F Conditions of 

Approval 

Wildlife As pointed out in the WAFWA Greater Sage-grouse 

Conservation Assessment, winter habitats for sage–grouse are not limiting. We suspect Severe Winter Relief habitats may still need to be identified. Until this work is completed, we strongly suggest returning to the previously used sage-grouse winter habitat avoidance criteria of no disturbance in ephemeral drainages where basin big sage is greater than 3 feet tall (Continental Divide/Wamsutter II EIS). Winter is not generally a limiting factor in sage grouse populations (Call and Maser 1985), and, according to Beck and Braun (1978), may gain weight during the winter months. However, during severe winters of prolonged, deep snow, there are only a few areas where sagebrush is tall enough to remain available to sagegrouse above the snow. These areas, termed Severe Winter Relief (SWR) Habitats in a study conducted by Hayden-Wing Associates and the Rawlins Office of the 

Wlhmmi

41
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

BLM, are described in HWA (2004). It is important that these SWR habitats be identified as soon as possible to avoid the unnecessary protection of large areas of winter habitat that are not critical to sage-grouse survival. 

L-11 30 A Conditions of 

Approval 

Wildlife Item: pp. 2-29, 2nd Bullet 

Comment: This bullet states: “Surface-disturbing or disruptive activities in greater sage-grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitat within 2.0 miles of an occupied lek, or in identified greater sage-grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitat outside the 2.0-mile buffer, would be prohibited from March 15 through July 15.” This very broad statement does not have scientific justification, as it does not attempt to limit the seasonal restriction to habitats actually associated with an active lek or being used by hen sage-grouse. “Nesting and early brood rearing habitat” is broadly defined in the DEIS, the BLM IM and the statewide plan. This broad definition was not intended to be used to preclude activity in sagebrush ecosystems not being used by sage-grouse. The current timing stipulation for nesting sage-grouse is avoidance of the area within a 2-mile radius of a lek from March 15 to June 30. No scientific justification for the extended time line through July 15 has been provided. We recommend it be returned to June 30. The distance to which sage-grouse nesting habitat will be protected outside of the 2mile radius needs to be stated. The way the EIS reads now, nesting habitat could be protected for an indefinite distance beyond the 2-mile radius. An approach for determining how far beyond the 2-mile limit the protection of nesting habitat should extend was presented to the State Director of the Wyoming BLM on October 28, 2004 by Larry HaydenWing on behalf of the Petroleum Association of Wyoming. It is recommended that this approach be used for determining the location and amount of nesting habitat that should be protected around leks on the JIDPA. It is also necessary for the DEIS to acknowledge that sage-grouse timing stipulations can be modified or eliminated using exception, waiver, or modification criteria when appropriate surveys conclude no sageB

awRdiaJ

42
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

grouse activity is occurring. 

L-11 31 A Conditions of 

Approval 

Social Wildlife Item: pp. 2-29, 3rd Bullet 

Comment: This bullet states: “Surface disturbance and occupancy would be prohibited within 0.25 mile of the perimeter of greater sage-grouse leks, and human activity would be avoided between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. from March 1 through May 15.” We question how BLM will enforce this restriction given the availability of lek locations to bird watchers, the need for livestock operators to move their cattle and flocks of sheep and the need for oil field workers to go to work (generally before 9:00 am). During this three-month period, work in the lives of livestock operators and energy industry employees must continue, even though the grouse are strutting. Further, there should be provisions for obtaining exceptions when the leks are inactive. 

CtTsp

L-11 32 D Conditions of 

Approval 

Wildlife Item: pp. 2-29, 4th Bullet 

Comment: This bullet states: “Operators would inventory greater sage-grouse seasonal habitats within the JIDPA not already inventoried by BLM or WGFD within one year of the ROD for this project; GIS data would be provided to BLM, WGFD, and the JIWG with FGDC-compliant metadata.” This requirement is inappropriate to impose on the operators. This is routinely the responsibility of the Wyoming Game and Fish in conjunction with the BLM. There are cases of cooperative arrangements between the industry and the agencies that have taken place which should be the mechanism used in this case. 

Talo

L-11 33 A1 Conditions of 

Approval 

Wildlife Item: pp. 2-29, 5th Bullet 

Comment: This bullet states: “Operators would map prairie dog towns and provide all map data to BLM, WGFD, and the JIWG with FGDC-compliant metadata.” We question the need to include this requirement. This was already accomplished previously in association with other Jonah related NEPA analysis. Further, any updates to existing data sets should be the responsibility of the BLM. If industry wants to voluntarily cooperate in this effort that should be an option, but it should not be mandated. 

Talo

43
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

L-11 34 A Compensatory 

Mitigation 

Conditions of Approval 

Item: pp. 2-29, 6th Bullet Comment: This bullet states: “Three active and productive ferruginous hawk nesting territories, two burrowing owl nesting territories, and other raptor nesting territories would be maintained on and adjacent to the JIDPA; to the extent any of these may not be feasible, compensatory mitigation may be appropriate.” We are assuming these territories currently exist. A question exists as to how they are to be “maintained” and who is actually doing this evaluation. With the extent of development and the numerous mitigation measures being employed, these areas should be automatically maintained. We are concerned that if they become abandoned, would it be assumed that the cause and effect was with oil and gas and not other environmental factors? While we support the concept of offsite mitigation, some type of monitoring by BLM, or by BLM in cooperation with the operators, should occur so that an accurate cause and effect can be scientifically based.

Aaana srwlatdbwtcmm

L-11 35 A1 Conditions of 

Approval 

Transportation Item: pp. 2-29, 7th Bullet 

Comment: This bullet states: “Operator related vehicle and OHV traffic in the JIDPA would be limited to BLMapproved roads/trails and travel on non-all-weather roads would be avoided during saturated soil conditions to avoid impacts from rutting.” The reference to all nonweather roads is a concern. There are discussions in the DEIS regarding using two track trails for access to some well sites. If that option is exercised, well problems that occur during wet saturated periods would make corrective action/repair difficult if not impossible. This could be especially of concern if an emergency situation occurred that required immediate access. It should be included in this item additional sentences that read: “Non-all weather roads can be temporarily surfaced or other measures proposed to the authorized officer to obtain access during saturated periods. Emergency situations requiring immediate access are not subject to this guideline, but notification to BLM is required in these cases.” 

TF“wr

L-11 36 E Transportation Conditions of 

Approval 

Item: pp. 2-29, 8th Bullet Comment: This bullet states: “Operators would 

Tri

44
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

inventory all roads/trails in the JIDPA not already inventoried by BLM within one year of the date of the ROD for this project; GIS data would be provided to BLM, WGFD, and the JIWG with FGDC-compliant metadata.” Why is this being requested of the companies? BLM should have these data readily available in their road/right of way database or with individual APDs. If not, these data sources should be used to accomplish the task by the agency. 

OloBdBtchodmmmis 

L-11 37 A1 Conditions of 

Approval 

Vegetation On-Site 

Mitigation 

Item: pp. 2-29, 10th Bullet Comment: This bullet states: “Operators would be responsible for establishing viable site-stabilizing plant growth, as determined by the Authorized Officer, within 2 years of initiation of reclamation. Site-stabilizing plant growth would consist of indigenous species and/or ecologically comparable species as approved by the Authorized Officer. Within 5 years of initiation of reclamation, Operators must establish at least 50%, and within 8 years of initiation of reclamation establish at least 80%, of indigenous vegetative cover and species composition to maintain soil stability and provide nutritional value, palatability, and vegetative structure (i.e., habitat function). The initiation of reclamation would commence within 1 year of drilling and completion of the last well scheduled on a pad. In the event that more than one year would lapse between the drilling of wells on a pad, the Authorized Officer may require temporary site stabilization measures.” While BP understands the importance of reestablishing vegetation for areas no longer needed for our operations, this item fails to recognize variability in weather and precipitation that could make these timeframes difficult to achieve. In addition, if the expectation is to reestablish sagebrush, the timeframes are unrealistic. Therefore, this item should have qualifiers inserted that allow for flexibility and extensions of time due to weather limitations or other uncontrollable events and recognize that some species, such as indigenous sagebrush, will have to fall 

Bawr8cc8cc

45
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

into a different category for completing reclamation. 

L-11 38 A1 Conditions of 

Approval 

Health / Safety Item: pp. 2-30, 1st Bullet 

Comment: This bullet states: “Operators would maximize interim (production phase) well pad reclamation (reclaim up to the wellhead, or up to the wellhead and dehydrators and separators on those pads with central production facilities).” First, having vegetation re-established up to fired equipment could present a fire hazard. A buffer should be incorporated for this equipment. Therefore, a correction should be made that specifies a buffer of at least 10 feet be implemented between vegetation and fired equipment (separators, dehydrators, compressors) at central facilities as a safety precaution. Secondly, the anchor pattern around a well at a central facility can be maintained at the operator’s discretion for future well workovers. 

TFi2wcw

L-11 39 A Conditions of 

Approval 

On-Site Mitigation 

Item: pp. 2-30, 2nd Bullet Comment: This bullet states: “Field-wide interim and long-term reclamation plans would be submitted to BLM for approval no later than one year from the date of this ROD. Site-specific reclamation plans would be incorporated into all Surface Use Plans for APDs and Plans of Development for ROWs. A reclamation quality assurance/quality control monitoring program would be implemented by the Operators until development and interim (production phase) reclamation is completed to BLM standards.” The value of requiring field-wide plans seems questionable. As stated in the second sentence, the plans for reclamation are proposed by the operators and then stipulated in individual conditions of approvals for approvals by the BLM. If the quality assurance program is instituted to ensure reclamation is being achieved consistent with conditions of approval, then the need for an overall “plan” cannot be demonstrated. 

BriRQmw“lorft

L-11 40 A On-Site 

Mitigation 

Economics Conditions of 

Approval 

2.14.2.1 Resource Monitoring and Surveying BP is always willing to work collaboratively with the BLM and other important stakeholders in performing monitoring and surveying activity in areas were oil and gas development is occurring. In this section of Chapter 2 of the DEIS, it appears to BP that the monitoring and surveying that is being proposed is excessive. It is 

Fod

46
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

unclear from the descriptions for each of the proposed monitoring requirements what the rationale was to require monitoring and how the data that is collected will be used by the BLM and others. These points are discussed more specifically in our comments below. BP also believes that it is worth mentioning that monitoring and surveying should be done collaboratively. All options should be pursued to accomplish the monitoring that is finalized with the input of all available operator, agency, and third party resources. This work activity and its cost should not be borne 100% by the operators. 

L-11 41 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

Wildlife Conditions of 

Approval 

Item: pp. 2-30, 1st Bullet Comment: This bullet states: “Operators would continue supporting existing wildlife studies and monitoring efforts.” We would suggest a sentence be added that reads: “Data collected by these efforts will be reviewed by BLM for any changes necessary to the monitoring program.” 

CpB

L-11 42 A On-Site 

Mitigation 

Water Resources 

Conditions of Approval 

Item: pp. 2-30, 2nd Bullet Comment: This bullet states: “Operators would implement a ground water monitoring program for all water wells in or affected by activities in the JIDPA, with annual reports to BLM, JIWG, WSEO and WDEQ. Wells would be tested annually for general chemical constituents and total petroleum hydrocarbons, using WDEQ-approved methodology.” First, why does every well need to be sampled? The current EIS only requires to have to test on an annual basis for those water wells that encountered groundwater less than 300 feet. This should be extended for this EIS. The FEIS should specify what “general chemical constituents” means. We would recommend major cation and anion parameters and TPH (Method 418.1) and VOA Compounds (Method 8260) as a starting point in screening these wells. Second, the MCLs, where established by the State of Wyoming, would be the standards on which the results would be compared against. Lastly, the NEPA document that authorized current development stated that ground water monitoring would only be required for water wells that were identified to have shallow aquifers (<300 feet deep). The criteria for determining the water wells that require sampling and analysis should not 

TTmmlat

47
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

change as a result of this new NEPA analysis. 

L-11 43 A Conditions of 

Approval 

Vegetation Soils Item: pp. 2-30, 3rd Bullet 

Comment: This bullet states: “Operators would be required to conduct surveys of soils and vegetation types throughout the JIDPA in coordination with the BLM, and provide survey results to BLM within one year of the ROD for this project.” According to information in the DEIS, this has already been accomplished. Therefore, it should be eliminated from the FEIS. 

TvmiaapP

OfoNSaccwotrpppest

L-11 44 A On-Site 

Mitigation 

Water Resources 

Conditions of Approval 

Item: pp. 2-30, 4th Bullet Comment: This bullet states: “Operators would be required to conduct sixth-level watershed modeling throughout the JIDPA (including identification of current sediment discharge rates), and provide the results to BLM and WDEQ, contingent on availability of data.” It is unclear why this model is being required. Sixth level watershed models are run for large geographic areas. With the scale of this model and the fact its range far surpasses the area encompassing the JIDPA, it should be run by the agencies not the operators. BP is also questioning the need for this level of watershed modeling. With the application of storm water BMPs and with the distance of this project from surface water (New Fork River, Green River, and the Big Sandy River) it 

Ttagc

48
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

would seem the questions about impacts would not justify the need for this level of analysis. 

L-11 45 E On-Site 

Mitigation 

Wildlife Conditions of 

Approval 

Item: pp. 2-30, 5th Bullet Comment: This bullet states: “Operators would prepare and implement a Sensitive Species Survey and Monitoring Plan for BLM and WGFD approval that would determine the presence, distribution, and population trends of all federally-listed, proposed, candidate, BWS, and other species including amphibians, reptiles, passerine birds, and small mammals, throughout the JIDPA. Monitoring would be conducted annually for the LOP or until BLM determines that additional monitoring is not required. Operators would prepare an annual report for BLM, WGFD, and the JIWG. Survey results would be provided annually to the WyNDD with FGDCcompliant metadata.” This is a very open-ended requirement and could be costly. Why is “other species” included in this list? The operators will be conducting an inventory of federally listed, proposed, and BWS. This information will be forwarded to the BLM. At that point the agency should take the responsibility for synthesizing the information, not necessarily the operators. We also take exception to including “candidate species” since those could be subject to a petition that has not yet been subject to peer review through the listing process. Those species should not be given the same level of scrutiny as listed species. Finally, if this monitoring occurs, the monitoring needs to document positive effects and increases in wildlife species, not just deviations from the original condition or species composition. 

AaccaChasufbrgmscc

L-11 46 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

Water Resources 

Conditions of Approval 

Item: pp. 2-30, 6th Bullet Comment: This bullet states: “Operators would monitor first flush total suspended solids in coordination with WDEQ, BLM, and other agencies.” This is a requirement associated with surface discharge under NPDES. This is not being proposed by any of the operators within the JIDPA; therefore, this requirement should be eliminated from the FEIS. 

Fadc(oftdnoslo

49
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

fbaAcs“HwhCiPTrncCTrpco

L-11 47 B On-Site 

Mitigation 

Wildlife Conditions of 

Approval 

Item: pp. 2-31, 1st Bullet Comment: This bullet states: “Operators would be required to assist BLM and WGFD in monitoring greater sage-grouse movements to determine if populations are migratory.” This requirement seems vague. What is envisioned by the BLM regarding monitoring “movements” of sage-grouse?. This would be better incorporated into a compensatory/offsite mitigation plan. 

Tsdmwa

L-11 48 B On-Site 

Mitigation 

Compensatory Mitigation 

Conditions of Approval 

Item: pp. 2-31, 2nd Bullet Comment: This bullet states: “In coordination with BLM, Operators would monitor forage utilization on reclaimed areas throughout project development and into the full production phase.” This requirement is excessive and questions exist about how this would be accomplished. This information is critical to understanding the value of 

ll ti thi d t U til i f ti i il bl

ROmdsrc

50
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

collecting this data. Until more information is available on these aspects, BP cannot support this item. 

rBrtfs

L-11 49 B On-Site 

Mitigation 

Transportation Conditions of 

Approval 

Item: pp. 2-31, 3rd and 4th Bullets Comment: The third bullet states: “Operators would monitor traffic volume on collector roads and provide an annual report to BLM.” The fourth bullet states: “Operators would monitor the number of visits to well pads and provide an annual report to BLM.” There is no justification given for obtaining this information. Without additional information and justification, we suggest these two items be eliminated from the FEIS. 

Tgrisawwf“DJnrc

L-11 50 B On-Site 

Mitigation 

Conditions of Approval 

Noise Item: pp. 2-31, 5th Bullet 

Comment: This bullet states: “Operators would monitor noise near noise-sensitive resources and provide an annual report to BLM.” There is no definition as to what are considered “noise sensitive receptors”? In addition, as we stated in our comments on the 2nd bullet on Page 2-27, there are a host of technical considerations that must be developed for a protocol necessary to obtain noise readings not only for one site, but in a manner that will provide some level of consistency between sites. Further, if a “noise sensitive receptor includes raptor nests, then a particular effort would need some additional considerations designed into a monitoring plan. However, monitoring noise at active raptor nests after the young have fledged is not a scientific approach for determining noise levels that are pertinent. If noise is to be monitored, it needs to be done while the raptors are setting up their nest, during incubation, feeding of the young, and fledging of young. Equipment that transmits noise levels at the nest to remote receivers could be set up at nest sites that are likely to be used during the coming nesting season and left in place. Otherwise the noise levels that are documented during

NinhcaLatps

51
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

the non-nesting season will not be the same as those that occur during the nesting season. Wind direction will change over time as well as activity and noise levels produced at the well. Until such time as a definition for noise sensitive receptors is developed, and a protocol is developed for taking sound readings for assessing receptors like raptors, we object to an open-ended requirement like this one. 

L-11 51 A On-Site 

Mitigation 

Wildlife Conditions of 

Approval 

Item: pp. 2-31, 6th Bullet Comment: This bullet states: “In coordination with BLM and WGFD, Operators would monitor pronghorn antelope numbers on crucial winter ranges north and south of the JIDPA.” The need for the proposed monitoring of pronghorn on portions of their crucial winter ranges is not established in the EIS and is not logical as currently described. In fact, other statements in the document contradict the need for such a monitoring program. On page 4-90 it is stated that: “The proposed project would not affect any known pronghorn crucial winter range or bottle necks; therefore, it would not contribute to cumulative impacts to these habitat features.” Because the crucial winter ranges used by the pronghorn from the JIDPA are also used by pronghorn from other areas, how will it be possible to identify the animals that come from or pass through the JIDPA? Also, it is stated that: “Therefore, pronghorn numbers on their crucial winter ranges north and south of the JIDPA will be monitored in 2005.” However, no crucial winter range located south of the JIDPA is shown on the map on page 3-57 of the EIS. Consequently, this item should be eliminated in the FEIS. 

AaccaIJnhCa

L-11 52 A On-Site 

Mitigation 

Wildlife Conditions of 

Approval 

Item: pp. 2-31, 7th Bullet Comment: This bullet states: “Operators would monitor nesting of raptors, including ferruginous hawk, bald eagle, and burrowing owl, greater sage-grouse lek attendance; and occurrence of other sagebrush-obligate species.” This item is already being performed as part of the annual wildlife monitoring and protection planning work that is currently occurring in the Jonah Field. It should be recognized as such and not be presented as a new requirement. 

AiMR

L-11 53 A On-Site Transportation Site-Specific Item: pp. 2-31, 1st Bullet A

52
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Mitigation Conditions of 

Approval Comment: This bullet states: “Convert resource roads 

to 2-tracks during interim reclamation.” This practice may be applicable to other types of oil and gas operations in different areas of the Rocky Mountains, but it should be carefully applied in the JIDPA and remain discretionary with the operators. All weather roads need to be maintained as such. In the absence of all-weather roads, the ability to access wells for workovers and repairs would be precluded during wet periods. If this occurred, wells could be shut-in for extended periods. However, if operators choose to convert roads to twotrack trails, those efforts should be recognized as part of reclamation against total long-term disturbance. 

pCcadofofcwfTbectTtsccbsTtactrbparadarSt

L-11 54 E Site-Specific Visual Item: pp. 2-31, 3rd Bullet T

53
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Conditions of Approval 

Resources 

Comment: This bullet states: “Monitor night lighting mitigation effectiveness in coordination with BLM.” This item is unclear as to the intent. What standard exists to determine “lighting mitigation effectiveness”? We are not aware of any VRM objectives that relate to nighttime standards. Without this information, we cannot judge the appropriateness of this item. 

cmlbcdncap

L-11 55 A Site-Specific 

Conditions of Approval 

Soils Item: pp. 2-31, 4th Bullet 

Comment: This bullet states: “Spoil piles would be contoured to blend with surrounding topography and be contemporaneously reclaimed.” Spoil piles will be used after pits are dried and interim reclamation begins. Due to the planned compressed time frame for this to occur, the need to perform this level of effort cannot be justified.

TpsidBOsaowl

L-11 56 A Compensatory 

Mitigation 

On-Site Mitigation 

Economics BP is certainly open and willing to entertain opportunities 

for the use of compensatory mitigation. However, BP still contends that is should be completely voluntary and the following additional conditions should apply: The analysis that is performed or other scientifically based information that is presented specifically identifies the resource values that may be “significantly” impacted by the proposed level of development. The compensatory mitigation is only required in those situations when mitigation of impacts cannot be accomplished on-site through the use of reasonable and economically viable mitigation techniques. The compensatory mitigation is applied to offset impacts to only those resource values “significantly” impacted to the point of being determined to be unavoidably adverse (i.e. sage grouse habitat negatively impacted by development will result in sage grouse habitat being enhanced offsite). If impacts are determined to be unavoidably adverse and compensatory mitigation is agreed to be necessary,

Tcr

54
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

there should be a recognition that mitigation on-site is not possible and will not be effective. Therefore, any additional on-site mitigation specific to that resource value, should not be required. Operators should not be asked to pay for on-site mitigation that has been deemed to be ineffective in mitigating the impacts and then also be required to implement potentially costly offsite mitigation as well. BLM must recognize that most development areas include multiple industry operators. Compensatory mitigation may be brought forward by an operator(s) that does not represent all those in a development area. When the compensatory mitigation passes from voluntary to a requirement in a project authorization, the requirement for compensatory mitigation should only impact the operator(s) that included the commitment for off-site mitigation in their plan of development. It should not impact those operators that were not consulted or were consulted and did not agree with the details of the proposal for compensatory mitigation 

L-11 57 A1 Wildlife Item: pp. 3-63, par. 2 

Comment: The status and history of the sage grouse in the U.S. and Wyoming are described in a negative and misleading manner. The following facts should be included in this text: “(1)The Fish and Wildlife Service has recently made a determination of not warranted for listing for this species, and (2) Wyoming populations have stopped declining and are still robust enough for the continuation of annual hunting seasons.” 

Siyg

L-11 58 A Air Quality NEPA Public 

Participation 

While it is unclear at this time as to the reasons for performing a supplemental analysis for air quality, BP strongly urges BLM to convene a stakeholder work group to provide additional explanation regarding the forthcoming analysis and solicit stakeholder input that could prove valuable toward the supplemental work product. 

TiwFDrPaJGiB

55
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

waPtvoaiPAUsamt

L-11 59 E Alternatives On-Site 

Mitigation 

Topography Item: pp. 4-29, 4.1.3.10 BLM Preferred Alternative 

Comment: The last sentence of this section concludes that despite the mitigation measures included in Section 2.14, significant impacts may occur to topography. This conclusion must assume that the only mitigation being applied to the project is derived from Section 2.14. Did this conclusion consider all the other mitigation that is included in Appendices A, B, and G? There are a large number of additional mitigation items beyond those discussed in Section 2.14 that would apply to topography. With that being the case, we question the conclusion about impact significance and suggest BLM review the statement in the DEIS. 

MciifltteiG dtpadmi

L-11 60 A Analysis On-Site 

Mitigation 

Topography Item: pp. 4-29, 4.1.3.11 Cumulative Impacts 

Comment: The statement is made in the 3rd paragraph that “significant impacts to topography are anticipated under the Proposed Action and Alternatives A, C, D, F and G.” We question this conclusion for the reasons stated above in Section 4.1.3.10 considering the mitigation being proposed that would directly apply to topography. These can be found in Section 2.14 and Appendices A, B, and G. 

PmntpL

56
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

L-11 61 A Technical 

Information 

Item: pp. 4-29 - 4-33, All Subsections Comment: We have been advised by EnCana that the recovery factor provided by them was not properly applied by the BLM. BP requests that the correct recovery factor be reflected in the FEIS for all alternatives in this section. 

Ff

L-11 62 A Analysis Economics Item: pp. 4-33, 2nd paragraph 

Comment: This paragraph contains a sentence regarding earthquake frequency. We question the need to design facilities to withstand the effects of moderate earthquakes. This could be a significant expenditure to design to parameters for a low, and possibly, no risk. With the low probability of an earthquake, the option should remain with the operators and not be imposed. 

Trf

L-11 64 E Alternatives On-Site 

Mitigation 

Item: pp. 4-49, 5th paragraph Comment: A reference is made to “additional mitigation measures would be applied to facilitate achievement of specific management objectives and to minimize impacts to resources.” Why is this statement only applicable to the preferred alternative? With all the mitigation proposed in the DEIS, including Chapter 5 and Appendix B, sufficient mitigation should exist to enable the same conclusion to be made about the Proposed Action. 

TpAtmcidtrBomPPf

L-11 65 A Compliance Item: pp. 4-53, 1st paragraph 

Comment: A reference is made that accidental contamination is possible, but would be mitigated through a groundwater clean-up program determined by the EPA. This type of remediation would be coordinated by the Wyoming DEQ, not the EPA. 

Cso

L-11 66 A Water 

Resources 

Technical Information 

Item: pp. 4-53, 3rd paragraph Comment: The last sentence includes a reference to produced water being purified and reused. Currently there are no plans that have identified a produced water purification process that is successful either technically or economically. BP is aware that some companies are 

TrDewct

57
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

considering the options to treat produced water, however nothing definitive has been proposed. BP would like to see a technology that would allow for the purification of produced water so this fluid could be re-used in other oil field applications. BP has tested a couple of treatment technologies with limited success. 

iEwans“wf

L-11 67 A1 Water 

Resources 

Item: pp. 4-55, 3rd full paragraph, The Proposed ActionComment: The second sentence reads: “However, fresher ground water would be consumed and more poor-quality water would be produced because more gas wells would be drilled”. While this statement is true, what is the significance of it relative to groundwater. BP’s produced water is currently being deep injected, through a permit with the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. We would suggest this sentence be removed from the FEIS. 

Tcosci

L-11 68 A Analysis Water 

Resources 

Surface Disturbance 

Item: pp. 4-60, 1st full paragraph, BLM Preferred Alternative Comment: A sentence reads “Impacts to surface water resources under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to those described under the Proposed Action and other alternatives; however, impacts are expected to be proportional to the amount of new initial surface disturbance”. This conclusion is questionable. It is important to note that impacts based upon initial disturbance are too conservative and likely to overstate impacts. There are a number of reclamation measures, including a reclamation plan, to implement interim reclamation to reduce initial disturbance. While there will be a period before interim reclamation occurs, we would caution against making impact conclusions on short term disturbance and instead emphasize long term reclamation. We would also note that Best Management Practices associated with stormwater management plans can be very effective in reducing sedimentation. It has been shown that reductions of over 50 percent are achievable with the proper installation and maintenance of Best Management Practices (BMPs). Therefore, it is critically important that reductions in sediment reflect the use of BMPs

By not including the

Wrordktf

58
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

sediment reflect the use of BMPs. By not including the effectiveness to the BMPs overstates the impacts from sedimentation; therefore all alternative and the cumulative impacts sections in the FEIS should reflect sedimentation figures from BMPs. We would also note that the model being used for estimating sedimentation should take these BMPs into account. 

Wecaa

L-11 69 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

Compensatory Mitigation 

Item: pp. 4-61, 4.1.8.12, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts, 1st paragraph Comment: The first sentence should have the phrase added: “however, the proper use of mitigation and best management practices should reduce these impacts.” 

T4“is uaceiitie

L-11 70 A Analysis Noise Item: pp. 4-62, 4th paragraph 

Comment: A sentence states that compressor noise would be between 64 and 86 dBA and between 58 and 75 at approximately 1.0 mile away. The noise levels a mile away, using the levels shown from the sites, are incorrect. As stated in this paragraph, with every doubling of distance, you attenuate the noise 6 dBA. 

Awcotba

59
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Consequently, the levels a mile away would be between 36 and 58 not 58 and 75 as shown. Further, it should be stated that the actual readings could lower when accounting for terrain features. 

TaJcleed

L-11 71 A Noise Analysis Item: pp. 4-62, 5th paragraph 

Comment: The statement is made that noise may be heard 20 miles away. The sound mitigation operators are undertaking does not justify this statement. Additionally, if the reference is being made to completion flowback flaring, it should be noted that this particular noise is short term and intermittent and is being mitigated through the use of green completions technology. Another statement is made in the last sentence of this paragraph about the residents concern over project noise and how it affects their quality of life. The DEIS contains no information on which this conclusion is based. If there is no quantitative data to support this statement, it should be removed from the FEIS. 

Tbwg

L-11 72 A Noise Air Quality Item: pp. 4-62, 6th paragraph 

Comment: This paragraph discusses the distance at which noise and odors would extend away from a source. This statement requires additional justification and should refer to the types of chemicals being used and constituents being produced. Based upon the constituents being produced and chemicals and quantities being used, this seems very unlikely. 

TiittVChqa

L-11 73 A Noise Wildlife Analysis Item: pp. 4-63, 1st paragraph 

Comment: The statement that noise has already contributed to the apparent decrease in wildlife on and adjacent to the JIDPA with observed decreases in raptor nesting activity and productivity, male greater sagegrouse lek attendance and sage grouse nesting within the JIDA cannot be justified. In order to make the conclusion that wildlife is being impacted from noise, incremental noise levels from the JIDPA should have 

Nbmna

60
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

been monitored over time compared to the data on wildlife populations. To our knowledge, this has not been done and thus making an all-encompassing conclusion is not appropriate. 

L-11 74 A Noise Analysis On-Site 

Mitigation 

Item: pp. 4-63, 3rd paragraph Comment: This paragraph contains a sentence that concludes there will be significant impacts from noise and odor within the JIDPA and vicinity under all alternatives. We completely disagree with this conclusion. To make this conclusion fails to recognize the effectiveness of mitigation that will be used to reduce noise. The EIS does not include quantitative details about the attenuation of noise from mufflers, barriers, and other techniques that will reduce noise at the source. Without this information, concluding that significant impacts will occur is without merit. 

NmJn

L-11 75 A Analysis Noise On-Site 

Mitigation 

Item: pp. 4-65, Preferred Alternative Comment: This subsection states that implementation of measures shown in Section 2.14 would decrease noise and odor impacts. As our comments to Section 2.14 indicated, there are a number of specifics relating to noise mitigation in this section that must be developed before this conclusion can be made. However, we believe that the noise mitigation as described in Appendix B would accomplish the same level of reduction currently proposed in Section 2.14. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative cannot be justified as providing substantially higher impact reduction compared to the Proposed Action. 

NaTadBitmowa

L-11 76 A Analysis Noise Item: pp. 4-66, Cumulative Impacts 

Comment: This section states that the CIAA area for noise includes the JIDPA plus a 20 mile buffer as well as a 2.0 mile buffer for odor. As stated previously, there is no technical justification provided nor can we find any reference that supports a 20-mile noise impact area around the JIDPA. We also question the 2.0-mile buffer for odor unless it is based upon the chemical and quantities being used. We would suggest that BLM provide more specific information on how the buffers were established. The last sentence of this section that cumulative impacts are anticipated to be greatest under the Proposed Action 

Tttba mbiNt

61
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

and Alternative A. This conclusion cannot be supported without first understanding the noise reduction that would be realized by the Operator Committed Practices found in Appendix B, pp. B-8 and B-9. 

L-11 77 A Analysis Vegetation On-Site 

Mitigation 

Item: pp. 4-68, 4.2.1 Vegetation; 4th full paragraph Comment: The statement is made that significant impacts are anticipated to vegetation in the JIDPA through loss of habitat, forage, and soil protection....... Then in the last sentence of the paragraph the statement is made that “Under all alternatives, specific management requirements and mitigation measures would be implemented; therefore, impacts to vegetation would also be relative to the effectiveness of these additional measures”. These two sentences conflict one another. Although we recognize the intent of the last sentence, how can a conclusion that significant impacts will occur until the effectiveness of mitigation measures are assessed. With the amount of mitigation and monitoring being proposed, the impact conclusion being made does not appear to be supportable. 

Esain(ssbutsSiL

L-11 78 A Transportation Water 

Resources 

Analysis Item: pp. 4-73, BLM Preferred Alternative; 3rd full 

paragraph Comment: This paragraph refers to direct impacts to waters of the U.S. as a result of road and pipeline crossings. These impacts are short term and temporary. Further, these types of crossings are authorized by rule under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act under the Corps of Engineer’s Nationwide Permit Program provided the terms and conditions of the permit program are met. In the same paragraph, a conclusion is made regarding indirect impacts to wetlands and waters of the U.S. Until the sediment model is run, this conclusion is premature. 

TaFfpeemtt“

L-11 80 A Wildlife Item: pp. 4-76, 2nd and 3rd full paragraphs 

Comment: These paragraphs discuss habitat fragmentation. Throughout the EIS, the loss of sagebrush habitat is described as a negative impact because of the effects it could have on sagebrush obligate species. While negative effects on sagebrush obligate species are likely, such disruption of sagebrush habitats will have positive effects on wildlife species that require more open or mixed sagebrush/herbaceous 

Jcra 

62
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

habitats. Habitat modification in itself is not necessarily negative. It is a well-accepted ecological principle that alterations in habitats, including those produced by biotic succession, will make such habitats less suitable for some species while simultaneously making them more suitable for other species (Stiling 1992, Odum 1971, Smith 1974). The modeling results, regarding habitat fragmentation, that are presented in Maps 4.2 through 4.5 illustrate the potential reductions in largely sagebrush habitats on the JIDPA and the text in Chapter 4 describes the projected loss in sagebrush obligate species. What is overlooked in this presentation is the fact that there will be beneficial effects to non-sagebrush obligate species associated with each of these scenarios. Prairie dogs, ground squirrels, burrowing owls, grassland birds (including mountain plovers), and most medium to small mammal species will all benefit from the opening up of the sagebrush monoculture. Also, prey base for raptor species is likely to be increased with the opening up of the sagebrush habitat. This information should be included in the FEIS. 

L-11 81 A Wildlife Item: pp. 4-82, Pronghorn 

Comment: In much of the document, the pronghorn is incorrectly referred to as pronghorn antelope. The pronghorn does not belong to the antelope family whose members have permanent and mostly spiral horns. The pronghorn has deciduous horns that are shed and grown back annually. This correction should be made in the FEIS. 

Taa& tac

L-11 82 A Vegetation Wildlife Item: Page 4-82, paragraph 1 

Comment: The potential for impact to pronghorn associated with probable changes to the spring/summer/fall habitat is not accurate because changes in vegetation are likely to be beneficial to pronghorn, not harmful. Both the natural succession that follows disturbance and the re-vegetation of disturbed areas is likely to improve spring/summer/fall pronghorn habitat by increasing the diversity of herbaceous plants. Mature shrubs in this habitat are not of great value to pronghorn, but the young regenerating shrubs will add to the forage diversity and increase the value of this 

Bpbm

63
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

habitat. The evaluation of impacts in this paragraph is more appropriate for crucial winter range than they are for spring/summer/fall habitat. Pronghorn are not sagebrush obligates during the spring, summer, and fall when then eat a wide variety of herbaceous forage plants and relatively little sagebrush (Beale and Smith 1970, Dirschl 1963, Schwartz and Nagy 1976, Irwin et al. 1984). 

L-11 83 A Wildlife Vegetation On-Site 

Mitigation 

Item: Page 4-82, paragraph 2 Comment: In this paragraph it is stated that: “However, as noise and human presence are reduced, pronghorn likely would increase their use of these areas (e.g., during production operations), although probably not to the same extent as prior to disturbance.” This conclusion appears to be based upon speculation and is not referenced to a scientific reference. It is not unlikely that use of these areas by pronghorn would increase following the completion of the development phase of the project as an increase in herbaceous vegetation occurs as a result of natural succession and reclamation efforts. 

Tjb

L-11 84 E Wildlife Analysis Item: pp. 4-82, paragraph 3 

Comment: Although no scientific literature is cited to support the statement, it is stated that: “Because the Jonah Infill Project would disturb pronghorn summer/spring/fall range, it is reasonable to assume that the project would have some adverse impacts to pronghorn populations as a result of direct habitat removal and a reduction in habitat function on areas adjacent to development activities.” Based on the lack of scientific evidence to back up this statement and the facts that: (1) pronghorn adapt to human presence and habitat changes, and (2) that the spring/summer/fall habitat is more likely to be improved than impacted, it maybe reasonable to assume that there may not be adverse impacts on pronghorn populations and that there might be positive affects? We would urge the BLM to consider this alternative to the conclusion being made.

Tjb

L-11 85 A Wildlife Item: pp. 4-83, paragraph 2 

Comment: A conclusion is made that: “some of these movements are likely to be hindered under most, if not 

Tjb

64
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

all, of the development alternatives.” Given the proven ability of this species to adapt to human presence, it is not apparent these movements will be negatively modified. 

L-11 86 A1 Wildlife Item: pp. 4-83, Furbearers, Small Game, and Other 

Mammals; 2nd paragraph. Comment: the 2nd sentence states that: “The ability of the lands within the JIDPA to support furbearers, small game, and other mammals likely would decrease from current levels due to habitat loss and human disturbance.” This statement does not take into consideration that non-sagebrush obligate species that thrive in open, herbaceous habitats are going to benefit and increase their numbers as sagebrush habitats are reduced. This perspective should be included in the FEIS. 

Tsdr

L-11 87 F Wildlife On-Site 

Mitigation 

Item: pp. 4-84, Raptors; paragraph 1 Comment: A statement is made that “Reduction in raptor prey species also is likely to occur as a result of the surface disturbance of up to two-thirds of the JIDPA (the amount of disturbance would depend on the alternative).” There is no scientific basis to this statement nor is it an accurate statement. This concern can also be found in the next paragraph of this page. Most of the prey base of the raptor species that occur on the JIDPA is not produced in the sagebrush habitats, but in more open herbaceous habitats. Because these are the habitats that are going to be increased by development, it follows that increases in raptor prey base species is likely to occur. Such an increase in prey base is likely to increase raptor productivity. A comparison of the density of active nests of American kestrels on the Jonah II Project Area (JIIPA) and the Jonah Wildlife Study Area (JWSA) between 2003 and 2004 indicates that prey base density on the Jonah II Project Area may already be increasing. Assessments of TRC raptor data for these two areas and years were conducted by Hayden-Wing Associates and indicate that prey base density for this species may be higher on the JIIPA than on the JWSA. The density of active nests of the American kestrel 

AiMR

65
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

increased dramatically on the JIIPA in 2004. It also increased on the JWSA, but the increase was not as great as on the JIPA. Analyses show that there were approximately the same densities of active kestrel nests per township on the JIIPA in 2003 as there were on the JWSA (0.72 v.0.87, respectively). However, in 2004 there were 2.51 active kestrel nests on the JIIPA and 1.56 active nests on the JWSA. The increase of active kestrel nests on the JIIPA was 248.6% between 2003 and 2004, while the increase during this same time period on the JWSA was 79%. Although the collection data would be required to demonstrate the reason for this difference in nest densities between the two areas, it is not unlikely that the reduction in sagebrush habitats on the JIIPA has increased the prey base for kestrels (grasshoppers are a major prey base item) more than it has increased on the JWSA. Because kestrels eat a lot of insects like grasshoppers, it may be that they are the first raptor species to respond to expected increases in raptor prey base. Insects breed faster than small mammals. In a few more years it is possible that the small mammal population will increase more on the JIIPA than on the JWSA and that there will be a corresponding increase in the density of active nests of other raptor species. Monitoring of raptor densities and small mammal densities on the JIIPA and JWSA should continue so that changes in densities of active raptor nests can be correlated with changes in small mammal densities on the two areas. This type of an approach for monitoring should be included in the FEIS. 

L-11 88 A1 Wildlife Item: pp. 4-85, 2nd full paragraph; last sentence 

Comment: The sentence states: “Maintaining large continuous tracts of suitable habitat protected from disturbance is critical to the sustainability of greater sage-grouse populations.” This statement seems to be an overstatement of the necessity of large continuous tracts. It is recommended the sentence be re-worded to read: “Maintaining adequate continuous tracts of suitable habitat protected from excessive removal of sage grouse is critical to the sustainability of greater sage grouse populations.” 

Tss

L-11 89 C Wildlife Item: pp. 4-86, Other Birds 

Comment: Even though the diversity and density of 

Tsd

66
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

sagebrush-obligate bird species is likely to occur as a result of the removal of sagebrush habitats, the diversity and density of non-sagebrush obligates will increase concurrently. This mixture of obligate and non-obligate species in the habitat mosaic produced by development could increase the total diversity and density of bird species beyond current levels. Changes such as this should be documented. A negative impact to sagebrush habitat is likely to be a positive impact for non-sagebrush obligate species. 

r

L-11 91 F Wildlife Item: pp. 4-93, paragraph 1 

Comment: The statement is made that “raptors using the JIDPA and CIAA for nesting and foraging would experience continued adverse effects within nesting and foraging territories, which would likely lead to reduction in the regional reproductive success of raptors in the CIAA”. The statement that regional reproductive success of raptors in the CIAA is likely to be reduced is speculation and cannot be substantiated without comparing productivity on an experimental study area that is located on the JIDPA to one or more control study areas that are located outside the JIDPA and away from oil and gas development. Many raptor researchers feel that the availability of prey species is the greatest factor regulating raptor populations (Grant et al. 1991, Galushin 1974, Phelan and Robertson 1978, Smith and Murphy 1979, Smith et al. 1981, and Korpimake 1984). 

Brhdsccottm

L-11 92 E Wildlife Item: pp. 4-93, Game Birds; paragraph 3 

Comment: If, as stated, “the magnitude of impact resulting from that disturbance is unknown”, how is it possible to say that the “anticipated cumulative effects on the continued apparent decline in regional greater sage-grouse populations would be significant?” To what extent is the apparent decline in regional greater sagegrouse populations due to the extended drought the region is experiencing? This information should be included in the discussion on game birds. According to the Wyoming Game and Fish figures during 2004 (with exception of the Northeast part of the state) populations of sage grouse were found to be increasing. This would suggest the statement regarding a regional decline in greater sage grouse populations is overstated. 

TjbSpw

67
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

L-11 93 A Wildlife Item: pp. 4-96, 4.2.3 Threatened, Endangered, 

Proposed, and Candidate and BLM Wyoming Sensitive Species; 3rd full paragraph Comment: The statement is made that “Significant impacts to BWS species are anticipated within the JIDPA under all alternatives (most notably to sagebrushobligate species”. The first concern with this statement is a broad all-encompassing comment that would apply to the Wyoming BLM’s sensitive list. This list has a number of species on it and to categorize all of them being significantly impacted is a generalization that should be avoided. As discussed in our comments above, not all sagebrush obligate species will be negatively affected by the project. In fact, one species, the mountain plover, would be an example where their habitat would be improved by the proposed project. To properly assess this situation will require a list of the BWS species and what impacts are attributable to each one from the proposed action. In the absence of this approach and have the information available, this conclusion should not be included in the FEIS or at least be tempered recognizing the variability in impacts depending upon species. 

Sd

L-11 94 A Alternatives OperatorCommitted 

Practices 

Item: pp. 4.3.10, BLM Preferred Alternative; 2nd paragraph Comment: The first sentence states that under the Preferred Alternative, additional mitigation and monitoring measures would be applied to minimize impacts which refers to Section 2.14. Interestingly, when reviewing Section 2.14, there is not a single item listed that directly refers to Cultural and Historical Resources. Conversely, the Operator Committed Practices have seven measures that would be used in the Proposed Action. 

TprdpinDvhpcGrbRaTa

68
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

rppsn

L-11 95 E Recreation Item: pp. 4-137, Recreation; 1st full paragraph 

Comment: The statement is made that long term displacement or elimination of existing dispersed recreation due to increased levels of gas field development activity is anticipated as well as a conclusion that recreational visitors would likely avoid the JIDPA because of a perceived reduction in the quality of the recreational experience. While these statements could be true, what are the conclusions based upon. Does BLM have data regarding visitor days historically to the area which is now the JIDPA and if so do those numbers support the conclusions in these sentences? Are there studies that support the conclusions in the DEIS that reflect the views of recreationists in the vicinity of the JIDPA. In the absence of this data, we would urge the BLM to use caution regarding the impacts on recreation in the JIDPA. 

TBwdvurBawwamhu

L-11 96 A Recreation Item: pp. 4-139, Cumulative Impacts; 3rd paragraph 

Comment: The last sentence states that current users may be adversely affected by increase use, overcrowding, and or a feeling that the quality of the recreation experience of solitude has been decreased. This conclusion is very subjective without a reference to a survey or research regarding these impacts. While we can agree that some people may have concerns about development, others may see it differently. With this being the case, it is difficult to justify an adverse conclusion with the subjective nature of perception used by people. 

S

L-11 97 A Recreation Item: pp. 4-139, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Comment: This section concludes that unavoidable adverse impact to recreation will occur due to the likely avoidance of the JIDPA by recreational users. Again, for reasons stated above, concluding that impacts to recreation are adverse appears excessive based upon a subjective set of considerations. 

S

69
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

L-11 99 A Transportation Item: pp. 4-144; Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Comment: The conclusion in this sentence states that “unavoidable adverse impacts to transportation would occur for the LOP primarily as a result of increased traffic and the expanded road network. There are no statements in this section that support this conclusion. With all the mitigation being proposed and the transportation plan drafted, this conclusion is not supportable. 

IjtetIauLt

L-11 100 A Visual 

Resources 

On-Site Mitigation 

Item: pp. 4-146 BLM Preferred Alternative; 2nd paragraph Comment: A statement is made in the first sentence regarding additional mitigation and monitoring that would be applied to minimize impacts found in Section 2.14. BLM has also identified additional visual mitigation measures in the section on Operator Committed Practices that are designed to further reduce visual impacts. However, this area is classified VRM Class IV which provides for modification of the landscape. However, the level of visual mitigation ultimately applied in either 2.14 and in the Operator Committed Practices is not commensurate with VRM Class IV. Some of the measures listed in Section 2.14 go beyond these criteria, such as piping water and condensate or centralizing development and production facilities, and should be removed from the proposal. 

TtrrprpatvrBytrtflamHmtBicrtor

L-11 101 A Visual 

Resources 

Alternatives Item: pp. 4-147, Cumulative Impacts; 2nd paragraph 

Comment: A sentence states that all project alternatives within the JIDPA and its incumbent development coupled with other regional developments are visible and 

Tasst

70
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

may dominate the viewscape from VRM Class II and III areas, some sections of Hwy 191 and nearby wilderness and wilderness study areas within the CIAA; and concludes that significant cumulative impacts to regional visual resources will occur. Considering the distance of the JIDPA off Hwy 191 and the fact that most of the facilities are located out of the viewshed from Hwy 191, it is difficult to justify this conclusion. Even in cases where smoke or plumes are evident from operations in the JIDPA, these are short term and intermittent and would have no permanent visual impact on VRM Class II or Class III areas nor along Hwy 191. It is recognized from a cumulative aspect that development on the S. Pinedale Anticline could be visible in certain settings, but to conclude that significant cumulative impacts to regional visual resources, taking into account the distance to wilderness areas, appears to be an inappropriate generalization. It is recommended that this conclusion be eliminated from the FEIS. 

vosopna

L-11 102 A Visual 

Resources 

Air Quality Item: pp. 4-147, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Comment: The DEIS states the expansion of gas development facilities, and various development effects (e.g., haze, smoke plumes, nighttime lighting effects on regional star gazing) and associated roads would be an unavoidable adverse impact to visual resources on the JIDPA and at locations where it is visible outside the JIDPA. Considering the Class IV designation to this area and the relative difficulty in viewing the JIDPA other than by the air, this conclusion is not appropriate. We recommend eliminating this finding from the Final EIS. 

Taiaducaelvelarwadr

L-11 103 A On-Site 

Mitigation 

Item: pp. 4-152, 1st paragraph Comment: The statement is made that “The Operators have committed to funding a Cumulative Impacts Mitigation Fund (CIMF) to offset impacts of their proposed Jonah Infill development”. Further, a statement reads: “...Operators have suggested a hypothetical amount of $850.00 for every acre of new initial 

TmFmospb

71
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

disturbance authorized in the JIDPA, above a threshold of 11,000 acres.” BP supports the concept of a CIMF associated with the Proposed Action, but BP never suggested agreeing to a dollar amount for new initial surface disturbance above a threshold of 11,000 acres authorized by BLM. However, BP does believe that a dollar per acre of new disturbance may be a mechanism to fund CIMF, but do it without a threshold based upon approved surface disturbance. 

ntct

L-11 104 A On-Site 

Mitigation 

Air Quality Item: pp. 5-1, 5.1.1; Air Quality 

Comment: The following mitigation actions identified in this section include “A HAP assessment at five locations in the JIDPA to assess ambient air concentrations to address public concerns; Work with WDEQ/AQD to evaluate the use of alternate technologies (e.g., condensers on dehydrators, carbon filters on condensate tanks, remote telemetry monitoring) for well pad production facilities (dehydrators, separators, heaters) to reduce emissions from these features and traffic; Use low-pressure gas gathering pipelines to reduce compression needs, recover flash gas lost during processing, and eliminate VOC and HAP emissions when the gas is introduced to the sales gas distribution system; Work with the WDEQ/AQD developing and financing appropriate identification, monitoring, and emissions control procedures for HAPs and other emissions from water treatment/disposal facilities.” These measures are not necessary because Wyoming’s Department of Environmental Quality-Air Quality Division has MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Technology) regulations to address HAP emissions so the need to monitor is not apparent. The other items are all addressed with Wyoming’s minor source BACT (Best Available Control Technology) which requires state of the art controls to be employed through their permitting program. As such, there is no need to include these as additional mitigation. 

BtpaHea

L-11 105 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

Soils Item: pp. 5-2, 5.1.4, Soil Resources; 1st Bullet 

Comment: This item reads: “Site-specific predisturbance landscape descriptions, including soils data, plant species composition and cover data, and proposed reclamation seed mixes with application rates.” We understand the value of assessing these characteristics 

Pmbtaib

72
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

to assist in reclamation success. However, we are concerned that this could become a routine requirement for future surface disturbance related permitting. With the reclamation practices that have been achieved, the need for these evaluations should be used in select cases only where special soil considerations would demonstrate value. Therefore, it is suggested to add at the end of the sentence the phrase “when unique site conditions warrant this information.” 

tMpit2ccla

L-11 106 A On-Site 

Mitigation 

Surface Disturbance 

Water Item: pp. 5-3, 1st Bullet 

Comment: This item reads: “Hold storm water and snowmelt water in the JIDPA for as long as possible to allow for infiltration, reduce runoff energy and associated sediment loads, using geofabrics, jute netting, spreader dikes, retention ponds, additional armoring of existing water courses, or other techniques”. The intent of this measure is addressed in Section 2.14 and in Appendix B. As stated previously, many of these measures would incur additional surface disturbance such as retention ponds. While the intent is understood, some of the techniques need to be fully understood relative to impacts on other resources before they are implemented. 

Tdomdma 

L-11 107 B On-Site 

Mitigation 

Water Resources 

Item: pp. 5-3, 5th Bullet Comment: This item reads: “Develop and implement an adaptive surface water management plan for the entire JIDPA which could include the NPDES process and consider runoff on a cumulative watershed basis.” We are unsure what the general outline of an adaptive water management plan would be. Details on this plan need to be better developed in order to comment. We are unclear why a NPDES process would need to be developed for the JIDPA. For these reasons, this measure requires additional explanation before we could endorse using it. 

Itdpoeda pppnvphdpat

73
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

L-11 108 B On-Site 

Mitigation 

Water Resources 

Surface Disturbance 

Item: pp. 5-3, 8th Bullet Comment: This item reads: “Consider produced water treatment and/or disposal facilities (e.g., evaporation ponds) on federal surface in the JIDPA”. We are not clear why this particular item is being included, as least for now, as an additional mitigation measure. The use of evaporation ponds, while an alternative, would incur additional surface disturbance. Until such time as an alternative to disposal wells is necessary, the justification for pursuing this measure is not evident. 

TT“twwwo

L-11 109 A On-Site 

Mitigation 

Water Resources 

Item: pp. 5-3, 9th Bullet Comment: The item reads: “File all NPDES permits and associated water quality data with the BLM and consult with WDEQ, WGFD, BLM and livestock permittees before any water release.” The need for this measure does not exist since there are no plans to file for or acquire an NPDES permit for surface discharge of produced water in the JIDPA. 

TEpwNmwafrdp

L-11 110 B On-Site 

Mitigation 

Water Resources 

Surface Disturbance 

Item: pp. 5-3, 1st Bullet Comment: This item reads: “In coordination with the BLM, Natural Resources Conservation Service and Sublette County Conservation District, Operators could utilize irrigation at reclamation sites to improve germination and vegetation establishment.” It is important that while irrigation could be advantageous, the logistics and costs of accomplishing this task could be significant. There would need to be a plan to transport the water from water sources to the site where it is needed. It would likely require either trucking or piping water, but certainly storage capacity would be a necessity using a tank. This document is attempting to minimize, to the extent practicable, surface type facilities. It is necessary that all aspects of using surface facilities, regardless the reason, receive the same scrutiny of impact evaluation. Therefore, this measure will need additional evaluation before it could be implemented. 

Eaeb

L-11 111 A On-Site Wildlife Item: pp. 5-4, 1st Bullet L

74
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Mitigation 

Comment: This item reads: “Utilization of low-profile tanks within line-of-sight, up to a maximum of 0.5 mile, of greater sage-grouse leks.” The use of low-profile tanks must be carefully assessed before being used. Tank sizes are selected based on a number of factors such as safety, production volumes, and, for compatibility with the combustion/incinerator device used to control volatile organic compounds emanating from tank vapors. Therefore, using low profile tanks may not be possible in many cases. Consequently, this item should have the following phrase added to the beginning of the sentence: “To the extent technically feasible...” 

w

L-11 112 A On-Site 

Mitigation 

Wildlife Item: pp. 5-4, 3rd Bullet 

Comment: This item reads: “Avoid all raptor nest territories (rather than just active nests) during the nesting season”. It is unclear why all raptor sites are being avoided, regardless of whether they are active. We would suggest this item removed from the FEIS. 

Toba

L-11 113 A On-Site 

Mitigation 

Wildlife Item: pp. 5-4, 7th Bullet 

Comment: This item reads: “Inventory the Big Piney white-tailed prairie dog complex for black-footed ferrets and pursue a block clearance of the complex.” It is unclear why this measure is being recommended. Page 4-94 of the DEIS states: “Black-footed ferrets are not known to occur, nor are they likely to occur, within the JIDPA, and the JIDPA and vicinity have been blockcleared for ferrets by the USFWS (i.e., surveys for ferrets are not required in the area because the USFWS had concluded that their presence in the area is unlikely) (USFWS 2004).” With this information in the DEIS, this measure should be eliminated from the FEIS. 

Aacca

L-11 114 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

Cultural Resources 

Item: pp. 5-4, 1st Bullet Comment: This item reads: “Develop and implement a research design, discovery plan, and/or cultural resource management plan for the combined areas of the Pinedale Anticline Project Area and JIDPA, and consult with SHPO pursuant to the effect of these plans on affected cultural resources.” It is unclear how much industry involvement is necessary for this recommendation, but this is clearly a BLM initiated 

BcABfprJiw

75
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

action in consultation with the SHPO if it is pursued. As such, the measure should be reworded to state the agencies responsibility for accomplishing this task. 

eawmbao

L-11 115 A On-Site 

Mitigation 

Cultural Resources 

Item: pp. 5-4, 2nd Bullet Comment: This item reads: “Implement larger cultural resource survey areas for site-specific development actions (areas of potential effect)”. We do not support this recommendation for a number of reasons. First, enlarging the survey area introduces the risk of discovering sites not within the area of operation, but then possibly being required to treat those sites. Secondly, the cost to survey larger areas cannot be ignored. Third, the area of potential effect has been interpreted any number of different ways, many of which have complicated not only project implementation but consultation with SHPO. Finally, some larger/block cultural resource studies/inventories have been performed in the past in Wyoming, but because of time and the evolution of field review techniques, these studies were eventually deemed unacceptable and dismissed. Until these concerns and questions are better addressed, we cannot support this recommendation. 

WAsod“wtbspedrWaJwcoat

L-11 117 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

Air Quality Transportatio

n 

Item: pp. 5-4, 2nd Bullet Comment: This item reads: “Operators could commit to reduce fugitive dust on all proposed roads to decrease the potential for dust pneumonia in cattle”. This is already underway for collector roads that receive the highest volume of traffic and generate the largest volume of dust. As such, this measure would not be considered a new recommendation. 

Admwrrr

L-11 118 A On-Site 

Mitigation 

Item: pp. 5-6, 2nd Bullet Comment: This item reads: “Fill pipelines with clay or cement slurry at abandonment.” The pipelines are typically purged before being left in the ground. There is 

IcPas

76
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

no reason to fill them with clay or cement since there would be nothing remaining in them at abandonment. This measure should be eliminated from the FEIS. 

logT

L-11 119 A1 Alternatives OperatorCommitted 

Practices 

Item: pp. 5-6, 1st Bullet Comment: This item reads: “Implement Operatorcommitted practices under any approved alternative when not already committed to (see Appendix B, Exhibit B-1) or required by BLM”. This item is too open-ended and is not acceptable as worded. It should be eliminated from the FEIS. 

CbftstitcBr

L-11 122 A On-Site 

Mitigation 

Item: pp. 5-7, 5th Bullet Comment: This item reads: “Investigate the feasibility of 

providing gas from the JIDPA to area gas users (e.g., local residents and businesses). If applied this measure could provide area residents with reduced natural gas costs, potentially offsetting regional natural gas cost increases to local consumers.” It is important to note that the producers in the JIDPA do not market gas once it enters the sales pipeline. This recommendation is out of the control of the JIDPA producers and should not be included in the FEIS. 

Tb

L-11 123 A Air Quality Compliance On-Site 

Mitigation 

Item: pp. 5-1, 5.1.1 Air Quality Comment: The following mitigation actions are identified in this section include “A HAP assessment at five locations in the JIDPA to assess ambient air concentrations to address public concerns; Work with WDEQ/AQD to evaluate the use of alternate technologies (e.g., condensers on dehydrators, carbon filters on condensate tanks, remote telemetry monitoring) for well pad production facilities (dehydrators, separators, heaters) to reduce emissions from these features and traffic; Use low-pressure gas gathering pipelines to reduce compression needs, recover flash gas lost during processing, and eliminate VOC and HAP emissions when the gas is introduced to the sales gas distribution system; Work with the WDEQ/AQD developing and financing appropriate identification, monitoring, and emissions control procedures for HAPs and other emissions from water 

Sraiou

77
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

treatment/disposal facilities.” These measures are not necessary because Wyoming’s Department of Environmental Quality-Air Quality Division has MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Technology) regulations to address HAP emissions so the need to monitor is not apparent. The other items are all addressed with Wyoming’s minor source BACT (Best Available Control Technology), which requires state of the art controls to be employed through their permitting program. As such, there is no need to include these as additional mitigation.

L-11 124 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

Item: pp. 5-2, 5.1.4 Soil Resources; 1st Bullet Comment: This item reads: “Site-specific predisturbance landscape descriptions, including soils data, plant species composition and cover data, and proposed reclamation seed mixes with application rates.” We understand the value of assessing these characteristics to assist in the reclamation success. However, we are concerned this could become a routine requirement for future surface disturbance related permitting. With the reclamation practices that have been achieved, the need for these evaluations should be used in select cases only where special soil considerations would demonstrate value. Therefore, it is suggested to add at the end of the sentence the phrase “when unique site conditions warrant this information.” 

Tmionm

L-11 125 B Water 

Resources 

On-Site Mitigation 

Item: pp. 5-3, 5th Bullet Comment: This item reads: “Develop and implement an adaptive surface water management plan for the entire JIDPA which could include the NPDES process and consider runoff on a cumulative watershed basis.” We are unsure what the general outline of an adaptive water management plan would be. Details on this plan need to be better developed in order to comment. We are unclear why a NPDES process would need to be developed for the JIDPA. For these reasons, this measure requires additional explanation before we could endorse using it. 

Itdpoeda pppnvphdpa

78
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

t

L-11 126 A Water 

Resources 

Economics On-Site 

Mitigation 

Item: pp. 5-3, 7th Bullet Comment: This item reads: “Maximize recycling of waters utilized and produced for this project and increase capacities to both treat and re-use clean produced water within the field”. As mentioned in other comments, recycling is already occurring in the field and the ability to treat and re-use clean produced water within the field will be driven by technological feasibility and economics before the applicability of this measure can be determined. 

N

L-11 127 A Water 

Resources 

On-Site Mitigation 

Item: pp. 5-3, 8th Bullet Comment: This item reads: “Consider produced water treatment and/or disposal facilities (e.g., evaporation ponds) on federal surface in the JIDPA”. We are not clear why this particular item is being included, at least for now, as an additional mitigation measure. The use of evaporation ponds, while an alternative, would incur additional surface disturbance. Until such time as an alternative to disposal wells is necessary, the justification for pursuing this measure is not evident. 

TT“twwwo

L-11 128 A Water 

Resources 

Compliance On-Site 

Mitigation 

Item: pp. 5-3, 9th Bullet Comment: The item reads: “File all NPDES permits and associated water quality data with the BLM and consult with WDEQ, WGFD, BLM and livestock permittees before any water release.” The need for this measure does not exist since there are no plans to file for or acquire an NPDES permit for surface discharge of produced water in the JIDPA. 

TEpwNmwafrdp

L-18 5 C Social The impacts upon our cultural community have also 

been significant to date; the expense of improvements to the county's infrastructure was not accounted for in the previous EIS. Many significant changes to this area were not considered to occur in the previous EIS. This current "draft" may not cover critical issues that have yet to surface. 

BTwetF

L-20 1 A Livestock/ See also: L-21-01 P

79
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Grazing 

Within the Draft, the analysis of the loss of grazing AUMs is very questionable, and there is no solution or process stated indicating what is going to happen to those AUMs. Table 4.19 on 4-133 indicates that there will be a total loss of 1,410 AUMs within the project area. It is unclear how this analysis was done. It appears that some factor of surface disturbance was applied across the board for each allotment. This approach was a simplified, but unscientific approach. 

F

L-20 2 A Livestock/ 

Grazing 

See also: L-21-02 The draft appears to assume that there is no excess forage available for grazing with the proposed increase in surface disturbance due to the drilling activity. During the summer of 2004 we all participated in a voluntary and informal monitoring program that indicates that there is more on the ground forage available than what is currently being grazed. Our collective experience agrees with that; the past 5 years the utilization levels have been at moderate to low level, indicating large amounts of forage are not being consumed. I believe that BLM’s own records agree with this. 

PF

L-20 3 D Livestock/ 

Grazing 

Water Resources 

See also: L-21-03 Based upon my on the ground experience there are areas of the allotments in the project area that are lacking water development. We perceive that by adjusting and improving the management of these grazing allotments using monitoring and range improvements, such as water development, the carrying capacity could be maintained and enhanced. We understand that EnCana and other operators will use a systematic approach to the drilling phase, and that we can work with that approach to manage the distribution of cattle within the allotments. 

WgItRspa

L-20 4 B Livestock/ 

Grazing 

Compensatory Mitigation 

Economics See also: L-21-04 

These BLM desert allotments are essential to ranching operations in this valley. The allotments are designed for spring grazing of livestock, as they green up before any other rangelands. In Sublette County, there is very little rangeland available for spring grazing. Therefore, the option of finding alternative spring grazing lands is not 

TiA

80
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

available. The bottom line is that these particular allotments have no substitute. While some see cash as fair compensation, it does not have the same affect as using the permit. To lose the ability to use the spring grazing permit will have a ripple effect on the rest of the ranching operations. There is not a fair cash compensation program to mitigate that. The Draft failed to address this ripple effect to the entire ranching operation, community, and business that depend on the ranching industry in the Pinedale area. As ranches lose the ability to graze and are forced to change their operation or sell out and subdivide, the potential for losing open spaces is huge. This multiplier effect also will increase land prices across Sublette County which recently is at the same level and even exceeded Teton County. Therefore, the Draft poorly analyzed the overall impact to Sublette County and Wyoming from the ranching industry by just stating that that there will be a loss of AUMs on the Jonah Field. 

L-21 1 A Livestock/ 

Grazing 

Identical to L-20-01 P

F

L-21 2 A Livestock/ 

Grazing 

On-Site Mitigation 

Same as L-20-02 P

F

L-21 3 D Livestock/ 

Grazing 

Water Resources 

Same as L-20-03 W

gItRspa

L-21 4 B Livestock/ 

Grazing 

Compensatory Mitigation 

Same as L-20-04 P

Fc

L-22 3 A Livestock/ 

Grazing 

As discussed in Section 4.5.2.11, the cumulative shortterm impact of this proposed action is expected to result in the loss of approximately 1,766 AUMs, or a 17.9% reduction in grazing on the combined allotments. We agree that this project will result in the temporary and probably long-term loss of livestock forage and available AUMs. However, how was this anticipated impact 

PF

81
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

derived? There is no discussion as to how these calculations were made. The grazing of domestic livestock in the Boundary Allotment, Blue Rim Desert Allotment, Sand Draw Allotment, and Stud Horse Common Allotment is critical to the economic viability of the affected grazing permittees. These four allotments cover 120,597 acres and contain a total of 9,876 active AUMs. As stated in 4.5.2.2 The Proposed Action, the JIDPA contains a total of approximately 2,604 AUMs or 26% of the total 9,876 permitted AUMs distributed among three grazing allotments (WDA emphasis added). The calculations and statements are incorrect in this section. Since the total AUMs in the Blue Rim Desert Allotment are not included within the JIDPA, we do not believe they can be counted toward determining surface disturbance impact. There will be no significant impact to livestock utilization patterns or AUM reductions of the Blue Rim Desert Allotment as a result of increased gas development in the JIDPA. Therefore, the active AUMs for the Boundary Allotment, Sand Draw Allotment and Stud Horse Common Allotment total 7,050 AUMs. The short-term loss impact is then increased from 17.9% to 25%, and the total AUMs present in the three allotments rises from 26% to 37%. 

L-22 4 A Livestock/ 

Grazing 

The WDA believes that all AUMs in each allotment should be analyzed for discussion of utilization. The AUMs considered available for utilization in the two most impacted allotments are 4,465 AUMs for the Sand Draw Allotment and 2,303 AUMs for the Stud Horse Allotment, versus the listed 2,324 AUMs and 1,730 AUMs respectively. These figures include all suspended AUMs, which should be included in the discussions. 

T(f

L-22 5 D Surface 

Disturbance 

Transportation The DEIS calls for up to 16,200 acres of new surface 

disturbance in the JIDPA, which totals 30,500 acres. This level of impact is enormous, meaning 53% of all JIDPA surface will be disturbed. Impacts of this size tremendously affect the natural resources and environment, as well as contribute to the cumulative negative impacts of all gas development within the Green River basin. Due to this extreme level of impact, the WDA recommends to gas operators that all efforts be made to minimize the impacts on forage, water, air,

TtmrCcA

82
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

and the local communities. Any increase in surface disturbance above the proposed levels will contribute to a greater impact on the affected natural resources, including livestock grazing. The WDA recommends that facilities be consolidated to minimize surface and environmental impacts. At the level of development to date, an environmental impact has already occurred. "Spoke and hub" development is one consideration that gas operators can undertake to minimize surface disturbance, traffic, and emissions. 

L-22 6 D Soils Surface 

Disturbance 

On-Site Mitigation 

The WDA insists any disturbed surface, where applicable, be reclaimed as soon as possible. Once initial drilling has occurred, efforts should be made to reclaim as much as the area immediately, while continuing to allow access to the wellhead for maintenance. It is our desire to have the JIDPA return to the "wellhead in the sagebrush" concept as quickly as possible. To ensure the completion of reclamation, the WDA suggests bonding be increased to cover reclamation costs. This increase in bonding will ensure that reclamation be completed regardless of the gas operator. At any pace of development, the topsoil being removed from one drill pad can immediately be relocated to the reclamation site of a prior pad. This "leapfrogging" of topsoil will allow the soil to remain productive, viable and present, as less will be removed through pile erosion. Every effort should be made to minimize topsoil being removed from a future drill pad site, only to be piled and stored for future use. Leapfrogging of topsoil imitates immediate reclamation and minimizes the surface impacts of drilling. Interim and immediate reclamation protects the natural resource base, predominately forage for wildlife and livestock. Invasive and noxious weed infestations will not allowed to establish and develop a stronghold. 

BMidbDcaTcBboTatwDtptcsnvaa

L-22 8 C Livestock/ 

Grazing 

Following all projects and project impacts in the JIDPA, the WDA insists that once reclamation projects are successful and complete, the BLM will restore all active grazing to the permittees. The Stud Horse and Sand Draw Allotments should be monitored for the eventual 

PF

83
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

reinstatement of suspended AUMs in the allotments. 

L-22 9 D Compensatory 

Mitigation 

Livestock/ Grazing 

The WDA supports compensatory mitigation discussions between gas operators and livestock permittees to lessen the burden, livestock stress and economic impact to a grazing permittee from this intense development. Such mitigation strategies and costs could include, but are not limited to, the following information: 1. Movement of livestock to an open allotment or pastureFor producers who desire to maintain their current herd size, an open federal allotment or private pasture may be found and utilized for the actual livestock that are displaced. The producer may also elect to absorb the displaced livestock into a surrounding or adjacent allotment. Where available, a pasture may be rented for the livestock producer. Cost -- additional pasture rental; trucking and freight to a different allotment or pasture; herding; water development; fencing. 2. Purchase hay in lieu of allotment use Livestock producers may chose to graze their livestock at home on their hay meadows, and have hay purchased for them for use in lieu of grazing the affected allotment. This activity could serve as a temporary fix until other alternatives are found, or it may serve as a long-term mitigation strategy. Cost -- hay and forage purchase; trucking and freight; feeding and hay handling equipment improvements; water development; fencing; hay storage. 3. Monitoring of development impacts Livestock producers may chose mitigation based on direct impacts, which are documented from on-theground monitoring. Rangeland monitoring can be used to make both short- and long-term management decisions. Monitoring can include utilization, plant community composition, cover, function, structure and species presence. Compensation can be based on a predetermined value which is placed on the recorded impact. Based on monitoring analysis, range improvements will be constructed. The WDA 

TAPFWa gewa

84
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

recommends the use of the Wyoming Rangeland Monitoring Guide (August, 2001). Cost -- water development; fencing; herding; actual monitoring; permittee time. 4. Develop water Poor water distribution is the chief cause of poor livestock distribution on most ranges. In certain allotments in the west, water is the limiting resource for complete utilization of the allotment. By developing water, livestock are able to move throughout the allotment and utilize the forage, without concentrating in one particular area. Water developments in either the affected allotment or surrounding allotments will improve the carrying capacity for livestock. Water could also be developed on the producer's private land to increase AUMs or hay crop yield. Cost -- drilling and maintenance; water development; haying equipment purchase. 5. Purchase grazing land for Cattlemen's Association control Gas operators will purchase private land in the area, turn the control over to the local grazing or cattlemen's association, in which they will utilize the land for grazing as displacement occurs in the oil and gas area. This effort will act as a grass bank until AUMs are returned on federal land. Cost -- land purchase; taxes. 6. Reimburse the producer for AUM loss To temporarily offset the displacement of livestock due to oil and gas development, negotiate a settlement to reimburse the producer for lost AUMs until grazing resumes. This payment may be for a portion or for all AUMs located within the affected allotment. The reimbursement may continue for the life of the displacement of livestock, and cease following reclamation; upon which time livestock grazing will 

85
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

resume. Cost -- AUM purchase; fencing. 

L-22 10 C Livestock/ 

Grazing 

Compensatory Mitigation 

Mitigation projects performed offsite of the JIDPA will also have a direct impact on livestock grazing. Areas surrounding the JIDPA have already been identified for future offsite mitigation, and these areas have active grazing permits. It is important that compensation be similarly awarded to these permittees, as any offsite mitigation will undoubtedly result in an AUM decrease. 

BA

L-25 1 A Social I am responding to the above document and would like 

to set the record straight on the information I gave a woman working for TRC Mariah & Associates. I only recently became aware that direct quotes were attributed to me on Page 35 of the above document. I regret ever speaking with this woman and, unfortunately, have no idea what her name was. Sometime in November of 2004, I received an email inviting me to talk with the staff member of TRC Mariah who was preparing the crime section of the socioeconomic Jonah EIS draft. I declined to talk with her as I was just at the beginning of my research for accurate crime statistics for Sublette and Sweetwater Counties and her deadline was close. The only statistic I had was from the second quarter of the DCI Quarterly Crime in Wyoming Report which stated that crime was up 27% in Sublette County and up 36% in Sweetwater County while the State declined 11% during that quarter. I had presented that information to the PAWG Socioeconomic Task Group, of which I am a member. I felt I didn’t have enough information, other than anecdotal, to feel comfortable making a statement for Jonah Field. The following month, December of 2004, a woman from TRC Mariah contacted me by telephone at my office about making a statement and I explained to her why I had not. She asked if I would give her some background information on the crime situation and I told her of the above statistic. I have absolutely no idea where she came up with the figure of 80% increase in crime - she certainly did not get that number from me! And as an aside, a further problem I see with that statistic is that she does not define crime. What does “crime” mean as 

TtT2

3

it

TD(cWf(bteUrsUscunATrcgGad

r

86
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

she uses it? Arrests? Call-outs by law enforcement? Charges? Convictions? Without defining what is meant by “crime,” any figures are meaningless. I told this woman there was an increase in crime that could be attributed to the gas and oil workers present in the county. I told her we were seeing crimes that were more serious in nature and used the example of almost no felonies filed in Sublette County in 2000-2001, per Marilyn Jensen, Clerk of District Court for the Ninth Judicial District for Sublette County, to making approximately one felony arrest per week in 2004. Not all these felonies make it through the judicial system to District Court but nevertheless, there are more serious crimes. And notably, these felonies are certainly not all related to gas and oil workers. I was also very concerned with the statement she made on page 36, “Ms. Filkins also reports gang-like behavior from various drilling and pipeline crews.” I told her of two isolated incidents I was working on at that time that involved serious injury to two victims. This was meant in no way to state this was a trend but rather an example of the more serious nature of some of the crimes we were seeing in the office. It is NOT an accurate picture of what is going on in the county. I have found my work with the PAWG Socioeconomic Task Group to be very enlightening. Through our research into the crime in Sublette and Sweetwater Counties and the State as a whole, I have realized that many of the crimes committed by “gas and oil workers” are people who have lived in the state for a number of years prior to the development of Jonah and the Anticline. I reported that to the woman as well. The Casper Star-Tribune reported last week that Sublette County has the second lowest unemployment rate in the nation. That is obviously going to attract people here for work. Locals and out-of-towners alike are working in Jonah and on the Mesa, and at this point, it is almost impossible, and counterproductive I believe, to point fingers as to who is committing the crime, where are they from and for whom do they work. 

rara(vGcomCufADoanw(CWbp(BUbcShhloT1aha csnpC

87
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

I am personally in favor of the natural gas development in Sublette County. Yes, crime has increased, including more serious crimes and more drug crimes, but I feel optimistic that the crime rate can be significantly lowered by the implementation of some of the recommendations of the PAWG Socioeconomic Task Group, such as forming an Operator’s Association, continued random testing which is truly random, a zero tolerance for drugs and sharing of positive test results. I have been very impressed with the men representing the operators in the PAWG Socioeconomic Task Group, their willingness to assist the group and their help gathering information that would otherwise not be available to the group. In closing I wish to reiterate that I had a casual conversation with a woman from TRC Mariah Associates for the purpose of some background information - crime is up, it is more serious. I did not give permission for direct quotes and had I any idea I would be quoted, I would have carefully crafted the statements to ensure their accuracy, knowing the importance of their purpose. I apologize for any misunderstanding they may have caused. 

WCwfIoantt3aUcodtW1AdlnadOdi2ww(oaaAAf4aoe

88
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

idla(GId1CnodddTA

L-27 1 B Air Quality I understand that the BLM intends to provide additional 

modeling and air quality analysis to supplement the Jonah DEIS as a result of recent findings, which indicate that the number of drill rigs and the level of emissions are beyond the level analyzed in the Pinedale Anticline Project Area Record of Decision. The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Air Quality Division (Air Quality Division) is tasked with ensuring Clean Air Act compliance in the state. In order to allow the Air Quality Division to provide the necessary management oversight, the Jonah DEIS must incorporate analysis not previously completed within the Pinedale Field Office. This analysis must include a current inventory, a cogent monitoring network, a plan for how the monitoring will be analyzed and a plan to modify management practices to adapt to changing circumstances. 

Ttst3gSMTma

L-27 5 B Compensatory 

Mitigation 

Surface Disturbance 

The preferred alternative should blend the new off site mitigation instructional memorandum (IM 2005–Dated February 1, 2005) opportunities with vertical hole drilling practices, which EnCana indicates can be done by incorporating a spoke and hub design together with centralized facilities. On the whole, this approach would allow for full development of the reservoir, increase the pace of reclamation of habitat function during the life of the development and limit disturbance to wildlife that is present in the field and dust emissions. 

TanF

L-27 6 D Compensatory Surface On-Site Any allowance for increased surface disturbance in the T

89
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Mitigation Disturbance Mitigation Final EIS must be accompanied by measures that 

accelerate reclamation activities immediately after drilling to reduce the exposed footprint. These reclamation measures must be included in the Record of Decision, together with any negotiated terms for offsite mitigation and any defined compensation for other impacted uses. 

anF

L-30 1 C Water 

Resources 

On-Site Mitigation 

3 acre feet of water is needed to drill each well; therefore monitoring needs to be improved and quantity and quality must be recorded 

Tmcd

L-31 2 A1 Compensatory 

Mitigation 

Page i, 3rd Paragraph: “Above a certain level of authorized surface disturbance, the Operators have committed to establishing a fund to finance compensatory (off-site) mitigation for impacts that cannot be fully mitigated on-site. Recent communication from the Operators indicates their willingness to consider other methods of implementing compensatory mitigation.” The above language implies that all Operators who are proposing to infill drill within the Jonah Field have agreed to perform compensatory or off-site mitigation. In fact, only a small number of Operators have agreed to perform off-site mitigation. Moreover, the BLM does not have the authority to require Operators to perform offsite mitigation as it is entirely voluntary. See, Instruction Memorandum No. 2005-069 at p. 3. Recommendation: If the BLM is going to state that “Operators have committed to establishing a fund to finance compensatory (off-site) mitigation for impacts that cannot be fully mitigated on site” the agency should identify the Operators who have made this commitment or state that several but not all Operators have made this commitment. 

Tcr

L-31 3 A1 Compensatory 

Mitigation 

Page iii, Proposed Action: “The Operators have committed to various mitigation measures which vary by alternative and propose to fund a Cumulative Impacts Mitigation Fund for offsite 

Tcr

90
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Compensatory Mitigation (CM) under some alternatives.”The above language implies that all Operators who are proposing to infill drill within the Jonah Field have agreed to perform off-site mitigation. In fact, only a small number of Operators have agreed to perform off-site mitigation. Moreover, the BLM does not have the authority to require Operators to perform off-site mitigation as it is entirely voluntary. See, Instruction Memorandum No. 2005-069 at p. 3. Recommendation: The BLM should identify the Operators who have agreed to perform off-site mitigation. 

L-31 4 A1 Analysis If the BLM is going to title this section [pp. v-vii] 

“Environmental Impacts,” then the agency should provide the reader with specific examples of environmental impacts that could result from the Jonah Infill Drilling Project. At the very least, the BLM should refer the reader to Chapter 4, which contains a comprehensive discussion about environmental impacts.

Tis odcmwekrE

L-31 5 A Soils Page v, Soils: 

“Significant impacts to soils (loss during runoff events, loss of productivity) could occur under all alternatives but are not quantified.” If the BLM has not quantified the impacts to soils, how can it reach the conclusion that those impacts (loss during runoff events, loss of productivity) are significant?Recommendation: The BLM must quantify the impacts to soils before it concludes that loss during runoff events and loss of productivity are significant impacts to soil. According to the BLM, this “quantification” will take place during the draft EIS public comment period and the results will be reported in the final EIS. See, Pg. v. Until then, the BLM should remove the above sentence (Significant impacts 

Ttpssa dimlesanrecso

91
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

to soils (loss during runoff events, loss of productivity) could occur under all alternatives but are not quantified.) from the DEIS. 

Testap

L-31 6 A1 Wildlife Page vi, Wildlife: 

“Significant impacts to various wildlife habitats in the JIDPA have already occurred as a result of past and current oil and gas development activity. Wildlife that occurs in the JIDPA which may be impacted by this project include pronghorn antelope, greater sagegrouse, raptors and up to seventeen BLM Wyoming Sensitive (BWS) species (most notably sagebrush obligates).” The above paragraph is confusing. Recommendation: The above paragraph should be removed and replaced with the following paragraph: Significant impacts to various wildlife habitats in the JIPDA have already occurred as a result of past and current oil and gas development activity. Arguably, there may be more impacts to wildlife habitat in the JIDPA as a result of the proposed Jonah Infill Drilling Project. Wildlife that occurs in the JIDPA which may be impacted by the cumulative effects of past and current oil and gas development activity coupled with the proposed infill drilling project include pronghorn antelope, greater sagegrouse, raptors, and up to seventeen BLM Wyoming Sensitive (BWS) species (most notably sagebrush obligates). 

Iathsiscirtopdpsrs

L-31 7 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

Compensatory Mitigation 

Compliance Page vii, Mitigation Measures: 

Recommendation: This section should include a discussion about the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) with particular emphasis on the fact that (1) mitigation requirements must be either statutorily required or scientifically justifiable AND (2) they must be the least 

TEdAHnon

92
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

restrictive means to achieve the desired level of resource protection. See, Draft EIS for the Rawlins Resource Management Plan at pg. 2-8. 

L-31 8 A1 Compliance Page 1-3, 2nd Full Paragraph: 

“Construction, development, production, and abandonment would comply with all applicable federal, state, and county laws, rules, and regulations (see Section 1.3).” Section 1.3 discusses the “Decisions to be Made.” Pg. 1-5. That section has nothing to do with federal, state, and county laws, rules, and regulations. Section 1.4, on the other hand, addresses major permits, approvals and authorized actions necessary to construct, operate, maintain, and abandon project facilities. Pg. 1-6. Recommendation: Since Section 1.3 has nothing to do with federal, state, and county laws, rules and regulations and Section 1.4 addresses major permits, approvals and authorized actions necessary to construct, operate, maintain, and abandon project facilities, see Section 1.3 should be changed to see Section 1.4 in the above sentence. 

TF

L-31 9 A1 Compensatory 

Mitigation 

On-Site Mitigation 

Page 1-5, Last Paragraph of Section 1.1: In discussing the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), the BLM states: That strategy (referring to EPCA) is designed to guide national policy toward energy security, economic expansion, and greater protection of the environment. One of the goals of that strategy is to ensure against energy disruptions by increasing production of domestic sources of natural gas. See, Pg. 1-5. The BLM does not clarify that, pursuant to EPCA, mitigation requirements must be either statutorily required or scientifically justifiable AND they must be the least restrictive means to achieve the desired level of resource protection. See, Draft EIS for the Rawlins Resource Management Plan at pg. 2-8. 

TwrNraTbda

93
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Recommendation: Based on the above analysis, the last sentence in Section 1.1 should read as follows: To that end, BLM issued mitigation requirements must be either statutorily required or scientifically justifiable AND they must be the least restrictive means to achieve the desired level of resource protection. 

L-31 10 A1 Editorial Page 1-6, Section 1.4.1: 

“Operator drilling programs require BLM approval of each well and well pad on federal surface or federal minerals prior to commencement of drilling (see Figure 1.1).” Figure 1.1 is not listed in the List of Figures for this DEIS. See, Pg. xxii. Recommendation: Figure 1.1 should be changed to Table 1.1. 

Ac

L-31 11 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

Compensatory Mitigation 

Page 1-9, Section 1.4.1.1: “These mitigation guidelines encompass all aspects of environmental protection.” If these mitigation guidelines (the guidelines in Appendix A) encompass all aspects of environmental protection, why is the BLM requiring further protection such as “Operator-committed practices” and “off-site mitigation?”Recommendation: One can assume the BLM did not intend to make this statement. The BLM should remove the sentence from the DEIS. 

PaiamaIcpr

L-31 12 A Water 

Resources 

On-Site Mitigation 

Compensatory Mitigation 

Page 2-5, 6th Paragraph: “A ground water monitoring program for all water wells in or affected by activities in the JIDPA would be implemented, with annual reports to BLM, Jonah Infill Working Group (JIWG), WSEO, and WDEQ. Water wells would be tested annually for drawdown, general 

Tsmlerfm

94
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

chemical constituents, and total petroleum hydrocarbons, using WDEQ-approved methods.” This groundwater monitoring program mimics the program in the Pinedale Anticline Project Area (PAPA). In the PAPA, the groundwater monitoring program was designed and implemented to protect perched water tables on the Mesa and domestic wells near Pinedale and along the New Fork River. In contrast, there are no perched water tables or domestic wells in the JIDPA. The shallow wells that do exist are used for irrigation, livestock and wildlife and are fully protected by the gas well casing program required by both the BLM and the WOGCC. As a result, no significant impacts to ground water resources are anticipated under any alternative. See, pg. 4-53. Therefore, there is no basis for requiring a groundwater monitoring program in the JIDPA. Recommendation: Since there is no basis for requiring a groundwater monitoring program in the JIDPA, the BLM should remove, from the DEIS, all groundwater monitoring requirements. 

aa

L-31 13 A1 Compensatory 

Mitigation 

Page 2-8, Section 2.6, 1st Paragraph: “Operators have committed to various mitigation measures depending upon alternative (see Appendix B), and propose to establish a Cumulative Impacts Mitigation Fund to mitigate potential adverse impacts in the JIDPA.” The above language implies that all Operators who are proposing to infill drill within the Jonah Field have agreed to perform off-site mitigation. In fact, only a small number of Operators have agreed to perform off-site mitigation. Moreover, the BLM does not have the authority to require Operators to perform off-site mitigation as it is entirely voluntary. See, Instruction Memorandum No. 2005-069 at p. 3. Recommendation: If the BLM is going to state that “Operators have committed to various mitigation measures depending

Tcr

95
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

upon alternative (see Appendix B), and propose to establish a Cumulative Impacts Mitigation Fund to mitigate potential adverse impacts in the JIDPA” the agency should identify the Operators who have made this commitment. Page 2-8, Section 2.6, 2nd Paragraph: “On January 13, 2005, BLM received a letter from EnCana modifying their Proposed Action relative to compensatory mitigation. In part, the letter states “EnCana is committed to a net positive impact on the environment and resources affected by development in the Jonah Field. EnCana is willing to consider other approaches to mitigation including the funding of and compensatory mitigation measures identified by the Bureau of Land Management I the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Jonah Infill Drilling Project (“Jonah Infill DEIS”).” It should be noted that Yates has never submitted written statements to the BLM either supporting or opposing compensatory mitigation. Yates did review the original proposed action submitted by EnCana and submitted comments to EnCana stating that Yates only agreed to voluntary off-site mitigation. Yates will consider off-site mitigation on a case-by-case basis and may decide not to give money to an advisory board. Page 2-11, 1st Sentence: “Operators have identified a number of mitigation/development practices that they would apply during development of the Proposed Action (see Appendix B), including compensatory mitigation.” Recommendation: The BLM should identify the Operators who have “identified a number of mitigation/development practices that they would apply during development of the Proposed Action (see Appendix B), including compensatory mitigation.” 

L-31 14 B Mineral 

Resources 

Alternatives On-Site 

Mitigation 

Page 2-22, Section 2.14: B

a

96
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

“The BLM Preferred Alternative optimizes natural gas recovery while minimizing impacts related to the key issues (see Section 2.1) with outcome-based performance objectives, mitigation and Best Management Practices (BMPs).” Relying exclusively on the unproven assumption that the amount of gas produced under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to Alternative G, the BLM originally estimated that Operators would recover 7,876 BCF of gas under the Preferred Alternative. See, Page 4-31, Table 4.2 and Page 4-32, Section 4.1.4.10. After analyzing actual scientific data, however, the BLM publicly announced that (1) their original recovery estimate (7,876 BCF) under the Preferred Alternative was incorrect and that (2) the agency’s latest and most accurate recovery estimate is similar to Alternative F or 7,186 BCF of gas. Since BLM’s latest recovery estimate is based on actual scientific data and not on an unproven assumption, BLM’s latest recovery estimate is more reliable. As a result, the Preferred Alternative will leave approximately 761 BCF of gas in place. Therefore, the BLM’s Preferred Alternative does not optimize natural gas recovery. Recommendation: While the BLM’s Preferred Alternative may minimize impacts related to the all key issues identified in Section 2.1, it does not optimize natural gas recovery. Recovery is not optimized, under the Preferred Alternative, because of “Surface Disturbance Limitation Areas” (SDLAs) created by the BLM to mitigate the increased surface disturbance under the Proposed Action. See, Page 2-22 and Map 2.2. Interestingly, without the SDLAs, the remaining mitigation requirements under the Preferred Alternative are virtually identical to the mitigation requirements under the Proposed Action. The only key issue the Proposed Action does not expressly address is the increased surface disturbance. Therefore, on its face, the Proposed Action optimizes natural gas recovery and also minimizes impacts related to most of the key issues identified in Section 2.1. Since the Preferred Alternative does not optimize natural 

BddaTcbYrri

97
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

gas recovery and the Proposed Action, on its face, not only optimizes natural gas recovery, but also minimizes impacts related to most of the key issues identified in Section 2.1, the BLM should adopt the Operator’s Proposed Action. This would give Operators an opportunity to show the BLM that a quick pace of development and corresponding reclamation would more than offset any surface disturbance issues raised during scoping. In addition, the BLM could supplement the Proposed Action by classifying any and all surface disturbance mitigation requirements as “additional potential mitigation measures.” Then, instead of surface disturbance requirements being mandated by the BLM up front, the Jonah Infill Working Group would (1) be the administrative body, (2) monitor surface disturbance and (3) make a recommendation to the BLM if that group thought instituting a surface disturbance mitigation measure was necessary. Experience has shown, however, that reclamation yields high quality forage for domestic and wild animals as well as forbs for sage-grouse. See, Exhibits A and B (Attached). This high quality forage would replace existing sagebrush and other native plant species thereby eliminating the need for surface disturbance mitigation requirements altogether. 

L-31 15 A1 Alternatives Page 2-24: 

“If the Pinedale Anticline Working Group (PAWG) is functioning effectively in 2006, the PAWG charter would be revised to include the Jonah Field in the PAWG’s responsibilities during charter renewal in 2006; otherwise the JIWG would continue to function.” The PAWG has proven to be a very cumbersome committee; it is a FACA committee, funding of such a committee still appears to be born primarily by the Operators and the efficiency of such a system is not apparent. Jonah Field and the Pinedale Anticline field have different resources that require different mitigations and different drilling and exploration techniques. Also, Jonah Field is in an infill development phase while Pinedale is still in an exploratory phase. Trying to achieve common plans, programs, monitoring and mitigations is not possible. 

TfF

98
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Recommendation: The paragraph should be removed from the Jonah Infill Drilling Project DEIS. 

L-31 16 A1 Soils Water 

Resources 

Performance Objectives 

Page 2-26, Section 2.14.1, 3rd Bullet Point: “Maintain sediment erosion (salt and silt discharge rates) at WDEQ- and BLM-acceptable limits.” WDEQ has a storm water permit intended to control erosion and salt and silt discharges. BLM has no authority over storm water runoff from construction sites.Recommendation: The above language should be removed and replaced with the following: Limit sediment erosion through application of WDEQ storm water runoff permit controls. 

Thrwrmcr

L-31 17 A Wildlife Performance 

Objectives 

Page 2-27, 4th Bullet Point: “Maintain or improve currently active big game migration routes.” Recommendation: The BLM should identify the extent to which Operators must “maintain or improve currently active big game migration routes.” 

AiMRsm

L-31 18 A Compliance Performance 

Objectives 

Page 2-27, 5th Bullet Point: “Reduce human activity per well pad in the JIDPA below current levels during both the development and production phases.” This is an ambiguous and unenforceable objective because the BLM does not provide data showing the “current level of human activity.” Recommendation: The BLM should provide data showing the “current level of human activity.” Furthermore, this would be a voluntary Operator action because the BLM does not 

TacahrToirpiptF

99
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

have an authorized method of accounting or enforcement. 

L-31 19 A1 Compliance Performance 

Objectives 

Page 2-27, 6th Bullet Point: “Prevent contamination of all surface and ground water.”The BLM has no authority to regulate water quality. The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) and the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC) by agreement with WDEQ have regulations and guidelines in place to prevent contamination of all surface and groundwater. Recommendation: This objective (Prevent contamination of all surface and groundwater) should be removed from the Jonah Infill Drilling Project DEIS. 

TanF

L-31 20 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

Compensatory Mitigation 

Performance Objectives 

Page 2-27, 8th Bullet Point: “Encourage Operators to participate in and support peerreviewed research that evaluates impacts from development and effectiveness of applied mitigation.” Yates would support “peer-reviewed research that evaluates impacts from development and effectiveness of applied mitigation” as long as it is voluntary. Recommendation: The BLM should clarify that “peer-reviewed research” is entirely voluntary. 

BrsOwPofbpb

L-31 21 A1 Analysis Conditions of 

Approval 

Page 2-27, Section 2.14.2: “The BLM would impose the following general COAs, mitigation and BMPs on all project authorizations and would consider annual JIWG recommendations to adjust these requirements to meet field development and production objectives throughout the LOP.” Appendix D addresses the Jonah Infill Working Group (JIWG). Recommendation: 

TTFo

100
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

The BLM should cite to Appendix D when it discusses the JIWG. 

L-31 22 A1 Surface 

Disturbance 

Conditions of Approval 

Page 2-27, Section 2.14.2, 2nd Bullet Point: “Well pad surface disturbance would be limited to a maximum of 7.0 acres for parent and multi-well pads, 4.0 acres for single-well pads, and 2.0 acres for satellite well pads. These acreages include well pad, access road, pipeline, and topsoil and spoil piles.” The 7.0 acre and 4.0 acre well pad limits would be without reserve pits. Yates does not see the value or the environmental benefit of using closed drilling systems. The reserve pits are lined and WDEQ and the WOGCC have jurisdiction over groundwater. Yates has measured actual single- and multi-well pads and they require a minimum of 2 acres for a single-well pad and 5 acres for a multi-well pad not including the access road and pipeline. Access roads and pipelines should not be included in the calculation because the length of access roads and pipelines vary. Recommendation: The last sentence (These acreages include well pad, access road, pipeline, and topsoil and spoil piles.) should be removed from the above statement. 

TSuddatOHCauis FrsemwsOsoscttii

L-31 23 A1 Technical 

Information 

Conditions of Approval 

Page 2-27, Section 2.14.2, 3rd Bullet Point: “Hard-line fracturing processes would be required for all well pads when surface density is ≥ 1 well pad/40 acres, and recommended when well pad surface density is < 1 pad/40 acres.” Yates is uncertain of the actual definition of “hard-line fracturing processes.” Assuming that it is simply laying surface pipe from one well pad to another well pad, Yates is concerned by this requirement since the economics of their wells on the north margin of the producing area are still unproven. 

BwaisemrtuWtit b

p

101
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Recommendation: The BLM should amend the above statement as follows:Where economic and feasible, hard-line fracturing processes would be required for all well pads when surface density is ≥ 1 well pad/40 acres, and recommended when well pad surface density is < 1 pad/40 acres. 

fti“tAmtOstrewcBiOeas

L-31 24 A1 Compliance Conditions of 

Approval 

Air Quality Page 2-27, Section 2.14.2, 4th Bullet Point: 

“Operators would utilize flareless completions for all wells within the JIDPA unless proven on a case-by-case basis that flareless completions would be unsafe.” By requiring Operators to utilize flareless completions, one can assume the BLM is striving to protect air quality. The BLM, however, has no authority to regulate air quality. Recommendation: Since the BLM has no authority to regulate air quality, the above requirement should state: Flareless completions will be utilized when directed by WDEQ/Air Quality Division rules and regulations. 

TNOofCcnpcwdctcctofcjeod

102
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

oTgfidn

L-31 25 A1 Technical 

Information 

Conditions of Approval 

Page 2-28, 1st Bullet Point: “Operators would begin piping produced water and condensate from all wells in the JIDPA to appropriate treatment or disposal facilities beginning no later than January 1, 2008; this would supersede previous decisions related to method of condensate disposal.” First, Operators do not dispose of condensate, they sell it. Second, a waste product gathering and disposal system must be economically viable and, therefore, should not be agency mandated. Third, Yates’ leasehold is isolated and, therefore, not connected to the existing Jonah Field infrastructure. Until a well is proven commercial, it is common practice for Yates and other Operators to truck all waste products to an appropriate treatment or disposal facility. This prevents the unnecessary surface disturbance and waste resulting from the construction of pipelines to uneconomic wells. Recommendation: The above bullet point should be removed from the Jonah Infill Drilling Project DEIS. 

S

L-31 26 A1 Soils Water 

Resources 

Conditions of Approval 

Page 2-28, 2nd Bullet Point: “To eliminate or minimize surface sediment discharge, all well pad and road construction shall comport WDEQ storm water discharge specifications, standards, and permitting requirements. Existing well pads and roads shall be retrofitted to meet this requirement as directed by the Authorized Officer. Based on site-specific analysis, BLM may require more stringent sediment control measures be implemented.” The above paragraph implies that the BLM has the 

TWsTtrBtcrmt

103
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

authority to impose the WDEQ’s rules and regulations. Operators are familiar with the WDEQ’s storm water discharge specifications, standards and permitting requirements and they will comply with those regulations. Next, requiring Operators to retrofit existing well pads and roads to meet the WDEQ’s storm water discharge requirements is punitive. These requirements are necessary when there is no vegetation to hold the sediment (i.e., during construction), but the need for sediment-control regulation diminishes during the production phase because existing well pads and roads have been partially reclaimed. Last, the BLM does not have the authority to impose or require “more stringent sediment control measures.” Recommendation: The above paragraph should be removed from the Jonah Infill Drilling Project DEIS. 

ppaaa

L-31 27 A1 Technical 

Information 

Conditions of Approval 

Page 2-28, 3rd Bullet Point: “Operators would utilize remote telemetry or equivalent technology at all wells to minimize well monitoring trips.”Yates supports using remote telemetry to monitor wells. However, this technology is expensive and not always feasible. Recommendation: The above requirement should be amended as follows: Using remote telemetry to monitor wells is voluntary. Where it is economically feasible, Operators should utilize remote telemetry or equivalent technology to minimize well monitoring trips. 

S

L-31 28 A Technical 

Information 

Conditions of Approval 

Surface Disturbance 

Page 2-28, 4th Bullet Point: “Centralization of development and production facilities would be maximized in the JIDPA.” This statement does not consider the effects temperature, pressure, and topography have on fluid flow in pipelines over great distances. Water can freeze in low spots in the pipeline causing equipment failure. 

S

104
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Also, large centralized facilities can create just as much if not more surface disturbance than small satellite facilities at each well pad. Recommendation: Based on the above analysis, the act of centralizing development and production facilities must be voluntary. 

L-31 29 A Technical 

Information 

Conditions of Approval 

Page 2-28, 5th Bullet Point: “All hydraulic structures would be engineered and designed by a certified civil engineer, utilizing hydraulic runoff modeling software, to ensure the structures are stable and erosion is minimized throughout the LOP.” Recommendation: The BLM should identify the structures that are included in “all hydraulic structures.” 

S

L-31 30 A Technical 

Information 

Conditions of Approval 

Water Page 2-28, 7th Bullet Point 

“Operators would utilize closed drilling systems (no reserve pits) for all wells unless proven on a case-bycase basis that to do so would be technologically or economically infeasible. If reserve pits are approved, Operators would remove/vacuum fluids from reserve pits within 60 days of all wells on a pad being placed into production, to accelerate pit closure and reclamation.” It would appear the only reason for requiring closed drilling systems is to protect groundwater quality. Once again, the BLM does not have the authority to regulate water quality. Next, Yates does not see the value in requiring Operators to utilize closed drilling systems when reserve pits are constructed with heavy-duty liners that fully contain all fluids. Finally, requiring Operators to remove/vacuum fluids from reserve pits within 60 days of all wells on a pad being placed into production will add considerable expense to individual wells costs. The pits are fenced and flagged to prevent wildlife entry. While BLM may desire quick pit closure, Yates is unable to determine the environmental advantage. Also, weather can affect an Operator’s ability to remove/vacuum fluids from reserve pits within a set time. 

TsaichOdpetrrwroIpnrTc

105
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Recommendation: The above paragraph should be removed from the Jonah Infill Drilling Project DEIS. 

L-31 31 A Wildlife Conditions of 

Approval 

Page 2-29, 1st Bullet Point “Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in greater sage-grouse winter concentration areas would be avoided from November 15 through March 14.” The term winter concentration area is poorly defined. It cannot simply include stands of sagebrush. Recommendation: The BLM should provide a definition or an explanation of the term winter concentration area. 

“bBS

L-31 32 A Wildlife Conditions of 

Approval 

Page 2-29, 4th Bullet Point: “Operators would inventory greater sage-grouse seasonal habitats within the JIDPA not already inventoried by BLM or WGFD within one year of the ROD for this project; GIS data would be provided to BLM, WGFD, and the JIWG with FGDC-compliant metadata.” What does “inventory” mean? What is the extent of an “inventory?” Seasonal habitats are poorly defined. Recommendation: The BLM should explain what it means when it says, “Operators would ‘inventory’ greater sage-grouse seasonal habitats...” Also, the BLM should further define the term seasonal habitats. 

“idhAiMRSbDm

L-31 33 A Wildlife Conditions of 

Approval 

On-Site Mitigation 

Page 2-29, 5th Bullet Point: “Operators would map prairie dog towns and provide all map data to BLM, WGFD, and the JIWG with FGDCcompliant metadata.” Pursuant to EPCA, mitigation requirements must be either statutorily required or scientifically justifiable AND they must be the least restrictive means to achieve the 

Aacca

106
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

desired level of resource protection. See, Draft EIS for the Rawlins Resource Management Plan at pg. 2-8. In this case, it is important to point out that prairie dogs are not a protected species. Therefore, the above mitigation requirement is neither statutorily required nor scientifically justifiable. Recommendation: Since the above mitigation requirement (Operators would map prairie dog towns and provide all map data to BLM, WGFD, and the JIWG with FGDC-compliant metadata) is neither statutorily required nor scientifically justifiable, the BLM should remove it from the Jonah Infill Drilling Project DEIS. 

L-31 34 A1 Wildlife Compensatory 

Mitigation 

Conditions of Approval 

Page 2-29, 6th Bullet Point: “Three active and productive ferruginous hawk nesting territories, two burrowing owl nesting territories, and other raptor nesting territories would be maintained on and adjacent to the JIDPA; to the extent any of these may not be feasible; compensatory mitigation may be appropriate.” The above paragraph implies that if the enumerated raptor nesting territories on and adjacent to the JIDPA cannot be maintained, the BLM will require compensatory mitigation. It is well established that compensatory or off-site mitigation is entirely voluntary. See, Instruction Memorandum No. 2005-069 at p. 3. Recommendation: Since it is well established that compensatory or off-site mitigation is entirely voluntary, the BLM should remove the following statement from the above paragraph. ... to the extent any of these may not be feasible; compensatory mitigation may be appropriate. Also, there are established seasonal restrictions for raptor nests. If those restrictions prove inadequate by monitoring then the JIWG should determine if the seasonal restrictions should be modified. 

TmF

107
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

L-31 35 A1 Surface 

Disturbance 

On-Site Mitigation 

Conditions of Approval 

Page 2-30, 2nd Bullet Point: “Field-wide interim and long-term reclamation plans would be submitted to BLM for approval no later than one year from the date of this ROD. Site-specific reclamation plans would be incorporated into all Surface Use Plans for APDs and Plans of Development for ROWs. A reclamation quality assurance/quality control monitoring program would be implemented by the Operators until development and interim (production phase) reclamation is completed to BLM standards.” Future drilling in the JIDPA is based on the success and economics of previous drilling and production. Due to this economic uncertainty, a field wide interim and longterm reclamation plan would have to be generic rather than site specific. Monitoring of the success of reclamation is a responsibility of the BLM as the regulatory agency. Recommendation: The above paragraph should be removed from the Jonah Infill Drilling Project DEIS. 

BriRQmw“lorftWudutaOspo

L-31 36 A Analysis Conditions of 

Approval 

Page 2-30: “Some of the aforementioned seasonal and surface use restrictions may not match those listed in Appendix A. Those provided for this BLM Preferred Alternative incorporate recent changes in agency guidance regarding wildlife restrictions.” Recommendation: If the BLM is going to incorporate seasonal and surface use restrictions into its Preferred Alternative that do not coincide with the BLM’s Standard Mitigation Requirements listed in Appendix A, the BLM should cite the “agency guidance” that allows it to supplement and/or amend the standard seasonal and surface use restrictions listed in Appendix A. 

TaanSlNdmtmcwlAtstS

108
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Rrs

L-31 38 A1 Compliance Water 

Resources 

Conditions of Approval 

Page 2-30, Section 2.14.2.1, 2nd Bullet Point: “Operators would implement a ground water monitoring program for all water wells in or affected by activities in the JIDPA, with annual reports to BLM, JIWG, WSEO, and WDEQ. Wells would be tested annually for general chemical constituents and total petroleum hydrocarbons, using WDEQ-approved methodology.” This language implies that the BLM has the authority to regulate water quality. In fact, pursuant to the Clean Water Act, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) is charged with regulating water quality.Recommendation: On page 2-5, the Jonah Infill Drilling Project DEIS states:Operators would comply with all appropriate federal, state, and local laws and regulations, and all appropriate permits from the appropriate regulatory agency would be obtained before proceeding. See, pg. 2-5. Mandating that Operators, “comply with all appropriate federal, state, and local laws and regulations” appropriately addresses all the groundwater monitoring requirements the BLM is proposing in the above paragraph. Therefore, the 2nd bullet point (Pg. 2-30, Section 2.14.2.1) should be removed from the DEIS. 

TmmlatTarimBwBaetBmWeTrATE

L-31 39 A1 Soils Water 

Resources 

Conditions of Approval 

Page 2-30, Section 2.14.2.1, 4th Bullet Point: “Operators would be required to conduct sixth-level watershed modeling throughout the JIDPA (including identification of current sediment discharge rates), and provide the results to BLM and WDEQ, contingent on availability of data.” Conducting watershed modeling and determining current sediment discharge rates is an academic endeavor and has no basis. WDEQ requires storm water runoff 

Ttbaasseass

109
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

discharge permits and has established protective measures to prevent sedimentation pollution of state waters. Recommendation: The above language should be removed from the Jonah Infill Drilling Project DEIS. 

anrecsoIprsbeirsarw

L-31 40 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

Wildlife Conditions of 

Approval 

Page 2-30, Section 2.14.2.1, 5th Bullet Point: “Operators would prepare and implement a Sensitive Species Survey and Monitoring Plan for BLM and WGFD approval that would determine the presence, distribution, and population trends of all federally-listed, proposed, candidate, BWS, and other species including amphibians, reptiles, passerine birds, and small mammals, throughout the JIDPA. Monitoring would be conducted annually for the LOP or until BLM determines that additional monitoring is not required. Operators would prepare an annual report for BLM, WGFD, and the JIWG. Survey results would be provided annually to the WyNDD with FGDC-compliant metadata.” The USFWS regulates federally listed, proposed and candidate species not the BLM. Also, the WGFD has no approval authority over Operator’s actions relative to federal lands. If the Operators voluntarily prepare a monitoring plan, then BLM must supply an analysis of the monitoring data to the Operators on an annual basis. Operators should not be required to conduct monitoring for monitoring sake. Recommendation: 

AiMRcapwrla

110
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

The above paragraph should be removed from the Jonah Infill Drilling Project DEIS. 

L-31 41 A1 Water 

Resources 

Compliance Conditions of 

Approval 

Page 2-30, Section 2.14.2.1, 6th Bullet Point: “Operators would monitor first flush total suspended solids in coordination with WDEQ, BLM, and other agencies.” What does this requirement mean? Monitor suspended solids in what fluid? If this is relative to water quality this is a WDEQ issue covered by the storm water runoff discharge permit. Recommendation: This requirement should be removed from the Jonah Infill Drilling Project DEIS. 

Fadc(oftdnoslofbaAcs“HwhCiPTrncCTrpco

L-31 42 A1 Wildlife On-Site 

Mitigation 

Conditions of Approval 

Page 2-30, Section 2.14.2.1, 7th Bullet Point: “Operators would be required to assist BLM and WGFD in monitoring greater sage-grouse movements to determine if populations are migratory.” 

Aacca

111
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

This is an academic effort. Operators should only voluntarily monitor wildlife to determine impacts caused by oil and gas activity. Recommendation: This requirement should be removed from the Jonah Infill Drilling Project DEIS. 

L-31 43 A1 Livestock/ 

Grazing 

On-Site Mitigation 

Conditions of Approval 

Page 2-30, Section 2.14.2.1, 8th Bullet Point: “In coordination with BLM, Operators would monitor forage utilization on reclaimed areas throughout project development and into the full production phase.” It is unclear who or what would utilize the forage. BLM sets the reclamation requirements and type of forage; therefore, BLM should monitor forage utilization. Recommendation: This requirement should be removed from the Jonah Infill Drilling Project DEIS. 

Trrm

L-31 45 A1 Wildlife On-Site 

Mitigation 

Conditions of Approval 

Page 2-30, Section 2.14.2.1, 12th Bullet Point: “In coordination with BLM and WGFD, Operators would monitor pronghorn antelope numbers on crucial winter ranges north and south of the JIDPA.” This is an academic effort. Operators should only voluntarily monitor wildlife to determine impacts caused by oil and gas activity. Recommendation: This requirement should be removed from the Jonah Infill Drilling Project DEIS. 

Aacca

L-31 47 A1 Visual 

Resources 

Site-specific Conditions of Approval 

Page 2-31, Section 2.14.3, 2nd and 3rd Bullet Points: Jonah Field cannot be seen from Wyoming State Highway 191. There are no residences in the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area. What is the purpose of minimizing the light within and from the field and how would you determine the effectiveness of that requirement.

NoPosvo

112
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Recommendation: This requirement should be removed from the Jonah Infill Drilling Project DEIS. 

aoahhTwM“oEStA2

codaa

ArcfAaari

L-31 48 A1 Compensatory 

Mitigation 

2.14.4 Compensatory Mitigation: “In lieu of the proposed Cumulative Impacts Mitigation Fund, the BLM Preferred Alternative recommends that, where appropriate and consistent with BLM policy, Operators voluntarily seek BLM-approved CM projects aimed at alleviating on-site mitigation concerns.” The above language implies that compensatory or offsite mitigation is voluntary, but it does not clearly state that. Recommendation: The BLM should clearly state, in the above paragraph,

Tcr

113
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

that compensatory mitigation is entirely voluntary. 

L-31 49 A Surface 

Disturbance 

On-Site Mitigation 

Page 2-33, Table 2.12: Under “Disturbance Volume” it would be more appropriate to label the two categories as short-term disturbance and long-term disturbance. Under “Habitat Loss All Species” no credit is given for reclamation which would provide habitat for several of the listed species. Recommendation: Yates would recommend that credit be granted for immediately reclaimed areas such as pipeline ROWs and pad reclamation. Then the volume of human presence decreases from initial drilling and completion to production. BLM should illustrate how the change of human presence is reflected in the numbers. As an example, livestock forage loss is listed in long-term v. short-term. BLM should use the same comparison for habitat loss. 

TcBscSPtuLCtt

L-31 50 A Editorial Chapter 3, In General: 

The maps and figures shown in Chapter 3 provide no references as to the source of the information. Recommendation: Yates would recommend that the BLM provide a reference cite for all maps and figures derived from other published information or from personal communications. 

RmMFCtF(CF(MMoGCFMM

114
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

dMdBMMdITWSM(MdITMdMdDMMdMMfMMfMFTM

L-31 51 A1 Water 

Resources 

Page 3-41, Surface Water Quality, 1st Paragraph: While all of the named and unnamed streams in the JIDPA are Class 3b surface waters, most of these streams would not in fact support or sustain communities of aquatic life. The 3b classification was mandated by WDEQ as directed by the EPA in a reclassification in 

Tct

115
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

2001. All streams in Wyoming are assumed to have aquatic life until proven otherwise by a Use Attainability Analysis. Recommendation: The BLM should amend the paragraph to include the fact that the 3b classification is not proof that aquatic life communities exist. 

L-31 52 A Wildlife Page 3-57, Map 3.13: 

This map does not provide a reference to the source of the migration routes shown. It is difficult to understand how such a short distance (3 to 10 miles) can be considered a migration route. It is also interesting to note that two (2) migration routes are shown to connect crucial winter range to the JIDPA. Did these routes exist before the Jonah Natural Gas Field (JNGF) was discovered or are they the result of reclamation (increased water and forage) within the JNGF? Recommendation: The BLM should provide a reference to the source of data. The BLM should also explain the significance of the very short migration routes. 

RWRamdp

L-31 53 A Compensatory 

Mitigation 

Analysis Page 4-2, Last Paragraph: 

“Considerable natural gas development has already occurred within the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area (JIDPA) as approved in past NEPA documents (BLM 1998b, 2000b), and impacts from this past development would continue for approximately 63 years without any further development authorizations. Most impacts associated with this project, therefore, would involve increases in the magnitude and/or duration of impacts previously described in past NEPA documents (BLM 1997a, 2000a). Additionally, preliminary research and monitoring results indicate significant adverse impacts to many area resources have already occurred with existing development and mitigation requirements. Therefore, BLM is proposing to increase on-site mitigation efforts with a particular focus on reclamation, and recommend initiation of compensatory mitigation (CM) as appropriate and consistent with BLM policy.”

MtpwoftactTtaaoRcdF

116
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

The above paragraph provides a theme for the entire Jonah Infill Drilling Project DEIS: Operators who are proposing to infill drill within the Jonah Natural Gas Field, Sublette County, Wyoming, can expect significant increases in on-site mitigation and reclamation requirements coupled with an increased pressure from BLM to perform compensatory mitigation.The BLM’s justification for this hard-line approach is as follows: Most impacts associated with this project would involve increases in the magnitude and/or duration of impacts previously described in past NEPA documents (BLM 1997a, 2000a). AND Preliminary research and monitoring results indicate significant adverse impacts to many area resources have already occurred with existing development and mitigation requirements. Unfortunately, the BLM does not provide the preliminary research or monitoring results supposedly showing the significant adverse impacts that have already occurred with existing development and mitigation requirements. The BLM also fails to provide any guidance on whether the increased mitigation requirements it is proposing under the Jonah Infill Drilling Project would apply to wells within the project area that are not “infill” wells. Finally, the last sentence in the above language implies that compensatory or off-site mitigation may be required and, therefore, is not voluntary. In fact, compensatory mitigation is entirely voluntary. The BLM will approach compensatory mitigation on an “as appropriate” basis where it can be performed onsite and on a voluntary basis where it is performed offsite. See, Instruction Memorandum No. 2005-069 at p. 2; Offsite mitigation is to be entirely voluntary on the part of the applicant. See, Instruction Memorandum No. 2005-

Fc

117
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

069 at p. 3. The BLM may identify other offsite mitigation opportunities to address impacts of the project proposal, but is not to carry them forward for detailed analysis unless volunteered by the applicant. See, Instruction Memorandum No. 2005-069 at p. 3. Recommendation: Since the above paragraph provides a theme for the entire DEIS, it should be at the beginning of the document preferably in the “Mitigation Measures” section of the Executive Summary. There should also be a chapter in the DEIS dedicated to showing the preliminary research and monitoring results the BLM relied upon to reach its conclusion that significant adverse impacts to many area resources have already occurred with existing development and mitigation requirements. Next, the BLM should state that the increased mitigation requirements proposed under the Jonah Infill Drilling Project only apply to wells that are truly infill between existing wells and not to extension wells beyond the perimeter of existing wells. Last, pursuant to Instruction Memorandum No. 2005-069, the BLM must clarify that compensatory mitigation is entirely voluntary. 

L-31 54 A1 Alternatives Page 4-33, Section 4.1.4.12: 

“Under the No Action Alternative and Alternatives B through F, there would be...” Recommendation: The above sentence should be amended as follows: Under the No Action Alternative, the Preferred Alternative and Alternatives B through F, there would be... 

TJAaacAablatt

L-31 55 A1 Analysis Page 4-36, Section 4.1.6.10: 

“In terms of duration of development (and thus exposure to potential indirect impacts such as vandalism, and conversely, beneficial discoveries), the Preferred Alternative is comparable to most of the other alternatives under the 250 well/year development 

VecoprP

118
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

scenario;” Theft is another potential indirect impact. Recommendation: The above sentence should be amended as follows: In terms of duration of development (and thus exposure to potential indirect impacts such as vandalism and theft, and conversely, beneficial discoveries), the Preferred Alternative is comparable to most of the other alternatives under the 250 well/year development scenario... 

ates

L-31 56 A Soils Analysis Page 4-37, Section 4.1.7: 

“Significant impacts to soils are anticipated under all project alternatives.” On Page v of the Executive Summary, the BLM states that significant impacts to soils are not quantified. See, Executive Summary, Page v. If the BLM has not quantified the impacts to soils, how can it reach the conclusion that “significant impacts to soils are anticipated under all project alternatives?” Recommendation: The BLM must quantify the impacts to soils before it concludes that significant impacts to soils are anticipated under all project alternatives. According to the BLM, this “quantification” will take place during the draft EIS public comment period and the results will be reported in the final EIS. See, Pg. v. Until then, the BLM should remove the above sentence (Significant impacts to soils are anticipated under all project alternatives.) from the DEIS.

Ttpssa dimlesanrecsoTestapp

L-31 57 A1 Water 

Resources 

Compliance Analysis Page 4-51, 1st Full Paragraph: 

“Impacts to surface or ground waters would be significant 1) if water quality declined (e.g., from sedimentation, accidental spills, or cross-aquifer mixing)

Tptc

119
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

such that existing WDEQ water quality classes (WDEQ 1990) would be downgraded...” A discharge into an aquifer containing Class I, II, III or Special (A) Groundwater of the State which results in concentrations in excess of standards shall be permitted if post-discharge water quality can be returned to water quality standards or better quality. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Rules and Regulations, Chapter 8, Page 6. Therefore, an overall decline in water quality within the JIDPA would not be a significant impact if the overall water quality within the JIDPA was restored to pre-infill drilling water quality or better after infill drilling was complete. Recommendation: The BLM should incorporate the WDEQ’s rule regarding water quality decline or downgrading. The above language would then read as follows: Impacts to surface or ground waters would be significant 1) if water quality declined (e.g., from sedimentation, accidental spills, or cross-aquifer mixing) such that existing WDEQ water quality classes (WDEQ 1990) would be downgraded AND could not be later upgraded to existing or pre-project WDEQ water quality classes or better. 

L-31 58 A Soils Water 

Resources 

Analysis Page 4-51, Last Paragraph: 

“Impacts to surface water from development generally would result from increased runoff from disturbed areas, and it is assumed that with increased surface disturbance acreage, there would be a corresponding decrease in water quality (increased sediment loads in runoff waters) and increased runoff rates.” The above sentence implies that the increased surface disturbance associated with the Jonah Infill Drilling Project is going to adversely affect the water quality in both perennial and intermittent streams. However, the Jonah Infill Drilling Project DEIS states, “drainages within the JIDPA flow only periodically in response to rain and 

Ttbmpssa dimlesan

120
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

snowmelt events, having extended periods of no flow (most of the year).” See, Page 3-41. With successful reclamation and the construction of sediment retention/catchment areas where needed, only minor amounts of project-related runoff sediments are anticipated to reach perennial surface waters. See, Page 4-51. Therefore, the increased surface disturbance associated with the Jonah Infill Drilling Project will not adversely affect the water quality in perennial streams. Recommendation: Since the increased surface disturbance associated with the Jonah Infill Drilling Project will not adversely affect the water quality in perennial streams, the BLM should clarify that “surface water” in the above sentence, means water in intermittent or ephemeral drainages. Likewise, Operators should not be required to conduct modeling of ephemeral drainages (See, Last Full Sentence on Page 4-51) within the JIDPA because the surface water in those drainages is intermittent and “only minor amounts of project-related runoff sediments are anticipated to reach perennial surface waters.” 

recso

L-31 59 A1 Water 

Resources 

Compliance Page 4-53, 1st Paragraph: 

“Accidental contamination is possible but would be mitigated through a groundwater clean-up program, the scope of which would be determined by the EPA should a reportable incident occur (see Appendix G).” Recommendation: The BLM should replace EPA in the above sentence with WDEQ. 

A

L-31 60 A1 Soils Water 

Resources 

Analysis Page 4-61, Section 4.1.8.12: 

Since “only minor amounts of project-related runoff sediments are anticipated to reach perennial surface waters” (Page 4-51) and “no significant impacts to ground water resources are anticipated under any alternative” (Page 4-53), there should be no “unavoidable adverse impacts” to surface or groundwater as a result of the increased surface disturbance associated with the Jonah Infill Drilling Project.

Ttt

121
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Recommendation: Under the “Unavoidable Adverse Impacts” section, the BLM should state: There are no unavoidable adverse impacts to surface or groundwater as a result of the increased surface disturbance associated with the Jonah Infill Drilling Project. 

L-31 61 A1 Water 

Resources 

Page 4-69, 3rd Full Paragraph: “Indirect impacts to wetlands, waters of the U.S, and/or riparian areas would occur as a result of increased sediment deposition in these areas.” This sentence implies that all surface waters in and around the JIDPA will be impacted by increased sediment deposition. However, with successful reclamation and the construction of sediment retention/catchment areas where needed, only minor amounts of project-related runoff sediments are anticipated to reach perennial surface waters. See, Page 4-51. Therefore, not all surface waters in and around the JIDPA will be impacted by the increased sediment deposition. Recommendation: Since not all surface waters in and around the JIDPA will be impacted by the increased sediment deposition, the BLM should refine the above sentence. 

T“

L-31 62 A Editorial Page 4-89, Section 4.2.2.9: 

Recommendation: “Figure 4.5” should be “Map 4.5.” 

Arf

L-31 63 A Livestock/ 

Grazing 

On-Site Mitigation 

Page 4-100, Section 4.2.4.2: “The Proposed Action would result in the direct removal of forage from approximately 2,415 acres (242 AUMs) initially, and 715 acres (72 AUMs) for the LOP within the 519,541-acre LCHMA.” 

PF

122
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Pipeline ROWs and other reclaimed areas within the JIDPA will provide higher quality forage in less acreage. Therefore, there would be a net gain in sustainable forage and AUMs. Recommendation: In the above acreage and AUM analysis, the BLM should account for higher quality forage in reclaimed areas within the JIDPA. 

L-31 64 A Economics Wildlife On-Site 

Mitigation 

Page 4-120, Section 4.4.2: “The Proposed Action could result in a present value loss of economic activity from recreation of $2.4 million, hunting of $1.0 million, and grazing of $6.6 million over the LOP.” In its loss of economic activity calculations, the BLM did not consider project-related roads that enable hunters to access previously inaccessible areas. In addition, the BLM did not account for reclaimed areas within the JIDPA that provide high quality forage for wildlife as well as domestic animals. Recommendation: The BLM must consider the above scenarios because they will offset the loss of economic activity numbers. 

CrcaRcAbieaibidtctceemqaatcb

L-31 65 A Livestock/ 

Grazing 

On-Site Mitigation 

Page 4-134, Section 4.5.2.2: “Under the Proposed action, LOP AUM loss would increase from the No Action Alternative by approximately 393 AUMs.”

PF

123
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Pipeline ROWs and other reclaimed areas within the JIDPA will provide higher quality forage in less acreage. Therefore, there would be a net gain in sustainable forage and AUMs. Recommendation: In the above acreage AUM analysis, the BLM should account for higher quality forage in reclaimed areas within the JIDPA. 

L-31 66 A1 Compensatory 

Mitigation 

Page 4-151, Section 4.8: This section addresses compensatory mitigation. For example, “CM may be considered after other forms of on-site mitigation, including best management practices, have been analyzed.” Pg. 4-152. It does not, however, state that compensatory mitigation is entirely voluntary. Recommendation: In Section 4.8, the BLM should clarify that compensatory mitigation is entirely voluntary. 

Tcr

L-31 67 A1 Compensatory 

Mitigation 

Page 4-152, Section 4.8.1, 1st Sentence: “The Operators have committed to funding a Cumulative Impacts Mitigation Fund (CIMF) to offset impacts of their proposed Jonah Infill development.” The above language implies that all Operators who are proposing to infill drill within the Jonah Natural Gas Field have committed to funding a Cumulative Impacts Mitigation Fund to offset environmental impacts. In fact, not all Operators have made this commitment or intend to make this commitment. Recommendation: If the BLM is going to state that “Operators have committed to funding a Cumulative Impacts Mitigation Fund (CIMF) to offset impacts of their proposed Jonah Infill development,” the agency should identify the Operators who have made this commitment. 

Tcr

L-31 68 A On-Site Compensatory On-Site Page 5-1, Section 5.1: A

124
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Mitigation Mitigation Mitigation 

Section 5.1 provides a summary of mitigation and monitoring actions that could be applied to the project via the ROD or by JIWG recommendation to further minimize adverse impacts or verify the presence, extent or absence of anticipated impacts. See generally, Pg. 5-1. The BLM does not, however, provide the analysis to show that the additional mitigation opportunities listed in Section 5.1 are (1) either statutorily required or scientifically justifiable and (2) they are the least restrictive means to achieve the desired level of resource protection. In short, there is no way of knowing whether the BLM applied the principles derived from EPCA which calls into question the validity of the additional mitigation opportunities listed in Section 5.1. Recommendation: It is imperative for BLM to show that the additional mitigation opportunities listed in Section 5.1 are either statutorily required or scientifically justifiable AND they are the least restrictive means to achieve the desired level of resource protection. 

Cnttwlectb

L-31 69 A1 Wildlife Page 5-4, Section 5.1.7, 1st Bullet Point: 

“Utilization of low-profile tanks within line-of-sight, up to a maximum of 0.5 mile, of greater sage-grouse leks;” This requirement is not listed in the most recent sage grouse instruction memorandum and Operators have never been required to do this. Recommendation: The BLM should remove the above restriction from the Jonah Infill Drilling Project DEIS. 

Aa

L-31 70 A1 Transportation Page 5-5, Section 5.1.11, 4th Bullet Point: 

“Operators could jointly develop and submit for BLM approval road maintenance and use agreements designating road development, maintenance, and use requirements by each Operator.” Road maintenance and use agreements are confidential.

Orahaccw

125
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Recommendation: The BLM should remove the above bullet point from the Jonah Infill Drilling Project DEIS. 

L-31 71 A1 Hazardous 

Materials 

Health / Safety Page 5-6, Section 5.1.13, 1st Bullet Point: 

“Provide the BLM with copies of field- or lease-specific SWPPPs, SPCCPs, Spill Response Plans, and Emergency Response Plans.” The only plans Operators submit to BLM are SWPPPs when requested. BLM does not have the authority to either approve or deny these plans. Recommendation: The BLM should remove the above bullet point from the Jonah Infill Drilling Project DEIS. 

Tis ddterfdswmCrr

L-31 72 A1 Land 

Ownership 

Page 5-6, Section 5.1.14, 2nd Bullet Point: “File valid copies of access and/or surface use agreements between Operators and the private surface owner with APDs and/or ROW grants with the BLM for all future development proposals on private surface with BLM mineral estate.” Access and/or surface use agreements are confidential.Recommendation: The BLM should remove the second bullet point in Section 5.1.14 from the Jonah Infill Drilling Project DEIS.

ATwt

L-31 73 A1 Compensatory 

Mitigation 

Page 5-7, Section 5.2: Section 5.2 contains a list of compensatory mitigation ideas that “could be undertaken to mitigate for impacts within the JIDPA that cannot be fully mitigated on-site... ” Pg. 5-7. The BLM does not, however, state that compensatory mitigation is entirely voluntary. Recommendation: When discussing compensatory mitigation, the BLM 

Tcr

126
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

should always make it clear that compensatory mitigation is entirely voluntary. 

L-31 74 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

Page A-1, Introduction: “These guidelines are primarily for the purpose of attaining statewide consistency in how requirements are determined for avoiding and mitigating environmental impacts and resource and land use conflicts. Consistency in this sense does not mean that identical requirements would be applied for all similar types of land use activities that may cause similar types of impacts. Nor does it mean that the requirements or guidelines for a single land use activity would be identical in all areas.” The above paragraph identifies the primary purpose of the Wyoming BLM Mitigation Guidelines. Recommendation: Since the above paragraph identifies the primary purpose of the Wyoming BLM Mitigation Guidelines, it should be moved from the “Introduction” section to the “Purpose” section. The “Introduction” section would then include the remaining two (2) paragraphs. 

Ti“gmdgst

L-31 75 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

Compensatory Mitigation 

Page A-1, Introduction: Recommendation: The “Introduction” section should also address the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). Pursuant to EPCA, the Wyoming BLM Mitigation Guidelines must be either statutorily required or scientifically justifiable AND they must be the least restrictive means to achieve the desired level of resource protection. 

Etb

L-31 76 A1 Editorial Page A-2, Mitigation Guidelines, Surface Disturbance 

Mitigation Guideline: Recommendation: Near the bottom of Page A-2, the BLM refers to (1a through 1e). Therefore, the enumerated conditions on Page A-2 should be a, b, c, d and e not bullet points. 

Tlatbw

127
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

L-31 77 A Wildlife Compliance Page A-3, Mitigation Guidelines, Wildlife Mitigation 

Guideline: From the Wyoming BLM Mitigation Guidelines, sage grouse nesting habitat restrictions are in effect from February 1 to July 31 – To protect important greater sage grouse nesting habitat, activities or surface use will not be allowed from February 1 to July 31 within certain areas encompassed by the authorization. See, Appendix A, pp. A-3 and A-4. In contrast, Instruction Memorandum No. WY-2004-057 shows that sage grouse nesting habitat restrictions are in effect from March 1 to July 15 – Sage-grouse leks: Avoid human activity between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. from March 1 – May 15 within 1⁄4 mile of the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks. Sage-grouse nesting/early brood-rearing habitat: Avoid surface disturbing and disruptive activities in identified sage-grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitat outside the 2-mile buffer from March 15 – July 15. See, Instruction Memorandum No. WY-2004-057, Statement of Policy Regarding Sage-Grouse Definitions and Use of Protective Stipulations and Conditions of Approval at pg. 5. In this case, the sage grouse nesting habitat restrictions (Restrictions) found in Instruction Memorandum No. WY2004-057 take precedent over the Restrictions found in the Wyoming BLM Mitigation Guidelines because the purpose of Instruction Memorandum No. WY-2004-057 is to provide general guidance and consistency for sagegrouse management on BLM administered Public Lands in the state. Id. Recommendation: Since the Restrictions found in Instruction Memorandum No. WY-2004-057 take precedent over the Restrictions 

Aa

128
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

found in the Wyoming BLM Mitigation Guidelines, the Restrictions in the Wyoming BLM Mitigation Guidelines should be amended so that they are only in effect from March 1 to July 15. 

L-31 78 A1 Editorial Page A-3, Mitigation Guidelines, Wildlife Mitigation 

Guideline: Recommendation: At the bottom of Page A-3, the BLM refers to (2a and 2b) and 2c. Therefore the enumerated conditions on Page A-3 should be a, b, c, d and e not bullet points. 

Tlattcp

b

L-31 79 A Wildlife Page A-4, Mitigation Guidelines, Wildlife Mitigation 

Guideline: “The same birds often require protection from disturbance from November 15 through April 30 while they occupy winter concentration areas.” The term winter concentration area is poorly defined. It cannot simply include stands of sagebrush. Recommendation: The BLM should provide a definition or an explanation of the term winter concentration area. 

“bN

L-31 80 A Paleontology Page A-5, Mitigation Guidelines, Cultural Resource 

Mitigation Guideline: “Mitigation of paleontological and natural history sites will be treated on a case-by-case basis.” Recommendation: Paleontological sites should not be addressed in the cultural resource mitigation section. 

TPcpsp

L-31 81 A1 Technical 

Information 

OperatorCommitted Practices 

Not all Operators have committed to the enumerated practices in Appendix B. If the BLM is going to discuss Operator-committed practices, it should identify the Operators who have committed to these practices. 

Ttp“ca

129
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Ju

L-31 82 A1 Analysis OperatorCommitted 

Practices 

Page B-1, 1st Paragraph: “... and Operators have committed to the implementation of these programs and polices under the Proposed Action and various alternatives (see environmental impact statement [EIS] Section 2.15)” Assuming EIS Section 2.15 refers to Section 2.15 of the Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, that section discusses the alternatives that were considered and eliminated from detailed study. It does not discuss implementation of Operator committed programs and policies under the Proposed Action and various alternatives. In addition, if the environmental programs and policies that are presently in place have prevented environmental harm within the Jonah Natural Gas Field and Operators have already made the commitment to implement these same programs and policies under their Proposed Action, then what is the purpose of the BLM’s Preferred Alternative which may not provide greater environmental protection and certainly limits gas production? Recommendation: The BLM should review Section 2.15 and if that section does not apply, it should cite to the correct section(s). In looking at Chapter 2, the BLM is probably referring to Sections 2.6 through 2.14. 

TcpdwTrToInatrpPSrarIP

L-31 83 A1 Editorial OperatorCommitted 

Practices 

Page B-1, 6th Paragraph: “Exceptions to Operator-committed practices may be granted if a thorough analysis by the BLM determines that the resource(s) for which the measure was developed would not be impacted by the proposed project (see EIS Section 1.3.1.4).” There is no Section 1.3.1.4 in the Jonah Infill Drilling Project DEIS. Recommendation: 

Ac

130
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

The BLM should cite to the correct section in the above sentence. 

L-31 84 A1 Compliance OperatorCommitted 

Practices 

Page B-1, 6th Paragraph: “Exceptions to Operator-committed practices may be granted if a thorough analysis by the BLM determines that the resource(s) for which the measure was developed would not be impacted by the proposed project (see EIS Section 1.3.1.4).” The BLM is going to allow modifications to Operatorcommitted practices. However, the agency will only allow modifications “if a thorough analysis by the BLM determines that the resource(s) for which the measure was developed would not be impacted by the proposed project.” Recommendation: Since the BLM is going to allow modifications to Operator-committed practices, the agency should be consistent and apply the test derived from the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). The above language should read as follows: Exceptions to Operator-committed practices may be granted if the practice is not statutorily required or scientifically justifiable OR if the practice is not the least restrictive means to achieve the desired level of resource protection. 

TpmmarwwaaptmcBOtca

L-31 85 A1 Wildlife On-Site 

Mitigation 

OperatorCommitted Practices 

Page B-2, No. 2: Recommendation: The “Wildlife Monitoring/Protection Plan” and “annual wildlife reports” are joint Operator efforts not individual APD efforts. Therefore, the BLM should remove them from the language in No. 2. 

AiMR

L-31 86 A1 Analysis OperatorCommitted 

Practices 

Page B-2, No. 3: Recommendation: The BLM should remove, and any other clearance specified by BLM, from the last part of No. 3. Also, it is 

Aaptba

131
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

difficult for Operators to commit to the various inventories in No. 3 when the BLM is not specific as to what these inventories are or what they entail. 

mis f

L-31 87 A1 Air Quality Compliance OperatorCommitted 

Practices 

Page B-3, No. 10: “Necessary air quality permits to construct, test, and operate facilities would be obtained from the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Air Quality Division (WDEQ/AQD). All internal combustion equipment would be kept in good working order.” Recommendation: Operator-committed practice No. 10 should be in italics because the BLM does not have the authority to regulate air quality and Operator-committed practices that are outside the jurisdiction of the agency are identified as italicized text. 

Tb

L-31 88 A1 Air Quality Compliance Page B-3, No. 12: 

Recommendation: The term BLM should be removed from No. 12 because the BLM does not have the authority to regulate air quality. 

D“le

L-31 89 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

OperatorCommitted Practices 

Page B-4, No. 18: Recommendation: The BLM should insert the term where practical between the word contours and the word at in No. 18. 

TOaT

L-31 90 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

OperatorCommitted Practices 

Page B-5, No. 26: Recommendation: The BLM should clarify that Operators only monitor erosion control and revegetation efforts on a voluntary basis. 

TOaT

L-31 91 A Soils OperatorCommitted 

Practices 

On-Site Mitigation 

Page B-6, No. 33: Recommendation: The BLM should provide a reference cite for the requirements and goals of erosion control structures and culverts. 

TMoS

L-31 92 A1 Editorial Page B-6, No. 35: 

Recommendation:

T

132
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

The word no should be changed to not. 

L-31 93 A1 Water 

Resources 

Hazardous Materials 

Compliance Page B-6, No. 36: 

Recommendation: The BLM does not have authority to regulate. No. 36 should be in italics. 

A

L-31 94 A1 Water 

Resources 

Compliance OperatorCommitted 

Practices 

Page B-7, No. 38: “... Operators would treat diverted water in detention ponds prior to release to meet applicable state or federal standards.” AND “If water is discharged into an established drainage channel, the rate of discharge would not exceed the capacity of the channel to convey the increased flow without creating erosion induced channel adjustments. Waters that do not meet applicable state or federal standards would be evaporated, treated, or disposed of at an approved disposal facility.” The BLM does not have the authority to regulate how Operators handle produced water. Recommendation: The above language should be in italics. 

O3fwmWrr

L-31 95 A Water 

Resources 

Hazardous Materials 

OperatorCommitted Practices 

Page B-8, Nos. 46 and 47: By referring to EnCana, the language in 46 and 47 implies that Operators must follow EnCana’s plans. Operators do not have to follow EnCana’s plans. Recommendation: The BLM should not refer to EnCana in Nos. 46 and 47. If the BLM does cite to EnCana’s plans, the agency should clarify that Operators do not have to follow a particular company’s plans. 

Ap

L-31 96 A1 Water 

Resources 

Compliance Page B-8, No. 50: T

133
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Resources Recommendation: 

No. 50 should be in italics and approved with each authorization and through the prompt reclamation of disturbances should be removed and replaced with according to SWPPP under WDEQ jurisdiction. The amended paragraph would read as follows: Increased sedimentation impacts to surface waters would be avoided or minimized through construction and erosion control practices according to SWPPP under WDEQ jurisdiction. 

“smea OWR

L-31 97 A1 Water 

Resources 

Compliance OperatorCommitted 

Practices 

Page B-8, No. 51: “Operators would conduct complete water quality analyses (e.g., pH, alkalinity, total dissolved solids (TDS), oil and grease, benzene, etc.) on all newly developed water wells. Additionally, annual water quality testing at new and existing project-required water wells would be implemented to detect water quality changes, and in the event adverse changes are noted, Operators would work with the BLM on developing and implementing appropriate corrective actions. Water well drilling and quality analysis reports would be submitted by October 1 of each year to the BLM Pinedale Field Office (PFO), SEO, and WDEQ/ WQD for review.” The BLM does not have the authority to regulate water quality and groundwater will not be impacted by the Jonah Infill Drilling Project. Therefore, there is no basis for requiring groundwater monitoring. Recommendation: Operator-committed practice No. 51, above, should be removed from the Jonah Infill Drilling Project DEIS. In the alternative, No. 51 should be in italics. 

TarimBwBtetBmWeTrATEIF

L-31 98 A1 Wildlife OperatorCommitted 

Practices 

Page B-9, No. 54: Recommendation: The language, within specified setbacks and timing stipulations, should be inserted between restricted and proximal. The amended paragraph would read as follows:

Tpui

134
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Construction, drilling, completion, testing, and production facility installation activities would be seasonally restricted, within specified setbacks and timing stipulations, proximal to active raptor nests during the nesting period and in greater sage-grouse breeding and nesting areas. 

L-31 99 A1 Water 

Resources 

Compliance OperatorCommitted 

Practices 

Page B-10, Nos. 64 and 65: Recommendation: Operator-committed practices 64 and 65 should be in italics. 

Ait

L-31 100 A1 Wildlife On-Site 

Mitigation 

OperatorCommitted Practices 

Page B-11, No. 69: Recommendation: The last sentence in No. 69 should read as follows: The plan would be incorporated into the Operator field operations manual or handbook, a copy of which would be kept on-site or with Operator personnel when on-site in the JIDPA. 

Ni

L-31 101 A1 Wildlife OperatorCommitted 

Practices 

Page B-11, No. 70: Recommendation: The following sentence: If violations are discovered, the offending employee or contractor would be disciplined and may be dismissed by Operators and/or prosecuted by WGFD. should be removed from No. 70. 

Tectotsd

L-31 102 A1 Analysis OperatorCommitted 

Practices 

Page B-12, No. 72: Recommendation: The BLM should insert the word unleashed in front of the word dogs. 

Tma

L-31 103 A1 Wildlife OperatorCommitted 

Practices 

Page B-13, No. 81: Recommendation: 

Drp

135
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

The BLM should insert the word active after the word known. The amended sentence would read as follows: Well pads, pipelines, and associated roads would be selected and designed to avoid disturbance to known active raptor nest sites. 

rp

L-31 104 A Wildlife OperatorCommitted 

Practices 

Page B-13, Nos. 87-91: Recommendation: The BLM should state why the mountain plover practices/guidelines still apply since the USFWS determined that mountain plovers do not warrant listing. 

MsaJ

L-31 105 A Wildlife OperatorCommitted 

Practices 

Page B-15, Nos. 92-94: Since white-tail prairie dogs are not warranted for listing, why are Operators required to avoid surface disturbance in prairie dog towns? Recommendation: The Operator-committed practices (Nos. 92-94) should be removed from the Jonah Infill Drilling Project DEIS. 

Wspf

L-31 106 A1 Cultural 

Resources 

OperatorCommitted Practices 

Page B-17, No. 109: Recommendation: The BLM should insert the term in the area of concern between the word activities and if. The first sentence in No. 109 would then read as follows: Operators would halt construction activities, in the area of concern, if previously undetected cultural resource properties are discovered during construction. 

Bttsp8iSmdopcdF

L-31 108 A Visual 

Resources 

OperatorCommitted Practices 

Page B-19, No. 132: Recommendation: The JIDPA is a Class IV area so No. 132 is 

T1mmc

136
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

unnecessary. The BLM should remove Operatorcommitted practice No. 132 from the Jonah Infill Drilling Project DEIS. 

iftlasBitwtpmngsoca

L-31 109 A Analysis Page D-2, Section III: 

Section III identifies the goals and objectives of the adaptive management process. This list of goals and objectives is generated by the BLM after reviewing recommendations from the JIWG Task Groups. Unfortunately, the BLM does not explain this process in Section III. Recommendation: Section III should include an explanation of how the list of goals and objectives of the adaptive management process is generated. The BLM is responsible for generating this list not the JIWG. The JIWG simply makes recommendations to the BLM. 

TTFo

L-31 110 A1 Editorial Page I of Appendix G: 

Referring to the Transportation Plan, Reclamation Plan and Hazardous Materials Management Summary as Appendices A, B, and C, respectively, is confusing because Volume 2 of the DEIS already has Appendices A, B, and C. Recommendation: Appendices A, B, and C should be Supplements A, B,

TD

137
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

and C. 

L-31 111 A1 Editorial Transportation Plan, Page A-2, Map A-1.1: 

Recommendation: The South Anticline Road which intersects Rim Road in T30N, R108W and Highway 191 in T29N, R107W on Map A-1.1 is a collector road and should be shown in bold print on Map A-1.1 similar to Rim and Luman Roads. 

Tt

L-31 112 A1 Transportation Transportation Plan, Page A-57: 

On Pages A-57 – A-58 the BLM discusses road maintenance agreements including terms and conditions dictated by the agency. See generally, Pages A-57 – A58. Ironically, the BLM has no authority to dictate the terms and conditions of these agreements because the agency is not a party to the contract. Maintenance agreements are usually binding contracts between companies that deal with road maintenance. The BLM generally does not enter into maintenance agreements with companies. The preferred approach is for companies to work together and adjudicate maintenance agreements amongst themselves. Page, A-57. Recommendation: Since the BLM has no authority to dictate the terms and conditions of these agreements, the road maintenance agreement section (A-8.0 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS) should be removed from the Jonah Infill Drilling Project DEIS. 

Tcais uatmcwpa

L-31 113 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

OperatorCommitted Practices 

Reclamation Plan, Pages B-4 – B-6: The language on Pages B-4 – B-6 and the flow chart (Figure B-4.1) on Page B-10, implies that an Operator’s reclamation bond will not be released until “permanent revegetation” has been achieved. See generally, Pages B-4 – B-6 and Figure B-4.1. This can take up to 10 years. Id. at Page B-5. In most, if not all, cases the BLM releases reclamation bonds shortly after reclamation not 

SishdwfiF

138
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

after “permanent revegetation.” Recommendation: The BLM should clarify the language on Pages B-4 – B6 and the flow chart (Figure B-4.1) on Page B-10 to reflect the fact that reclamation bonds are released shortly after reclamation not after “permanent revegetation.” 

rcBp

L-31 114 A1 Hazardous 

Materials 

Water Resources 

Compliance Hazardous Materials Management Summary, Page C-9:

“If oil-based drilling fluids are used, these fluids would be contained in a closed system (a series of tanks) to prevent their release to the environment.” It would appear the only reason for requiring closed drilling systems is to protect groundwater quality. The BLM does not have the authority to regulate water quality. Furthermore, Yates does not see the value in requiring Operators to utilize closed drilling systems when reserve pits are constructed with heavy-duty liners that fully contain all fluids. Recommendation: The above sentence (If oil-based drilling fluids are used, these fluids would be contained in a closed system (a series of tanks) to prevent their release to the environment.) should be removed from the Jonah Infill Drilling Project DEIS. 

BafsTb“awETln

L-31 115 A1 Hazardous 

Materials 

Hazardous Materials Management Summary, Page C27: At the bottom of Page C-27 and continuing over to Page C-28, the BLM refers to several Operator -specific hazardous material (hazmat) plans implying that Yates, for example, must comply with EnCana’s “spill response plan” or McMurray Oil’s “Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.” While it may be convenient for the BLM that all Operators utilize the same hazmat plan each Operator, including Yates, has its own hazmat plan, which has proven to be just as effective as EnCana’s and/or McMurry’s. Recommendation:

Tba“if(taodf

139
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Since each Operator has its own hazmat plan, which has proven to be just as effective as EnCana’s and/or McMurry’s, the BLM must clarify, within the management policy and procedure section (C-11.0 MANAGEMENT POLICY AND PROCEDURE), that Operators will be allowed to utilize their own hazmat plans and/or policies. 

L-34 2 C Compensatory 

Mitigation 

RSGA has concern for the introduction of compensatory mitigation in the DEIS. The scope of the resource conflicts have not been sufficiently demonstrated in the document to justify compensatory mitigation as a solution for the resource conflicts described. Compensatory mitigation could be utilized to assist county agencies and local communities with infrastructure and socio-economic issues. It is also not clear in the DEIS if there is consensus among the Jonah operators that compensatory mitigation is consistently supported. 

DctcsdsmPor

L-34 3 C Compensatory 

Mitigation 

p. i, 3rd para: Discussion of off-site mitigation should have been delayed until completion of the DEIS analysis. Introducing off-site mitigation in the early stages of will significantly change the attitude of agencies in the analysis of oil and gas development. The agencies will now anticipate a willingness of industry to offer compensation in addition to mitigation on site. Reliance on “recent communication with operators” as a basis of compensatory mitigation is not a good rational to design alternatives or mitigation in a DEIS. If the current operators change, the new operators may not be receptive to the concept, and anticipated off-site mitigation might not occur. Recommendation: Deflate the discussion on off-site mitigation, as it implies extraordinary mitigation that is voluntary may not materialize. History will demonstrate that a change of operators, personalities, and management style will occur, including within BLM. 

TwwiaAspms

L-34 4 D Analysis Surface 

Disturbance 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, p. v and vi, All paragraphs: There will be significant surface disturbance in the Jonah Field. However, this should not be the basis of a conclusion that there will be significant environmental impacts, or even significant resource conflicts. Other oil and gas developments have occurred in western Wyoming where terrains and habitats that 

Sdnoovi

140
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

were far more difficult to mitigate, and they were successfully completed. The significance of Jonah Field disturbance is less than experienced elsewhere in western Wyoming, but this DEIS implies the significance is far greater than prior developments and extra ordinary mitigations are justified. The facts do not support this conclusion. Hopefully, the significance of Jonah Field and the complexity of resource conflicts are not inflated because new BLM staff is introduced to oil and gas development in Wyoming. In western Wyoming the Exxon LaBarge Project, the Chevron Carter Creek, and the AMOCO Whitney Canyon oil and gas developments included significant resource conflicts. The BLM standard stipulations used today were in part created during the NEPA analysis and development of those projects, and they are more than adequate for the Jonah Field. Recommendation: Incorporate discussion of other oil and gas developments and include the success of those developments with existing standard practices. 

witAtbdmosisscsasbAsawpiSAatbNibJ1twointatrt

141
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

mms6t

L-34 5 A1 Surface 

Disturbance 

Compliance Authorizing Actions, p. 1-9, para 1.4.1.1: The Wyoming 

BLM Mitigation Guidelines and Practices for Surface Disturbing and Disruptive Activities is often cited in the DEIS. However, recently there has been an inordinate emphasis on Disruptive Activities (Ref: Jack Morrow Hills Activity Plan and Rawlins RMP DEIS). There is concern and confusion with the new emphasis on Disruptive Activities, and how the BLM will implement new interpretations. There is no definition of Disruptive Activities in this DEIS. In other BLM Field Offices, disruptive activities are now interpreted to include herding of livestock, land surveying, and other necessary tasks that require persons to be in an area 2 hours, or more. This definition is not acceptable, and assumed to not be intended for Jonah Field. Recommendation: Define Disruptive Activities and disclose how restrictions will be applied. Explain any difference in definition as referenced in the Green River and Pinedale RMPs. 

Tg

L-34 6 A Compensatory 

Mitigation 

PROPOSED ACTION, p. 2-8, Last para: The establishment of the Cumulative Impacts Mitigation Fund should have been delayed until the DEIS was completed. It now appears that there were conclusions made prior to the DEIS analysis that the disturbance will be a significant impact. The reference to values of $850 per acre is improper in the DEIS, especially in the introductory chapters, and prior to analysis of the impacts. There is no obvious basis for these values. There is potential to impact the ability of the oil and gas industry, utilities, and local governments to conduct routine business and acquire surface rights for easements and other property rights for needed infrastructure across private and Public Land. It may influence what BLM charges for rights-of-way rental. It will interrupt the willing buyer and willing seller approach to land acquisition and appraisal. Recommendation: Remove the reference of $850 per 

TanF

142
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

acre, and subsequent reference in the alternatives. 

L-34 7 A Analysis ALL DISCUSSIONS: The various tables and data imply 

a degree of accuracy that violates the mathematical law of significant figures. The DEIS estimates of acres, miles, numbers, etc. must reflect the realistic precision of the estimates. It is implied that the precision of the data 

in the DEIS is to the nearest 1 acre of disturbance, 1 mile of pipeline or road, 1 well bore or well pad, or 1 year of production. This is a false sense of skill of the BLM ability to estimate these developments. At best, a reliable estimate may only be to the nearest 10, not 1, and definitely not to 0.1. This correction is needed to avoid issues as there may be literal translation of the data in the future. Recommendation: Provide realistic estimates, and remove implied precision of estimates. The precision implied in the tables is misleading. Provide a disclaimer for the accuracy of the numbers and the techniques that developed them. 

AetcSiPastIba

L-34 8 D On-Site 

Mitigation 

Conditions of Approval 

General Conditions of Approval, BMPs, p. 2-27, para 2.14.2, Item 1. The BLM will demand that the operators provide GIS data for everything occurring in the Jonah Field. This is a significant fiscal commitment for the operators and a huge workload for their consultants. There is no discussion regarding quality control of the data. History of BLM requests for similar data indicates that the data will not be utilized or maintained into the future, and it will not be available to the public. Requests for detailed GIS and monitoring data is a reflection of current individual staff interests within BLM, and seldom reflect new BLM capabilities or policy. Capabilities to utilize the data often change with individuals, there no long-term commitment to develop or maintain the data. The operators should be careful to commit to providing this data, as the next BLM request will be to furnish the individual with expertise to utilize it. Recommendations: The need for GIS data to micro manage and analyze the Jonah Field surface disturbance is not justified to meet management objectives. The status of disturbance in Jonah Field is best provided by actual field observation. Perhaps remote sensing or aerial photographs could be provided 

BrctcmeaBtEacredta

143
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

on periodic basis, and BLM could do the interpretation and photogrammetric analysis as needed for their purposes. 

L-34 9 D Health / Safety Technical 

Information 

Conditions of Approval 

Item 2. Statements to set limitations to 7.0 acres, 4.0 acres for well pad size are dangerous and create permitting conflicts. How would such a limitation be reviewed and monitored? Would new technologies be incorporated in to these limitations? Future down-hole treatments or drilling operations might require additional space. Future safety regulations could require more space ... It is the responsibility of the operators to define what facilities are needed, and BLM is responsible to analyze the impacts. Recommendations: Eliminate the reference to restrictions to size of well pad surface disturbance. Utilize typical drawings and site-specific judgment to address issues with well pad size. Well pad size may be assumed for analytical purposes, but should not evolve to become a rule. 

TSuddatOHCauis FrsemwsOsoscttiiTtp

L-34 10 A1 Water 

Resources 

Compliance Conditions of 

Approval 

p. 2-28, Item 2. The incorporation of WDEQ storm water discharge specifications is questionable. The requirements in these specifications may be counter productive. The introduction of miles of bright orange plastic silt fences could be a cure worse than the disease. Standard BLM stipulations have proven workable and successful is many oil and gas developments. Addition of WDEQ requirements is not 

TmppD

144
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

justified to meet objectives in the standard stipulations. Good construction practice will prevent accelerated erosion. Statements that BLM may require more stringent control measures is of concern, these requirements must be disclosed. Recommendations: Eliminate the voluntary requirements of WDEQ. Eliminate the wording that BLM can require more stringent control measures. 

L-34 11 A1 Transportation Conditions of 

Approval 

p. 2-28, Items 5 and 6. The civil engineering design requirements for minor drainage structures are overkill. In practice, the design of minor drainage structures is not a professional effort. 18- and 24-inch culverts are the common culverts installed. They are repaired or replaced as they fail. They generally fail as a result of poor installation, not by failure to predict run-off. To require full design and minimum risk of failure will result in roads that are far more complex than required, and there will be significant additional cost and disturbance. The operator should decide the risk management for minor drainage structure failures. The hydrologic data provided in drainage design software will result in larger culvert sizes typical of highway design, and will be far too large for typical gas field needs and small drainages. The key to good drainage control is related to spacing, and proper drainage ditch construction, rather than size of individual culverts. Road damage in Jonah Field is easy to repair. A washed out culvert is not a disaster. The narrative and objective of item 6 is not clear. Recommendation: Reconstruct or eliminate this item. By practice, this requirement far exceeds BLM’s own engineering practice for minor culverts in BLM roads. Eliminate item 6. 

Tcibiadai

L-34 12 A On-Site 

Mitigation 

On-Site Mitigation 

Conditions of Approval 

Resource Monitoring and Surveying, p. 2-30, para 2.14.2.1: The level of this data is overkill for the Jonah Field. It provides a level of information not necessary for millions of acres of adjacent Public Land. This level of resource information is to a detail that BLM cannot justify for routine land management decisions. If the data were provided, BLM would not have the staff or skills to use it. The few thousand acres in the Jonah Field does not justify the effort and burden on the industry, or BLM staff,

TcamTis

e

145
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

to coordinate the gathering of the data. These requirements exceed requirements often required in a mine plan. Recommendations: Eliminate the requirement to have the oil and gas operator furnish resource inventories and watershed modeling. If challenged, the data would be subject to review and rejection for not meeting certain standards or procedures. If the data is needed, BLM should collect it, not delegate the gathering of it. 

e

L-34 13 A Water 

Resources 

Figure 3.12, p. 3-27 Typical Braided Stream Recommendation: This picture is not representative of the Jonah Field. 

Tbhtnc

L-34 15 A Soils Surface 

Disturbance 

SOILS, p. 4-37, 2nd para: The discussion of erosion does not illustrate prevention of accelerated erosion, i.e., rilling and headcutting. Accelerated erosion is generally the term to describe impact of a development that may result in erosion events that are in addition to the natural, or preexisting, erosion process. Disturbance that may create accelerated erosion should not be allowed if cannot be prevented. The discussion references increased erosion and it is not clear how that equates to prevention of accelerated erosion. The discussion on modeling may be of academic interest but may have little practical value. It will be difficult to segregate natural, pre-existing, and current erosion. Literature review or sponsorship of a graduate study may be worthy of consideration to supplement current knowledge. It is reasonable to anticipate improvement of the soil loss potential as the land is reclaimed, especially with the high density of sites. Recommendation: The topic of accelerated erosion needs to be incorporated. The need for modeling the dynamics of erosion in the Jonah Field in not necessary for the DEIS. It could add irrelevant data to the Final EIS.

Ttpssa dimlesanrecsoTestapp

L-34 16 A Vegetation On-Site 

Mitigation 

WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES, p. 4-76, 2nd para: This paragraph implies that disturbed sagebrush may take up to 90 years to be established. This is a grossly

Tes

146
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

inaccurate. Near the Jonah Field are numerous old sagebrush spray projects completed by BLM in the 1960’s. Many thousands of acres were treated with 2-4D, and equivalent chemicals. Large stands of sagebrush were eradicated. In the late 1970’s, less than 20 years after treatment, dense stands of sagebrush reestablished in the treatment areas. Numerous disturbed sites and pipelines exhibit good regeneration of sagebrush in Sublette County, and throughout Wyoming. Recommendation: Revise the narrative to reflect actual local experience. 

bi

L-34 17 A Wildlife Pronghorn Antelope, p. 4-82, 1st para: The reference to 

90 to 110 years for sagebrush to reach pre-disturbance productivity is inaccurate, see comments above. In the Jonah Field, ranchers, Wyoming Game and Fish, and BLM cooperated to operate water wells, after the livestock grazing period, in order to provide late summer and early fall water for antelope. This cooperative project started in the early 1970’s. Prior to that date, there were few resident antelope in the area. Recommendation: Revise the narrative to reflect actual local experience. 

Aa

L-34 18 C Livestock/ 

Grazing 

Water Resources 

LIVESTOCK/GRAZING MANAGEMENT, p. 4-132, ALL paras: The impacts to livestock grazing are unclear. The Jonah Field occupies only a portion of the several grazing allotments. The history of grazing issues in these allotments is the lack of water. With the increased development, the operators could agree to supplement existing water wells in and adjacent to the Jonah Field. Additional water would increase distribution of livestock to mitigate loss of forage near existing water wells in the Jonah Field. Recommendation: Revise to reflect the benefits of oil and gas operators sharing water with livestock operators. 

WgItRspaAwpit e

L-34 19 C Transportation TRANSPORTATION, pp. 4-143-4, ALL paras: The 

increased traffic could be mitigated if there is an attempt to include professional evaluation of the road networks required. It is inconceivable than only 8 new miles of collector roads are envisioned to support 353 new wells. 

BplamN

147
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

This implies less than adequate input in the transportation planning of the network of roads. The BLM and operators must continue to work closely with WYDOT to anticipate situations that create safety issues for Highway 191N. It is doubtful that the improvement of the Luman and Burma roads will increase the recreational opportunities in Jonah. Eventually, Sublette County may have to react to industry and declare the Luman and Burma Roads as county roads. Eventually, county roads will link together the Jonah, Pinedale Anticline and Mesa road systems. Recommendation: BLM and operator should conduct professional engineering evaluation of the traffic density and patterns. If additional collector roads are needed, then they should be designated and designed to handle the traffic and loads. 

prrp

L-34 21 A Soils On-Site 

Mitigation 

Soil Resources, p. 5-2, para. 5.1.4: The discussion to add additional soil analysis is not justified. There are decades of experience and thousands of permits issued with successful reclamation based on field judgment and experience. The use of fertilizers is not recommended in arid land reclamation. The recommended actions are common in mining permits, but they have proven to be unnecessary in oil and gas operations. Recommendation: Eliminate the discussion. 

P

OfoNSaccwotrpppest

L-34 22 A Vegetation Soils On-Site 

Mitigation 

Vegetation, Including TEP&C: p. 5-3, para 5.1.6: This discussion presents concepts proven invalid in other areas. Removal of topsoil has proven to be the most practical assurance that it will be saved, not contaminated with sub soil, and reapplied. Scalping and ripping have proved to be not as successful, and the reclaimed facilities are often permanently visible, especially when deep ripping occurred. Deep ripping tends to bring subsoil’s to the surface. Irrigation of semiT

cIt

148
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

arid land disturbance is not practical or logical, and conflicts with use of native species. Irrigation and deep ripping techniques are typical requirements for mining permits, and are not required for semi-arid land oil and gas operations. The need for plots and studies of sagebrush is redundant to data available in the academic literature and existing government reports. Recommendation: Eliminate the discussion. 

L-34 23 A Visual 

Resources 

Visual Resource: p. 5-5, para 5.1.12: If the BLM can not justify a position for a Visual Resource Management Specialist, then the operator should not be influenced into furnishing one. If this resource skill is truly needed, it can be provided from within the BLM organization. The BLM has a management process to consider and justify new positions, and a DEIS is not apart of that process. Recommendation: Eliminate the request. 

S9

L-34 24 A Health / Safety Hazardous 

Materials 

Health and Safety/Hazardous Materials: p. 5-6, para 5.1.13: This discussion is redundant to existing regulations. Installation of gates and locks in open public land is not feasible, or realistic, for controlling access. This approach is common to mining operations areas where access is restricted. Recommendation: Eliminate the discussion. 

Ad

L-34 25 A Land 

Ownership 

Other Actions: pp. 5-6, 7, para 5.1.14: These recommendations are redundant to other discussion. BLM has no need to know the details of surface use agreements between industry and landowners. BLM has no authority to discuss acquisition of rights on private land. The amount of private land is nil, it is not an issue in the Jonah Field. Experience in Jonah II would demonstrate that BLM would not utilize electronic data. The request to provide gas to local residents and businesses is probably illegal, or at least conflicts with other regulations. Recommendation: Eliminate the discussion, it reduces the creditability of the DEIS. The narrative in a DEIS should reflect the professionalism, understanding, and knowledge of the authors, operators, and agency. Chapter 5 destroys that image. 

Titb

149
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

L-34 26 A Surface 

Disturbance 

Compliance Wyoming BLM Mitigation Guidelines for Surface 

Disturbing and Disruptive Activities: p. A-1: Appendix A is supposed to be the source of anticipated mitigation measures to be applied to oil and gas operations. They are generally accepted and understood. The DEIS includes Chapter 5 that goes beyond Appendix A, and often repeats many provisions of Chapter A. Appendix A is not regulation, it is a internal policy and guideline. One problem with Appendix A is there is no definition of Disruptive Activities and how the restrictions will be applied to casual use and necessary tasks. The term Surface Disturbance is understood with out definition, but the term Disruptive Activities seems to require definition. Recommendation: Include a definition of disruptive activities in the DEIS. Disclose how restrictions will be applied in Jonah Field. It is assumed they will be consistent with oil and gas developments immediately adjacent to Jonah Field. 

S0

L-34 27 A1 Surface 

Disturbance 

Mitigation Guidelines: p. A-2, para 1: In practice, BLM staffs have interpreted the clause,...Surface disturbance will be prohibited... to mean No Surface Occupancy. This is a management issue for BLM to resolve. The issues related to the six bullet items do not prohibit surface occupancy in these areas, but it is required that a plan must be presented and approved that addresses these issues. Recommendation: Clarify that the clause cited does not mean No Surface Occupancy. 

SM

L-34 28 A Compliance OperatorCommitted 

Practices 

General: Appendix B has added a factor to the DEIS that will impact development and operating procedures in other areas. The risk with Appendix B is other BLM offices will consider these committed practices as state of the art and begin to incorporate recite them, in addition to standard stipulations, in other authorizations. The purpose of including Appendix B is unclear, as many of the statements are included in existing regulations, On-Shore Orders, and the standard operating procedures listed in the References. Appendix B appears to be a list of topics that outlines the operators understanding of the requirements and intent of the various agency instructions, regulations, and 

id li i l d d i th R f Th i d

TdmoirpjitaTf

150
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

guidelines included in the References. There is no need to document the operator’s interpretation of the rules. To present the outlines in Appendix B is confusing for the reader, and is redundant information. Some of the items may lack authority to implement, or may violate other regulations. The risk for the operator is the BLM will take these commitments literal. Later, if the operator requests a waiver of the commitment, due to changing conditions, the BLM may reject the waiver because the operator has already committed to them. If field practice invalidates some of the concepts, or illustrates excessive costs, it may be difficult to change the committed practice ... The operators must be careful when allowing documentation in a DEIS of commitments to specific management practices beyond standard lease stipulations, as it may eliminate flexibility built into the standard stipulations. Appendix B contains 142 committed practices. Many of these are stipulated in leases or other documents, and have been standard practice for years. To repeat these in Appendix B serves no purpose, and may add confusion. The conditions of approval in APDs and ROWs control the work—not Appendix B. In order to be useful, Appendix B needs to be rewritten to eliminate redundant comments, and eliminate those items covered in approval documents. Site-specific conditions of approval may conflict with Operator Committed Practices. It is interesting that there is no discussion of the detailed committed practices for the drilling and production phase, probably because few would relate and understand them. The utility of a document similar to Appendix B is questionable, because there is a presumption that it all necessary tasks and procedures are included, which would never occur. Federal contracts no longer attempt to list every regulation and task, rather it is required that the contractor know and implement all regulations relative to the industry. There is no need to introduce a shopping list of every detail related to surface disturbance for oil and gas operations in the DEIS.

dOpSwtnBrpidommlamB t

151
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Recommendation: Reconsider the need for, and the wording, in Appendix B. Incorporate a disclaimer that operating procedures may change in the future. State that the operator commitments are examples of goals and guidelines, and not specifications for the tasks. An option is to encourage the operator to publish separate internal operating procedures and policy document. The DEIS could then reference the operator’s document. If the operator needs to change internal operating procedures there would be no need to consult with or get approval of BLM, but the reference to the document would still be valid and current. 

L-34 29 A Soils On-Site 

Mitigation 

OperatorCommitted Practices 

SOILS: p. B-5, Items 24 and 25: The discussion and commitment to scalping rather than removing topsoil is poor judgment. There is too much evidence that proves that removal and saving of topsoil is necessary for successful reclamation. Scalping and deep ripping creates visible subsoil contamination of the surface. The practice of saving topsoil in earthwork construction is standard practice. This was implemented in BLM oil and gas operations over 30 years ago. Prior to 1970’s, little or no topsoil was saved, as evidenced by the thousands of miles of seismograph trails visible in the west. The concept of pipelines following roads to minimize disturbance is not fact. This concept was introduced, at suggestion of archeologists, to avoid having to clear another right-of-way, there was no objective to minimize surface disturbance. Just the opposite occurs, because the width of disturbance doubles, as pipelines adjacent to roads seldom heal as fast as isolated pipelines, and they are generally longer. It also introduces safety issues. Item 27: This item conflicts with item 24. Item 28: The extensive wildlife restrictions forces winter work. 

DwTawsJletrCtrsvtuascIIor. mvCw

152
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

is rpmrccawit ccrsra

L-34 30 A Transportation Health / Safety OperatorCommitted 

Practices 

p. B-9, Item 65: The emphasis that all road crossings will cross perpendicular to channels may be counter productive, or create other design problems. Channel crossings are site-specific examinations during the design phase. The real objective to cross channels at right angles is to minimize the length of structures, and therefore minimize cost. To insist on only right angle crossings may introduce safety issues in the centerline design. There is no need to address this detail of instructions because it is required that professional engineers will be responsible for the design of roads and they need the flexibility to do the proper job without unnecessary sideboards. 

TPra spf

L-35 1 A Vegetation Wildlife Conditions of 

Approval 

Habitat Modification Throughout the EIS, the loss of sagebrush habitat is described as a negative impact because of the effects it could have on sagebrush obligate species. While negative effects on sagebrush obligate species are likely, such disruption of sagebrush habitats will have positive effects on wildlife species that require more open or mixed sagebrush/ herbaceous habitats. Habitat modification in itself is not necessarily negative. It is a well-accepted ecological principle that alterations in habitats, including those produced by biotic succession, will make such habitats less suitable for some species while simultaneously making them more suitable for other species (Stiling 1992, Odum 1971, Smith 1974). 

Jcra mso

153
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

The modeling results, regarding habitat fragmentation, that are presented in Maps 4.2 through 4.5 illustrate the potential reductions in largely sagebrush habitats on the JIDPA and the text in Chapter 4 describes the projected loss in sagebrush obligate species. What is overlooked in this presentation is the fact that there will be beneficial effects to non-sagebrush obligate species associated with each of these scenarios. Prairie dogs, ground squirrels, burrowing owls, grassland birds (including mountain plovers), and most medium to small mammal species will all benefit from the opening up of the sagebrush monoculture. Also, prey base for raptor species is likely to be increased with the opening up of the sagebrush habitat. 

L-35 2 A Wildlife On-Site 

Mitigation 

Conditions of Approval 

Page 2-30, bullet #5. Any monitoring of wildlife species on the JIDPA should be directed at documenting changes, both beneficial and negative, to the various species. Such studies should be designed so as to determine cause and affect relationships and include control areas so that differences between control sites and the JIDPA and be statistically tested. 

AiMR

L-35 3 A Wildlife Surface 

Disturbance 

Analysis Page 4-83, Furbearers, Small Game, and Other 

Mammals, par.2. I don’t think that the following statement is supportable: “The ability of the lands within the JIDPA to support furbearers, small game, and other mammals likely would decrease from current levels due to habitat loss and human disturbance.” This statement does not take into consideration that non-sagebrush obligate species that thrive in open, herbaceous habitats are going to benefit and increase their numbers as sagebrush habitats are reduced. 

TjbTsdr

L-35 4 A Wildlife On-Site 

Mitigation 

Page 4-86, Other Birds. Even though the diversity and density of sagebrushobligate bird species is likely to decrease as a result of the removal of sagebrush habitats, the diversity and density of non-sagebrush obligates will increase concurrently. This mixture of obligate and non-obligate species in the habitat mosaic produced by development could increase the total diversity and density of bird 

Tsdr

154
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

species beyond current levels (Patton 1992, Boyce and Cost 1978). Changes such as this should be documented. A negative impact to sagebrush habitat is likely to be a positive impact for non-sagebrush obligate species. 

L-35 5 A Wildlife Pronghorn 

In much of the document, the pronghorn is incorrectly referred to as the “pronghorn Antelope”. The pronghorn is not an antelope and this misconception should not be perpetuated in the EIS. The pronghorn does not belong to the antelope family whose members have permanent and mostly spiral horns. The pronghorn has deciduous horns that are shed and grown back annually. 

Taa& tac

L-35 6 A Wildlife Surface 

Disturbance 

Analysis Page 4-82, par. 1 

Both the natural succession that follows disturbance and the re-vegetation of disturbed areas is likely to improve spring/summer/fall pronghorn habitat by increasing the diversity of herbaceous plants. Mature shrubs in this habitat are not of great value to pronghorn, but the young regenerating shrubs will add to the forage diversity and increase the value of this habitat. The evaluation of impacts in this paragraph is more appropriate for crucial winter range than they are for spring/summer/fall habitat. Pronghorn are not sagebrush obligates during the spring, summer, and fall when then they eat a wide variety of herbaceous forage plants and relatively little sagebrush (Beale and Smith 1970, Dirschl 1963, Schwartz and Nagy 1976, Irwin et al. 1984). Therefore, the potential for impact to pronghorn associated with probable changes to the spring/summer/fall habitat has been misrepresented in the EIS, in that the changes in vegetation that occur are likely to be beneficial to pronghorn, not harmful. 

Pot

L-35 7 A Wildlife Noise Analysis Page 4-82, par. 2 

In this paragraph it is stated that: “However, as noise and human presence are reduced, pronghorn likely would increase their use of these areas (e.g., during production operations), although probably not to the same extent as prior to disturbance.” (Emphasis added). This is sheer speculation and is not referenced to a scientific reference. It is not unlikely that use of these 

Tjb

155
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

areas by pronghorn would increase following the completion of the development phase of the project as an increase in herbaceous vegetation occurs as a result of natural succession and reclamation efforts. 

L-35 8 F Wildlife Analysis Surface 

Disturbance 

Page 4-82, par. 3 Although no scientific literature is cited to support the statement, it is stated that: “Because the Jonah Infill Project would disturb pronghorn summer/spring/fall range, it is reasonable to assume (emphasis added) that the project would have some adverse impacts to pronghorn populations as a result of direct habitat removal and a reduction in habitat function on areas adjacent to development activities.” Based on the lack of scientific evidence to back up this statement and the facts that: (1) pronghorn adapt to human presence and habitat changes (Reeve 1984, Segerstrom 1982), and (2) that the spring/summer/fall habitat is more likely to be improved than impacted (Beale and Smith 1970, Dirschl 1963, Schwartz and Nagy 1976, Irwin et al. 1984), why is it not just as reasonable to assume that there may not be adverse impacts on pronghorn populations and that there might be positive affects? 

TjbTapth

L-35 9 A Wildlife Analysis Page 4-8, par 2. 

No basis is offered for the contention that: “—some of these movements are likely to be hindered under most, if not all, of the development alternatives.” Given the proven ability of this species to adapt to human presence, I think that it is unlikely that these movements will be negatively modified. 

Tjb

L-35 10 A Wildlife Compensatory 

Mitigation 

Analysis Proposed Wildlife Protection Measures and page 2-31, 

bullet #6 The need for the proposed monitoring of pronghorn on portions of their crucial winter ranges is not established in the EIS, and is not logical as currently described. In fact, other statements in the document contradict the need for such a monitoring program. On page 4-90 it is stated that: “The proposed project would not affect any known pronghorn crucial winter range or bottle necks; therefore, it would not contribute to cumulative impacts to these habitat features.” Because the crucial winter ranges used by the pronghorn from the JIDPA are ALSO 

AiMRWdnha

156
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

used by pronghorn from other areas, how will it be possible to identify the animals that come from or pass through the JIDPA? Also, it is stated that: “Therefore, pronghorn numbers on their crucial winter ranges north and south of the JIDPA will be monitored in 2005.” However, no crucial winter range located south of the JIDPA is shown on the map on page 3-57 of the EIS. 

L-35 11 F Wildlife Surface 

Disturbance 

Analysis Raptors 

Page 4-84, par. 1 No scientific reference is cited for the statement that: “Reduction in raptor prey species also is likely to occur as a result of the surface disturbance of up to two-thirds of the JIDPA (the amount of disturbance would depend on the alternative).” This is not an accurate statement since most of the prey base of the raptor species that occur on the JIDPA is not produced in the sagebrush habitats, but in more open herbaceous habitats. Because these are the habitats that are going to be increased by development, it follows that increases in raptor prey base species is likely to occur. Such an increase in prey base is likely to increase raptor productivity. A comparison of the density of active nests of American kestrels on the Jonah II Project Area (JIIPA) and the Jonah Wildlife Study Area (JWSA) between 2003 and 2004 indicates that prey base density on the Jonah II Project Area may already be increasing. Assessments of TRC raptor data for these two areas and years were conducted by Hayden-Wing Associates and indicate that prey base density for this species may be higher on the JIIPA than on the JWSA. The density of active nests of the American kestrel increased dramatically on the JIIPA in 2004. It also increased on the JWSA, but the increase was not as great as on the JIPA. Analyses show that there were approximately the same densities of active kestrel nests per township on the JIIPA in 2003 as there were on the JWSA (0.72 v.0.87, respectively). However, in 2004 there were 2.51 active kestrel nests on the JIIPA and 1.56 active nests on the JWSA. The increase of active kestrel nests on the JIIPA was 248.6% between 2003 

Tsdrgss

157
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

and 2004, while the increase during this same time period on the JWSA was 79%. Although the collection data would be required to demonstrate the reason for this difference in nest densities between the two areas, it is not unlikely that the reduction in sagebrush habitats on the JIIPA has increased the prey base for kestrels (grasshoppers are a major prey base item) more than it has increased on the JWSA. Because kestrels eat a lot of insects like grasshoppers, it may be that they are the first raptor species to respond to expected increases in raptor prey base. Insects breed faster than small mammals. In a few more years it is possible that the small mammal population will increase more on the JIIPA than on the JWSA and that there will be a corresponding increase in the density of active nests of other raptor species. Monitoring of raptor densities and small mammal densities on the JIIPA and JWSA should continue so that changes in densities of active raptor nests can be correlated with changes in small mammal densities on the two areas. 

L-35 12 F Wildlife Analysis Page 4-93, par. 1 

The statement that regional reproductive success of raptors in the CIAA is likely to be reduced is speculation and can not be substantiated without comparing productivity on an experimental study area that is located on the JIDPA to one or more control study areas that are located outside the JIDPA and away from oil and gas development. Many raptor researchers feel that the availability of prey species is the greatest factor regulating raptor populations (Grant et al. 1991, Galushin 1974, Phelan and Robertson 1978, Smith and Murphy 1979, Smith et al. 1981, and Korpimake 1984). 

Tsdriw

L-35 13 F Wildlife The 2.5-mile buffer around bald eagle winter foraging 

areas is excessive. Bald eagles forage up to17.6 miles between their night roosts and their daytime feeding areas (Swisher 1964). To put a 2.5-mile buffer around such an extensive foraging area would not be reasonable or effective. Bald eagles forage over most of the state of Wyoming during the winter, including the suburbs of some towns, and most of the highway system. Such a 2.5-mile restriction would shut down most of the state of Wyoming during the winter. 

Tbapibaf

L-35 14 A Wildlife Page 5-4, Section 5.1.7, bullet #3. A

158
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

To “avoid all raptor nest territories (rather than just active nests) during the nesting season” would be very difficult and perhaps impossible to do. The collective area on the JIDPA that falls within raptor territories is vast and would be difficult to avoid. Additionally, the size and shape of these territories change from year to year depending on things such as prey base density and the proximity of other nesting raptors. The avoidance radii for some raptor species (ferruginous hawk) are already large enough (one-square mile) to include the raptor’s territory. The protective radii have been designed to protect raptors during the nesting season and extending this protective buffer zone to include the raptor’s entire territory is not necessary. 

is F

L-35 15 A1 Wildlife On-Site 

Mitigation 

Page 5-4, Section 5.1.7, bullet #5 Is it the intent of this measure to “modify” or “increase” wildlife protective measures in response to new information? If it is truly the intent to “modify”, the words “increase or decrease” should be substituted for the word “modify”. If it not the intent to decrease wildlife protective measures, the word “modify” should be changed to “increase”. 

“y

L-35 16 A Wildlife On-Site 

Mitigation 

Noise The suggestion that noise be monitored at active raptor 

nests after the young have fledged is not a scientific approach for determining noise levels that are pertinent. If noise is to be monitored, it needs to be done while the raptors are setting up their nest, during incubation, feeding of the young, and fledging of young. Equipment that transmits noise levels at the nest to remote receivers could be set up at nest sites that are likely to be used during the coming nesting season and left in place. Otherwise the noise levels that are documented during the non-nesting season will not be the same as those that occur during the nesting season. Wind direction will change over time as well as activity and noise levels produced at the well. 

AiMR

L-35 17 F Wildlife Page 3-63, par. 2. 

The status and history of the sage grouse in the U.S. and Wyoming are described in a very negative and misleading manner. The following facts should be included in this text: (1) the Fish and Wildlife Service has 

tl d d t i ti f “ t t d f

SiygA

159
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

recently made a determination of “not warranted for listing” for this species, and (2) Wyoming populations have stopped declining and are still robust enough for the continuation of annual hunting seasons. Page 4-93, Game Birds, par. 3. Since, according to data compiled by the WGFD, males per lek in all but the northeast region of the state increased in 2004, I don’t think that it is accurate to say that impacts of unknown magnitude on the JIDPA would produce significant effects on a regional sage grouse population that increased in 2004. Whatever changes in sage-grouse numbers that occurred on the JIDPA during 2004 did not prevent the regions population from increasing in numbers. 

gdsaaasf

L-35 18 F Wildlife Vegetation Winter is not generally a limiting factor in sage grouse 

populations (Call and Maser 1985), and, according to Beck and Braun (1978), may gain weight during the winter months. However, during severe winters of prolonged, deep snow, there are only a few areas where sagebrush is tall enough to remain available to sagegrouse above the snow. These areas, termed Severe Winter Relief (SWR) Habitats in a study conducted by Hayden-Wing Associates and the Rawlins Office of the BLM, are described in HWA (2004). It is important that these SWR habitats be identified as soon as possible to avoid the unnecessary protection of large areas of winter habitat that are not critical to sage-grouse survival. The habitat characteristics for SWR habitats described in HWA (2004) could be used as general criteria for identifying comparable habitats on the JIDPA. 

WsbSAiMR

L-35 19 F Wildlife Conditions of 

Approval 

Page 2-29, bullet #2 and Monitoring and Protection Measures The distance to which sage-grouse nesting habitat will be protected outside of the 2-mile radius needs to be stated. The way the EIS reads now, nesting habitat could be protected for an indefinite distance beyond the 2-mile radius. An approach for determining how far beyond the 2-mile limit the protection of nesting habitat should extend was presented to the State Director of the Wyoming BLM on October 28, 2004 by Larry HaydenWing on behalf of the Petroleum Association of Wyoming. It is recommended that this approach be used 

Tsw

160
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

for determining the location and amount of nesting habitat that should be protected around leks on the JIDPA. 

L-36 3 A1 Air Quality 5.1.1 Air Quality 

The last bullet in 5.1.1 doesn't make any sense. Was it intended to read something like "Use hydrogen to power internal combustion engines, and use alternative energy sources such as solar and wind instead of internal combustion engines"? Anyway it is interpreted this statement doesn't make any practical sense ... Perhaps at sometime in the future hydrogen will be a viable fuel. But, at present the amount of resources (I.e. natural gas, coal, gasoline, etc.) required to produce hydrogen is greater than if the resource were applied directly to the work. The bullet should be deleted. 

Bem

L-43 1 B Air Quality On-Site 

Mitigation 

Analysis Our primary concern with the Jonah Infill Drilling DEIS is 

the air quality sections and supporting documentation. The document does not take into account several “mitigation measures” that were implemented by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division in the last year. This includes revisions to Air Quality Division’s Chapter 6, Section 2 Oil and Gas Production Facilities Permitting Guidance (July 28, 2004) and new requirements for well completions in the Jonah & Pinedale Anticline Gas Fields. Both of these new requirements will and have significantly reduced VOC and NOx emissions. The BLM should have considered in the Draft EIS ongoing mitigation measures in their analysis. Emissions, such as VOCs, have been significantly overstated thereby leading to erroneous impact modeling and calculated ozone levels from the alternatives. Further, some base emission assumptions found in Table 2.1, Single-Well Construction Emission Summary for both Straight and Directionally Drilled Wells, appear to be overstated by an order of magnitude. The emissions for completion and testing indicate 57.62 tons of VOC per well for this activity. Even if the operator was not applying green completion techniques, the value seems to be in error. 

TwaJwaPbsmHerrcaMiomtaPBOPtTs

161
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

aaVta

L-44 1 B Social Analysis To be an accurate and reputable document, the DEIS 

should use the very latest socioeconomic and demographic data available. This is particularly so owing to the magnitude of recent socioeconomic changes in the analysis area. Table 3.24 of the DEIS, for example, presents 2000 data as the most recent, however 2004 income and employment data are available through various State departments and should be used. Similarly, Table 3.25 ends at 2000 Census figures, but 2004 Wyoming Department of Employment figures are available and should be used. In Table 3.26, the housing statistics presented end in 2002, but more recent data have been published by the Wyoming Housing Database Partnership. Cost of living data presented in Table 3.28 ends two years ago, but updated figures are published every few months. This pattern continues throughout the socioeconomic portions of the document...Updated statistics should be found and incorporated throughout. 

TataT

L-44 2 E Economics Analysis Page 4-109 of the DEIS states that, "BLM defines a 

significant change as any change that would result in a 15% or greater change of any affected factor." Why is the 15% figure used here while a 10% change of selected socioeconomic indicators is considered significant by the PAPA FEIS? Is there any time frame associated with this percent change threshold? 

TftTr

L-44 3 B Economics Analysis The estimated average earnings per created job listed at 

page 4-112 does not appear to be in line with Wyoming Department of Employment data regarding wages by industry sector. Please give the rationale for this estimate. 

Tisbe

L-44 4 A Social Analysis The meaning of paragraph 2 on page 4-116 regarding 

crime is unclear. If you are saying that crime (both incidence and rate) is expected to increase, it should be so stated. 

TD“aaasi

162
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

osadaastit“tatbladwati

L-44 5 A1 Analysis Statements that 'x factor may be incrementally increased 

by the project' are uninformative, indolent, and insulting to the reader. Do you use the term 'incrementally' to imply 'slightly'? Word-search and get rid of this term. A plain indication of magnitude will be more meaningful than 'incrementally'. If the federal official is to make an informed decision, anticipated impacts need to be explained to the maximum extent possible. 

ItcahRibdctAEh““

L-44 9 B Analysis Economics Social The assertions on page 4-128 that "There would be 

avoidable adverse impacts to socioeconomics as a result of the proposed project," and "Impacts could be reduced by implementation of suggested mitigation measures" are certainly intriguing, but left the reader rather hanging Please reference here

where these

Tba

163
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

rather hanging. Please reference here where these suggested measures are and also where in the document it is explained how and to what extent impacts would be reduced by their application. 

L-46 1 B Economics Social Analysis The BLM has authorized the selling of land leases to gas 

exploration companies that have affected the communities. The affect of this has created a socioeconomic "impact" as defined by the BLM in the 1999 EIS PAPA, which is referenced as follows: "For socioeconomic resources, a significant impact is defined as follows: 1. Increased demand for housing resulting from project activities, which exceeds supply. 2. Short or long-term increases in demand for local government facilities or services which exceed existing capacity and are not offset by adequate revenues from continued exploration and development; or 3. A 10 percent change in County Government revenues or in county-wide employment. Below are a few quantifiable measures of the impact thus far: Rents have increased 33 percent last year, and housing prices have increased 50 percent from 2000 to 2003, and 28 percent from 2003 to 2004. There has been a 360% increase year to year in multifamily housing building permits in Pinedale. There are 250 new lots in two years within a one-mile radius of Pinedale and growing. Sewer and water well contamination is a major concern. The sudden growth has pushed Pinedale into needing a larger sewer lagoon. This project has an estimated cost exceeding $2.3 million. The Town of Pinedale has approximately another $6 million in needed infrastructure. Increased heavy truck traffic (due to the gas fields) in town has caused potholed streets. Projected cost of repair $3.3 million. Incidents have occurred such as hazardous chemical 

TfbSDrSfTirtTsirT1oSbWspciui3Chusif p

l

164
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

spills, on main town through fares. Such an incident could have been catastrophic had it gone into local Pine Creek. Tanker trucks that are carrying hazardous materials are being parked in residential neighborhoods. We have pictures of this. There is noted overcrowding in the elementary school. Twenty-six new kids in grades K-5 in 2004-5. This issue on whether to move the 5th grade to the middle school to accommodate the growth has caused a "rift" in the community. Emergency services are severely stretched; "volunteer firemen are desperately needed" -- Wes Johnson, Fire Chief. The local Sheriff's department is having trouble-keeping officers, as they can't afford to buy or rent a home in the area. The local economy is having trouble diversifying. Why? There are very few places for visitors to stay because the gas industry has the rooms booked up. It is clear from the BLM's own definition, that the "socioeconomic" impacts have been severe... Currently, the BLM's Jonah (gas field) Infill report concludes that additional socioeconomic impacts will not occur. The data does not support this conclusion. Impacts have occurred as quantifiably measured as shown above and the increased development will bring even more impact... We would like for the BLM to ask the operators what they plan to do to mitigate the socioeconomic impacts and how to minimize those impacts. We need to know population demographics so as to plan for such things as: sewer capacity water capacity street maintenance 

lppachrcrrcsspehbiPpbsufpSdtPiebJhPswhpiloc

165
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

school impacts 

Atiqipdsp

L-57 4 A Compliance Wildlife Conditions of 

Approval 

In addition, BLM is unduly shifting its responsibility as the land management agency to the operators. Some examples include the requirement of operators to inappropriately conduct inventories and surveys that are the agency's responsibility, such as inventorying sage grouse habitat that has not yet been covered by an ongoing cooperative effort between BLM and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, and monitoring sage grouse to determine whether they are a migratory species. BLM also expects industry to map prairie dog towns and provide all map data to BLM, WGFD, and the JIWG with FGDC-compliant metadata. Ironically, Map 3.15 shown on page 3-60 clearly identifies prairie dog towns in the project area. However, the USFWS has provided the State of Wyoming a map of showing block clearances for black-footed ferret areas where there are no prairie dog towns. Re-inventorying is obviously unwarranted. BLM also indicates that the operators must survey soils and vegetation types and provide the results to BLM within one year. However, BLM has already mapped these resources as shown on maps 3.6 on page 3-32 and map 3.7 on page 3-34. BLM even goes so far to state on Page 2-30 that "Operators would continue to support existing wildlife studies." We question BLM's legal authority to require operator participation in such studies because they must be agreed to voluntarily by the operators; and, if they determine the studies are not worthy of support (e.g., lack of unbiased biological findings), operators must not suffer reprisal by BLM. These and many other proposed requirements go beyond reasonableness and must be eliminated. 

AaccaTrbi

L-61 1 B Analysis On-Site 

Mitigation 

Compensatory Mitigation 

The BLM has not yet disclosed all of the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed action and has not provided sufficient mitigation for those impacts that are disclosed. 

Emwcd

166
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

The BLM must present the environmental impacts of the proposed project based on the most up-to-date information in the most consistent and clear way to facilitate public comment. Instead, the BLM published an analysis based on already outdated information in a document that is confusing and contradicts itself. 

dEapdfrBtdtwaia

L-61 2 F NEPA Alternatives The BLM Failed to Properly Consider Alternatives as 

Mandated by NEPA A bedrock requirement of NEPA is the duty to consider a reasonable range of alternatives. NEPA requires that federal agencies provide an evaluation of each alternative to the proposed action in every environmental impact statement. ... A cursory examination of alternatives is insufficient; each alternative must be evaluated in detail. See Alaska Wilderness Recreation & Tourism v. Morrison, 67 F.3d 723, 729 (9th Cir. 1995) (stating that "the existence of a viable but unexamined alternative renders an environmental impact statement inadequate"). 

TcaaawaF

L-61 3 A Air Quality Alternatives BLM failed to model air quality impacts for four 

alternatives, including the BLM’s own Preferred Alternative. The BLM included nine alternatives in the DEIS, including Alternatives A through G, the Proposed Action and the BLM’s Preferred Alternative. DEIS at 2-8 to 2-27. However, of these nine different alternatives, air quality impacts from four alternatives were not reported because they were not modeled. AQTSD [Air Quality Technical Support Document] at 6-7. Surprisingly, the BLM’s own Preferred Alternative is one of the four alternatives not modeled in the DEIS. AQTSD at 6-7.... The BLM provided only a range of air quality levels for its Preferred Alternative and the three other alternatives 

APiiiscbBrqdsEA

167
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

that were not modeled. DEIS at Appendix F. However, a range is insufficient because even small changes in emissions can have significant results. Small changes between the alternatives could cause a criteria pollutant to exceed the ambient air quality levels in one alternative and not in another. Because air quality analyses require a level of preciseness unlike other impacts, it is essential the BLM adequately model the Preferred Alternative. 

bftac

L-61 4 A Public 

Participation 

Air Quality BLM must provide for public comment on the model 

results. Once the air quality modeling is finished for the Preferred Alternative, the BLM must release the modeling results to the public and provide for a sufficient public comment before the project progresses further. The BLM cannot simply include the modeling results for the Preferred Alternative in the final EIS and not provide for public comment. Air quality impacts are one of the biggest impacts of the Jonah Infill project. It is clear the BLM’s Preferred Alternative impacts air quality differently than the other alternatives. The public must understand how the BLM’s preferred plan of developing the Jonah Field will impact the air quality in the Pinedale area and beyond in comparison to the other alternatives. 

PsO

L-61 5 B Wildlife Alternatives Analysis BLM failed to provide an alternative minimizing wildlife 

impacts. Although the DEIS contains no fewer than eight alternatives, DEIS at 2-11 to 2-26, every one of these alternatives fails to meet the basic objective of avoiding excessive loss of wildlife habitat within the JIDPA [Jonah Infill Development Project Area]. With the exception of Alternative B, the alternatives fail to seriously consider the use of directional drilling from existing well pads as a means of minimizing negative direct and indirect impacts of drilling. The alternatives proposed also fail to give any consideration to structuring development over time (such as phased development, developing one part of the project area then moving to another only once reclamation is successful) as a means of reducing negative impacts. In particular, the BLM fails to provide a justification for why its Preferred Alternative meets the ostensible purposes of this project any better than the other alternatives (particularly relatively less invasive alternatives, such as Alternative B). 

TahTrwPwp

L-61 6 B Air Quality Analysis Technical The BLM’s air quality modeling is flawed due to the T

168
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Information inadequate background levels used for the criteria 

pollutants. The BLM added emissions from the near-field analysis from the proposed action to background concentrations to determine conformance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards/Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS/WAAQS). AQTSD at 27. However, because the background concentrations are non-representative of the existing situation in the Pinedale area, the BLM cannot adequately analyze whether or not the federal or state ambient levels are being violated. The BLM assumed that existing sources are reflected in background concentrations of the pollutants measured. The BLM must not blindly rely on background levels as representing actual emissions without supporting its choice of a background level monitor. If the monitor is not properly placed or otherwise not reflective of existing source emissions, the background concentration received from such monitor will be useless. Background air monitoring data is usually combined with cumulative source modeling analysis to ensure all currently emitting sources are taken into account and to determine compliance with ambient levels. If the modeled source is not isolated, then modeling of existing sources is necessary to determine the potential contribution of background sources. See Section 9.2.1 of 40 C.F.R. Part 51, Appendix W. An examination of the background levels the BLM chose for the Jonah DEIS shows that the BLM cannot support its decision to assume background concentrations accurately reflect the emissions of area sources. For background levels of CO, the BLM used nearly 20-yearold data collected at Ryckman Creek by Amoco. AQTSD at 27, Table 31, Footnote 1. Clearly, significant changes in terms of natural gas development and population increases have occurred since the late 1970s in this area. For PM10 and PM2.5, the BLM used background assumptions measured four years ago at the Emerson building in Cheyenne, over 300 miles from the Jonah Field. AQTSD at 64, Table 4.3. The BLM also used Emerson building data for PM10 and PM2.5 levels for far-field analysis. AQTSD at 64; Table 4.3. Cheyenne has different air quality levels due to different 

cNatsp(RppiTJmbmocEibbiJeBmcoNaErcnab

Boat

169
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

geographical location, different sources and emitters and different wind patterns. A background level from a location hundreds of miles away cannot estimate the level of background pollutants to the level of preciseness needed in this analysis. The BLM did not adequately explain why it used the Amoco data or the Emerson building data. It could be the most convenient, the lowest level, or the best available to the BLM at this point. Only one statement in a footnote was given to explain the PM10 and PM2.5 levels. AQTSD at 27, Table 3.1, Footnote 4. Interestingly, the background levels of ozone—which are likely the most spatially and temporally representative of the background concentrations given—showed that 70% and 94% of the NAAQS/WAAQS are already consumed for 1-hour concentrations and 8-hour concentrations respectively.1 AQTSD at 27. In the final EIS, the BLM must explain its decision to use the background levels it chose. The BLM should also include a qualitative explanation of the differences and similarities between the background levels it included and the presumed Pinedale area levels. If the background levels cannot be supported, the BLM must prepare an emissions inventory of existing sources rather than relying on background concentrations. 

loCaePTca

L-61 7 A Air Quality Analysis Despite restricting its analysis to 3,100 wells and stating 

3,100 is the limit throughout the DEIS, the BLM has inappropriately inserted language attempting to authorize more wells beyond 3,100. For the Preferred Alternative, the BLM clearly states that 3,100 wells is not a limit and no particular pace will be required. DEIS at 2-26. For the Proposed Action, the BLM states that drilling would continue until “the total number of proposed wells have been drilled, the natural (Footnote: Note that the BLM decided not to use the background ozone concentration it reported here in its near-field analysis. (See Section II.d., infra.) Gas resources in the field have been fully developed, or economic conditions are such that it is no longer profitable to drill additional wells.” DEIS at 2-10. “Or” is the operative word in this sentence; if more gas is recoverable after 3,100 wells are 

Twtaabnuda

170
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

completed, more wells would be allowed. NEPA requires the BLM to analyze the environmental impacts of its proposed actions, which is 3,100 wells in this situation. If further wells are needed beyond the 3,100 predicted now, additional NEPA documentation would be required to analyze the impacts of the additional wells. The BLM is seemingly attempting to constrict its air quality modeling to only the impacts of 3,100 wells while at the same time leaving enough ambiguity in the DEIS language to authorize more wells, if it is later deemed necessary. The BLM must clarify this section and set a specific limit for well numbers in order to have a meaningful air impacts section. Without a well limit, the air quality analysis is merely perfunctory and appropriate mitigation cannot be required because the true emissions of the proposed action are not known. 

L-61 8 A Air Quality Technical 

Information 

The BLM used inaccurate assumptions for drill rig engine emissions, engine horsepower and drilling pace when determining emissions in the DEIS. The flawed assumptions caused the BLM to drastically underestimate NOx emissions contrary to actual NOx emissions in the Pinedale Anticline Field Area. These inaccuracies impact in-field, near-field, visibility and the cumulative air quality analysis. It is essential the BLM use the most up-to-date information on NOx, much of which was developed within the BLM Pinedale Field Office. The BLM must be consistent in its use of assumptions for drilling or if the assumptions are not correct for Jonah, to explain why different data were not used. 

DcJeeefTat

L-61 9 A Analysis Technical 

Information 

The BLM assumes that of 20 drill rigs operating per year in JIDPA, ten will have Tier I engines and ten will have Tier II engines. AQTSD at 52-53, Table 4.2, Footnote 5. This is slated to begin when drilling begins in 2005. DEIS at 2-10. However, this is impossible since Tier II drill rig engines are not even available on the market. Pers. Comm. Pinedale BLM, 3/15/05. Also, currently most operators in Jonah use standard diesel engines and only some use Tier I drill rig engines. Pers. Comm. Pinedale BLM, 3/15/05. The Environmental Protection Agency, recognizing the Tier II unavailability on the market, is not requiring operators to use Tier II drill rig engines until 2008.

Twnnptrppf

171
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

The difference in NOx emissions from Tier II engines and standard engines is significant and completely ignored by the BLM in the DEIS. For a 1,000 horsepower drill rig engine, there was a 489 tons/year net reduction in NOx emission using a Tier II rig engine instead of a standard drill rig engine. Questar Year-Round Drilling Proposal Environmental Assessment (Questar EA) at 4-26, Table 4-1. There will likely be several years of drilling before Tier II engines are implemented, which translates into thousands of tons of additional NOx per year that has not been accounted for in the DEIS. The EPA requirements for Tier I and Tier II engines and the current standard drill rig engine used on the Jonah Field were obvious and available to the BLM prior to the release of the Jonah DEIS. If the BLM is requiring cleaner engines before they are publicly available and before they are mandatory for the Jonah Field, the details of this requirement should be made clear in the FEIS and be legally enforceable. The BLM cannot assume operators will voluntarily implement Tier II engines before 2008. While we encourage the BLM to pursue requiring Tier II engines earlier than mandated by the EPA, we are assuming that the BLM is instead drastically understating the level of NOx emissions from the Jonah Field drilling rigs. The BLM must revise their assumptions to reflect that several years of the use of standard diesel engines will occur before Tier II engines are required and report the air quality results of that difference. 

L-61 10 A Technical 

Information 

Analysis The BLM assumes 20 drill rigs will be operating per year 

in the Jonah Field. AQTSD at 51. It is not clear whether this pace is based on current activity in the Jonah Field or if it is an estimate. The BLM recently determined that in the Pinedale Anticline Project Area in the summer of 2004, four times as many drill rigs were actually operating beyond that anticipated. Questar EA at 3-20. With a higher number of drilling rigs operating than anticipated, the NOx levels were significantly higher. Questar EA at 3-20. The BLM should not make the same mistake with Jonah. The BLM should ensure that the 20 drill rig assumption 

ToOBvoed

172
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

is correct for the Jonah Field on the ground. If the drill rig pace is higher than 20 on the ground, the NOx levels in the DEIS should be altered accordingly. 

L-61 11 A Analysis Air Quality Technical 

Information 

The BLM assumes operators will use two drill rig engines at 800 horsepower and one at 500 horsepower in the Jonah field. AQTSD at B-11, Table B.1.7. However, the BLM recently stated that the usual power of drill rig engines is 3,000-5,000 horsepower. Questar EA 3-20. The use of higher horsepower engines drastically increases the level of NOx emitted; emissions of NOx are triple between a 1,000 horsepower engine and a 3,000 horsepower engine. Questar EA, 4-26, Table 4-1. For Jonah, the BLM should acknowledge the new information from the Questar EA and ensure that the 800 horsepower assumption it is making for the Jonah Field is accurate. If the 3,000-5,000 horsepower engine is the typical engine used in Jonah, the BLM must revise its analysis accordingly. 

NitmDwJrTadd

L-61 12 A Air Quality Technical 

Information 

Analysis Ozone, a criteria pollutant, is formed as a result of a 

photochemical reaction involving VOCs and NO2 in a 21.6 ratio. AQTSD at 38-39. The ozone background levels alone—without taking into account any new emissions from the Jonah Field—are 70% and 94% of the NAAQS/WAAQS for 1-hour concentrations and 8-hour concentrations respectively. AQTSD at 27. This leaves very little room to add new emissions from Jonah without violating the state and federal ambient standards. With the other criteria pollutants, the BLM added the expected emissions from Jonah to the background concentration to determine if ambient standards would be violated.2 With ozone, that approach would have left only 10 μg/m 3 for 8-hour concentration and 66 μg/m 3 for the 1-hour concentration for Jonah emissions before ambient levels would violate the NAAQS/WAAQS. AQTSD at 27. (Footnote: The problems with this approach are highlighted in Section II.a., supra.) However, with ozone, the BLM used the Scheffe method to calculate the ozone emissions from Jonah development and relied on a significantly lower background concentration than it reported in Table 3.1 in 

TcFta

173
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

the AQTSD. The reported ozone background levels in Table 3.1 were 169 μg/m 3 for 1-hour and 147 μg/m 3 for 8-hour concentrations. AQTSD at 27, Table 3.1. The BLM instead used 75.2 μg/m 3 as background for both 1-hour and 8-hour in the Scheffe method, approximately 50% lower than the reported background concentrations. AQTSD at 40. With the much lower background level of 75.2 μg/m 3, the Jonah proposed action avoids violating the NAAQS/WAAQS by a mere 3.5 μg/m 3. AQTSD at 40, Table 3.7. If the Table 3.1 background levels were used, both 1-hour and 8-hour concentrations of ozone would have clearly violated the NAAQS/WAAQS. AQTSD at 27, Table 3.1; AQTSD at 39. The BLM stated that it used the 75.2 μg/m 3 background level to avoid overestimating the level of ozone in the Scheffe model. AQTSD at 39. However, further explanation is needed due to the fact the NAAQS/WAAQS are not violated by an extremely small margin. Because exceeding levels of NAAQS/WAAQS is an important threshold, the BLM should more clearly explain why Table 3.1 background levels were not used and why the much lower background level was used instead. Problems with the BLM’s treatment of ozone may be further exacerbated by its underestimation of NOx as described above. See Section II.c, supra. Because ozone is, in part, dependent on NOx for formation, higher NOx levels may translate into higher ozone levels. The BLM should redo its O3 analysis to incorporate any changes in NOx emissions predictions based on using the accurate drill rig engine emissions and appropriate engine horsepower assumptions discussed above. 

L-61 13 A Analysis Air Quality Technical 

Information 

The BLM must ensure the discussion of air quality is consistent. The narrative in the DEIS often does not match the AQTSD. The BLM must make the DEIS in its entirety consistent and understandable in order for clear management and less confusion down the road. For instance, the BLM states that all well pads must be less than 7 acres. DEIS at 2-27. However, some of the 

TDAatAaP

174
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

alternatives exceed this limit. DEIS at 2-13. NEPA does not allow for analysis of impossible alternatives, and the BLM must clarify that the 7 acre limitation will be exceeded for certain alternatives. Second, BLM states that all the mitigation measures described in the DEIS may not match those in Appendix A of the DEIS. DEIS at 2-30. To avoid confusion as to the mitigation measures required, the BLM must clarify the differences and make Appendix A and the DEIS consistent with one another. Also, the BLM states that flareless completions will be required unless proven unsafe on a case-by-case basis. DEIS at 2-27. However, the air quality modeling specifically took into account well flaring and the resulting emissions. AQTSD at 52-53. The BLM included varying estimates of the time required for development operations and total life-of-field (LOF). In the AQTSD, development operations were from 5-42 years and total LOF from 43-85 years. AQTSD at 5. However, later in the AQTSD, the BLM estimated 4-28 years for drilling and 30-50 for LOF. AQTSD (Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol) at 4. The BLM must ensure the DEIS is consistent with itself and with its supporting documents like the AQTSD. An inconsistent document will cause confusion in the future and does not provide clear direction for management of the Jonah Field. 

TwTvuidauyctCdTaACDAa2PCTNOofCcnpcwuipfn

175
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

feateodo

TtSaw

L-61 14 A Air Quality Analysis The cumulative emissions inventory is a critical part of 

the Jonah Infill air quality analysis because it determines the impact of Jonah development along with other development in the area. The cumulative impacts analysis must be more than perfunctory and must provide a useful analysis of the cumulative impacts of past, present and future projects. See Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center v. BLM, 387 F. 3d 989 (9th Cir. 2004).The BLM failed to prepare an appropriate cumulative emissions inventory by failing to accurately look at the emissions from Jonah in combination with other sources in the area. The BLM failed to delineate an appropriate modeling domain and did not acknowledge the current state of air quality in the area. The BLM did not include the appropriate regional sources and emissions levels in its cumulative or regional emissions inventory. The BLM also underestimated the reasonably foreseeable development of the area. 

IdstHaTsrmapt

L-61 15 A Air Quality Analysis The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations 

require the BLM to define the context of the action in order to properly determine the significance of the project’s effects. 40 C.F.R. 1508.27(a). An element of context is geographic scope. Id. For the Jonah Infill, the BLM failed to delineate an appropriate geographic scope in its modeling domain resulting in flawed air quality farfield, cumulative and visibility analyses. The BLM did not extend the modeling domain far enough to encompass all sources relevant to the air quality levels resulting from Jonah development. EPA guidance states that the analysis should include sources at least 50 to 80 km beyond both the receptors (i.e. Class I areas) and sources being modeled. AQTSD at 54. This distance is even greater with large sources such as coal-fired power plants that could be located up to 

TweFWRtstaeItSmsc

176
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

300 km away but still have a significant impact on the Pinedale Field Office area. By delineating a small modeling domain, the BLM did not capture all the sources impacting the same areas as the Jonah Field development. The Class I Washakie and Fitzpatrick Wilderness Areas are receptors affected by the Jonah Field development but the modeling domain does not appear to extend the requisite 50-80 km beyond the areas. AQTSD at 3, Map 1.2. For instance, both Class I areas are significantly impacted by development in the Powder River Basin, but the modeling domain includes only a sliver of the Powder River Basin development area. DEIS at 4-23; AQTSD at 3, Map 1.2. Also, sources in Utah, Montana and elsewhere in Wyoming are likely to impact these areas but were not included in the modeling domain. See also, Section III.c., infra. The BLM includes several sentences about how a qualitative discussion of the impacts of the Powder River Basin development will be included in the FEIS. However, many other sources are also excluded in the modeling domain and all must be quantitatively analyzed. Since it is clear sources beyond those included in the modeling domain are impacting the Bridger Wilderness Area and other Class I areas, the BLM must extend the modeling domain used in the DEIS. 

aQ4SpmedFaroaGNscecdREMWEoPRR4PT

L-61 16 A Analysis Air Quality The BLM included only sources permitted between 

January 1, 2001 and June 30, 2003 in its cumulative emissions inventory. The start date of 2001 was chosen as the base year without sufficient explanation in the DEIS. The BLM selected the end date because it was—at that time—contemporary with the air quality report published in October of 2003. AQTSD (Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol) at 9. The 2003 report stated that “if significant schedule changes occur as the 

Soecmrqfa

177
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

analysis progresses, the cutoff dates will be adjusted to ensure that no data is unreasonably excluded from the analysis.” AQTSD (Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol) at 9. Since 2003, there have been several years of maximum drilling in the Pinedale area. Drill rigs on the Pinedale Anticline have averaged 32 per year rather than the 8 per year anticipated just three years earlier. Drilling in the Jonah field has continued at full throttle. Rampant development in the Powder River Basin has continued. Several large coal-fired power plants for Wyoming and Utah have been proposed and permits are in process. Despite that the 2003 end date does not include these sources, the BLM has not altered the cutoff date of the cumulative emissions inventory. The BLM must alter its analysis to include these new sources and others since 2003 in order to present a full picture of air quality in the Pinedale area. c. Current sources affecting air quality were not properly analyzed The BLM did not include all sources that are currently affecting air quality in the Pinedale area and affecting the same Class I areas as development in the Jonah Field. The BLM analyzed only the change in emissions between 2001 and 2003 rather than analyzing actual emissions. The BLM left out many sources without justification, and new information was not taken into account. The BLM provided little explanation supporting its decision to model the air quality cumulative impacts in this manner and did not adequately explain how the emissions levels were determined. Using the change in emissions rather than actual emissions, the BLM drastically lowered the emissions levels analyzed. This method results in many sources that are emitting the same level of emissions from year to year to be excluded from the analysis. For instance, in Wyoming only 34 sources were included in the regional inventory summary and 693 were excluded. AQTSD at 24, Table 2.4. Only seventeen sources were included from Colorado and Idaho and 126 from Utah. AQTSD at 24, Table 2.4. 

rpfTraHfaBeaeoAHsekretceTtdSNpwApIimDpf

178
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

The few sources that are included in the inventory have surprisingly low emissions and in several cases like PM10, even negative emissions are reported. AQTSD, page 24, Table 2.4. The BLM cited to an appendix in support of the source determination but the appendix simply listed the individual source without explaining the negative emissions and other emissions numbers. AQTSD at 24, C-11, C-12. Even with the small number of sources the BLM included, it did not gather accurate and up-to-date emission levels. Emissions information from 2004 shows that there were permitted increases of 371 tons per year of NOx at Solvay Chemicals in Sweetwater County and 350 tons per year of NOx at compressor stations located in Sublette County. Southwest Wyoming NOx Emission Tracking Report, 12/6/2004. These permitted increases should have been included in the emissions inventory, and there were likely other increases as well. The BLM failed to include appropriate levels of emissions for the Pinedale Anticline in the current source emissions inventory. In November of 2004 in the Questar EA, the BLM showed an increase in NOx emissions over twice that authorized in the Pinedale Anticline EIS. DEIS at 4-23. This EA was published more than three months before the Jonah Infill EIS was released. The BLM did not take the Pinedale Anticline emissions into account because “air quality is complex and time consuming” and therefore it “was not possible to quantify potential impacts of these increased NOx emissions in this DEIS.” DEIS at 4-23. However, the BLM had over three months to incorporate this data into its air quality analysis. This information is essential to include in the modeling because the Anticline will impact many if not all of the same areas as development in Jonah. The information was readily available as it was prepared by the Pinedale Field Office. The BLM excluded many sources as “developed” and therefore did not separately include those emissions in the Jonah Infill cumulative analysis. AQSTD, page 24, Table 2.4; AQSTD at 22. The BLM states that the developed portions of these projects are assumed to be 

2PwmrPsibsSCffTwtsbiAAdsaats3p

179
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

reflected in the monitored ambient background or the state-permitted source inventory. AQSTD at 22. For instance, part of the Jonah Infill II project not elsewhere taken into account was considered “developed” in the emissions inventory. AQTSD at C-40, Table C.12. In other words, the BLM believed that PM10 emissions from hundreds of wells in the Jonah Field did not need to be considered because the background levels from Cheyenne from two years ago adequately account for all the emissions. This is illogical on its face. The background emissions are clearly nonrepresentative and not substantiated in any way, See Section II.a. supra, and so necessarily cannot account for the emissions of developed projects, especially projects like the Jonah field and the Pinedale Anticline that are relatively recent and progressing at an unprecedented rate, and which in the case of Jonah are the subject of this very DEIS. Alternatively, the BLM believed that the emissions from “developed” projects like part of the Jonah Infill project were accounted for in the state-permitted source inventory. However, the state-permitted source inventory contained only 34 sources total for all of Wyoming. AQTSD at 24, Table 2.4. The Jonah Field wells at issue alone exceed 34 sources, much less the addition of all other sources in Wyoming that should be included in the state-permitted inventory. The logic used by the BLM for “developed” sources is facially inadequate and is not satisfactorily explained in the DEIS. The BLM excluded other sources with “low” emissions. Hundreds of sources with emissions less 3 tons per year were excluded in the DEIS. AQTSD at C-24 to C-35, Table C.8. Some of these sources were producing wells and were excluded because the BLM assumed the emissions would be encompassed in the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC) emission levels. AQTSD at C-35. However, the WOGCC information only included wells permitted as of 2002, nearly three years before the Jonah DEIS was prepared. AQTSD at C-3. During the past three years, drilling in Wyoming has continued at full throttle but these wells are not accounted for in the emissions inventory.

180
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

As a result of inappropriately excluding sources and improperly accounting for emissions that were included, the BLM’s emissions inventory underestimated emissions for its cumulative analysis. The BLM must revisit the emissions inventory and include all appropriate sources and use accurate assumptions when determining emissions levels for the sources. 

L-61 17 A Air Quality Analysis NEPA requires the BLM to consider not only current 

emissions but also emissions from sources that are expected in the near future in the region—otherwise known as “reasonable foreseeable development” or RFD. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7. Cumulative air quality analyses must include RFD in order to have an accurate picture of air quality. An accurate RFD determination for Jonah must include all sources that affect the same areas affected by Jonah development. BLM failed to include the proper sources within and outside of Wyoming in its RFD determination. In the Jonah DEIS, the BLM defined RFD as Wyoming industrial sources that are NEPA-approved projects but not yet developed or not yet authorized NEPA projects for which air quality analyses were in progress. AQTSD at 22, C-5. The BLM defined reasonable foreseeable future action (RFFA) as the undeveloped portions of already permitted sources. AQTSD at 14, 22. For the RFD, the BLM included only Wyoming sources and arbitrarily excluded all sources from Utah, Colorado, Idaho and Montana. AQTSD at 22. All sources from those states are excluded despite the fact such sources may impact the same areas as the development in Jonah. For example, the BLM excluded significant sources in the Vernal, Utah area, the Price, Utah area, the Colorado Roan Plateau area and the Powder River Basin sources in Montana. Other major sources were also excluded, including the proposed Unit 2 at the Bonanza power plant in northeast Utah and the proposed Unit 4 at the Hunter power plant in Utah both of which will likely impact southwestern Wyoming. The permitted Roundup power plant and the Hardin Generating Station, both in southeastern Montana, were also not included but may affect similar Class I areas as Jonah development. 

TpeTmWtwpiWsWiAepdApqcm

181
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

The BLM’s exclusion of non-Wyoming sources is inconsistent with its current inventory source determination. The BLM admitted that sources in Utah, Colorado and Idaho impact the same area as Jonah because it included sources from these states in its inventory of current sources. AQTSD at 24, Table 2.4. If these sources did not affect the same areas as Jonah, the BLM would have excluded them from the current source inventory. The BLM must expand the RFD to include those projects in other states that will affect the same areas as development in Jonah. The inventory for RFD for sources within Wyoming is also flawed. The BLM included only 47 sources as RFFA and 42 sources as RFD. AQTSD at 24, Table 2.4. Many potential NEPA projects that should have been considered as RFD—like the Atlantic Rim Project EIS and the Seminoe Road project—were excluded because no emissions were quantified. AQTSD at C-40, Table C.12. Also, the BLM did not include the proposed Two Elk power plant to be located in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, which was reissued a permit in May of 2003. The inventory should have also included those sources which submitted complete PSD permit applications but which have not yet been permitted. The BLM cannot so easily avoid its duty under NEPA to analyze the cumulative impacts of Jonah development. The BLM cannot simply avoid including sources because full emissions studies are not completed or exclude sources without justification. For both Atlantic Rim and Seminoe, the scoping notices gave some estimates of the levels of development, which could have been used for at least a qualitative estimate of emissions. The BLM gave no indication why it excluded the other sources like the Two Elk power plant. NEPA requires the BLM to include relevant information unless the costs of obtaining it are “exorbitant.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22(a). Here, the BLM made no claim regarding the efforts it would take to obtain the information or that the cost was exorbitant. The BLM has not properly rationalized its decision to exclude these sources and it must take the time to gather the 

182
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

appropriate information and include it in a revised RFD and RFFA determination. 

L-61 18 A Air Quality Analysis The BLM must conduct its cumulative air quality analysis 

in the context of the current air quality situation in the Pinedale area. The BLM failed to adequately acknowledge previous air quality analyses and information showing that air quality in Wyoming is already being significantly affected from current rates of development in Wyoming. See also Section II, supra. The BLM even de-emphasized the information in the DEIS that showed significant impacts to visibility in its No Action analysis. The BLM must acknowledge the state of air quality in the Pinedale area and contemporary information showing unanticipated levels of certain pollutants and significant impacts. The BLM should consider the Jonah development in light of already existing air quality impairment. The Record of Decision for the Pinedale Anticline Project Area (PAPA ROD) states that if caps on NOx emissions from PAPA are exceeded, additional cumulative air quality review is necessary. PAPA ROD at 16. In November of 2004, the BLM published NOx levels showing the current levels nearly triple the PAPA ROD NOx caps. Questar EA at 3-20—3-21; 4-26. It also showed visibility impairment to Class I areas in the Bridger-Teton National Forest. The BLM did not take this information into account in the Jonah DEIS. Clearly, the BLM cannot use the Jonah cumulative air quality analysis to satisfy its PAPA ROD responsibility to undergo a new air quality review because the Jonah DEIS does not even include the increased NOx levels that triggered the need for new review in the first place. The BLM, in an agreement with the DEQ and other agencies signed after the PAPA ROD, committed itself to track NOx emissions in the Pinedale area. However, the BLM failed to abide by its agreement until this fall when the levels of NOx were suddenly found to be triple that authorized in the PAPA ROD. Questar EA at 3-20—3-21; 4-26. Clearly, if the BLM had adhered to its agreement to track NOx, the increasing levels of NOx would have been discovered before this fall. It is our understanding that the BLM is currently retroactively compiling the data for NOx tracking from 2000 to 2005. 

BnnitpevoA bR

183
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

We encourage the completion of that compilation and urge the BLM to remain current with its NOx tracking responsibilities from now on. The BLM does not acknowledge this tracking responsibility in the Jonah DEIS but the need for accurate tracking remains and should be acknowledged and reaffirmed in the Jonah DEIS. 

L-61 19 A Analysis Air Quality The BLM must acknowledge that not approving the 

Jonah Infill DEIS would still allow for visibility impairment of several Class I areas. The No Action Alternative in the Jonah DEIS shows visibility impairment from cumulative emissions at the Bridger Wilderness and the Wind River Roadless Area. AQTSD at F-295, Table F.10.19. In other words, even when no wells from the Jonah Infill proposed action are developed, there is still significant impairment to visibility. The BLM must incorporate this information into its determination of appropriate mitigation measures and consider its actions in the context of already impaired air quality. 

TpaiBdtri

L-61 20 A Analysis Air Quality The BLM failed to include any measurement of 

production and construction PM10 emissions in far-field emissions determination. AQTSD at 68. Only PM2.5 emissions were included. AQTSD at 68. The BLM supported this decision with documentation that suggested PM10 particles would tend to settle out near the emissions source. AQTSD at 68. However, the supporting documentation does not state that all PM10 particles settle out. Therefore, the BLM most likely underestimated the level of PM10 emissions at far-field locations. This would affect visibility levels as well as compliance with NAAQS/WAAQS. 

PiatpegnstiPiOPnc

L-61 21 A Analysis Air Quality The BLM failed to comply with NEPA by not adequately 

describing mitigation measures for Jonah development. The BLM must consider mitigation measures like limiting activities that contribute to emissions, requiring emission controls on sources or requiring the off-setting of emissions to ensure the net emissions remain below applicable a certain thresholds. The BLM fails to 

TmT(v

W

184
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

adequately consider any of these types of mitigation. The BLM briefly described operator-proposed compensatory mitigation in the DEIS. DEIS at 4-152. However, the specifics of the proposal are not final and only tentative mitigation measures were included in the DEIS. For the Proposed Action, the BLM listed the mitigation measures but does not quantify the emissions reduction. DEIS at 5-1 to 5-7; 2-25. The BLM also did not commit the mitigation measures listed in Chapter 5 to any particular alternative and instead only states that “any of the listed actions may be required or recommended under any alternative.” DEIS at 5-1. Without quantification of emissions reduction, there is no way the decision-maker can determine whether one alternative will safeguard air quality better than another. The BLM failed to consider the possibility of phased development in Jonah as a potential mitigation measure. Because visibility impairment is already occurring in Class I areas that will also be impacted by Jonah, see Section III.e., supra, the BLM should analyze the possibility of delaying further development until currently emitting sources are completed. The BLM should also consider the possibility of a cap on certain emissions that would avoid further visibility impairment of Class I areas and acid deposition in sensitive watersheds. The cap on emissions increases would provide a threshold beyond which only offsets for new emissions would be allowed. The BLM should reevaluate the mitigation measures in the DEIS and quantify the air quality benefits of each proposed measure. The BLM should consider the implementation of a cap on emissions increases necessary to safeguard visibility of Class I areas and sensitive lakes. Mitigation measures in the DEIS are especially important because the BLM is approving the Jonah Infill project at a time where air quality values in the Pinedale area and beyond are already impaired. 

WervfBmBorq

L-61 22 A Analysis Compliance The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) 

requires the BLM to “take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the [public] lands.” 43 U.S.C. § 1732(b) (emphasis added). This specific, mandatory, non-discretionary standard 

TpDrr

185
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

requires BLM to ensure that both unnecessary degradation and undue degradation of the public lands does not occur due to the oil and gas drilling. See Mineral Policy Center v. Norton, 292 F.Supp.2d 30, 41-43 (D.D.C. 2003). While the “unnecessary” prong of this twofold requirement may relate to the economics of oil and gas drilling and industry standard practices, the “undue” degradation prong relates to impacts that are environmentally excessive. See id. at 41. As noted, the unnecessary or undue degradation clause of FLPMA imposes a specific, mandatory duty on the BLM to do whatever is necessary to protect the public lands from excessive environmental degradation. Because this duty is mandatory, BLM is not required to permit surface disturbance as proposed or desired by a lessee; it retains authority—and indeed an obligation—to condition development so as to prevent both unnecessary degradation or undue degradation. 43 C.F.R § 3101.1-2.The unnecessary or undue degradation clause of FLPMA must serve as a bedrock for all analyses in the Jonah DEIS. It is crucial to recognize that unnecessary or undue degradation must be prevented; the DEIS must provide that both prongs of this standard are met. Clearly, the BLM bears a heavy responsibility before it can authorize activities that may degrade the public lands. BLM’s duty to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation (“UUD”) under FLPMA is mandatory, and BLM must, at a minimum, demonstrate compliance with the UUD standard. See Sierra Club v. Hodel, 848 F.2d 1068, 1075 (10th Cir. 1988) (the UUD standards provide the “law to apply” and “imposes a definite standard on the BLM.”). In this case, and in the context of BLM’s decision to allow additional development in the Jonah Field, the agency is under a statutory obligation to demonstrate compliance with the UUD standard and show that impacts from oil and gas development will be mitigated and therefore not cause undue or unnecessary degradation to important and protected resources contained in the Jonah Field. See e.g., Kendall’s Concerned Area Residents, 129 IBLA 130, 138 (1994) (“If unnecessary or undue degradation cannot be prevented by mitigation measures, BLM is required to 

186
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

deny approval of the plan.”). BLM has not adopted these methods to avoid degradation of the environment and has not demonstrated how UUD will otherwise be prevented for the Jonah Field with the drilling of thousands of new wells and the creation of new roads, pipelines and other surface impacts from gas development. The agency’s failure to demonstrate compliance with FLPMA’s UUD standards is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. 

L-61 23 A Public 

Participation 

Analysis If the BLM’s preferred alternative is chosen, a working 

group made up of citizens, government experts and industry representatives will be established to make recommendations for the Jonah Infill project. DEIS at 2-24. It appears the Jonah working group will be similar to the Pinedale Anticline Working Group (PAWG), and if the PAWG is functioning effectively, the PAWG would take over responsibility for the Jonah Field in 2006. DEIS at 2-24. Before the BLM approves a working group for the Jonah Infill project, it must evaluate the effectiveness of the PAWG. First, funding has been a persistent issue with the PAWG as it is unclear who is paying for the mitigation measures the PAWG recommends. For Jonah, the BLM seems to have further confused the issue. It states that the Jonah Infill working group will “make every effort to develop innovative funding sources for monitoring activities....including use of volunteers, seed money/matching funds, grants, etc. [The working group] will not depend solely on the JIDPA oil and gas Operators for funding.” DEIS at D-5. It is unreasonable to assume that significant monitoring and mitigation funding can be “raised” by members of working groups. The BLM should have mitigation and monitoring funding available and be supplemented with funding from the Operators who are causing the need for mitigation in the first place. The BLM must determine whether the Pinedale Anticline Working Group will be able to handle the additional workload of the Jonah Infill. While the industry and government agency members of the working groups are being paid to attend the meetings, the citizen members 

TTFo

187
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

are not. In order to avoid an unbalanced advisory committee, the BLM must ensure that adequate representation on the task groups and working group can be achieved. The BLM must provide further details regarding the Jonah Infill Working Group in the FEIS. 

L-61 24 A Analysis The BLM stated that no amendment was necessary for 

the Pinedale Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the Jonah Infill proposed development. DEIS at 1-5. The BLM determined this despite the fact it admits that the Jonah Infill project would add more wells than included in the reasonably foreseeable development projection in the Pinedale Anticline amendment to the Pinedale RMP. DEIS at 1-5. The BLM further justifies its determination that an amendment is not necessary by stating surface disturbance levels are below those in the Anticline amendment to the Pinedale RMP, which was 6,300 acres. DEIS at 1-5. However, the surface disturbance of both the proposed action and the BLM’s preferred alternative appear to exceed the 6,300 limit for RFD surface disturbance in the RMP amendment. DEIS at 2-6, Table 2.1; DEIS at 1-5. Also, the BLM states that all “existing RMP objectives would be met” with the Jonah Infill development obviating the need for a RMP amendment. DEIS at 1-5. However, as shown in Sections I-III above, the DEIS showed significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality values like visibility and sensitive watersheds, which are not objectives included in the RMP. The Jonah Infill project represents a major change to the existing Pinedale RMP and an amendment to the Pinedale RMP is necessary. 

Tacs(goaoateawtIRapepedmaatadwoiPotmbowi

188
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

mtbcmmdp

L-61 25 F Analysis Wildlife The Jonah Infill Project Area provides important habitat 

for a number of wildlife species. Most significant for purposes of recreation as well as project-related impacts are pronghorn antelope and greater sage grouse. While the Jonah Infill DEIS unequivocally reflects very high levels of negative impacts to their respective habitats—levels that exceed the maximum thresholds recommended by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD)—the DEIS fails to provide adequate information to understand the true extent of those impacts, fails to adopt recommended measures to alleviate them, and, most puzzlingly given the extent of the impacts, recommends foregoing any commitment of resources for compensatory mitigation. The BLM must also take into account new information on the impact of natural gas development on wildlife. The Wilderness Society’s new report—“Wildlife at a Crossroads”—provides up-to-date and relevant information the BLM should incorporate into its assessment of wildlife and wildlife habitat impact analyses for the Jonah project. The report investigates the transportation network in the Pinedale Field Area and analyzes the impact of roads on sage grouse and other wildlife. The BLM should confirm in the FEIS that it utilized this report in its analysis for the Jonah Field. 

NimFcnumhf

L-61 26 A Wildlife Analysis The JIDPA is located at the core of the north sub-unit of 

the Sublette Herd Unit for pronghorn antelope. DEIS at 3-56. This herd is already below 85% of WGFD’s population objective, and has been adversely affected in recent years by low fawn/doe ratios and drought conditions and low forage production. Id. Although federal land management action cannot eliminate drought, it directly influences other important factors that contribute to pronghorn habitat condition, behavior, and population levels. 2.5% of this herd unit’s crucial range has already been directly disturbed. Id. BLM, however,

CrwsR

189
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

fails to provide any information as to (a) what proportion of this crucial habitat’s effectiveness has been lost, given that the impact of disturbance on pronghorn extends beyond the immediate footprint of development, or (b) what this loss of crucial habitat means for the behavior of pronghorn or crucial factors relating to population trends, including fawning rates and fawn survival. With a population already below objective and under stress from drought, BLM now proposes an extraordinarily dense level of development directly in the path of documented pronghorn migration routes (DEIS at 3-57, Map 3.13).... ...Unfortunately, the DEIS neither provides adequate scientifically credible information with which to assess the effects of this development, nor adequately provides for mitigation (either on-site or off-site) of this impact. BLM, for example, fails to discuss the recommendations of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, the supporting science behind those recommendations, or the Department’s refutation of BLM’s accepted myths regarding wildlife “adaptation” to development in migration corridors: Long-term displacement of wildlife from preferred habitats and disruption of migration routes could, in the extreme case, extirpate “migration memory” that required several thousand years to evolve. Each successive cohort of young ungulates learns the locations of suitable winter habitats and migration routes from older, experienced females that lead them (e.g., Baker 1978, Mackie et al. 1998:44). Extended disruptions of migration or habitat use can result in loss of learned behavior from entire cohorts of young animals, breaking the tradition of migration to the most suitable winter habitats. Minimum Recommendations for Development of Oil and Gas Resources within Crucial and Important Wildlife Habitats on BLM Lands 8 (Sept. 10, 2004). The Jonah Infill DEIS plainly involves extreme levels of development within and immediately adjacent to documented pronghorn migration routes. The DEIS, however, despite acknowledged existing stresses on the Sublette herd, fails to provide adequate scientifically credible data about the potential extent of this 

190
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

phenomenon, or, most importantly, how its long-term effect might be alleviated, if that is even possible. 

L-61 27 A Analysis Wildlife As BLM acknowledged in the DEIS, the greater sage 

grouse has been extirpated from two states, and is in serious decline across its range. DEIS at 3-63. Central and western Wyoming, including the JIDPA, represent one of the species’ “last strongholds.” Id. Nevertheless, the species has experienced regional declines as high as 73% in Wyoming as well. Id. “Changes in the sagebrush-dominated areas where birds typically reside,” including “fire, plant invasions, land conversions, urbanization, livestock grazing, energy development, noise, and others,” are principal factors in this decline. Id. Unfortunately, the Jonah Infill Project continues this trend of eliminating habitat for a declining population, while failing to ameliorate this destruction through protection or restoration of habitat. As the DEIS acknowledges: Data from the JIDPA and for the entire Green River Basin show declines in male greater sagegrouse attendance at leks. Additionally, declines appear to be occurring at a faster rate in areas with oil and gas development (WGFD unpublished data; personal communication, December 2004, with Dean Clause, WGFD Biologist). Declines in lek attendance likely indicate a reduction in the regional population. . . . Sitespecific surveys of the JIDPA conducted over the last few years indicate that while the area is still used for nesting and summer and winter foraging, use of the area by greater sage-grouse continues to decline. This decline is likely due in part to the increased loss of habitat resulting from oil and gas development. DEIS at 3-63 (emphasis added). Despite this acknowledgment, the BLM’s preferred alternative only accelerates this habitat loss, and inexplicably rejects any commitment of resources for measures that might compensate for this loss by protecting or restoring other habitat for the species. Like many other BLM projects, the Jonah Infill project employed BLM’s standard state-wide lease stipulations and conditions of approval for sage grouse habitat: a buffer zone of a mere 0.25 mile around occupied leks, and seasonal limitations on initial drilling within two miles of a lek and in breeding, nesting, and wintering areas. As BLM acknowledges, however, “these [timing] stipulations 

SieJswAtntis bThis

191
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

do not preclude exploration and development from occurring in nesting and wintering habitat outside of the timing restriction dates, and therefore, habitat is not protected from development.” DEIS at 3-66 to 3-67 (emphasis added). With admirable candor, BLM admits that “[g]iven the noted decline in greater sage-grouse use of the JIDPA, existing protection measures within the JIDPA appear to be inadequate.” DEIS at 3-67. Unfortunately, this candor is not matched by a commitment to either (a) minimize impacts from further drilling within the JIDPA, such as might arguably be achieved through Alternative B; or (b) compensate for the decline within the JIDPA by ensuring added protection and/or restoration of other sage grouse habitat. 

L-61 28 A Wildlife Analysis Although NEPA does not require BLM to achieve 

complete certainty regarding the environmental impact of a proposed project, the Act does require all federal agencies to make every reasonable effort to obtain the requisite information to make an informed and environmentally sound decision. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). CEQ’s regulations implementing NEPA expressly mandate that “[i]f . . . incomplete information relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and the overall costs of obtaining it are not exorbitant, the agency shall include the information in the environmental impact statement.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22(a) (emphasis added). The agency is excused from gathering information only if “the overall costs of obtaining it are exorbitant or the means to obtain it are not known.” In that case, the regulations require disclosure of the missing information, its relevance, a description of existing information, and the agency’s evaluation of that existing information. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.22(b). The Jonah Infill DEIS, while reflecting to some extent information obtained during monitoring associated with past and ongoing operations in the field, still does not provide the basic information about habitat resources needed for an informed evaluation of the costs of the extraordinary density of proposed development. With respect to sage grouse habitats apart from leks, for example, the proposed operating measures provide that 

“Operators would inventory greater sage-grouse 

Crw

192
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

seasonal habitats within the JIDPA not already inventoried by BLM or WGFD within one year of the ROD for this project; GIS data would be provided to BLM, WGFD, and the JIWF with FGDC-compliant metadata.” DEIS at 2-29. Similarly, the DEIS provides that ““Important greater sage-grouse wintering habitat within the Jonah and Anticline Fields and surrounding areas currently is being identified by the BLM in cooperation with WGFD. Identification of sage-grouse wintering areas will be based, at least in part, on aerial winter sage-grouse surveys.” DEIS at 3-67. The time for this information, under CEQ’s NEPA’s regulations, is not after sage grouse habitat is developed at levels of 19% to 34% total ground disturbance. NEPA requires that BLM acquire at least a basic understanding of the resources at stake before taking action. Here, particularly given the high yields of the Jonah Field to date, BLM has not even begun to make a showing that the costs of obtaining the information are exorbitant, particularly relative to the benefits already reaped by lessees. Moreover, the existence of concrete measures to obtain the necessary information after the fact clearly indicates that the means to obtain it are known; simply the will to obtain it in time to do anything with it is lacking. The Jonah Infill DEIS also fails to provide useable information regarding the efficacy of the mitigation measures it does rely upon (save for the acknowledgment that existing measures have already to date been unsuccessful in stemming sage grouse declines). “It is assumed that the application of identified mitigation and protection measures would reduce impact levels; however, the efficacy of many mitigations is unknown. Therefore, no quantitative variation in impact levels based upon the application of variable mitigations is provided.” DEIS at 4-2. Although NEPA and its implementing regulations certainly do not require quantitative certainty in all cases, this concession reflects the basic problem with BLM’s approach here. BLM is rushing ahead to authorize unique densities of development, without understanding the effect to which its standard mitigation measures can alleviate impacts even from lesser levels of development. 

L-61 29 A Wildlife Analysis As BLM noted, governing federal and State land use T

193
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

plans establish, the following objectives for wildlife and fisheries: “To maintain, improve, or enhance the biological diversity of all plant and wildlife species while ensuring healthy ecosystems; To conserve and develop recreational resources for the benefit of present and future generations; To consider wildlife migration corridors, crucial winter ranges, and other important habitats when evaluating land use proposals” Jonah Infill DEIS at 4-75. The proposed action will confound each one of these objectives. By authorizing extreme levels of disturbance to sagebrush ecosystems, pronghorn migration corridors, and sage grouse crucial habitats, it will impair native ecosystems without any reliable guarantee of adequate reclamation, eliminate entirely a significant recreation resource for the foreseeable future, and fail entirely to ensure the viability of pronghorn migration corridors and important sage grouse habitats. This extreme level of impact implicates BLM’s duty to prevent unnecessary and undue degradation of the Jonah Field. See Section V., supra. Presumably in response to the exceptionally high levels of negative environmental impact, and the exceptional profitability of the Jonah Field, the field’s operators have themselves proposed resources for compensatory (including off-site) mitigation of environmental impacts. “Operators have committed to various mitigation measures . . . and proposed to establish a Cumulative Impacts Mitigation Fund to mitigate potential adverse impacts in the JIDPA. While details are emerging, one form of financing the fund could be to deposit a particular dollar amount for every acre of new initial surface disturbance in the JIDPA above a certain acreage threshold.” DEIS at 2-8. Although we are hesitant to endorse offsite mitigation as a cure-all for impacts that could otherwise reasonably be avoided, we recognize that, under certain circumstances, full exploitation of one resource (i.e., the gas resources underlying the Jonah Field) may result in unavoidable and excessive damage to other resources (here, wildlife habitat and recreational opportunity). Under such circumstances of extreme impact, WGFD recommendations expressly call for compensatory mitigation as a means of reducing net, if not onsite, impact. Where, as here, extreme impact thresholds for sage grouse are to be exceeded, WGFD 

mnBrbmbm

194
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

recommends as follows: Opportunities may exist to partially offset the loss of nesting and brood-rearing habitat by implementing habitat treatments in appropriate locations outside the well field. This type of mitigation is exceedingly difficult and expensive to accomplish effectively, and should not be looked upon as a prescriptive solution to authorize high-density well fields in important sage grouse habitat. The most effective strategy is to avoid high-density developments. Only if this is not reasonable, plan effective habitat treatments in locations that minimize the loss of habitat function for the grouse population affected by the field development. Minimum Recommendations at 22 (emphasis added). Inexplicably, however, BLM prefers to reject any concrete commitment of resources for compensatory mitigation. “In lieu of the proposed Cumulative Impacts Mitigation Fund, the BLM Preferred Alternative recommends that, where appropriate and consistent with BLM policy, Operators voluntarily seek BLM-approved CM projects aimed at alleviating on-site mitigation concerns.” DEIS at 2-31. Given the cost and complexity of effective offsite mitigation, a vague suggestion that operators may, at some undefined future point, voluntarily seek approval for undefined future measures, is no substitute whatsoever for a concrete commitment of resources to fund an independently-supervised compensatory mitigation fund. 

L-61 30 A Wildlife Analysis FLPMA requires that BLM land use plans be consistent 

with officially approved resource-related plans of State, local, and tribal governments. 43 U.S.C. § 1702(c)(9); see also 43 C.F.R. § 1610.3-2. Site-specific actions, such as the Jonah Infill Drilling Project, must in turn be consistent with BLM land use plans. 43 U.S.C. § 1732(a); 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-3(a). The Jonah Infill Drilling Project, however, is inconsistent with two important resource-related state policies. First, the Jonah Infill Drilling Project, particularly without guaranteed compensatory mitigation, plainly violates Wyoming’s official “no net habitat loss policy.” It is the official policy of the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission that crucial habitat for wildlife species within the State should be managed to prevent “any loss of 

Rw

195
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

habitat function.” Wyoming Game and Fish Commission Policy No. VII H (April 28, 1998) at 138. Some modification of crucial habitat is permitted but only if “habitat function is maintained (i.e., the location, essential features, and species supported are unchanged).” As BLM acknowledges in the DEIS, identified pronghorn migration corridors and essential sage grouse habitat will be significantly and adversely affected by the Jonah Infill project. Second, the proposed Jonah Infill project is inconsistent in a great many respects with WGFD’s recent Minimum Recommendations for Development of Oil and Gas Resources within Crucial and Important Wildlife Habitats on BLM Lands (Sept. 10, 2004) (“Minimum Recommendations”). WGFD’s Minimum Recommendations, relying on extensive scientific literature and agency expertise, catalogue a number of crucial and important habitats, and establish three levels of impact thresholds (moderate, high, and extreme) based on the specific factors relevant to the functions of each type of crucial or important habitat. The Jonah Infill project will affect two important categories of priority habitat: (1) identified pronghorn migration corridors (DEIS at 3-56 to 3-57); and (2) sage grouse leks, nesting and brood-rearing complexes, and winter habitat (DEIS at 3-63, 3-67). WGFD’s Minimum Recommendations determine the “impact thresholds” for these habitats based on two “quantitative measures—density of well locations and cumulative acres of disturbance per section.” Minimum Recommendations at 9. For sage grouse habitat, the “extreme impact” threshold is met by densities of greater than 16 wells, or 80 acres of disturbance, per 640-acre section. Although BLM’s description of varying alternatives using different measures obscures direct comparison, it quickly becomes evident that the majority of the alternatives, including the BLM Preferred Alternative, fall well above the threshold for “extreme impact.” Under the BLM Preferred Alternative, even the least-impacted of the three designated areas of impact, the “19% disturbance area,” will see levels of direct disturbance of 118 acres/section

—well above the 80-

196
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

acre threshold for “extreme impact.” DEIS at 2-22 to 2-24. 

L-61 31 A Wildlife WGFD recommends that new power lines be buried and 

that existing lines be retrofitted by being buried or by installing perch guards to prevent their use as raptor perches. Minimum Recommendations at 17. There does not appear to be a BLM practice responsive to this recommendation. 

Aa

L-61 32 A Wildlife Noise WGFD recommends avoiding human and vehicular 

activity between 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. from March 1 through May 15 within a quarter mile of an occupied lek. Minimum Recommendations at 18. There does not appear to be a BLM practice responsive to this. WGFD recommends that, in order to avoid disturbing auditory displays, anthropogenic sources of continuous or frequently intermittent noise should be limited from March 1 through May 15. Minimum Recommendations at 18. There is no BLM requirement on this matter. BLM, however, acknowledges that “[i]t is likely that noise already has contributed to the apparent decrease in wildlife use on and adjacent to the JIDPA (see Section 4.2.2.), with observed decreases in raptor nesting activity and productivity, male greater sage-grouse lek attendance and sage-grouse nesting within the JIDPA having been reported over the past several years (TRC Mariah 1999, 2001a, 2001b, 2002, 2004a). Data also suggest that noise may contribute to disturbance and/or departure of greater sage—grouse from area leks.”) DEIS at 4-63. 

Aa

L-61 33 A Wildlife Noise OperatorCommitted 

Practices 

WGFD recommends limiting, to the extent reasonable, anthropogenic sources of continuous or frequently intermittent noise from March 15 to July 15. Again, BLM does not directly address noise limitations. WGFD recommends avoiding surface disturbing activities and geophysical surveys in nesting and early brood-rearing habitat (within or without a two-mile buffer surrounding a lek) from March 15 through July 15. Minimum Recommendations at 18. Operators would “avoid optimal greater sage-grouse nesting habitats, where practical.” DEIS, Appendix B, at B-16. Table A.3 indicates a standard stipulation of “no surface-disturbingactivity” within suitable nesting habitat or within a twoA

a

197
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

mile buffer surrounding a lek. DEIS, Appendix A, at A11. However, “[g]iven the noted decline in greater sagegrouse use of the JIDPA, existing protection measures within the JIDPA appear to be inadequate.” DEIS at 3-67. Similarly, the WGFD recommends that sites for construction be selected such that they will not disturb “suitable nest cover or brood-rearing habitats” within two miles of an occupied lek, or identified nesting and broodrearing habitats outside of the two mile perimeter. The BLM does not mention construction sites specifically, and BLM’s two-mile timing restriction for initial construction fails to protect disturbance of nest cover or brood-rearing habitat from destruction by construction during periods not covered by the timing stipulation. 

L-61 34 B Wildlife Social WGFD recommends avoiding placement of well pads, 

roads and other well field facilities on mapped winter habitats, or within a 200 meter buffer surrounding such habitat. Human and equipment activity is to be avoided in and within 200 meters of such habitat between November 15 and March 14. Minimum Recommendations at 19. Table A.3 indicates a restriction of “no surface-disturbing activity” from November 15 to March 14 within identified winter habitat. DEIS at A-11. No mention is made of a buffer. 

Aa

L-61 35 F Wildlife OperatorCommitted 

Practices 

The WGFD also provides additional prescriptions depending upon the impact threshold reached in a habitat area. We focus here on the prescriptions specified for “highly” and “extremely” impacted areas of sage-grouse habitat, including leks and their two-mile buffers and nesting and brood-rearing habitat outside of the two-mile buffer zone. These prescriptions do not apply to winter habitat, because there is a blanket prohibition on wells et al. in or within 200 meters of such habitat, regardless of impact threshold. In “high impact” areas, the WGFD additionally recommends: • Directional drilling, to the extent reasonable, in order to reduce the density of well locations and roads and associated activity. Minimum Recommendations at 20. In the DEIS, operators commit to “utilize directional drilling to access resources beneath the 0.25-mile active greater sage-grouse lek buffers if reserves beneath 

Weag

198
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

these locations are deemed economic” and to “utilize directional drilling to access resources beneath the 600-ft wide (or tall sagebrush-dominated) buffer associated with the Sand Draw protection areas if deemed economic.” DEIS at B-16 (emphasis added). These operator-committed practices thus seem to be radically more limited than being applied “to the extent reasonable.” They do not commit operators to utilizing directional drilling within the two-mile buffer zone surrounding leks. • Clustered development, by locating well pads, facilities and roads together in the least sensitive areas. Minimum Recommendations at 20. The EIS does not appear to address such “clustered development,” except to say vaguely that operators are committed to locate and design well pads, roads, pipelines and other facilities “to minimize disturbances to areas of high wildlife habitat value.” DEIS at B-11. • Condensate removal. The Minimum Recommendations, at 20, recommend removal of condensate by piping, rather than trucking offsite, and provides recommendations for timing of truck traffic, if necessary, within sage grouse habitat. The DEIS does not appear to address these recommendations at all. • Remote monitoring in order to cut down on travel by persons and vehicles for the purpose of manually inspecting and reading instruments. Minimum Recommendations at 20. The DEIS fails to address remote monitoring. • Development of a travel plan that minimizes frequency of trips on well field roads. Minimum Recommendations at 20. The DEIS fails to provide for such a travel plan. • Gating and closing of all newly constructed roads to public travel. Minimum Recommendations at 20. This does not appear to be addressed in the EIS. The WGFD also recommends as a kind of “worst-case” alternative the use of the kind of off-site mitigation measures and development of a mitigation trust account discussed briefly in the DEIS but rejected, without 

199
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

explanation, by BLM. In “extreme impact” areas, the WGFD recommends, in addition to all of the management practices and mitigation prescriptions applicable to “high impact” areas, the following measures: • Developing well fields in smaller, incremental phases. • Implementing habitat treatments outside the well field. It is with regard to these two key recommendations for ameliorating the effects of extreme impact that the Jonah Infill DEIS, as discussed above, fails most glaringly short of state policies. Contrary to WGFD recommendations, the BLM does not consider any type of phased or incremental development for the field in its alternatives, and its preferred alternative inexplicably rejects any commitment of resources that would ensure beneficial habitat preservation or treatment outside the affected well field. 

L-61 36 A Wildlife Analysis The WGFD recommends that for migration corridors of 

less that half a mile in width, there should be “no surface occupancy,” while for broader migration corridors, further constriction should be avoided and well-field density should not exceed four well locations per section. Minimum Recommendations at 23. No plan in the EIS contemplates density of less than 16 wells per section. The EIS is evasive on the degree to which the pronghorn migration corridor in the JIDPA might be affected. The EIS notes that the corridor is greater than a mile wide and contends it will not be disturbed. DEIS at 4-83. However, it also says in the same section that movements of pronghorn through the JIDPA “are likely to be hindered under most, if not all, of the development alternatives.” Id. In plain fact, the BLM simply lacks adequate scientific data to determine with any certainty the probable effect on migration corridors, and is simply embarking on an uncontrolled, unmonitored experiment on the existing pronghorn population. We strongly urge BLM, prior to approving any further drilling within the already heavily-impacted Jonah Field, to work closely with WGFD as well as other interested parties to incorporate, to the maximum extent possible,

Weag

200
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

all WGFD recommendations for preventing or, where necessary, alleviating impacts to high-value habitats such as pronghorn migration corridors and sage grouse essential habitats. Only by actively and fully implementing these measures, including compensatory mitigation as well as practices within the field, can BLM avoid inconsistency with state policy and unnecessary and undue degradation of federal resources. 

L-61 37 A Technical 

Information 

Mineral Resources 

Mineral Resources 

See Section IX of Letter for detailed analysis. Overall conclusion regarding recoverable resources. This analysis demonstrated the following facts: 1.) The DEIS conclusions concerning reductions in recoverable reserves due to directional drilling are grossly inaccurate. 2.) The DEIS claim that two factors (a frequent inability to drill and case the lower 1,000 feet of Lance formation and well economics) will cause Alternative E to lose 36% of the gas reserves that would otherwise be recoverable under EnCana’s “Proposed Action” is statistically impossible. 3.) In no case could the these two factors result in a loss of more than about 6.5% and even that number is a significant stretch. 4.) Because BLM has a responsibility to take “any” action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the public lands, and since the public lands will clearly be severely degraded under BLM’s preferred alternative, and since EnCana and other operators in the JIDPA will reap very large profits from their operations even if directional drilling is used, BLM must require and maximize the use of directional drilling in the JIDPA so as to meet its duties under the FLPMA. [see Section IX of letter for detailed analysis.] 

TmeaadctadActasiitatpdpiatw

L-64 1 A Technical 

Information 

Air Quality Emissions: Although BLM/Operators/modeling estimates 

and/or assumptions result in little or no impacts greater than allowed limits for various pollutants; and considering that current determinations from recent monitoring, without extensive time, for limited areas, are reported as "about 3-times previous expectations"; why not start by requiring best scientific/available technology for all equipment applications/practices in all operations 

[idHdipmB

201
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

(engines/emitters, etc.) (drilling/Completion/ Operating/ Transporting Equipment) (Like scrubbers/ catalytic converters/ turbochargers / heat recovery-conversion/ etc.), in addition to the new low emission engines which may not exist or occur for all applications. 

eoaTma

L-64 2 A Technical 

Information 

Pipeline Testing: Regarding general operations write-up in Section 2.9 on page 30 of Exhibit-G, DEIS Volume 2, pressure testing with natural gas (air or other gas) is not considered a safe practice; pressure testing is usually performed with liquid to prevent catastrophic occurrences in event of pipeline rupture or from explosion (including any necessary repair.) 

TTatrra

L-64 3 A1 Technical 

Information 

Flexibility: It is commendable that BLM process will maintain a site specific and case-by-case application/review/approval (or modify or reject) basis for all development/ operational/ impacts/ disturbances as discussed in Section 1.3 on page 1-5 and Section 2.14.1 on page 2-26, Chapters 1 and 2 of DEIS Volume 1 (besides elsewhere), working with operators and other agencies and with new technologies/ developments as such become applicable (and they with BLM); yet activating immediate remedial mitigation/ reclamation when situation / indication/ functions are evident or ended (as presented in various discussions elsewhere). Revisions: However, it seems that a statement or provision be added to explicitly require provisions of the new RMP to supercede allowances under this infill plan DEIS/EIS/ROD, in event such RMP or parts thereof be determined contrary to allowances for this infill plan. 

Rdrdasabprmdt

L-64 4 A1 Alternatives Also, regarding discussion of BLM Preferred Alternative 

in Section 2.14 on page 2-22 of said Chapter 2, specifically the "34% (214-acre) new disturbance" paragraph, it seems that a subparagraph should be added stating the same "well pad density . . . 10 year trends . . . 40 acre . . . Production objectives" subparagraph as also stated for the "24% (150 acre" and "19% (118 acre)" parts on page 2-24 (at top and about 1/4 page down); and my comments below about "well density" also relate to the said "40 acre surface spacing" part of said subparagraph. 

TanF

L-64 5 A1 Analysis Furthermore, a statement or provision should be added T

202
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

to explicitly state that this particular infill plan EIS evaluation (for Jonah) and related drilling/ development/ spacing does not set any specific precedent(s) and will not by itself, in part or total, extend elsewhere within the PRA without a site-specific/ stand-alone procedure as conducted for this infill plan or as provided by the final new RMP. 

DsdbStid

L-64 6 A Analysis Well Density: Although BLM statement at end of Section 

2.14 near top of page 2-26 that "BLM will not regulate number of wells or pace of development," this well development/ productivity vs. well density for the field/ reservoir question is the basis for all alternatives / disturbances / impacts/ mitigation related to Decisions about operator(s) proposal(s). ... Maybe some of your considerations for Questar proposal are relevant to this infill plan and, vice-versa, some considerations for this plan are relevant to Questar activity, either/both of which may result in reconsideration / amendments for these drilling plans and/or the forthcoming new RMP which provisions should override any contrary provisions of these recent drilling plans because new RMP is the "master" plan (although delayed being completed / issued). 

TanFIEQ

L-65 1 A Air Quality Analysis Given the importance of air quality as an issue we were 

disappointed by the quality of the analysis. We found that the shear size of the analysis obscured critical flaws which vitiate the usefulness of the DEIS to accurately portray and analyze the impacts of this project. We are aware of the pressure the BLM is under to complete this process but that is no excuse for such a misleading and inaccurate document. This observation applies not only to the main DEIS but to the Air Quality Technical document prepared by TRC prostituting themselves for industry. The inputs TRC used in modeling are clearly bogus and the results inaccurate and misleading, even with the predicted significant impacts to visibility and other parameters. 

BsmwsgsmdSStTaa

L-65 4 A Public 

Participation 

NEPA On-Site 

Mitigation 

On p. v. of the Executive Summary it mentions that the Preferred Alternative (PA) would require monitoring and surveying. Previous NEPA processes on the Pinedale FO have included such measures many or most of which 

ManF

203
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

have been totally ignored, for instance the NOx tracking reports, etc. The public can have little confidence in the BLM with such a poor track record. With this poor track record, a review of past mitigation measures, requirements, etc. and their effectiveness and implementation must be included in the Supplemental DEIS. On the same page it states that AQRV impacts modeling will be run during this comment period and will be included in the FEIS. This does not allow public review of this modeling and therefore violates NEPA. In addition the DEIS states the similarity of the PA with another Alternative which also was not modeled which was said was similar to another Alternative that was modeled. This kind of logic that A is similar to B and B is similar to C, therefore A is similar to C is false and unsupportable. 

FHnca

L-65 5 A Soils NEPA Under the Soils section of this page is it also mentions 

that no modeling of soils impacts was done and will be included in the DEIS for all alternative. Having no soils impacts modeling, given the highly sensitive soils in the area and poor revegetation capabilities is a major issue. To include no quantitative analysis of this in the DEIS and thus providing no public review of this significant issue is a violation of NEPA. 

Ttpssa dimlesanrecsoTestapp

L-65 6 B On-site 

Mitigation 

P 2-10 5-10 years for reclamation: No data is presented to support this claim. In the precipitation regime and soil 

Tp

204
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

types of the project area 20-40 years is more realistic. In the FEIS please provide supporting evidence to support your conclusions. 

eOa

L-65 7 A Air Quality On-Site 

Mitigation 

Conditions of Approval 

P 2-30-31: Even though air quality is the most significant impact from this proposal, there is no listing for required air quality monitoring even though this list gets to the level of detail as requiring operators to monitor forage utilization on reclaimed areas. This level of ignoring the critical issues is unacceptable. 

AdR

L-65 8 B Air Quality Analysis Table 2.12: This table does not say what the current 

number of days of impairment of visibility are. This is critical information to analyze the impacts. Please provide this information in the SDEIS. 

TnitStt

L-65 9 A Air Quality Analysis NEPA P 3-4 p.6: The DEIS states "air quality monitoring has 

not been conducted within the JIDPA, air quality monitoring for the most relevant pollutants has been conducted and determined to be representative of the CIAA." Gas development has been going on within the Jonah field for nearly a decade and yet no air quality monitoring has been done. This lack of even the most basic project monitoring is a strong indictment of BLM management and calls into question if any of the proposed monitoring will be conducted as laid out in the DEIS. In addition, this ambiguous sentence above basically states that even though we have done nothing in the Jonah area there is other data that "is representative" of the area. What is left to small footnotes is that this data was collected as far back as the mid 1970s, with some in the early 1980's, the most recent data was from 2001 in Green River, about 70 miles south of the project area. A reasonable peer review of the data used as background concentrations would find that this data collected elsewhere in the state up to 30 years ago does not represent air quality in the Jonah field today. This is one of the fundamental flaws in the data input to the model, which vitiates the results of all modeling and is a violation of NEPA. 

ABiamJwPc

L-65 10 B Air Quality Figure 3.1: Why does this wind rose not contain data 

through 2003 as mentioned on the previous page? 

Am2d

205
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

a

L-65 11 A Analysis Map 3.1: This map does not contain all the projects 

going on in the domain area such as the 300 well proposal in the Wind River basin. 

TtRda

L-65 12 B Analysis Figure 3.7: Where is the data from mid 2001 to present? 

Since much of the development has occurred from 2000 on this information is critical. If there is some QA issue the data should be presented with caveats. 

TaArud

L-65 13 A Water 

Resources 

P 3-41: Here again the BLM leaves critical information out until the FEIS in violation of NEPA. This hydrologic modeling is key to understanding the impacts of the proposal. Without this information the NEPA analysis is vitiated. 

A sta

L-65 14 A1 Analysis Technical 

Information 

P 4-1: "Overestimation" There are many aspects of the AQ modeling and inputs that would point to a major underestimation not overestimation, rendering that statement unsupportable. Two major flaws which severely underestimate impacts are the modeling of 1/2 Tier I and 1/2 Tier II drill rig engines. Since there is not a requirement to use these engines the changes of them being used is slim. The new diesel engine regulations only require engines manufactured after January 1, 2007 to meet Tier II requirements. Since Tier II emit approximately 75% less emissions than standard diesel engines this mistake has major impacts on the results of all modeling. Another major flaw is the fact that current emissions from PAPA were not included. The combination of these two major errors vitiates the entire modeling effort. If these emissions were accounted for, ozone would be well over NAAQS and WAAQS with the much greater NOx available for transformation to ozone. Because of these major errors we are not able to accurately analyze the DEIS. 

TbweLwaEAii

L-65 15 A Analysis NEPA P 4-2: In p 8 it is stated that even without this infill, the 

project would last another 63 years. In the Jonah II ROD it states LOP as 30-50 year. What is the difference between then and now that would allow an additional 25-45 years of LOP? Was this ever analyzed in any NEPA 

TJabc

206
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

document? If not, why not? In this same paragraph, it is stated "preliminary research and monitoring results indicate significant adverse impacts to many area resources have already occurred with existing development and mitigation requirements."The above sentence is very important in that it demonstrates: 1) The impacts of previous projects are more widespread and severe than was analyzed in any NEPA document, meaning that previous NEPA was poorly done and underestimated impacts. 2) The mitigation measures in place in previous projects are insufficient, ineffective, and probably poorly enforced, applied and implemented. These 2 reasons are sufficient for the BLM to conduct updated NEPA on previous projects and analyze what went wrong, and what needs to be done to correct the situation. This feedback information would then be used to inform the current NEPA process to avoid the same mistakes. I would also bet that these impacts being found through the limited research and monitoring that the BLM has done were clearly laid out in public comments to the previous NEPA processes, which the BLM at the time chose to ignore. This kind of grudging pro forma attitude towards NEPA requirements on BLM's part is shameful. 

iois NtsBpeAhmsmAcatTrps

L-65 16 A Analysis NEPA P 4-5: Additional processing facilities: Just because 

these facilities may need WDEQ permits does not absolve the BLM from need to examine these effects. It would be comparatively easy to make these obvious calculations. By not doing so the BLM vitiates this DEIS and violates NEPA. 

IadpnNcaewttr

207
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

L-65 17 B Technical 

Information 

Table 4.1: This table lists decaview impacts at the 1.0 dv level even though the agency in charge of this parameter considers .5 dv as a significant impact. Please review this in the SDEIS. Also what are existing impacts under no action? 

PccQTsCa

L-65 18 B Analysis Air Quality P 4-7: "Production related emission of SO2 and PM10 

were not modeled..." Why not? 

T

otptPhpne

L-65 19 A Air Quality Analysis P 4-8: We are confused by the various rig days listed 

throughout this document, 23, 22 or 29 or 19 was used in the AQ Tech doc. The difference in NOx emissions between these are significant. 

DwaddamaToedrtrtSea

L-65 20 A Analysis Air Quality P 4-9: Please explain why visibility would be clearer in 

the Wilderness than along the front from Pinedale to south of Boulder. Since the same air mass travels over both, we are confused by this. 

TaetPWe

208
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

smlaCaiptoatwv

L-65 21 B Analysis Air Quality P 4-10: Even the estimates from the currently flawed 

modeling show impacts above regulatory limits for PM10 and NO2. What mitigation and monitoring is the BLM requiring that will keep levels of these two pollutants below these levels? What mitigation and monitoring measures will the BLM take to insure .5 dv visibility limits are not exceeded? 

PNCWNBT(vWervf

L-65 22 A Analysis P 4-11: Current field development in the Jonah is far 

different that what was analyzed in the Jonah II EIS, also the impacts and level of development of the PAPA is very different than what was analyzed (HP of engines, pace, number of rigs etc.) therefore the statements in 4.1.2.1 are false and unsupportable. In addition, what mitigation and monitoring measures will the BLM require to insure that deposition impacts do not exceed DAT? 

TrAisbsrIpataAmw

209
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

coP

L-65 23 A Analysis Section 4.1.2.11: This entire section is unclear. What 

about sources before 2001? The definitions of RFD and RFFA are so narrow as to eliminate obvious "reasonably foreseeable development" These definitions are not in line with accepted definitions for these terms. The result of this excessively narrow definition is that many impacts to AQ are excluded, thus making an artificially underestimated analysis of impacts. This section goes on to state that "Recent estimation of NOx emissions..." The conclusion of this paragraph is false and unsupportable. 

TteatTe2rStmw2aRmdqPsaTssc

L-65 24 A Analysis Section 4.1.2.12: "Unavoidable Adverse Impacts" These 

listed impacts are not unavoidable. They could be mitigated through measures required. This is in violation of NEPA, FLPMA, and MUSYA. 

Taseb

L-65 25 A Surface 

Disturbance 

Analysis P 4-52: "Compacted areas could reduce ..." yet 

elsewhere in the DEIS it is stated that 66% of the project area will be disturbed by earth moving equipment thereby compacting 66% of the area. P 4-95: "nor increased turbidity or sedimentation..." Even though the protect will disturb and compact 66% of the area, hundreds of miles of new roads and thousands of acres of new well pads, we have found nothing in the 

STCS

210
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

DEIS that would lead to a reasoned conclusion as in the above quote. Please supply the reasoning in the Supplemental DEIS for public review. 

L-65 26 B Wildlife P 4-96: Please provide the basis for the conclusion that 

the project will not further push these species towards federal listing. 

FUt

L-65 27 A Social Analysis P 4-116: This entire section is absurd. No "undue burden 

on existing infrastructure." Does the writer of this DEIS happen to live in Sublette County? Do they read the newspapers? 32% of the housing are second homes and therefore to say that these are vacant and therefore available is absurd and misleading. "No housing shortages are anticipated." If there currently was no shortage why are the motels filled with residents? 

T1oSb“spciui3Chusif plppachrcrrcsspehbi

211
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

PpbsufpSatPiebJhPswhpilocAtiqipdsp

L-65 28 A Analysis Section 4.9: This section is woefully inadequate and 

indefensible. Please do a more thorough analysis in the SDEIS. 

Tcreais 

L-65 29 A Analysis Section 4.10: Here again the section is absurd and 

inadequate. Short-term, we are told, is the 110 years of the project and long-term is after the completion of this

Tlc

212
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

110-year period. C

rct

L-65 30 A1 Analysis On-Site 

Mitigation 

Compensatory Mitigation 

P 5-1: p 1 uses the word "could" This lack of requirement with the use of "shall" undercuts the usefulness of the described mitigation and monitoring. In addition, the process is further vitiated by the fact that analyzing impacts based on unenforceable mitigation measures violates NEPA. "HAP assessment ..." No details are given as to when, where, how. Mitigation must include a scientifically defensible emissions cap for all emissions listed in the DEIS along with a scientifically defensible monitoring program. 

ACmfaaboitiPd

L-65 31 B Air Quality P B-3: #12 Where are these emission levels located in 

the DEIS. We could not find any such item. Further, explain the logic that adherence to previous levels is no longer applicable. 

TtfAtatJi

L-65 32 B Soils Analysis P B-7: No map of stabilized dunes or erosion prone or 

high salinity soils overlaid with the 66% disturbance areas. Please provide this in the SDEIS. 

TDtTsI- sab- na

L-65 33 A1 OperatorCommitted 

Practices 

On-Site Mitigation 

Compensatory Mitigation 

P B-15: "with operator approval" must be deleted to make these valid mitigation requirements. 

SF

213
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

L-65 34 E Analysis P C-20: What has the BLM done regarding EPA 

comment in Point #6? 

Dois

L-65 35 A Public 

Participation 

Section D: The idea of creating an entire new set of working groups and task groups for each field is impractical and ineffective. Such small groups are guaranteed to fail as their purview is not comprehensive enough to address the issues at hand. We strongly suggest a SW Wyoming Regional group comprised of all of the players. 

Tan

L-65 36 E Air Quality Section F-1: Given the major underestimation of NOx 

emissions both for the field and for the surrounding area it is clear that PSD levels will be exceeded. What will the BLM require to keep from exceeding PSD for NOx? 

CtiiriSrouaotcsrWTm

L-65 37 E Air Quality Table F-6: As stated previously, given the 

underestimated NOx emissions O3 levels will be significantly higher than the DEIS modeling, which will exceed NAAQS and WAAQS. What will the BLM require to insure that these Standards are not exceeded? 

TcNatqcTm

L-65 38 B Analysis Table F-7: Without background level added this chart is 

of little value to the DEIS. Please include background levels monitored actually in the field in 2004 and 2005. Also we do not understand how the Preferred alternative 

Btti

214
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

could have HAPs levels about 1/4 to 1/3 of the Proposed action. Please explain. 

bdletTHpua

L-65 39 A Analysis Air Quality Table F-33 and 34: These tables gives information in 

less than 1.0 dv's which is not applicable. The agency in charge of protecting Class I visibility is the Forest Service and they have determined a change of less than .5 dv is the limit. Please correct this in the SDEIS so that a more accurate review of impacts can occur. 

BjvadaotFpv

L-65 40 A Analysis AQTSD General Comment: Because the modeling 

assumptions are scattered through the document it is difficult to understand these basic and critical assumptions. Please provide a comprehensive chart with all modeling assumptions and model switch settings in the SDEIS. 

Tc

L-65 41 B Analysis AQTSD Map 1.2: This map does not list the Wind River 

EIS project nor any of the major fields in NW CO or NE UT. 

Ara1

L-65 42 B Analysis AQTSD P-7: Study Task #2 is not included in the DEIS. 

Please provide this in the SDEIS. 

Tmda

L-65 43 B Analysis Air Quality AQTSD Table 3.5: This table needs to be expanded to 

include NOx from the current Jonah field and the PAPA. 

Tpp

L-65 44 A Analysis AQTSD Table 3.7 and 3.1: Table 3.1 lists O3 

background levels of 169 and 147 for 1 and 8 hour respectively, yet Table 3.7 uses 75.2 as the background. Please explain this major difference. 

T(uti

215
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

L-65 45 B Analysis AQTSD P-42: Please provide a chart comparing 

assumptions used for control of tanks and dehy units with what is currently on the ground in the field. 

IaT

L-65 46 B Analysis AQTSD Table 3.10: Please expand this critical footnote 

with an addition chart to present this information. 

Acpi

L-65 47 A Analysis Air Quality AQIAP P 12: "Mobile source emissions..." This 

assumption is clearly false in that background concentration data was as old as 1978 and none of it was collected near the field. The most recent data for any parameter was 2001, which is before the massive expansion of Jonah and PAPA. Most of the parameters were from the 1970s and 1980s measured a long distance from the field. Please correct this major error in the SDEIS. 

Wc

L-65 48 A Analysis AQIAP Table B.1.8 and 9: These two tables list rig 

operations at 19 days, yet on P 5 of this main document it states 23 days. Which was actually used in modeling and impact analysis as the difference is significant (nearly 20%). 

Dwawamasc2(cd7dt

L-65 49 A Analysis Air Quality AQIAP Table C.9: This lists NOx emissions for the entire 

county as 1.66 tpy yet C.10 lists 9 tpy just from Jonah production. Please clarify. 

TcTJ

L-65 50 E Analysis Public 

Participation 

Please send us a full copy of any comments submitted by the EPA during this process. If we need to submit a FOIA request for these records please let us know. 

C

L-66 3 A Social Analysis In Section 3.4.5.1 Crime in the Socioeconomics section, 

Marilyn Filkins, Sublette County Attorney is quoted regarding crime statistics and “gang-like behavior from 

TtT

216
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

various drilling and pipeline crews.” According to personal communication with Marilyn, she disputes these quotes as representative of her views. She should be contacted again in order to get clarification for this misinformation. 

2

3

it

TD(cWf(bteUrsUscunATrcgGadrara(vGcomCuf

217
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

ADoanw(CWbp(BUbcShhloT1aha csnpCWCwfIoantt3aU

218
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

codtW1AdlnadOdi2ww(oaaAAf4aoeidla(GId1Cnodd

219
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

dTA

L-66 4 B Livestock/ 

Grazing 

a recent personal communication survey of the grazing permittees and other area ranchers seems to suggest that the availability of replacement spring grass is readily available. An evolving assumption that it will be impossible to reach reclamation goals in the project area should not be the dominant conclusion, at least until additional monitoring can be done this summer to determine utilization of the grazing resource by the permittees. I would strongly encourage BLM to cooperate with the permittees and EnCana in a project/allotment monitoring program to add data to the baseline before final decisions are made regarding the suspension of AUMS in the area. 

PF

L-69 1 A Livestock/ 

Grazing 

Analysis Within the draft, the analysis of the loss of grazing AUMs 

is very questionable. There is no solution or process stated concerning the present or future availability of these AUMs. Table 4.19 on 4-133 indicates that there will be a total loss of 1,140 AUMs within the project area. The analysis for the total loss of 1140 AUMs was not clearly explained nor does it appear to be a scientific approach. It appears that some factor of surface disturbance was applied. Worth noting, surface disturbance from cattle use can result in the planting and fertilization of grass seed. This benefit to the land would be lost if these 1410 AUMs were no longer available. 

PF

L-69 3 A Livestock/ 

Grazing 

Vegetation These BLM desert allotments are essential to my 

ranching operation. This fact merits restating. The allotments are designed to offer spring grazing for livestock because they green up before any other rangelands. Moderate to low level utilization has left the permit area at the end of the use period with far more ground forage than is being grazed off. In Sublette County, there is very little pastureland or meadowland available for spring grazing. Therefore, the option of alternative spring grazing is not available. There is no substitute for these particular allotments. 

PF

L-72 2 F Social Economics To update our social and economic comment of May 5, 

2003 regarding 68 FR 12100 and related to 40 C.F.R. §§ 1508.14, 1508.8, 1508.7 and direct and indirect effects at § 1502.16 and based on § 1502.14 we now submit that Sweetwater County School District #1’s enrollment 

TcrhT

220
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

increased by 124 students as of November 3, 2003 (attached) and Sweetwater County School District #2’s enrollment is currently stable. Both Districts had anticipated further loss of student enrollment according to projections based in part on employment and area birthrates (Both Districts update enrollment monthly.) After review of what BLM and Contractor for the Jonah Infill Drilling Project has accrued for the EIS thus far, we could not discern any of our May 5, 2003 substantive comment with our public education attachments as being utilized for purposes of the region’s economic profile. This is of great concern to our membership; many of whose families are dependent on federal lands natural resource conservation and developments. We again insist that this information be included so that the public may better understand the social impact of federal lands planning congruent to biophysical analyses when they are significantly interrelated whether directly or indirectly.

Faaa

L-72 3 A Analysis On May 15, 2003 (68 FR 27429, 05/20/03), President 

Bush amended Executive Order 13212 (66 FR 28357, 05/22/01) Actions to Expedite Energy-Related Projects. BLM at the November 13 meeting in Pinedale stated that BLM must submit this process to yet another Notice of Intent (NOI) due the amount of information garnered during the current scooping time. BLM stated that this was on advice from the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Department of Interior. BLM did not offer in-depth explanation for this new proposed action and when questioned if the abovementioned Executive Order was taken into consideration, appeared not to be aware of such an Order from the President. BLM however, did state that the “timeliness” of the EIS would not be hindered by such action of publishing another NOI. RMRPFUSA does not fully understand how this new proposal cannot lengthen the period of time until a Record of Decision is signed and disagree with BLM that a new NOI needs to be mandated. 

INwhRFma

L-72 4 A NEPA RMRPFUSA also reiterates that the Jonah Infill Project 

does not require BLM to wait until the Pinedale Resource Management Plan revision is completed. Both can be accomplished concurrently. The Jonah Infill Project is merely an ongoing site-specific project to be 

TJ

221
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

considered. 

L-72 5 F Analysis During the interim time of the BLM's original NOI of 

March 13, 2003, the White House Task Force on Energy Project Streamlining through the CEQ published in the federal register (68 FR 44950, 07/31/03) a notice for a meeting proposing the Rocky Mountain Energy Council (RMEC) to assist energy development issues. AT that time, three functions for the RMEC were identified: 1. To develop Federal/State partnerships for the longterm management of renewable and non-renewable energy resources on State and Federal public lands. 2. To allow more forward looking and strategic planning -- on a regional basis -- for the environmentally responsible development, production, and distribution of the Nation's valuable energy resources. 3. To develop processes for early collaboration and consultation among the State and Federal Agencies responsible for managing, authorizing, consulting on, reviewing, or certifying renewable and non-renewable energy projects on public land. Since that time, several meetings have occurred to set protocols and assign lead federal employees and western state personnel to administrate the RMEC. RMRPFUSA inquired at the November 13,2003 Pinedale meeting if RMEC was at all involved with the Jonah Infill Project. We found it disheartening that BLM was not receptive or was at the time unknowledgeable on who, what, and/or why RMEC might be of assistance when viewing this project from a regional or national aspect. Http://www.etf.energy.gov 

Ansrrnt

L-72 6 A Social Economics Analysis Through research of environment impact studies (EIS) 

from the past 20 years we have found more often than not, when federal agencies determine site-specific project planning or resource management planning that entails an EIS, that the natural and physical environment generally is given more weight than the relationship of the people effected by the same environment. This could have been a result of the phrase, "This means that economic or social effects are not intended by themselves to require preparation of an [EIS]" (40 CFR § 1508.14).

BTwetF

222
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

RMRPFUSA maintains that if a project is major enough to achieve a full EIS determination, then the human environment should be comprehensive. In the instance of the Jonah Infill Drilling Project as well as the Pinedale Resource Management Plan revision, which is concurrent, BLM as lead agency is directed to discuss all environmental effects, whether economic or social and natural or physical. Both environments are interrelated to not only Sublette County, but to other neighboring counties and communities. The words "effects" and "impacts" are synonymous (40 CFR § 1508.8). They can be either direct or indirect and meld with the human environment. They can also be "cumulative" when inclusive of ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health. "Cumulative impact" (40 CFR § 1508.7) can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time that has impact on the environment. RMRPFUSA requests that BLM place equal emphasis across the entire range of the "human environment". 

L-72 7 F Economics Social Analysis Sweetwater County School District #1 enrollment 

beginning in September 1991 was a high of 6079 students compared to September 2002 enrollment of 4236 students. This appears to be a cumulative result of factors relating to the human environment, and an economic or social impact, which is not recorded in any Bureau of Land Management EIS to date in the State of Wyoming. Because a community or regions' social health is generally proportional to school enrollments, RMRPFUSA wishes the following cumulative report be taken into account during any planning procedure that merits a full EIS (attached, listed here for the reader). [See letter for detailed analysis] BLM might judge that the above is beyond the scope of the Jonah Infill Drilling Project. However, RMRPFUSA contends that any project that might become an integral component of the revision of the Pinedale Resource 

Tda

223
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Management Plan then the school enrollments are a pertinent piece of information to be included in this EIS and taken into consideration for the RMP. Here is our reasoning why: Many, if not most, of the major minerals service contractors working in Sublette County are centered in Rock Springs, Wyoming. This can also be said of their employees. (But this is not to forget the increasing employment, retention of older local businesses, and new businesses created by the McMurry Jonah field to include all surrounding communities, counties, and three states.) In 1999, Sweetwater County's total of all taxes levied equaled $75,449,465; 2000 = $76,626,032; 2001 = $93,884,666; and 2002 = $93,192,391. Over 80 percent of this was mineral related. Generally the BLM considers "significance criteria" when evaluating social impacts to include long-term trends and fluctuations of total employment, total earnings, and mineral ad valorem taxes associated with natural gas production. It is our contention, however that the inputoutput models (applied by BLM and the University of Wyoming) that historically have been utilized in determining this portion of the human environment need also take into account long term trends associated with the stability of surrounding communities. By imputing the above four overall factors, one might conclude that the economy in Sweetwater County was growing. If one takes student enrollment for the above levied tax years and places it into the mix, something doesn't add up on the community stability side of that equation. BLM will receive comments portending to guide southwest Wyoming's economy into a more diverse sector heavy in tourism at the expense of mineral development. While tourism is a necessary component of any economy, the long-term trend of tourism, as a sole provider of infrastructure will state otherwise, both in per capita income and number of school age children; two principal indicators that dissimilar business interests look at when contemplating moving into an area to set up shop. With Sweetwater County School District #1 closing or 

224
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

consolidating 5 schools, any project that can be balanced for the overall well-being of our national interest and local community stability should be combined and viewed in the positive with mitigating factors for perceived "intrinsic" values that do not take into consideration the economics and cumulative impacts that result from ignoring long-term decreasing school enrollment figures and aging demographics. 

L-74 1 A NEPA Public 

Participation 

Analysis In many places throughout the DEIS the BLM has failed 

to provide the necessary modeling of the impacts of the proposed action and alternatives. As one example, in the last paragraph on page 3-41, BLM advises that runoff condition modeling will be performed during the comment period for the DEIS. BLM states that it will obtain the modeling during the comment period on the DEIS. This does, however, preclude the required public scrutiny during this phase of the NEPA process. As another example, modeling for air quality control is sorely missing for the majority of alternatives, including the BLM proposed alternative. In addition to preventing public scrutiny, the lack of modeling means that the BLM is unable to develop the best alternatives to the proposed action in the DEIS. The BLM must make certain assumptions in its development of proposed alternatives without the scientific analysis needed to support them. We wonder if BLM isn’t simply guessing about the environmental impacts of the proposed action. The fact that scientific analysis hasn’t been done does not excuse BLM from the requirements of NEPA. It seems unlikely that the modeling required could be done during the comment period due to such a short time. We are very concerned that the final EIS will be issued without the necessary and mandatory scientific analysis required by NEPA. The BLM has consistently stated that it wants specific scientific information from the public, yet BLM fails to present scientific analysis and modeling upon which the public can comment. Ultimately, of course, it is not better documents but better decisions that count. 40 CFR 1500.1. It is not about writing the best report, although that is important. It is about making the best decision with regard to 

Immoptharabad

225
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

protecting public lands. The BLM simply cannot make the best decision regarding the proposed action without the best scientific analysis to support it. 

L-74 2 A Air Quality NEPA The BLM in its discussion of effects on the environment 

posits that, "{A}n assessment of project impacts on climate is beyond the scope of this analysis and is therefore not discussed further in this EIS." DEIS, at p. 3-4. NEPA specifically requires agencies to "... recognize the worldwide and long-range character of environmental problems." 42 USC Sect 4332. Natural gas exploration, development and production all disgorge vast quantities of pollutants into the air and water. It seems particularly obvious that the effects of the proposed action on climate are critical and warrant a hard look by BLM. For BLM simply to brush off all inquiry because it is "beyond the scope of the analysis" is not only irresponsible, but also a violation of its mandate under NEPA. Biodiversity Conservation Alliance insists that BLM conduct the appropriate inquiry, "which will insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decision-making" in the proposed action. 42 USC Sect. 4332. For a discussion of the impact of climate impacts on alpine areas of the Wind River Range, adjacent to the JIDPA, see the article in the Journal of Geophysical Research footnoted below [footnote: David L. Naftz et al., Ice Core Evidence of Rapid Air Temperature Increases Since 1960 in Alpine Areas of the Wind River Range, Wyoming, United States, Journal of Geophysical Research, July 9, 2002]. 

Abteoc

L-74 3 A Analysis Alternatives "In managing the public lands the Secretary shall ... take 

any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands." 43 USC Sect. 1732(b). The regulations interpreting this part of FLPMA define "unnecessary or undue degradation" as "impacts greater than those that would normally be expected from an activity being accomplished in compliance with current standards and regulations and based on sound practices, including use of the best reasonably available technology." 43 CFR Sect. 3802.0-5(1). Clearly with this broad brush stroke Congress has given BLM authority (indeed, the duty) to place stipulations on drilling projects in order to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of 

TanF

226
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

public lands. Such stipulations can be utilized even if they render a proposed action unfeasible or uneconomical (BLM Instruction Memorandum 92-67). The BLM in June 2004 adapted its own "best management practices" (BMP) policy which it defines as "innovative, dynamic, and improved environmental protection practices applied to oil and natural gas drilling and production to help ensure that energy development is conducted in an environmentally responsible manner." More specifically, BMPs seek to reduce the area of disturbance and use other techniques to minimize environmental effects, thereby reducing impacts to wildlife habitat, scenic quality, water quality, and other resources. BLM Wyoming Website. The only alternative that BLM has developed in the DEIS which incorporates any BMPs is the BLM Preferred Alternative. Out of seven different proposed alternatives, only one alternative seeks to reduce impacts to the environment by the use of BMPs. Allowing oil and gas drilling without BMPs, should one of the other six alternatives be adopted in the Record of Decision, would most certainly create undue and unnecessary degradation to the public lands involved. Undue and unnecessary degradation will also occur in all alternatives except Alternatives B and E because no directional drilling will be required. The priority of Alternative B is to minimize surface disturbance by allowing no new well pads. On the other end of the spectrum, Alternative A seeks to minimize directional drilling and provides no balance at all between gas recovery and other resource protection. DEIS p. 2-11. The environmental impacts to raptor nest sites, greater sage-grouse leks, white-tailed prairie dog colonies, pygmy rabbits, and pronghorn antelope migration corridors, among other important considerations, under Alternative A would be devastating. "Undue and unnecessary degradation means impacts greater than those that would normally be expected from an activity being accomplished in compliance with current standards and regulations based on sound practices, including use of the best reasonably available 

227
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

technology." 43 CFR Sect 3802.0-5(1) ... The current Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission standard for spacing of natural gas wells is 160-acre spacing, or four wells per square mile. The 160-acre spacing is the tightest commonly practiced well spacing in Wyoming, and tighter spacing is unusual. The proposed action seeks well spacing of at least 1 pad every 10 acres. In some instances the well spacing will be every five acres under the proposed action - wells practically touching each other. Clearly, even 40-acre well spacing is much tighter than the impacts "that would normally be expected" from the standard amount of surface impact for natural gas production in Wyoming. The proposed increase in surface disturbance by tighter well spacing constitutes "unnecessary and undue degradation" under FLPMA. By use of directional drilling, as proposed in Alternative B, surface disturbance and impacts to the environment would be minimized, thus avoiding "unnecessary and undue degradation." 

L-74 5 A Alternatives Performance 

Objectives 

On-Site Mitigation 

Under the BLM Preferred Alternative, outcome-based performance objectives would be used. Field development and production would be based on the use of performance objectives to allow maximum flexibility for Operators while providing long-term protection for other resources. One of the specific outcome-based performance objectives is to,"{U}tilize state-of-the-art technologies to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts." DEIS, at p. 2-27. Several recommendations in the BLM Preferred Alternative, however, fly in the face of this objective. The BLM Preferred Alternative recommends permitting the maximum number of wells on 5-acre spacing – 3,597 wells – the same number requested in the proposed action. We believe this recommendation is totally irresponsible and fails to utilize state-of-the-art technology. In addition, it is not in keeping with the mandates of NEPA and FLPMA because it would create an excessive number of new well pads, roads and other auxiliary facilities, thus exacerbating already existing problems in JIDPA with habitat loss and fragmentation, pronghorn migration, impacts on animal and plant species, etc. With the requirement of directional drilling from existing well pads, as proposed in Alternative B, state-of-the-art technology methods would be practiced 

TmeaadctadAcdoaFa anwdpiatw

228
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

and surface disturbance and environmental impacts would be minimized. As much as 80% less new surface disturbance would occur with the use of directional drilling. 

bhP

L-74 6 F Analysis Surface 

Disturbance 

Alternatives In his comments to the Rawlins RMP DEIS, professional 

geo-scientist Kenneth R. Kreckel details how directional drilling can significantly reduce surface impacts from gas recovery operations by vastly increasing the surface spacing of well pads [footnote: Kreckel, K.R. 2005. Kenneth R. Kreckel's comments on the Rawlins Resource Management Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement Focusing on Oil and Gas Operations. Casper, WY]. With over 30 years of experience with major energy companies in the Rocky Mountain region, Kreckel argues that not only is the impact to the environment significantly reduced, but it can be done in a way that cost to producing companies is minimal and sustainable. 1. Kreckel demonstrates in his comments that the oil and gas industry is capable of easily reaching and producing from well pads spaced one per 640 acres (one square mile) [footnote: Id., p. 1]. While Kreckel's comments were directed toward the Great Divide area, they are equally applicable to JIDPA. 2. The use of S-turn directional drilling has already been used with good success for approximately 54 wells in the Jonah Field, in places where NSO stipulations or steep topography preclude vertical wells. 3. On the Pinedale 

Anticline Project, one well pad hosts 13 wells, while another hosts 10 wells. Indeed, Shell Oil Company has proposed drilling 32 wells from a single pad next year. 2 That the industry has already drilled and completed 54 (or more) directional wells in the Jonah Field argues that operators believe that this type of technology is economically feasible. 4. The operators for the proposed action argue that there is a trend in Wyoming to reduce will spacing in order to increase recovery of the gas resource [footnote: Reservoir Management Services, Inc. July 2003. Jonah Infill Drilling Project Evaluation for Directional Drilling, prepared for EnCana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc., p. 5]. 1. This may be true for EnCana, but it obviously is not true for may other operators who have been using directional drilling technology for years. In December 2003, approximately 40% of the total wells in the United States were directionally drilled [footnote: Id.,

1ad(odofHla(b

w

ex

thJorep

ra

th3cogaHbenaloLamto rambosaefralitboePaof p

229
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

at p. 16]. 5. It is incomprehensible that the industry is embracing this technology while the BLM is recommending vertical drilling with massive numbers of well pads (3597). If BLM had required directional drilling in the Jonah Field, there would be about 100 well pads, instead of over 3000 which BLM endorsed. 

nesa

visape2ddddfepw

in 

fepodto st

3P“Lchre

AthA

in

A

d

thdthA

P

to mthbePseinin

230
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

laTmin u

4ooderr

L-74 7 A Alternatives Mineral 

Resources 

Mineral Resources 

The foregoing analysis [see section entitled "EnCana's Directional Drilling Analysis Is Flawed" in letter for detailed analysis] demonstrated the following facts: 1. The Draft EIS conclusions concerning reductions in recoverable reserves due to directional drilling are grossly inaccurate. 2. The Draft EIS claim that two factors (a frequent inability to drill and case the lower 1,000 feet of Lance formation and well economics) will cause Alternative E to lose 36% of the gas reserves that would otherwise be recoverable under EnCana's "Proposed Action" is statistically impossible. 3. In no case could these two factors result in a loss of more than about 6.5% and even that number is a significant stretch. 

Bstlois hBrrRDURIedFEsaam

L-74 8 E Wildlife Analysis Alternatives The BLM acknowledges that significant impacts to 

various wildlife habitats in the JIDPA have already occurred as a result of past and current oil and gas development activity. It is anticipated that additional impacts to some species will occur. Only under BLM Preferred Alternative are impacts "somewhat diminished." DEIS, at p. vi. Why is the BLM Preferred Alternative the only alternative which provides for any protection of the various species? There is no 

TPaACrw

231
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

explanation for this blatant oversight of protections for wildlife. These requirements should be mandatory in all alternatives, and most definitely in the final Record of Decision. The BLM obscures the extent of expected impacts to wildlife and plant species. When BLM states that the impacts will be "somewhat diminished" under its Preferred Alternative, this is misleading. What BLM failed to say is that the impacts will eliminate virtually every living creature in JIDPA during LOP. With the exception of Alternative B, the alternatives fail to seriously consider the use of directional drilling from existing well pads as a means of minimizing direct and indirect impacts of drilling. The alternatives proposed also fail to give any consideration to structuring development over time (such as phased development, developing one part of the project area then moving to another only once reclamation is successful) as a means of reducing negative impacts. We are gravely concerned that the protections provided in any alternative will only "somewhat diminish" the significant impacts to wildlife. These impacts will be cumulative to the significant impacts that have already occurred. The cumulative impacts will be devastating to wildlife over the LOP. The DEIS fails to provide adequate information to understand the true extent of those impacts, fails to adopt recommended measures to alleviate them, and, given the extent of the impacts, recommends foregoing any commitment of resources for compensatory mitigation. Significant habitat fragmentation already exists in the JIDPA. Permitting the maximum proposed vertical wells and/or permitting well spacing less than 40 acres would cause severe habitat fragmentation. The Wilderness Society published an excellent discussion of the effects of roads on habitat in the Upper Green River Valley, which includes the JIDPA [footnote: The Wilderness Society, February 2005. Wildlife at a Crossroads: Energy Development in Western Wyoming. Washington, DC]. 

L-74 9 E Analysis Wildlife Alternatives The Wyoming Game and Fish Department has already 

documented impacts of oil and gas development on pronghorn antelope in the Jonah Field area. In response 

TcT

232
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

to the influx of wells, roads and auxiliary facilities already existing in the area, pronghorns have shifted their range. We are gravely concerned that the addition of 3100 vertical wells in the JIDPA will create an area that is [un]inhabitable by pronghorns in the future. This area also contains part of the longest migration corridor for pronghorns in North America. The proposed action and the BLM Preferred Alternative would create complete disruption, not just "somewhat diminished" disruption, of this historic corridor. Use of directional drilling could partially mitigate the impacts of the project. Pronghorn numbers within the JIDPA have generally declined since 1994 and currently do not meet the WGFD population objectives. Drought conditions have contributed to poor body condition, poor fawning rates, and poor overwinter fawn survival. DEIS, at p. 3-56. The increased activity in the JIDPA will have further significant impacts on pronghorns during the LOP. We would pose these questions which the BLM has failed to address: (a) What proportion of this crucial habitat's effectiveness has been lost, given the impact of disturbance on pronghorn extends beyond the immediate footprint of development, and (b) what does the loss of crucial habitat means for the behavior of pronghorn and their population trends, including fawning rates and fawn survival? 

gWwmiTcadn

L-74 10 F Wildlife Analysis In April 2003 The Committee for the High Desert, 

American Lands Alliance, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, The Center for Native Ecosystems, and the Oregon Natural Desert Association, filed a petition to list the pygmy rabbit under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Due to drastic declines of its historic range, the pygmy rabbit has occupied habitat in Wyoming which is crucially important to survival and success of the species. This habitat is threatened by the oil and gas boom. Action on the petition is pending. The best habitat areas for the BLM Wyoming Sensitive (BWS) pygmy rabbit and the pygmy rabbit itself, occur both on and adjacent to the JIDPA. The ability of habitats in the JIDPA to support pygmy rabbits likely would decrease due to continued habitat disturbance, habitat fragmentation, and direct mortality. DEIS, at p. 4-

Ifmbr

233
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

95. Yet the BLM has failed to incorporate appropriate protection measures into its DEIS to protect the species and its habitat. The BLM in its "mitigation measures," states that the proposed surface disturbance represents up to 67% of the JIDPA, and some unknown portion of the undisturbed habitat likely would suffer a reduction in use because of its proximity to human activity. Increased human activity would displace some species from areas near project features. DEIS, at p. 4-83. ... When project features include vertical well spacing of 5 acres, it is hard to imagine any place in JIDPA where wildlife could survive. In addition, recreational hunter harvest of small game and shooting of prairie dogs and other small non-game animals are anticipated to increase as a result of increased access to the JIDPA. DEIS, at p. 4-83. The increased mortality experienced by small mammal populations also would have a cumulative impact on the predator species that depend upon them for prey. DEIS, at p. 4-91. The BLM notes all the above impacts in passing, and then has the audacity to state for the record that these impacts "are anticipated to be less than significant." DEIS, at p. 4-91. The pygmy rabbit is highly sensitive to habitat fragmentation. We reiterate that the impacts will be major; they will be devastating. 

L-74 11 A Wildlife Alternatives While BLM has recognized its obligation to provide 

protection for the greater-sage grouse, the proposed measures are totally inadequate. Recent counts of greater-sage grouse have shown a continuing decline of the numbers [footnote: Braun, C.E. March 2005. Comments on Sage-Grouse Issues Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Rawlins Resource Management Plan, Tucson, AZ]. The BLMrecommended avoidance of surface disturbance or occupancy within 1/4 mile of sage-grouse leks is inadequate. The recommended avoidance buffer should be 3 miles [footnote: Id., at p. 8]. If vertical well spacing less than 40 acres is permitted and directional drilling technology is not required, the impacts to the greater-sage grouse will be devastating. It is likely the greater-sage grouse populations in JIDPA 

Aa

234
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

will be extirpated under the Proposed Alternative. 

L-74 12 A Wildlife Alternatives The impacts of oil and gas development in the Jonah 

Field have already been seen. Of the 35 known raptor nests in the JIDPA, only 7 were occupied in 2004. Nine of the 35 are considered active because they have been occupied at least once in the last 3 years. DEIS, at p. 3-58. Ferruginous hawks are among the most sensitive species to human disturbance. Yet if suitable nesting habitat of raptors is determined to be unoccupied by raptors, development may be allowed in those areas, potentially precluding future use of the areas by nesting raptors. DEIS, at p. 4-83. Coupled with this is the reduction in raptor prey species also likely to occur as a result of the surface disturbance of up to 67% of the JIDPA. DEIS, at p. 4-84. While the BLM states that the proposed project is likely to result in fewer nest initiations, increased nest site abandonment and/or reproductive failure, and decreased productivity of successful nests (DEIS, at p. 4-84), we believe the impacts, both direct and cumulative, will more likely devastate raptor populations in the JIDPA. 

Aa

L-74 13 A Wildlife Alternatives On-Site 

Mitigation 

The Big Piney Complex of the white-tailed prairie dog would appear to overlap the JIDPA. Therefore the BLM is obligated to monitor and conserve this Wyoming BLM sensitive species. As a Wyoming BLM sensitive species, the white-tailed prairie dog must be managed at least as protectively as Candidates for Endangered Species Act listing. BLM Manual. No proposed alternative in the DEIS addresses protection measures for this sensitive species, with the exception of some vague requirements in the BLM Preferred Alternative. DEIS, at p. 2-30. In this alternative operators would be required to prepare a Sensitive Species Survey and Monitoring Plan and to prepare an annual report of survey and monitoring results. While we have no quarrel with these requirements, we do have a problem that they will occur after the fact. The required public scrutiny is again precluded. We are concerned that there will not be adequate protection for this species. Without adequate protections, habitat destruction and fragmentation, as well as increased mortality, that are expected as a result of the 

Afstoi

235
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

JIDP, may contribute to a need to list the white-tailed prairie dog under the EAS [sic, ESA]. Other species that are ESA listed and Wyoming BLM sensitive species, such as the ferruginous hawk, burrowing owl, swift fox, and black-footed ferret, may be affected by the failure to conserve the Big Piney Complex. Although the black-footed ferret does not currently inhabit the JIDPA, the area may have value for the survival and recovery of the species through future reintroduction efforts [foonote: USFWS 1989. Blackfooted Ferret Survey Guidelines for Compliance with the Endangered Species Act]. DEIS, at p. 3-70. This has not been addressed at all in the DEIS. 

L-74 14 A Analysis Wildlife NEPA's purpose is to maintain a national "look before 

you leap" policy in regard to all major federal actions. Congress' intent in establishing this objective was to avoid uninformed agency decisions that could have serious environmental consequences. Thus, NEPA's mandate is that all federal agencies analyze the likely effects of their actions, as well as address the potential alternatives. "Agencies are to perform this hard look before committing themselves irretrievably to a given course of action so that the action can be shaped to account for environmental values. NEPA Sect. 102(2)c requires the agency to consider numerous factors [including] irreversible commitments of resources called for by the proposal." Sierra Club v. Hodel, 848 F.2d 1068 (10th Cir. 1988) ... NEPA provides procedural protections for resources at risk by requiring analysis of impacts before substantial decisions are made that set development in motion. See Conservation Law Foundation v. Watt, 560 F. Supp. 561, 581 (D. Mass. 1983), aff'd by Massachusetts v. Watt, 716 F. 2d 946 (1st Cir. 1983). In this case, BLM will approve the drilling of some 3100 wells, together with the construction of miles of roads and pipelines, plus ancillary facilities. DEIS, at p. 2-6. Yet the BLM does not know the exact location of the wells. This will be left to the discretion of the operators. The magnitude of the impacts to many resources inherent to this project depend on where exactly the roads, pipelines, and wells are built. Impacts to prairie dog colonies depend on how many roads and wells are b ilt i dj t t i i d l i I t t

PmiotdsnlosoarppaCaacasis aemNfTaA

236
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

built in or adjacent to prairie dog colonies. Impacts to sage grouse depend on how many wells and roads are built within 2-3 miles of sage grouse leks. Impacts to antelope depend largely on how many roads and wells are built on their crucial winter ranges. Thus, BLM cannot be considered to have taken a "hard look" at the impacts of this project without laying out a spatially explicit plan of construction and operations. It is impossible for BLM to provide a meaningful analysis of impact severity without first determining where the wells and roads will be located, specifically, and what relationship they will have spatially with ecologically important habitats. As discussed above, the cumulative impacts of oil and gas development will be devastating to wildlife and plant species. While we applaud efforts in the BLM Preferred Alternative to require faster restoration and reclamation, they will not be sufficient. The DEIS analysis totally fails to consider the impacts of the original Jonah Field and Pinedale Anticline Projects. The impacts of these existing projects, as well as reasonably foreseeable development (e.g., Big Piney coalbed methane project) create additional layers of impacts which are cumulative. In addition, there are potential impacts on adjacent lands. Can the BLM guarantee that the proposed action impacts will not spread beyond the JIDPA? The BLM itself states that 70% of the adjacent lands are already leased. The BLM needs to take a hard look at the cumulative impacts on pronghorn migration, sage-grouse populations, raptors, and other sensitive species. 

wbvaTst

L-74 15 A Air Quality Analysis The scientific analysis for air quality issues in the DEIS is 

sorely deficient. The data for the air quality models was collected in 2000. Since 2000 mass development of oil and gas development activity has occurred and impacted the area. None of this is taken into account in the DEIS. What modeling was done completely ignores the impacts of the original Jonah Field and the Pinedale Anticline development activity. Nor does it take into consideration the future impacts of new development expected throughout the region. 

Ttetautd(PH

237
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Of the nine different alternatives proposed in the DEIS, air quality impacts from four alternatives were not reported because they were not modeled. AQTSD at 6-7. Interestingly, the BLM's own Preferred Alternative is one of the four alternatives not modeled in the DEIS. AQTSD at 6-7. There are obviously different impacts, such as the number of wells permitted and surface disturbance, which would be expected from the different alternatives. These differences are likely to affect the air quality in unique ways under each individual alternative.The ability to closely compare different alternatives to the Preferred Alternative is especially important in the air quality arena. The BLM provided only a range of air quality levels for its Preferred Alternative and the three other alternatives that were not modeled. DEIS at Appendix F. However, a range is insufficient because even small changes in emissions can have significant results. Small changes between alternatives could cause a criteria pollutant to exceed ambient air quality levels in one alternative and not in another. Because air quality analyses require a level of preciseness unlike other impacts, it is essential the BLM adequately model all the alternatives, and specifically the BLM Preferred Alternative. All the monitoring for the air quality analysis was done prior to the oil and gas boom in the Upper Green River Valley. The levels of pollutants today as a result of oil and gas development is vast compared to the conditions which existed in 1975-1988. The BLM has not engaged in the critical environmental analysis which is required by NEPA. BLM indicates this will be included in the final EIS. That is too late. This information is needed at this stage of the process in order for the required public scrutiny can be valid. 

BaesWdba

L-74 16 A Land Use On-Site 

Mitigation 

Compensatory Mitigation 

The FLPMA requires that public lands be managed on the basis of "multiple use and sustained yield." 43 USC 1702(a) and (c). The current uses for the JIDPA include recreation, hunting, birding, and livestock grazing. Essentially the BLM has foreclosed the concept of multiple use in the Jonah Field area, including JIDPA. For the estimated 100 years the development and production will last, plus an additional estimated 90-100 

TFoddiod

238
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

years for reclamation to occur to replicate the present conditions, the public lands will be withdrawn from use by man or beast. There will be no multiple use of these lands because there will be nothing left to use. At the end of 200 years, assuming reclamation does occur and is successful, what will there be to begin again. Under the nine proposed alternatives, only Alternatives B and E will not constitute unnecessary and undue degradation under FLPMA. In past experience with oil and gas development on public lands, the lessees have been very slow to perform their reclamation duties. Other lessees have gone bankrupt and left the general public to pay for reclamation of public lands. We strongly urge that strict requirements be placed on the operators to reclaim all lands to the fullest extent possible and at the earliest possible time during the LOP. We also urge BLM to require a compensation mitigation fund which will be realistic and adequate to assure all parts of the project are monitored, reclaimed and mitigated. We also strongly support the posting of a bond by the operators which would be used to complete reclamation in the event of default by the operators. 

cusrttfBrfoCBboTabw

L-75 5 F Wildlife On-Site 

Mitigation 

As a final thought for BLM to include when considering the operator’s Proposed Action, please reference “Greater Sage Grouse Population to Natural Gas Development in Western Wyoming: Are Regional Populations Affected by Localized Disturbances?” Matthew J. Holloran; Stanley H. Anderson: “Braun et al. (2002) suggest that the oil and gas industry should mitigate for habitat and population decreases associated with mineral extraction activities, considering potential cumulative effects [e.g., livestock impacts to surrounding landscapes (Kuipers 2004), habitat treatment consequences (Slater 2003)]. Additionally, mitigation measures aimed at increasing not only productivity in but carrying capacity of surrounding areas could be important because of potential densitydependent difficulties (i.e., nest spacing influences on nest success probabilities; M.J. Holloran, unpublished information) arising from artificially high populations caused by the shifting of some of the juvenile cohort. 

AaTsdr

239
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Mitigation measures aimed at minimizing the negative numerical consequences of gas development to regional sage-grouse populations implies a refugia approach to species conservation. By protecting and enhancing these reservoir populations surrounding the developing gas field, mitigation theoretically ensures that sagegrouse will be present to recolonize the field following reclamation. However, this approach requires lengthening the time-frame between the development of additional gas fields surrounding the one currently under construction to the life-expectancy of the original field, thus ensuring that surrounding refugia areas are maintained (individual gas well life-expectancy estimated at 25 to 40 years for the types of formations encountered in the Pinedale Anticline area; Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, personal communication 2005). Following reclamation of the existing field, the area then potentially becomes a refuge for reservoir populations associated with the next gas field slated for development.” 

L-76 1 A Air Quality Analysis We are aware that there have been concerns raised to a 

public level associated with air quality in the area. However, the DEIS and the supporting technical documents demonstrate that air quality will continue to meet acceptable regulatory levels. In addition, the results of the air quality analysis associated with this development should be considered conservative. The following supports this comment: The volatile organic compounds (VOC) and hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions projected and analyzed in the DEIS should be considered conservative. This air quality analysis does not take into account the additional emission reductions associated with the Wyoming Air Quality Division’s new guidance addendum that took affect July 2004. The projected “emissions associated with production” used in the DEIS air quality analysis were based on the data from the existing development, however; the new addendum requires control on lower emitting facilities, the control must be installed earlier and must stay on longer. This indicates that the emissions used in the analysis are conservative and that the actual emissions would be lower than those projected. 

Tgcitefti

240
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Due to the joint efforts of the oil and gas producers in the area and the Wyoming Air Quality Division (WAQD), the emissions from “completion operations” should be lower than those evaluated in the DEIS. After working together on this issue, the WAQD requested “Well Completion Air Permit” applications from oil and gas operators in the Jonah/Pinedale Anticline area. Based on the information from the WAQD, they will issue a general permit that will require the use of best practices associated with completion operations, designed to lower emissions and reduce potential impacts. This new regulated practice will ensure the emissions associated with well completion operations is lower than those projected in the DEIS. 

L-77 1 A Alternatives On-Site 

Mitigation 

Compensatory Mitigation 

The following are comments on the Jonah Infill Drilling Project DEIS as submitted by Trout Unlimited and its Public Lands Initiative. TU-PLI has significant concerns about not only the data contained in this document, but also the contradictions within the document, the lack of meaningful mitigation to minimize surface disturbance beyond the standard requirements, and the ease with which the BLM admits “significant impact” from proposed activities with no apparent sense of responsibility to minimize that impact. 

TmtimaemaTarImrdNmuWdcaIn

L-77 2 A Analysis 1. BLM estimates and bases its mitigation analysis on 

the assumption that the projected wells would be drilled and produce for approximately 40 years and the Life of the Project would be up to 110 years. In the first Jonah EIS (1998), the BLM estimated that the wells would be 

FwoTc

241
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

drilled and produced over 15 years, and in reality, that was accomplished in 7 years. This document states that 250 wells/year would be allowed to be drilled. With a maximum of 3100 wells, that is a drilling span of 12.5 years – not 40 years, with serious impacts happening within those first 12.5 years. While the drilling could occur over 40 years, the onus is on the BLM to reveal to the public what the predicted impacts are in the first 12.5 years, as this document would allow, if finalized as is. 

prteaIttti

L-77 3 A Surface 

Disturbance 

Alternatives 2. It is stated that the Proposed Action includes 3100 

additional wells on up to 16,200 acres of new disturbance. However, that Alternative is not included in the Table 2-1, the first table in the document which presents to the public the comparison of impacts from the various alternatives. 

TTdcaaPTrtA2Dd

L-77 4 A1 NEPA Analysis 3. The BLM states in the abstract that “Standard field 

development and production procedures would be followed”, while there is nothing standard about this field in Wyoming at all. There is no other field in Wyoming that allows 10 acre surface spacing, with the option of 5 acre bottom-hole spacing. This document allows up to 4 times the current pace of drilling and development in this field, with no acknowledgement of pacing that activity. The BLM has a responsibility under NEPA to minimize impacts on federal resources, and yet nothing in this document indicates that the BLM is going beyond its standard procedures to attempt to minimize impacts. 

EadtdunuhTas

L-77 6 A Wildlife Compensatory 

Mitigation 

Wildlife Mitigation Fund: It is first described on page iii that the operators would consider establish of a Cumulative Impacts Mitigation Fund for offsite Compensatory Mitigation. It states as proposed, the fund could be based on a per/acre amount for the level of surface disturbance authorized. The reality is the impacts to wildlife and the ecosystem are far greater than the footprint. It is disingenuous of the BLM to even 

Rw

242
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

allow this minimal offer to be considered as a credible trust fund and this should be noted in the Executive Summary. The public has witnessed in the 30,000 acres of the Jonah Field a current evacuation of all active sage grouse leks – regardless of the fact that not every acre of the field is disturbed. Operators should be required to fund this Account on a production amount or in another manner that more accurately compensates the state and the federal citizens for the impacts to these resources caused by gas extraction. The BLM should be required to analyze different funding mechanism and their pros and cons, as well as to seek public comment on different funding mechanisms, as a part of this NEPA document, rather than simply accepting and presenting the minimal amount offered by the operators. 

L-77 7 A Analysis Water 

Resources 

Topography/Water: It is stated on page v that “Surface water resources down-channel from the JIDPA could be significantly affected during run-off events under all alternatives.” This could significantly impact the fisheries in the area and nowhere in the document could we find where this impact was attempted to be minimized, not in the least way of requiring close-pit drilling operations that would eliminate surface water discharge. TU-PLI believes this is an alternative to surface disposal that should be revealed and considered in the FEIS. 

SdfsardiromJBRurfamb

L-77 8 A Air Quality Public 

Participation 

We have tremendous concerns with regards to inappropriate air quality analysis including inaccurate assumptions and purposefully underestimated impacts. The BLM states on page v that “Modeling of air quality and air quality-related value impacts from the BLM Preferred Alternative will be run during the DEIS public comment period and reported in the final EIS.” This is completely inappropriate and disingenuous of the BLM to so blatantly show disregard for the public comment that is intended for a draft document. If this is allowed to 

BaesBcgP

S

243
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

continue, the data will be provided in the Final document, which only requires a 30-day review period by the public. Given the significant impacts that are proposed (up to 46 days of visibility impairment compared to 11 days currently), the public deserves far more notice and time for analysis than what would be permitted after a Final EIS is released. In addition, the document states that all Air quality analysis was based on assumptions included in the 2000 PAPA analysis, which have proven to be grossly underestimated, given the profuse level of activity. The PAPA document predicted 4 times less the amount of drilling activity, and the impacts associated with that lesser amount of drilling. To simply pick up and repeat those lower predictions, when reality has proven them to be underestimated, is inappropriate and biased toward continuing to reveal underestimated impacts. (For instance, the PAPA ROD estimated 693.62 tons of NOx emissions, while the Questar Wintertime Drilling EA revealed 1895.26 actual tons of NOx emissions.) It is the responsibility of the BLM to base this impact analysis on the most currently known figures – not an outdated EIS, even though it is the most recent. The BLM also appears to intend to authorize 3100 new wells for drilling in advance of knowing the impacts to Wyoming’s NOx PSD increment. The State DEQ is currently performing a new emissions inventory to determine where the state is with regards to NOx emissions, and then modeling runs to attempt to predict impacts based on different development scenarios. The DEQ is only doing this activity now because the BLM neglected to do the NOx emission tracking it was obligated to do in the 2000 PAPA-ROD. Although it is unfortunate that the BLM did not honor this responsibility and now forces the DEQ to belatedly perform the task, it is not the obligation of the public to bear additional consequences to the airshed – that could be mitigated – simply because the BLM declined to do its job. The BLM must consider authorizing a much smaller number of rigs in order to avoid drilling interruption for the Jonah operators, but to preserve its legal options for future mitigation that may be required based on final revelation of the true impacts. 

STrcBPis rtespNfWaeBNOt1FoJBDBnafpptlatla

244
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

TU-PLI is particularly concerned that this DEIS allows this project alone to double the ozone emissions to the point of bringing the local level up to 98% of the ozone national standard allowed in this area. TU-PLI is very alarmed with the USFS data showing a steady increase in NOx deposition in the high alpine lakes, and the fact that this BLM document ignores that data and proposes not mitigation to attempt to reverse that trend. NOx emission increases in high alpine lakes impact the Ph of these lakes and their ability to function as healthy fisheries. These emission increases are precursors to acid rain, an issue that TU has fought mightily throughout the northeastern portion of the country and does not relish the idea of facing similar circumstances in the Rocky Mountain West. This alone is a factor that is grossly underestimated in the DEIS and the BLM shows very little concern for finding mitigation to reduce this trend. 

L-77 9 A Soils NEPA Public 

Participation 

Soils: The Executive Summary notes that modeling to quantify soil impacts will also be run during the DEIS and results will be reported in the FEIS. Impacts to resources are supposed to be analyzed and presented to the public in the DEIS – not afterwards. It appears that the BLM is attempting to end-run the public process and simply publish an insufficient Draft document that does not provide the public the intended information, and they assume that will be acceptable as long as the impacts are ultimately revealed in the FEIS. The BLM seems to misunderstand the intent of NEPA which is to not only show the impacts, but work with the public to attempt to generate means to minimize those impacts. 

Ttpssa dimlesanrecsoTestapp

245
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

L-77 10 A Social Economics The ES states that “This project is not likely to create 

additional, new significant impacts.” It is hard to find a genuine thread of truth in that statement given the BLM proposes to increase drilling rigs by 4 times up to 250 wells drilled per year. Do they not predict that 4 times the number of workers would be required to accomplish this goal, and with that worker population increase, an increase in traffic, crime, drug use and abuse and housing shortages that are occurring with the current workforce? To ignore even the possibility of an increase in these socioeconomic impacts – and the presentation of potential impacts -- and instead state that the public 

will be better off because of the increased mineral royalties paid to the state is not only laughable but inconsiderate of the public. 

ThTirtTstpT1oSbWspciui3Chusif plppachrcrrc

246
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

sspehbiPpbsufphptPiebJhPswhpilocAtiqipdsp

L-77 11 A Compensatory 

Mitigation 

OperatorCommitted Voluntary mitigation measures: While this is touted as a net benefit to the proposed development, there is no A

c

247
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Practices mention of BLM enforcement of these voluntary 

measures. In addition, upon complete review of Appendix B which outlines the operator voluntary measures, at least 98% of those measures are already required by current BLM standards and procedures. There is, in reality, a minimal amount of new and voluntary mitigation offered by the operators to develop this field. 

ooimImt

L-77 12 A Analysis Page 1-4 states that it is important to allow the operators 

up to 10 acre spacing in order to “prevent drainage of federal minerals by wells located on adjacent nonfederally owned minerals.” Since the document reveals that of the 30,500 acres in the Jonah field, only 1,920 are owned by the state (.065 of the field) and 640 acres are owned privately (.02 of the field), it hardly appears that preventing drainage is a significant concern. 

Drpaolasap

L-77 13 A Analysis Page 1-5 concludes that the impacts from the 3100 

additional proposed wells are within the range of the impacts allowed under the current RMP. This is disingenuous as the current RMP includes impacts that are allowed from currently permitted levels of activity in the PAPA that have not yet been drilled – but are allowed. If the Jonah operators are allowed to use under this EIS that increment of allowable impacts that was permitted for the PAPA operators, when those operators reach full potential, there will be no more room for impacts and more analysis will be required or the public will be forced to accept more impacts. Any new predicted impacts must be included in a revised RMP – or wait until the RMP revision that is underway is completed. 

DcttamiTwewTaA

L-77 14 B Alternatives Compensatory 

Mitigation 

On-Site Mitigation 

Page 1-9: Section 1.4.1.1: The document states: “With the exception of five specific mitigations excluded from Alternative A, the standard Wyoming BLM mitigation guidelines are applied to all alternatives analyzed in this EIS.” The BLM needs to reveal what the five specific mitigations are that were excluded and explanation as to why they were excluded. 

TaAApogwF

L-77 15 A Public 

Participation 

The DEIS proposes development of another Adaptive Management group to address specific circumstances of the Jonah Field. Since there is already an Adaptive 

Tan

248
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Management group in place for the Pinedale Anticline, the development of a second group has inherent problems: 1) it begins to tax a community of 1000 yearround residents to find a second group of capable individuals willing to donate significant time to participate on another AM group when one group could easily address the impacts of both fields simultaneously, rather than individually; 2) it causes undue competition and possible conflict between the two groups, depending on their final make-up; 3) the development of a second group overly-burdens the state, local and federal representatives which are already serving on the PAPA Adaptive Management group, and will have to provide similar data in a second set of meetings every other month. 

n

L-82 1 A1 Editorial Given that the BLM is under obligation to provide the 

public with informative explanations of actions contemplated which will impact the region's environment, this document falls far short in fulfilling that obligation as an information vehicle. The impacts are indeed addressed but they are spread throughout the document in an almost coded form. It would have been far better to summarize them point by point in a straight forward, no holds barred section in the form of a broader summary chapter which opens the document for the reader. Furthermore, all figures, charts, and images would be more usefully incorporated in a separate volume so the reader could lay it out beside the text volume and use the two side by side. A possible approach might be to consolidate in the appendix volume all Volume 1 figures, images, and charts thereby making up an appendix of their own. 

TaFteIasamitawmtd

L-82 2 A1 Analysis Additionally, I find the presence of various statements 

and sections in the document to be inappropriate and verging on, if not actually constituting, pro-industry advocacy. On page 4-1 of chapter 4, "Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures", second para., the declaration is made that the "...EIS is an analytical document..." and for that reason defers from the use of adjectives such as "moderate," "low," and "negligible." However, on page 1-4 of the "Introduction," the writers see fit to engage in non-analytical speculation that by developing domestic reserves of natural gas "...the U.S. .. [maintains its]...national security. I submit that BLM has no expertise whatsoever to judge what impact the 

Twc

249
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Jonah Infill project (by inference) will have on national security. 

L-82 4 A1 Editorial The "Infrastructure" section on page 3-101 contains a 

factual error ... Sublette county is credited with three airports. Close reading reveals that the Big PineyMarbleton airport is counted twice; in truth, there are only two commercial airports in Sublette County. 

PbP1ts

L-82 7 A1 Compliance Analysis Conditions of 

Approval 

BLM has been quick to claim on the one hand that it cannot require operators to do anything in the way of adopting actions or methods to minimize environmental consequences. Yet conversely, in Section 2.0 of Volume 1, BLM makes claims that it would "...impose the following general COAs [Conditions of Acceptance], mitigation and BMPs on all project authorizations" (Section 2.14.2, Vol.1, pp2-27 thru2-30) whereupon it lists 27 action items. Sections 2.14.2.1 and 2.14.3 go on 

to "require" and "impose" additional resource monitoring and surveying activities as well as site-specific additional COAs, and mitigation and BMPs (pp.2-30 and 2-31). However, before this is declared, it is effectively negated by Section 1.4.1.1, page 1-9 which states in para. 3 that "Upon request by the applicant, an exception to the lease stipulation or COA may be granted by the BLM following on-site review to see if the exception is warranted." 

Iis tpRleAaattAncnmBslettdsgnseBgawvl

L-82 9 A Analysis Performance Chapter 2, Section 2.14.1, "Outcome Based I

250
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Objectives Performance Objectives," page 2-26 demonstrates 

BLM's main concern to be that of "...implementing industry accomplishment of meeting performance objectives and to allow maximum flexibility for operators to utilize innovation to maximize gas recovery while protecting ... other resources ..." BLM should be focusing on protecting the environment first and letting industry worry about maximized results of recovery. There are several statements of environment protection objectives but few specifics that appear binding on either BLM or industry. The objective of avoiding Wyoming Air Quality exceedences, PSDs and Class I visibility decreases seem to be empty intentions in light of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7474, Section 165 part 8(d)(2)(A) through (C) (ii): ... A close reading of this portion of the Clean Air Act appears to signal that the stated objectives in the EIS just quoted may be insufficient and perhaps even violations on the part of BLM and Forest Service. The provision in (C)(i) placing upon the operator the responsibility of demonstrating "that emissions...will not cause or contribute to concentrations which exceed the maximum allowable increases for a class I area" is being circumvented by the BLM in that the BLM is the entity which is engaged in such demonstrations; this would seem to constitute a conflict of interest and a compromise of BLM's land stewardship responsibilities. 

hv“aihblaiereNoPtADeraptbCi

L-82 12 F Air Quality Analysis While the wind rose depicted in Figure 3.1 on page 26 

generally agrees with my own research from 2003 through 2004, I caution against full reliance upon measurements from one location and from so far in the past. My own database has been accumulated from two years of hourly measurements at the Big Piney AMOS station (see Appendix 1 attached hereto as an example) as well as daily observations at my home 30 miles north for some 7 years. Also, I have begun collecting mid-day values from the recently activated Jonah-EnCana and Boulder-Shell stations; unfortunately, these observations are "spotty" due to the fact that the readings are not archived for batch access...Furthermore, both stations went through a period of poor reliability regarding uninterrupted operation. Initial comparisons of the two stations show worrisome departures from each other and from both the Big Piney and Pinedale airport 

TtmtJwadowtt

251
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

monitoring stations. My own research shows that in 2003 there was a high degree of month-to-month variability in wind behavior which is shown by the "lobe" nature of wind direction versus speed (see Appendix 2 attached hereto). (Please note, all wind rose figures I have included herein are reversed from the standard convention in that all wind bars show the direction TOWARD which the winds are blowing instead of FROM which they are blowing...) The year of 2004 seemed to be a much less variable wind direction year but even so, a non-statistical graphing of the year's directional trends for winds of all speeds shows that they travel toward the four Class I regions from 20% to 52% of any one month in a year (Figure 1). Not that the relatively high sun angle period between April and August when photo conversion of haze precursors is most efficient is also the time of highest occurrence of wind travel toward the Class I areas. [See letter for detailed analysis. Appendix 1, "Example Weather Data from Big Piney Airport AMOS Facility" and Appendix 2, "Wind Speed History for Part of 2003."] 

L-82 14 F Air Quality Analysis Conditions of 

Approval 

In the document, "Introduction to Visibility" (William C. Malm, Air Resources Div., National Park Service, CIRANPS Visibility Program, Colorado State University) Section 6.2.1 declares sulfate and carbon species to be the single largest contributor to visibility reduction. The Finlayson-Pitts textbook cited earlier also states that "The major source of SO2 is the combustion of sulfurcontaining fuels." Additionally, since internal combustion processes creates NOx emissions, it seems logical and appropriate for BLM to include in its list of COAs a requirement for operators to contract drilling service providers who are willing to rapidly transition to the use of diesel engines which comply with EPA Tier 1-3 and ultimately Tier 4 emission standards. Furthermore, a COA requiring drillers to use low sulfur fuel should be included. 

TBTmaTrhleSitrT

L-82 15 F Analysis Air Quality The previous discussion has been offered as evidence 

to support the argument that additional wells in the thousands pose a serious threat to the issue of air quality in the near field and the far field. This view has been articulated in a U.S. Department of Energy report 

BmHra

252
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

titled "Rocky Mountain States Natural Gas: Resource Potential and Prerequisites to Expanded Production" (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy, Washington, D.C. 20585, 202-586-5600, www.fossil.energy.gov September 2003 | DOE/FE0460). This document includes the following comment: Regional air quality. Maintaining the pristine air of the Rocky Mountain States -- especially around the national parks and forests of Wyoming -- poses a special challenge. Small changes in air quality can have noticeable effects, especially on visibility. The region is valued for its striking vistas and scenery, but the ability to see these sights over long distances has degraded over time as air emissions have increased from a number of sources, including traffic, urban development, and industrial activities. Natural gas development is one of these activities. Some Federal and State agencies as well as environmentalists have expressed concern about the contribution of natural gas drilling, producing, and transportation to the increase of particulates in the atmosphere, leading to lower visibility and "regional haze." Of particular concern are emissions such as dust from service roads and nitrogen oxides from compressors, which can travel long distances and sometimes transform chemically to impair visibility. However, the combination of emissions, transport, weather, atmospheric chemistry, and deposition is extremely complicated, making it difficult to understand and predict the contribution of natural gas development to regional air quality. The last sentence serves well to point out the folly of currently relying too heavily upon modeling of empirically un-validated regional air quality models. Furthermore, it should underscore the inadvisability of basing upon those modeling results precipitous decision making that will commit three generations of local residents to the end results of such decisions. 

tac

L-82 16 A1 Alternatives Amend last sentence of par. 2, Section 2.2 

"Development of Alternatives" to read "All alternatives analyzed in this EIS have attempted to address the likelihood of new technological advances, and requires the inclusion of new technologies as they become available" (i.e., replace "encourages" with "requires"). 

Wnntts

253
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

eomJBir

L-82 17 A1 Analysis In every instance where the word "would" is used in 

connection with enforcement and compliance, replace it with the word "will." There should be a stronger mandatory tone that offers minimal opportunity for more lenient interpretation. 

TfmaTw

L-82 18 A1 Analysis Compensatory 

Mitigation 

On page 2-31, Section 2.14.4 "Compensatory Mitigation," change the language regarding BLM recommendations re. operators' voluntary seeking out of BLM-approved cumulative mitigation projects to alleviate on-site mitigation concerns to reflect mandatory requirements for same. 

TTmF

L-82 21 A1 Compliance Analysis Conditions of 

Approval 

Add to the COAs provisions requiring compliance with Tier 1-3 and Tier 4 emission standards for diesel engines that power drill rigs and also add a COA requiring drill rig operators to utilize low sulfur fuel. 

Brp

L-84 2 F Wildlife Compensatory 

Mitigation 

It is apparent that impacts to wildlife have already occurred from the existing Jonah Field development. Most, if not all, of the existing Jonah Field has already reached the "extreme" threshold as identified and defined in our agency's document "Recommendations for Development of Oil and Gas Resources within Crucial and Important Wildlife Habitats, December 6, 2004". That document recommends that, with the existing level of development on the Jonah Field, the impacts should be mitigated through compensatory (offsite) mitigation to replace wildlife habitat function currently lost. The additional level of development proposed in the DEIS for the Infill Project adds considerable support for the need for off-site mitigation of wildlife impacts. With a development the size of the Jonah Infill Project area, it needs to be recognized that in the absence of habitat improvements in adjacent off-site areas, the predicted habitat loss will result in significant losses to wildlife populations. This includes not only high profile 

Rw

254
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

species like sage grouse, but BLM sensitive species as well. Surrounding habitat, in its current condition, will not be able to absorb the animals displaced from the large Project area. As an example, the DEIS has already documented this in Table 3.18 on page 3-66 for the decrease in sage grouse lek attendance in and adjacent to the Jonah Field over the last 4-5 years, and supports this in the environmental consequences analysis on page 4-84. The DEIS also notes the potential pronghorn migratory route blockage. 

L-84 3 A Compensatory 

Mitigation 

Wildlife We recognize that the Operator-proposed 

Compensatory Mitigation items found on page 4-152 are not intended to be a final course of action, and that eventual mitigation requirements and funding are yet to be finally determined. We assume the mitigation that eventually becomes part of the Final EIS and ROD will be guided by the new Interim Offsite Compensatory Mitigation Instruction Memorandum (No. 2005-069), which became available after the DEIS was finished. In the eventual implementation of that IM, we will continue to recommend an initial off-site mitigation approach of habitat improvements adjacent to the Project area at a rate of 3:1 (3 acres of mitigation:1 acre of disturbance). This assumes that a 33% improvement in habitat quality may be possible in adjacent areas, and while the exact level of improvement is currently unknown, this ratio can serve as a reasonable starting point until future monitoring data can more precisely define it. The ROD should allow for adjusting the mitigation ratio through the LOP as the ratio becomes better defined. The initial ratio should be applied regardless of the number of acres disturbed, and should begin, at the latest, as soon as the level of ground disturbance makes off-site mitigation necessary. If possible, mitigation should begin prior to foreseeable development impacts, as this would reduce the lag time between impacts to habitat and the availability of additional mitigation habitat, thus reducing impacts to wildlife through time. 

MfsssRIis cg

L-84 4 D Wildlife Livestock/ 

Grazing 

Compensatory Mitigation 

We recognize and support the Compensatory Mitigation Ideas included in the DEIS (Section 5.2, page 5-7). Additionally, we recommend selecting a large area (preferably unleased for minerals) and identify both grazing strategies and habitat improvement strategies that would combine to improve habitat function within 

Rw

255
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

that area of BLM Lands. There is currently an identified unleased area that could serve that purpose. Improvements could be performed that would benefit both wildlife and livestock, and the area could feasibly be classified in the RMP revision as a Special Management Area for the LOP. 

L-84 5 A1 Analysis Public 

Participation 

It should be clearly stated that the necessary monitoring the Working Group recommends, and BLM agrees to, will be funded by industry. This should include any special studies that may become necessary during the LOP. We do not support the Working Group eventually becoming a FACA-chartered group. It is in the best interest of the objectives of the Working Group to maintain a more nimble, informal group representing the managers and agency spokespersons for the affected land uses in the Project area. Input from others could more easily be funneled through the interagency group than by using the formal and usually burdensome FACA process to accomplish that same result. 

Tarbg

L-84 6 A Compensatory 

Mitigation 

Compliance A comprehensive monitoring plan will be necessary to 

adequately describe the impacts and effectiveness of mitigation for this large, intense, long-term development. Adaptive management reaction to monitoring information will need to be assured. These items will need to be specifically addressed in the ROD, and implemented as Conditions of Approval. 

WqiCmR

L-84 7 A Wildlife We assume the sage grouse protection measures noted 

in Section 2.14.2, page 2-29 will be reviewed and aligned with the new BLM sage grouse Instruction Memorandum that is currently in the final stages of preparation. 

C

L-84 8 A1 Wildlife On-Site 

Mitigation 

Conditions of Approval 

In Section 2.14.2.1, page 2-30, we recommend the first bullet "Operators would continue supporting existing wildlife studies and monitoring efforts" be expanded to include any other studies that BLM determines as necessary during the LOP. It is very possible that unforeseen issues may arise and need to be monitored over the very long term of this Project. It is also very likely that comprehensive studies that include the Jonah Project area may also need to be undertaken to support future region-wide BLM planning efforts in the Pinedale 

AiMRAacca

256
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Field Office area. 

L-84 9 A On-site 

Mitigation 

Compensatory Mitigation 

Conditions of Approval 

In Section 2.14.2.1, monitoring of mitigation efforts, especially including off-site mitigation, should be definitively required, as it will be very necessary to determine the results of mitigation and to plan the most efficient methods of accomplishing future mitigation during the LOP. 

TanF

L-84 10 A Analysis There is a lot of confusion over the numbers of wellpads, 

acres of disturbance, and spacings throughout the document. As one example, in the Executive Summary, 10-acre well-pad spacings are noted. In Section 2.14, it is stated that reactions to the performance objectives would require up to a 10-year trend in monitoring data before well-pad density limitation could be denser than 40-acre surface spacing, and in this same section on page 2-26, it is stated that BLM would not regulate the number of wells. It is not clear what is being analyzed or what will be permitted. 

Tana

L-84 11 B Analysis In Section 2.14.1, Outcome-Based Performance 

Objectives, pages 2-26 and 2-27, the objectives are generally qualitative and do not lend themselves to meaningful monitoring. For example, "Maximize centralization of development and production facilities" is vague and appears to be reliant on industry decisions rather than on a defined result for other resources. In reality, if required to be done properly, this item could result in a very significant decrease in wildlife impacts, both spatially and through the LOP. While we appreciate the intent of the objective, it would be more meaningful if thresholds that would require these actions could be outlined. 

WqrotqscerB

L-84 12 A1 Analysis In Section 2.14.2, page 2-28, the first bullet says that 

operators will begin piping water and condensate from all wells no later than January 1, 2008, yet the fourth bullet says operators would "maximize" centralization of production facilities. We are not clear whether all new production, both old and new production, or neither old nor new production will be centralized before that date. We are not clear what "maximize" means. 

IActTtfccafla

257
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

o

L-84 13 A Wildlife In Section 2.14.2, page 2-28, it appears that the last two 

bullets regarding raptors nest distances are in conflict. 

Of

L-84 14 A On-site 

Mitigation 

Compensatory Mitigation 

In Section 2.14.4, page 2-31, it should be clarified who is ultimately responsible for meeting mitigation requirements if a mitigation fund is utilized (the operator, the BLM, or a third-party operator who actually does the mitigation). 

BeS

L-85 2 E Compensatory 

Mitigation 

Analysis Since off-site mitigation does not literally mitigate on-site 

cumulative impacts, by what authority does BLM have to include such within the JIDP? The answer to this question must be made evident in the published JIDP draft EIS. -- The State of Wyoming's land mass encompasses 97,914 square miles, of which, less than .05 percent comprises JIDP's total surface. What is the percent cumulative impact of JIDP to area outside of the Focus Area? -- Instruction Memorandum 2003-233, Integration of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) Inventory Results into the Land Use Planning Process, states that, "...and, (3) to outline a strategy for integrating the EPCA inventory results into land use plans." --A comparison must be made if consequences of mitigation adversely impacts valid and existing rights. 

TmCaaC(iWvsTbDwCstAswct

L-85 3 A Compensatory 

Mitigation 

Off-site mitigation should not be analyzed specific to the JIDP EIS, as this is a project within an EPCA Focus land use plan area, i.e., IM 2003-233, "Identify off-site mitigation opportunities or other management options outside Focus Areas that will mitigate for the development inside the Focus Areas." The Pinedale Resource Management Plan (RMP) falls under the content and context of IM 2003-233 and that timesensitive RMP is the appropriate integration point for offsite mitigation discussion per attachment 2 of the Instruction Memorandum. Applicant committed measures for off-site mitigation should be considered 

ArPaaSca

258
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

and administered on a voluntary basis. 

L-86 1 E NEPA Analysis The Jonah DEIS does not document the scientific basis 

to support the assumption that sage grouse and sagebrush are or will be adversely affected by energy development. Drilling and production have taken place within this same 30,000 acres for 14 years, the EIS does not find that the “least restrictive” measures are consistent with energy development and resource protection, as required by national BLM directives designed to implement the National Energy Policy Executive Orders, without any formal record of irreversible effects unassociated with gas production from the reserve. Amazingly, this plan fails to comply with national direction and policy, in particular the Energy Policy Conservation Act (EPCA). The Jonah Infill project should not have been dropped from any considerations officially committed to administratively under the EPCA since the plan was still in its infancy of development and brought to the Pinedale BLM Field Office’s attention early during the NEPA process. We would like an explanation as to why the Pinedale FO did not address conditions provided by the EPCA during energy development planning and if the Pinedale FO or Wyoming BLM State Office sent the required reporting of such to their respective Washington D.C. offices. 

TbdgdrUCtPtFaitdi1pwntJpSsmEBritWANGEodwopo

259
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

E2etppnacctPdsessIEAp"FRtoDoAApt2

L-87 4 A Livestock/ 

Grazing 

The Draft incorrectly makes the blanket assumption that the Proposed Action or similar levels of development mean large-scale reductions in AUMs are necessary. This is simply not the case. 

PF

L-87 5 A Alternatives Social Economics Many of the economic benefit projections in the 

Socioeconomic section are incorrect because they are based on the mistaken assumption that all directional wells will be drilled, seemingly regardless of cost. This mistaken assumption is particularly problematic with respect to the Preferred Alternative. The Draft puts forth the notion that the Preferred Alternative would create a 

Tiaaade

260
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

greater amount of economic activity than would the Proposed Action or Alternative G. That is not the case, because invariably many of the directional wells would not meet economic criteria and thus would not be drilled. The Proposed Action will, in the end, result in significantly more economic activity than will the Preferred Alternative – more jobs, more tax revenue and more purchases of goods and services. 

phAF

L-87 6 A Air Quality Analysis The Draft does not adequately address the fact that 

directional drilling will result in significantly more air emissions than will straight-hole drilling. This should be reflected in the Final EIS. Also for the Final, please address the fact that natural gas is one of the cleanest forms of energy available. At the Pinedale and Rock Springs public meetings, it was noted that one of the air quality factors was haze, etc. from places such as Salt Lake City and the West Coast. If those urban centers were to use more natural gas, arguably their emissions could be reduced, offsetting the relatively tiny amount of that emitted through the production of the gas at the Jonah Field. 

TabqtS“mtreTgr

L-90 4 A Alternatives Performance 

Objectives 

The BLM should focus and clarify the Preferred Alternative to include only reasonable outcome-based performance objectives. 

TtF

L-90 6 A Mineral 

Resources 

Analysis BLM inappropriately relied upon economic predictions 

and the use of speculative advances in technology in order to assume that the BLM’s Preferred Alternative would not result in significant waste of the resource. 

TanF

L-90 7 A Analysis Currently, the Executive Summary contains a number of 

mistakes, incorrect statements, and unsupported conclusions. EnCana suggests the following revisions for incorporation into the JIDP Final EIS: First, on page iii of the Executive Summary, the BLM must revise the description of the Proposed Action in light of EnCana’s revised Voluntary Compensatory Mitigation Proposal. As discussed in more detail below, EnCana has revised the earlier proposal put forth by BP America (“BP”) and EnCana which funded off-site mitigation at the rate of $850 per acre, assuming at least 11,000 acres of new initial surface disturbance was approved in the ROD for the JIDP. Further, the Executive Summary should make 

TanF

261
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

it clear that the original compensatory mitigation proposal was supported by EnCana and BP America, not all of the operators in the JIDPA. 

L-90 8 A Analysis BLM must ... remove any and all statements suggesting 

that the BLM’s Preferred Alternative will result in fewer adverse impacts than any of the other proposed alternatives through the use of “management requirements and monitoring.” The BLM has not analyzed or provided any information demonstrating that the management requirements and monitoring allegedly associated with the Preferred Alternative will lessen impacts. 

TanF

L-90 9 A Analysis Surface 

Disturbance 

Page v of the Executive Summary the BLM’s Preferred Alternative is incorrectly described as authorizing 7,804 acres of new surface disturbance. The description of the Preferred Alternative in Chapter Two, as well as Table 2.11 on page 2-25, states that the Preferred Alternative authorizes 8,316 acres of new surface disturbance. 

TanE

L-90 10 A Analysis Surface 

Disturbance 

The description of the Preferred Alternative suggests that it would authorize three “different surface disturbance allowances per section.” The BLM has since informed the Operators that the BLM did not intend to impose a surface disturbance restriction on each section, so long as the overall disturbance within each of the three areas or “zones” remains below the level authorized and analyzed. Thus, for example, surface disturbance within one particular section of the 19% surface disturbance zone could exceed 19%, so long as the overall average for the rest of the zone remained below 19%. The BLM should correct this issue in the Executive Summary, the description of the Preferred Alternative in Chapter Two, and throughout the document. 

TanF

L-90 11 A Analysis Wildlife The summary of Wildlife impacts potentially resulting 

from infill drilling on page vi of the Executive Summary incorrectly confuses the discussion of impacts to habitat and species. What may constitute a significant impact to habitat may not actually result in significant impacts to a species which underutilizes that habitat. Conversely, a significant impact may occur to a species without a corresponding impact to that species’ habitat. 

Id

L-90 12 A Analysis Wildlife The Executive Summary unequivocally states that 

impacts to wildlife are the “result of past and current oil 

Id

262
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

and gas development activity” without any studies that establish cause and effect, and ignoring other potential contributing factors such as the severe five-year drought the area is still experiencing. 

Ti

L-90 13 A Analysis Wildlife It is misleading for the BLM to assert, without studies or 

authority of any kind, that the Preferred Alternative will necessarily reduce impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat. 

Itpitrtowd

L-90 14 A Analysis On-Site 

Mitigation 

The JIDP DEIS asserts that implementation of a Reclamation Plan which was prepared for the project, would “mitigate potential impacts,” which are expected to be significant “in some areas.” This assertion, however, is not supported by analysis of any kind. 

TspDssd

L-90 15 A Analysis Economics The Socioeconomic Impacts summary is also 

misleading. First, the document states that significant impacts have already occurred as a result of oil and gas development in the area. Then, on page 4-1 of the JIDP DEIS the BLM states that “[i]mpacts are considered adverse unless identified as beneficial.” Thus, the summary incorrectly suggests that the economic impacts of development have been adverse. Second, the Executive Summary states that the JIDP is not expected to create “new significant impacts.” This statement is not supported either by the BLM’s discussion in Chapter 4 or the Draft Technical Support Document for the Jonah Infill Drilling Project (BLM/TRC 2005). Both documents suggest significant increases in annual job equivalents, economic activity, and “substantial revenue for state, county, and local governments, as well as area school districts.” See JIDP DEIS, pg. 4-113. The summary of socioeconomic impacts must be substantially revised in the Final EIS to also emphasize the beneficial socioeconomic impacts of the JIDP. 

TticIidpwgaTibSTa

L-90 16 A Analysis The language on page 1-1, paragraphs 1 and 4, of the 

JIDP DEIS suggest that the Operators have proposed an expansion of the existing Jonah Field. The document 

SbF

263
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

also notes that “[e]xpanded development is proposed in portions of Townships 28 and 29 North (T28N-T29N), Range 107, 108, and 109 West.” Finally, in paragraph 4 on page 1-1, the BLM asserts that “The proposed Project is a major expansion of existing natural gas development operations. . . .” These statements are misleading because the reader would misunderstand that the Operators have proposed an expansion of the existing Jonah Field rather than infill operations within the boundaries of the existing field. 

suarptd

L-90 17 A1 Analysis The first sentence on page 1-1 should be redrafted as 

follows: The U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Pinedale Field Office (PFO), and Rock Springs Field Office (RSFO) have received a proposal from EnCana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc. (EnCana), BP America Production Company (BP America), and other companies (referred to as “Operators”) for infill drilling and development operations within the existing boundary of the Jonah Field located in south-central Sublette County approximately 32 miles southeast of Pinedale, 28 miles northwest of Farson, and 1.5 to 11.0 miles west of U.S. Highway 191 (Map 1.1). 

SL

L-90 18 A Analysis In the fourth paragraph on page 1-1, the JIDP DEIS 

suggests that natural gas development operations were initially proposed and considered in the “Jonah Field II Natural Gas Project EIS (BLM 1997a, 1998a) and its Record of Decision (ROD) (BLM 1998b) and subsequently revised by the Environmental Assessment (EA), Finding of No Significant Impacts (FONSI), and Decision Record for the Modified Jonah Field II Project (BLM 2000a, 2000b).” This statement fails to acknowledge the fact that development in the Jonah Field was initially analyzed in the McMurry Oil Company Jonah Prospect Field Natural Gas Development Environmental Assessment (BLM 1994) and approved by the McMurry Oil Company Jonah Prospect Field Natural Gas Development Decision Record and Finding of No Significant Impact (BLM 1994). Because the JIDP EIS is the fourth NEPA document analyzing the impacts of natural gas development in the Jonah Field, the Final EIS should specifically reference, tier from, and 

TatrTuSorac

264
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

incorporate these earlier documents. 

L-90 19 A Analysis The Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) 

regulations implementing NEPA require an agency to “specify the underlying purpose and need to which the agency is responding” in the Purpose and Need section of an EIS. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.16 (2004). The Purpose and Need section of the JIDP DEIS fails to meet this standard because it suggests the BLM is addressing matters which are beyond the scope of the JIDP EIS. Specifically, the “bullet points” on pages 1-3 and 1-4 of the JIDP DEIS are inaccurate and misleading. For example, the second “bullet point” in Section 1.1, page 1-4, suggests the BLM is addressing oil and gas leasing in the JIDP DEIS. On the very same page, however, the JIDP DEIS states that all federal mineral lands within the JIDPA have been leased. Further, because the BLM is not amending or revising the Resource Management Plan for the Pinedale Resource Area, see JIDP DEIS, pg. 1-5, opening or closing lands to oil and gas leasing is beyond the scope of the JIDP DEIS. The third bullet point in Section 1.1, the second bullet on page 1-4, is equally problematic. The purpose of the JIDP DEIS is to analyze and evaluate the potential impacts of the approval of additional natural gas development in the Jonah Field, not to “consider the conservation and enhancement of natural resources with the economic benefits of resource development.” Not only is this statement ambiguous, it does not address the purpose of the Operators’ Proposed Action. While the BLM is required to consider the impacts to other natural resources as a result of additional development, it is not required to analyze matters beyond the scope of this document. The third and fourth bullets on page 1-4 are equally inappropriate because they appear to address land use planning decisions not a project level NEPA disclosure document. As already noted, the BLM is not amending or revising the Pinedale RMP through this EIS. Finally, the last bullet point on page 1-4 suggests that the “purpose and need” of the document is to “plan uses that encourage energy conservation.” Not only is the conservation of energy resources beyond the scope of the Proposed Action, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the BLM. 

Awrclaricpcoofa cro

265
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

L-90 20 A1 Analysis As currently drafted, the Purpose and Need section of 

the JIDP DEIS invites potential administrative and legal challenges because it improperly implies the JIDP DEIS considers and analyzes subjects which are beyond the scope of the JIDP DEIS and even outside of the BLM’s authority and jurisdiction. The BLM should delete all of the “bullet points” on pages 1-3 and 1-4 of the JIDP EIS.

S1

L-90 21 A Compliance In the opening paragraph of Section 1.3, page 1-5, the 

JIDP DEIS states that the “decision the BLM will make as a result of analysis presented in this EIS is whether to allow, and under what conditions to allow, the development, operation, maintenance, and reclamation of expanded development . . . on federal lands in the JIDPA.” As the BLM is aware, once federal oil and gas leases are issued without no surface occupancy stipulations, and in the absence of a nondiscretionary statutory prohibition against development, the BLM cannot completely deny development on the leasehold. See, e.g., National Wildlife Federation, et al., 150 IBLA 385, 403 (1999). Only Congress has the right to completely prohibit development once a lease has been issued. Western Colorado Congress, 130 IBLA 244, 248 (1994). Thus, in the JIDP EIS the BLM’s decision is limited to developing and fashioning mitigation strategies and measures designed to reduce or eliminate adverse environmental impacts. See National Wildlife Federation, et al., 150 IBLA at 403 (1999). 

AddtcBteislatw

L-90 22 A Compliance In the Final EIS, the BLM should discuss the fact that an 

oil and gas lease is a contract between the federal government and the lessee, and that the lessee has certain rights thereunder. See Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United States, 530 U.S. 604, 620 (2000) (recognizing that lease contracts under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act give lessees the right to explore for and develop oil and gas); Oxy USA, Inc. v. Babbitt, 268 F.3d 1001, 1006-7 (10th Cir. 2001) (noting that the Tenth Circuit has long held that federal oil and gas leases are contracts). The BLM made the decision to make lands within the JIDPA available for leasing in the Resource Management Plan for the Pinedale Resource Area (“Pinedale RMP”) and previously elected to issue the subject leases within the JIDPA, and should disclose this information in the Final EIS in order to avoid potential confusion for the public. 

TtJaaFisard

266
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

L-90 23 A Compliance In the third paragraph of Section 1.3, page 1-5, the JIDP 

DEIS states that the Pinedale RMP was “updated” in the ROD for the Pinedale Anticline Oil & Gas Development Project. The JIDP DEIS suggests that the reasonably foreseeable development scenario (“RFD”) for the Pinedale Resource Area was “updated” to include the development of an additional 1,944 new oil and gas wells in the Pinedale Resource Area. ... Because the IBLA determined that the RFD for the Pinedale RMP was not “updated” by the Pinedale Anticline ROD, the BLM should delete this statement and any reference to the “updated” RFD in the JIDP DEIS. (Similar statement contained in Section 1.4.1.2 on page 1-9 of the JIDP DEIS.) Rather, the BLM should simply note that the RFD scenario does not establish a point past which further exploration and development is prohibited, Wyoming Outdoor Council, 164 IBLA at 99, and although the RFD contained in the EIS accompanying the Pinedale RMP has been exceeded, the BLM has prepared additional NEPA analysis documenting, describing, and analyzing the potential environmental impacts of oil and gas development in the Pinedale Resource Area. 

TdRuSdP

L-90 24 A Compliance On-Site 

Mitigation 

Page 1-9 of the JIDP DEIS suggests that the document included as Appendix A to the JIDP DEIS represents the “standard set of guidelines and post-lease COAs that apply to all surface disturbing activities in Wyoming.” In fact, the document does not represent a set of BLM standard mitigation measures, but appears to be a sample set of guidelines intended for incorporation into RMPs across the State of Wyoming as individual RMPs are updated. As plainly noted in the language on page A-1, the guidelines are not intended as mandates for all future surface disturbing activities, but are guidelines to be “used in the RMP EIS process as a tool to help develop the RMP alternatives and to provide a baseline for comparative impact analysis in arriving at the RMP decisions.” See Appendix A, pg. A-1. Thus, the language in Appendix A itself demonstrates that it was not intended for inclusion in a project level oil and gas EIS which is already governed by stipulations included in the individual oil and gas leases included in the project area and the language of the existing RMP. 

AcgrnDmnWiis opNn

267
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

L-90 25 A Compliance On-Site 

Mitigation 

In addition, several of the so-called BLM standard guidelines are inconsistent with the existing Pinedale RMP. For example, several of the wildlife mitigation guidelines on page A-3 are similar to, but different than those included in the Pinedale RMP or even Appendix A1 of the Pinedale RMP. See Pinedale RMP/ROD, Appendix A-1. For example, the prohibition on surface disturbing activities within one mile of bald eagle winter use areas, listed in Table A.3 on page A-11 of the JIDP DEIS, is not contained within, and therefore not in conformance with, the Pinedale RMP. All resource management authorizations and action must conform to the existing RMP. 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-3(a) (2004). 

Sfca

L-90 26 A Analysis The inclusion of Appendix A is confusing to the public 

and misleading because it contains numerous references to RMPs and the EIS accompanying the RMP. The BLM should either (1) remove Appendix A and all references thereto in the Final EIS or (2) include a copy of Appendix A-1 from the Pinedale RMP, the governing mitigation guidelines for the Pinedale Resource Area, and explain that the Appendix represents potential stipulations which may be included in individual oil and gas leases or as potential conditions of approval for specific authorizations. If the BLM keeps Appendix A as currently drafted, the BLM must explain that Appendix A is only a list of potential stipulations and conditions of approval which may be applied in the JIDPA if and when they are included in the Record of Decision and revised RMP for the Pinedale Resource Area. The Final EIS should also explain that, in some cases, the BLM’s ability to impose conditions of approval is limited by the terms of the particular oil and gas lease in question and by the BLM’s own regulations. See 43 C.F.R. 3101.1-2 (2004). 

TvpatiRtc

L-90 27 A1 Analysis With its comments, EnCana has provided the BLM a 

“red-lined” version of Chapter Two which incorporates both the detailed revisions disclosed below as well as other proposed minor modifications. See EnCana Appendix 2, Revised Chapter Two. 

TanF

L-90 28 A1 Analysis Issue 2 identified on page 2-2 of the JIDP DEIS is 

inaccurately labeled “pace of development.” Even a brief review of the description of this issue demonstrates that the primary “concern” identified is the socioeconomic impact the Proposed Action would have 

Tdnwt

268
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

on the regional, state, and national economies. Although the pace of development may affect the socioeconomic impacts of the project, the pace of development is only one small part of the larger socioeconomic picture which includes several other factors including commodity price, resource quantities, supply and demand, geopolitical relations, and even international trade. It would be more appropriate, and more consistent with the nature of the scoping comments received by the BLM, to simply identify Issue 2 as Socioeconomics. 

Spscac

L-90 29 A Alternatives Although the BLM suggests that the “Proposed Action 

and other action alternatives meet the purpose and need for the project,” pg. 2-4, several of the alternatives analyzed by the BLM do not meet the purpose and need of the proposal because they would necessarily result in the waste of significant natural gas resources, or would otherwise be impractical or ineffective ...and should not have been analyzed in detail. 

Nararsmtanafcr

L-90 30 A Analysis The JIDP DEIS inappropriately includes several 

operator-committed practices, requirements from prior approvals, and proposed mitigation techniques and practices, as features common to all alternatives. Several of the so-called Features Common to all Alternatives are actually beyond the jurisdiction of the BLM or beyond the scope of the agreements previously made by the Operators. Further, just because one or more of the operators have agreed to a particular mitigation or monitoring requirement, the BLM should not assume it will be applied universally in the Jonah Field. 

OStbgratotpBrR

L-90 31 A Analysis On-Site 

Mitigation 

Water Contrary to the implication on page 2-5, the Operators 

have not agreed to fund and implement a “ground water monitoring program for all water wells in or affected by activities in the JIDPA.” Although water quality monitoring of groundwater wells permitted and drilled by the Operators less than 300 feet deep was a 

Ttis oiw

269
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

requirement under the Modified Jonah II Decision Record, see Modified Jonah II Decision Record, pg. A-1, the BLM attempts to greatly expand the scope and required annual reporting of this requirement. This requirement is vague and ambiguous because the BLM has not defined either the scope or the nature of the groundwater monitoring program. Further, this requirement is unnecessary given the fact that the JIDP DEIS itself notes that infill development in the JIDPA would not cause significant groundwater depletion and that the potential for contamination is low. See JIDP DEIS, pgs. 4-51 – 4-52. The BLM has additionally failed to define which water wells would be “affected” by activities in the JIDPA or how the BLM would determine if water wells are “affected.” 

pAawdi

L-90 32 A Compliance Water 

Resources 

On-Site Mitigation 

BLM does not have regulatory authority over groundwater in the State of Wyoming. The Wyoming State Engineer’s Office has authority over the permitting of groundwater wells and the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”) has regulatory authority for prevention and cleanup of contamination of water. Neither the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office nor the Wyoming DEQ require the type of monitoring the BLM assumes will take place under any alternative, including the No Action Alternative. 

Tmmlat

L-90 33 A On-site 

Mitigation 

Next, the JIDP DEIS suggests that the Operators would submit to BLM for approval a “reclamation plan” under any of the proposed alternatives. The JIDP DEIS, however, already contains a reclamation plan in Appendix G. The Final EIS for the JIDP should explain how the reclamation plan currently included in the JIDP DEIS would function with the reclamation plan discussed on page 2-5 of the JIDP DEIS. 

Dgtrt

L-90 34 A On-site 

Mitigation 

Wildlife BLM has significantly expanded the Operators’ 

requirement to monitor wildlife in the JIDPA without the agreement of the Operators or a discussion of the need for such monitoring. As the BLM is aware, the Operators have funded wildlife monitoring since 1996 in an area of nearly 300 square miles surrounding the JIDPA. Annual monitoring reports have been compiled and supplied to the BLM. In the Jonah II ROD, the operators voluntarily committed to fund this monitoring for a five-year period and that requirement was included in the Jonah II ROD. The obligation ended in 2003 and operators have 

Aacca

270
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

voluntarily continued to fund increased levels of wildlife monitoring since that time because the data would have not been obtained otherwise. BLM has now, however, included wildlife monitoring as a “feature common to all alternatives” and has modified it to include burrowing owl nesting activity, greater sage-grouse lek attendance, (this was originally a BLM/WGFD responsibility per the 1998 Jonah II ROD) and “occurrence of other sagebrush-obligate species.” The BLM has incorrectly identified this as an operator-committed practice and assumed that additional monitoring would occur under all Alternatives. As part of EnCana’s Voluntary Compensatory Mitigation Proposal, EnCana would agree to increased wildlife monitoring under several of the proposed Alternatives. 

L-90 35 A Analysis Alternatives Although the BLM is required to include the No Action 

Alternative by NEPA, and although the No Action Alternative is a useful comparative tool, the BLM should clearly inform the public that selection of the No Action Alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the proposed action, would be inconsistent with the BLM’s mandate to encourage natural gas production from federal lands, and would be contrary to the National Energy Policy and Executive Order 13211, 66 Fed. Reg. 28355 (May 18, 2001). 

AAaataaotnacw

L-90 36 A Compensatory 

Mitigation 

The description of the Proposed Action should be updated to include a description of EnCana’s revised Voluntary Compensatory Mitigation Proposal, which is described in detail in Appendix 1 these comments. 

TanF

L-90 37 A1 Technical 

Information 

Economics The second sentence in the second full paragraph on 

page 2-10 fails to accurately relate the nature of the risks associated with directional drilling in the Jonah Field. The sentence should be redrafted as follows: The Operators’ experience in the Jonah Field, after drilling more than 150 directional wells, demonstrates that the use of directional drilling is not economically feasible in every situation. Drilling and completion costs for directionally drilled wells are approximately $270,000 to $470,000 or 15% to 30% greater than a conventional vertical well. In fact, EnCana’s actual drilling costs for 2003 ( ft d illi 24 di ti l ll d 33 ti l

TBawusdleTpm

271
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

2003 (after drilling 24 directional wells and 33 vertical wells) demonstrate directional drilling costs increased by more than $400,000 per well as compared to a vertical well. Further, the Operators’ experience, as reported to the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and reflected in the Evaluation of Directional Drilling Technical Document referenced in the JIDP DEIS, demonstrates that directional drilling in the Jonah Field leads to inadequate resource recovery due to an inability to set casing at the bottom of the hole. In the Jonah Field, an average of 362 mmcf per well cannot be recovered when, as a result of directional drilling, casing cannot be set to the bottom of the wellbore. 

w

L-90 38 B Technical 

Information 

EnCana has included, as EnCana Appendix 3 to these comments, additional information regarding actual drilling and completion costs in the Jonah Field from 2003. 

T

L-90 39 A Alternatives The Minimize Directional Drilling alternative is useful 

from a NEPA standpoint to disclose the potential impacts of development if all surface restrictions and limitations were removed. However, the BLM cannot implement Alternative A because the BLM cannot approve management actions which are not in conformance with the governing RMP, the Pinedale RMP. 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-3(a) (2004). The Pinedale RMP restricts operations within specified distances, and during specific times of the year, of raptor nests and sage grouse leks and nesting areas. See Pinedale RMP (BLM 1988), pg 10. The JIDP Final EIS should disclose not only that the BLM is prohibited from selecting Alternative A, but that the Operators neither requested its inclusion nor proposed operations as outlined in Alternative A. 

AacibcctibScof

L-90 40 A1 Alternatives EnCana urges the BLM to “rename” this alternative 

[Alternative A] o more accurately describe its purpose which was not to disclose or analyze the impacts of “minimized” directional drilling, but rather to disclose the impacts of an alternative that maximized resource recovery by eliminating all surface use restrictions. 

BwR

L-90 41 A Alternatives The very basis of Alternative B, directionally drilling 

3,100 new wells from the 497 existing well locations, is inherently flawed and impractical. For example, there are areas as large as five square miles within the JIDPA that do not contain existing facilities; the Operators would be required to drill up to three miles directionally to recover 

Ctnact

272
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

the natural gas resource in those sections. It would be economically infeasible and may be technically impossible to directionally drill those distances from existing well pads. This will result in large areas of the JIDPA remaining undrilled, and the waste of significant natural gas resource. 

cc

L-90 44 A Alternatives Alternative C and Alternative D unreasonably restrict the 

number of wells authorized in the Jonah Field. The Operators’ reservoir modeling, analysis from the State of Wyoming, and experience in the Jonah Field demonstrate that approximately 3,100 new wells would be necessary to adequately recover the natural gas resource in the JIDPA. The BLM’s own analysis demonstrates that between 390 and 1,290 BCF of natural gas and 3,740,000 and 12,260,000 barrels of oil (condensate) would not be recovered under Alternative C and Alternative D. As such, neither Alternative C nor Alternative D meet the purpose and need of the proposed federal action, are inconsistent with the BLM’s obligations under the Mineral Leasing Act, the National Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, and the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act, and would be contrary to the National Energy Policy and Executive Orders 13211, 66 Fed. Reg. 28355 (May 18, 2001). 

Tant

L-90 45 A Alternatives Alternative E and Alternative F unreasonably restrict the 

number of well locations constructed in any particular section within the JIDPA and require extensive directional drilling. The difficulties associated with directional drilling are noted above, and discussed in detail in the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Evaluation of Directional Drilling. The Operators’ reservoir modeling, analysis from the State of Wyoming, and experience in the Jonah Field demonstrate that approximately 64 wellbores per section (10 acre down-hole spacing) would be necessary to adequately and efficiently recover the natural gas resource in the JIDPA. The BLM’s own analysis demonstrates that between 761 and 1,645 BCF of natural gas and 7,230,000 and 15,630,000 barrels of oil (condensate) would not be recovered under Alternative E and Alternative F. As such, neither Alternative E nor Alternative F meet the purpose and need of the proposed action, are inconsistent with the BLM’s obligations under the Mineral Leasing Act, the National Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, and the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act, and 

Tant

273
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

would be contrary to the National Energy Policy and Executive Orders 13211, 66 Fed. Reg. 28355 (May 18, 2001). 

L-90 46 A Alternatives As currently drafted, the implementation of the BLM’s 

Preferred Alternative would be unduly restrictive, and inherently unworkable. EnCana has identified five areas of general concern with the BLM’s Preferred Alternative. First, the document imposes far too many overly prescriptive measures which will unduly restrict operations and lead to less development and recovery in the JIDPA. For example, rather than limiting the overall surface disturbance in the field and allowing the Operators the maximum flexibility to develop the field within such limitations, the BLM attempts to regulate everything from the size of the well pad to the type of fracturing or “fracing” method to be utilized. Second, many of the BLM’s proposed requirements and conditions of approval are so vague and ambiguous it will not only be impossible for the Operators to comply with the requirements, such requirements may also significantly increase the possibility of administrative challenges or litigation by individuals or groups opposed to additional development in the JIDPA. Third, several of the requirements imposed by the BLM are either outside of BLM’s jurisdiction, such as air quality and air emissions, or simply contrary to existing BLM regulations, policies, or other laws. Fourth, many of the monitoring and mitigation requirements proposed by the BLM are excessive and/or unnecessary. EnCana understands the importance of monitoring the impacts of development on wildlife, and has even committed to monitoring requirements beyond those currently required by the BLM, but does not believe the BLM should use the Operators’ request for infill development in the Jonah Field as a “blank check” for additional studies and monitoring requirements, especially when such requirements may not be related to impacts of development in the Jonah Field. Finally, the BLM’s Preferred Alternative unduly and unreasonably restricts surface disturbance in large areas of the Jonah Field. Although EnCana may be able to utilize directional drilling where necessary, practical, and economic, the BLM assumes that directional drilling can be widely used in the Jonah Field despite the technical studies and empirical evidence demonstrating the limitations of 

TrwcaWgcaifpca

274
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

directional drilling in this particular field. 

L-90 48 A Analysis The description of the BLM’s Preferred Alternative on 

page 2-22 suggests that the Preferred Alternative “optimizes natural gas recovery while minimizing impacts related to the key issues.” This assertion, however, is not supported by the analysis in the JIDP DEIS. The BLM incorrectly assumes that the recovery factors for the Preferred Alternative will be approximately the same as those for Alternative G, despite the fact that the Preferred Alternative severely restricts surface disturbance in the northern portion of the Jonah Field and will require extensive directional drilling. The BLM has since indicated that the Preferred Alternative would lead to the waste of 761 BCF of natural gas and 7,230,000 barrels of oil (condensate). As such, the Preferred Alternative clearly does not “optimize natural gas recovery,” or address the BLM’s key issue regarding the need to “maximize natural gas recovery from the field.” 

TanF

L-90 49 A Analysis The description of the Preferred Alternative also asserts 

that the Preferred Alternative will minimize impacts related to the key issues with outcome-based performance objectives, mitigation, and Best Management Practices. See JIDP DEIS, pg. 2-22. The unquantified reduction of impacts the BLM alleges will occur under the Preferred Alternative could potentially be achieved under any of the Alternatives simply by establishing specific objectives for wildlife, contemporaneous and innovative interim and final reclamation, and habitat improvement and monitoring through EnCana’s Voluntary Compensatory Mitigation Proposal. It is disingenuous for the BLM to assume or suggest that the impacts of development can only be reduced under the Preferred Alternative. 

TanF

L-90 50 A Alternatives Surface 

Disturbance 

The BLM’s description of the 34% surface disturbance area (“Zone One”) in the southern portion of the JIDPA does not provide the Operators the flexibility needed to effectively recover the natural gas resource. Although the total amount of new initial surface disturbance proposed in Zone One is likely adequate, the BLM unreasonably restricts operations in other ways. First, the BLM limits new initial surface disturbance on a section-by-section basis rather than the average across 

Tmmn6driho

275
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

all of Zone One. See JIDP DEIS, pg. 2-22 (authorizing “[u]p to approximately 34% (214 acres) new surface disturbance per 640-acre section within a 14,390-acre area.”) (emphasis added). In order to provide the Operators with the maximum flexibility, see Section 2.14.1, the BLM should not limit surface disturbance section by section, but should instead measure disturbance across the entire area as a whole. Doing so will allow the Operators the flexibility needed to develop the much-needed natural gas resources, while still protecting other resource values. Second, as currently drafted, the Preferred Alternative unreasonably limits the size, density, number, and type of well pad or locations or wells that can be developed in any particular section. The language on page 2-22 appears to limit the operators to 16 parent well pads of not more than 7.0 acres of surface disturbance, including roads and gathering lines, and 48 satellite well pads of not more than 2.0 acres, including roads and gathering lines. Not only does that provision significantly limit the Operators’ flexibility, it is inconsistent with the language on page 2-26 which states that the BLM would not regulate the number of wells under the Preferred Alternative. See JIDP DEIS pg. 2-26 (stating that “BLM would not regulate the number of wells or the pace of development under this alternative.”). Further, limitation on the size of well pad size is unduly restrictive and impractical. Topography and vegetation often dictate the size of and access to a well location. Finally, the BLM has incorrectly calculated the surface disturbance which would be authorized in Zone One. (34% of 14,390 = 4,893). The JIDP DEIS incorrectly states on page 2-22 that the Preferred Alternative would authorize 4,667 acres of new initial surface disturbance in Zone One. Although EnCana believes the BLM intended the 34% disturbance to include well locations and other disturbances listed in Table 2.11, the description of the new initial surface disturbance on page 2-22 is unclear. In the Final EIS, the BLM should remove the limitation of new initial surface disturbance by section and remove limitations on the type or number of well pads or wells 

apd

276
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

which can be developed in any particular section. EnCana suggests that the entire description of Zone One on page 2-22 be deleted and replaced with the following language: Up to 34% new initial surface disturbance within the 14,390-acre area. The BLM would not limit the size, density, number, or type of new well pads or new locations, or new wells within the 34% disturbance area, so long as the Operators are meeting all of the outcomebased performance objectives identified in Section 2.14.1. See EnCana Appendix 2, Revised Chapter Two. 

L-90 51 A Alternatives Surface 

Disturbance 

The description of the 24% disturbance area (“Zone Two”) in the south, south-east portion of the Jonah Field has the same basic problems associated with Zone One. The BLM should not limit new initial surface disturbance by section, but should instead measure new initial surface disturbance across the entire area (Zone Two) as a whole. For the same reasons as discussed above, the BLM should not limit or mandate the size, density, number, and type of well pads or locations or well pads that can be developed in any particular section. 

TanF

L-90 52 A Alternatives Surface 

Disturbance 

Finally, the BLM has incorrectly calculated the surface disturbance which would be authorized in Zone Two. (24% of 520 = 125). The JIDP DEIS incorrectly states on page 2-22 that the Preferred Alternative would authorize 117 acres of new initial surface disturbance in Zone Two. Although EnCana believes the BLM intended the 24% disturbance to include well locations and other disturbances listed in Table 2.11, the description of the new initial surface disturbance on page 2-22 is unclear and misleading. 

TanF

L-90 53 A Alternatives Surface 

Disturbance 

If the BLM includes Zone Two in the Final EIS, EnCana suggests that the entire description of Zone Two on page 2-22 be redrafted as follows: Up to 24% new initial surface disturbance within the 520-acre area. The BLM would not limit the size, density, number, or type of new well pads or new locations, or new wells within the 24% disturbance area, so long as the Operators are meeting all of the outcome-based performance objectives identified in Section 2.14.1. 

TanF

277
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

L-90 54 A Alternatives Surface 

Disturbance 

Performance Objectives 

The descriptions of Zone Two and Zone Three additionally contain the following misleading and unnecessarily restrictive language: “well pad density limitation would be applicable until monitoring data, with up to ten-year trends, conclusively shows that denser than 40-acre surface spacing can meet performancebased field development and production objectives.” See JIDP DEIS, pg. 2-24. First, 10 year data and monitoring trends are not necessary to determine “development and production objectives.” The Operators’ reservoir modeling and their experience in the Jonah Field demonstrate that at least 20-acre downhole spacing will be necessary to develop the natural gas resource in Zone Two. The Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission authorized 10-acre spacing in the Jonah Field in recognition of its unique geologic features. The BLM has not provided any information or analysis indicating either that the resource can be recovered with 40-acre surface spacing, or identified, with specificity, the benefits or reduced impacts associated with limiting surface disturbance to 40-acre spacing. Second, the statement as drafted is unnecessarily confusing and poorly phrased. To the extent the BLM was attempting to state that 40-acre surface spacing would be enforced until “monitoring data, with up to ten-year trends, conclusively shows” that the Operators are meeting all of the outcome-based performance objectives, the BLM has not effectively communicated its intent. Third, it is unreasonable for the BLM to severely restrict surface spacing or density in this portion of the Jonah Field. The JIDP DEIS does not identify any wildlife or other resource uses, such as sage grouse leks or raptor nests, within this portion of the Jonah Field that could be adversely affected absent 40-acre spacing. The BLM has failed to provide any qualitative or analytical support for its decision to limit surface density. Finally, limitations on surface density are contrary to the intent and alleged spirit of the BLM’s outcome-based performance objective strategy which is to provide maximum flexibility for the Operators, while still protecting specific resource values. Rather than limiting surface density, or requiring the Operators to provide and develop ten years of monitoring data, which, incidentally, is approximately the same length of time as drilling activities are expected to occur in the JIDPA, the 

TrA

278
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

BLM should maximize the Operators’ flexibility and allow them to develop the resources appropriately, under the guidance provided by the BLM’s outcome-based performance objectives. 

L-90 55 D Alternatives Surface 

Disturbance 

Performance Objectives 

Given the relatively small size—less than one section—of the JIDPA included within Zone Two, and the lack of any identified wildlife or other significant conflicting resource values within Zone Two, EnCana recommends revising the Preferred Alternative to eliminate Zone Two entirely and incorporate those lands into Zone One. This change would only constitute an increase of 52 acres, or 0.17% of the JIDPA. As the BLM is aware, Zone Two does not contain any significant vegetative communities, JIDP DEIS, pg. 3-50 - 3-53, prairie dog colonies, JIDP DEIS, pg 3-60, raptor nests, JIDP DEIS, pg. 3-62, sagegrouse leks, JIDP DEIS, pg. 3-65, or other resources which justify limitations on new initial surface disturbance. The irregular size, lack of contiguous land, and the increased administrative difficulties and management requirements associated with monitoring and implementing Zone Two, further support the incorporation of the Zone Two areas into Zone One. Additionally supporting the incorporation of Zone Two into Zone One is the fact that the JIDP DEIS does not identify a single discernable benefit from managing Zone Two with less new initial surface disturbance than Zone One. Rather, according to statements made by the BLM at the public meetings, Zone Two was established solely in response to a potential downhole spacing map provided by EnCana and included in the JIDP DEIS as Map 2.1 in Exhibit G. Although Map 2.1 indicates that infill spacing within Zone Two is estimated at 20-acre spacing, the BLM need not prohibit surface disturbance in that area unnecessarily. Rather, the BLM should maximize the Operators’ flexibility and allow them to develop the resources appropriately, under the guidance provided by the BLM’s outcome-based performance objectives. 

TrA

L-90 56 A Alternatives Surface 

Disturbance 

The Preferred Alternative unreasonably restricts surface disturbance in the northern part of the Jonah Field by limiting new initial surface disturbance to 19% by section (“Zone Three”). As with the description of Zones One and Two, the BLM should not limit new initial surface disturbance by section, but should instead measure new initial surface disturbance across the entire area (Zone 

TanF

279
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Three) as a whole to allow the Operators the flexibility needed to develop the much-needed natural gas resources, while still protecting other resource values. Further, as currently drafted, the Preferred Alternative unreasonably limits the size, density, number, and type of well pads or locations that can be developed in any particular section. 

L-90 57 A Alternatives Surface 

Disturbance 

The BLM’s decision to limit surface disturbance in Zone Three was apparently based, at least partially, on the mistaken belief that the natural gas resource in Zone Three could be effectively recovered with more widely spaced wells. As clearly expressed on Map 2.1 in Exhibit G, EnCana’s reservoir modeling, as well as its extensive experience in the Jonah Field, demonstrates a very high certainty of the need for 10-acre, and a moderate to high certainty of the need for five-acre, downhole spacing across the entire northern section of the Jonah Field. Based on current information regarding original gas in place and well performance in Zone Three, it is believed that Map 2.1 is still accurate. The BLM should be aware, however, that recovery factors in Zone Three vary significantly from those in Zones One and Two resulting in a lower ultimate recovery factor per well. Recovery factors are a function of rock properties and affect the area a single well can effectively drain. Recovery factors are the fraction of the original gas in place which can be produced over the life of a single well. Because the recovery factors in Zone Three are believed to be generally lower than recovery factors in other parts of the field, the need for some 10-acre downhole-spaced wells is increased, not decreased. 

TrA

L-90 58 A Alternatives Surface 

Disturbance 

BLM also bases the Preferred Alternative’s limitation on surface disturbance in Zone Three on the incorrect assumption that the Operators were not interested in infill development within Zone Three. This assumption is also incorrect. First, EnCana’s own petrophysical modeling indicates that the original gas in place in the northern section of the JIDPA is equivalent to the original gas in place in the southern portion of the JIDPA. Thus, there are significant gas reserves in Zone Three. Second, the constraints imposed by the previous authorizations for development in the JIDPA have limited the Operators’ ability to construct new locations in the Jonah Field. Third, to date, the Operators have focused operations in the southern portion of the Jonah Field in 

TrA

280
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

order to gain a better understanding of the ultimate downhole spacing that may be required to recover the natural gas resource. Fourth, given the lower recovery factors in Zone Three, there is less economic incentive to develop Zone Three because less gas is recovered from each well. The economic limitations associated with development in Zone Three will only be exacerbated if the BLM mandates directional drilling in Zone Three by unreasonably limiting new initial surface disturbance. 

L-90 59 A1 Alternatives Surface 

Disturbance 

Performance Objectives 

Given the factors discussed above demonstrating the need for additional development in Zone Three, and the lack of existing facilities in Zone Three, EnCana suggests the description of Zone Three on page 2-24 be redrafted as follows: “Up to 40% new initial surface disturbance within the 14,310-acre area. The BLM would not limit the size, density, number, or type of new well pads or new locations, or new wells within the 40% disturbance area, so long as the Operators are meeting all of the outcome-based performance objectives identified in Section 2.14.1.” 

TrA

L-90 60 D Alternatives Surface 

Disturbance 

Finally, however the BLM elects to define Zones One, Two, and Three, EnCana encourages the BLM to redraft Map 2.2 on page 2-23 in the Final EIS so that the boundaries of each of the zones are more uniform, falling upon quarter section lines. Even if the boundaries are redrawn, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the Operators and the BLM to efficiently monitor surface disturbance across the various zones. EnCana has included as EnCana Appendix 5 a revised version of Map 2.2 which incorporates the revisions EnCana outlined above, and more accurately reflects EnCana’s petrophysical modeling. Additional data regarding EnCana’s petrophysical modeling and original gas-inplace modeling has been submitted. 

TrA

L-90 61 C Alternatives EnCana is not opposed to the creation of an interagency 

working group, so long as the working group remains exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (“FACA”) and so long as the Operators are not required to fund the operations of the Jonah Infill Working Group. EnCana strongly objects to either the creation of a FACA working group for the Jonah Infill Drilling Project or, worse yet, amending the PAWG charter to include the Jonah Field and this project. See JIDP DEIS, pg. 2-24. Experience has already demonstrated that the PAWG is 

TfF

281
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

not functioning effectively, and adding additional operators, additional lands, and additional potential issues will only exacerbate existing problems. The increased administrative burdens and costs of administering and utilizing a FACA chartered committee are not justified by any benefits associated with a FACA chartered advisory committee. 

L-90 63 A1 Performance 

Objectives 

Air Quality The first performance objective identified in the Preferred 

Alternative relates to airborne emissions and lists a series of benchmarks regarding Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards, PSD increments, and decreases in visibility in regional Class I airsheds. EnCana believes it is unwise for the BLM to select a performance objective which relates to matters beyond its jurisdiction. As the BLM is aware, and in fact acknowledges in the JIDP DEIS, the BLM does not have any legal or regulatory authority over air quality or air emissions. Regulatory authority over air quality is solely vested with the State of Wyoming, through the Department of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”), and the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). Although it is appropriate for the BLM to identify potential mitigation measures which may be enforced by other agencies, the BLM cannot attempt to enforce or regulate such matters. Because the BLM cannot regulate air quality, it is impractical, and potentially illegal, for the BLM to attempt to exercise 

jurisdiction over such matters. In the Final EIS, EnCana encourages the BLM to select only performance objectives which are within its jurisdiction and authority. Attempting to regulate matters which are beyond its control sets the BLM and the Operators up for potential legal and administrative challenges. 

BaHrBaq

L-90 64 A Air Quality Performance 

Objectives 

Further, the performance objective relating to air quality is currently vague and ambiguous. Specifically, it appears that the BLM and the Operators will not be able to meet all of the air emission thresholds or objectives under any of the current alternatives, including the BLM’s Preferred Alternative. For example, Table 4.1, on page 4-6 of the JIDP DEIS, indicates that visibility impacts of more than a deciview will occur in the Bridger Wilderness Area between 8 and 11 days per year under any Alternative but the No Action Alternative. The BLM must reconsider any attempt to include air emissions as a performance objective. 

NmAcdi

282
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

L-90 65 A1 Performance 

Objectives 

The second performance objective, pg. 2-26, regarding the centralization of facilities, is generally acceptable to EnCana. As currently drafted, however, the performance objective is unreasonably restrictive and impractical. Requiring centralized facilities may actually require greater surface disturbance in portions of the JIDPA because of topography and other constraints. Further, the requirement is unreasonably vague because it does not clearly state that it applies only to new facilities, not existing facilities. The BLM does not have the authority to require modifications to existing facilities at this time. Finally, centralized facilities only become practical and efficient when 10-acre or less surface density is authorized and may become an important “tool” to reduce LOP surface disturbance. This performance objective should be redrafted as follows: “Utilize techniques to centralize new development and production facilities where feasible and practical.” 

S

L-90 66 A1 Performance 

Objectives 

Soils The third proposed performance objective, regarding 

sediment erosion and salt and silt discharge rates, pg. 2-26, is also unreasonably vague and may subject the Operators to conflicting requirements. First, the objective is unreasonably vague because the JIDP DEIS does not identify what sediment erosion rates are acceptable to the BLM and the Wyoming DEQ. Second, storm water pollution and prevention controls are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Wyoming DEQ and the EPA. Although it may be appropriate for the BLM to identify reasonable mitigation measures even if they are beyond the BLM’s authority, the BLM should not attempt to regulate matters which are beyond its jurisdiction. Any attempt to do so may create additional legal and administrative challenges, and may subject the Operators to conflicting requirements. Finally, the JIDP DEIS does not demonstrate that soil erosion or salt loading is currently or will be a significant problem in the JIDPA. Until the BLM completes the ongoing soil modeling and analysis, it is premature for the BLM to create an outcome-based performance objective related to soils and soil erosion. If the ongoing soil modeling demonstrates that soil erosion and salt loading will be a concern in the JIDPA, EnCana suggests the following language: “Maintain sediment erosion (salt and silt discharge rates) at levels permitted by and acceptable to the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality and 

ArasiaSa

283
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Environmental Protection Agency.” 

L-90 67 A1 Performance 

Objectives 

Wildlife The fifth performance objective, the first bullet on page 

2-27, regarding planning development activities to maximize habitat patch size for sagebrush-obligate species, is again vague, ambiguous, and potentially unreasonably limiting. As currently drafted, this requirement could be construed as limiting activities to only one portion of the JIDPA at a time, which is unacceptable to EnCana. The Operators need the flexibility to develop in any portion of the field at any time, subject, of course, to seasonal limitations for specific wildlife habitat such as sage grouse leks. Given its ambiguity, the objective could lead to increased administrative challenges and/or litigation by nongovernmental organizations opposing additional development in the Jonah Field. EnCana suggests the following modification to the performance objective: “To the extent practical, feasible, and economic, the Operators should plan drilling activities and interim and final reclamation to maximize and increase habitat patch sizes and reduce habitat fragmentation for sagebrushobligate species.” 

Rmp

L-90 68 A1 Performance 

Objectives 

Noise The sixth performance objective, the second bullet on 

page 2-27, attempts to limit production activity noise levels to an increase of 10 decibels or less in noise sensitive areas. Initially, this “requirement” is inappropriately identified as a performance objective. Because the “requirement” relates only to site-specific activities, it should be considered a potential condition of approval, not a performance objective. Further, this objective is unreasonably restrictive and generally unworkable for a number of reasons. First, the BLM has failed to provide a map of “noise sensitive areas.” The JIDP DEIS does not describe how this objective/requirement will affect operations in the JIDPA. Second, the BLM has failed to develop a protocol to measure background or new noise levels. Third, an increase of only 10 decibels is unduly restrictive as 10 decibels is “barely audible” or approximately equivalent to the noise produced by normal human breathing. See JIDP DEIS, pg. 3-48. Finally, the BLM has failed to demonstrate why this unduly restrictive requirement is necessary. Given the vague and unreasonable nature of this objective, the fact that the BLM has failed to justify where or how it would be imposed, and the fact that the 

LatpsNinhcaNta

284
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

objective is more appropriately a condition of approval rather than a performance-based objective, this performance objective should be deleted. 

L-90 69 A1 Performance 

Objectives 

Wildlife The third bullet objective on page 2-27, the seventh 

overall performance objective, would require the Operators to minimize impacts to sagebrush and other habitats to maintain or minimize losses in attendance of male sage-grouse on leks, etc. As currently drafted, this Outcome-Based Performance Objective is unduly restrictive and unnecessary. A decrease in lek attendance by even a single sage-grouse could be utilized by opponents of oil and gas development to challenge all development activities in the Jonah Field. This is particularly egregious given the fact that lek attendance is generally decreasing across most of Wyoming. Further, given the level of development proposed in the JIDPA, EnCana believes it is more appropriate to focus its efforts on wildlife habitat improvement outside the JIDPA, rather than unnecessarily restricting development activities in this world-class and unique gas field. EnCana suggests the following alterations to this requirement: “Manage or mitigate impacts to sagebrush and other habitats to maintain or minimize losses to the populations of sagebrush-obligate listed and sensitive species in the JIDP cumulative impacts area.” 

MhBSgi

L-90 70 A1 Performance 

Objectives 

Wildlife The eighth proposed performance objective relates to 

“currently active big game migration routes.” As discussed earlier, neither the past NEPA documents prepared by the BLM for development activities within the Jonah Field nor the ongoing wildlife studies prepared by the Operators and submitted to the BLM annually suggest that a “seasonal migration route” exists within the JIDPA. As the BLM is aware, the JIDPA does not contain crucial habitat for the pronghorn. In fact, the JIDP DEIS specifically notes on page 4-87 that “[n]o loss to pronghorn migration is anticipated” under any alternative. Finally, as expressed by the BLM’s own biologist at several public meetings, the location or existence of specific alleged migration routes is not the crucial factor. Rather, the BLM should be concerned with the pronghorn’s ability to safely and effectively migrate. In order to make this performance objective reasonable, EnCana suggests the following language: “Maintain adequate big game migration between the pronghorn 

Mbwp

285
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

crucial winter range north of the JIDPA and crucial winter/yearlong range located to the west and the southeast of the JIDPA.” 

L-90 71 A1 Performance 

Objectives 

The Preferred Alternative’s ninth proposed performance objective, page 2-27, relates to the degree and extent of human activity within the JIDPA. As currently drafted, this performance objective is vague and impractical. First, the BLM has not clearly defined the term “human activity” or provided reasonable expectations for reducing human activities. Second, it can be difficult to decrease human activities during drilling operations without compromising safety. EnCana has, however, developed several plans to reduce traffic in the field during the production phase including the use of remote telemetry and the installation of an underground system to transport produced water and condensate where practical, feasible, and economic. EnCana recommends redrafting this proposed performance objective as follows: “To the extent practical, feasible, economic, and safe, the Operators will reduce traffic in the JIDPA during the production phase.” 

TacahrToirpip

L-90 72 A1 Performance 

Objectives 

Water Resources 

The BLM’s tenth proposed performance objective, the sixth bullet point on page 2-27, would require the Operators to prevent the contamination of all surface and groundwater. While EnCana agrees with the need to protect surface and groundwater quality, and already employs extensive measures to protect water quality, the Preferred Alternative’s performance objective is vague and unreasonably restrictive. First, the requirement does not specifically reference potable drinking or potable ground water supplies or formations and is therefore unacceptable. As currently drafted, this performance objective could be construed to limit the Operators’ use of water supplies because the Operators use water for drilling operations. Second, the BLM has failed to adequately define contamination. As the BLM is aware, water in the Lance Formation is impacted during drilling and production activities in order to recover the natural gas resource in the JIDPA. Third, the regulation of groundwater rests with the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office and the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. As discussed above, it is unwise for the BLM to develop performance objectives regarding matters which are beyond its jurisdiction. The BLM should redefine this requirement to state that the “Operators will comply with 

TtrjcwaEtarmWa(ewBccs

286
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act and any and all regulations imposed by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality and the Wyoming State Engineer.” As redrafted, this performance objective would address the BLM’s concerns regarding water quality, recognize the limits of the BLM’s jurisdiction, and not unreasonably constrain the Operators’ ability to develop the JIDPA. 

c

L-90 73 A1 Performance 

Objectives 

Technical Information 

The BLM’s eleventh proposed outcome-based performance objective is not actually an outcome-based objective at all. Although EnCana continually seeks out new technologies and development methods in order to effectively recover the natural gas resource while reducing impacts on the environment, the BLM should not mandate the use of state-of-the-art technologies. The use of new technologies involves a number of factors, including economics and the availability and effectiveness of the technology, which are beyond the BLM’s purview. Further, because neither the BLM nor the industry regulate or define “state-of-the-art technologies” there is no reasonable, objective, or fair means to determine if “state-of-the-art technology” is being used. Finally, the BLM has failed to analyze how state-of-the-art technology will lessen or decrease impacts. It is possible that “state-of-the-art technology” will have additional adverse impacts not considered in the JIDP DEIS. EnCana has demonstrated its willingness to utilize new and innovative drilling and development techniques, but it is unreasonable for the BLM to mandate the use of unproven technologies simply because they are “state-of-the-art.” This requirement must be removed entirely. 

S

L-90 74 A1 Performance 

Objectives 

The final performance objective identified on page 2-27 would encourage the Operators to participate and support peer-reviewed research regarding the impacts of oil and gas development. Once again, however, this is not an outcome-based performance objective, but rather an attempt to require the Operators to fund additional studies. It is inappropriate for the BLM to mandate participation in off-site wildlife studies of any kind. This requirement must be removed entirely from the BLM’s list of performance objectives. As the BLM is aware, EnCana has proposed compensatory mitigation as part of its proposed action and, if implemented, wildlife monitoring and studies could be funded through such 

BroowdOHsWc

a

287
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

means. a

L-90 77 A Conditions of 

Approval 

Surface Disturbance 

The first proposed condition of approval (“COA”) would require the operators to track surface disturbance and to provide the BLM with GPS data for all facilities and reclaimed areas within 30 days. First, as the managing agency, it is the BLM’s responsibility to track surface disturbance, not the Operators. Second, the BLM’s 30-day requirement is unrealistic and unnecessary. It would be more reasonable for the BLM to require Operators to submit surface disturbance information annually or semiannually. 

BrctcmeaBtEacredta

L-90 78 A1 Conditions of 

Approval 

Technical Information 

The second COA on page 2-27 would limit the size and type of well locations or pads which could be constructed in the JIDPA. As noted above, the BLM is attempting to remove the Operators’ flexibility to develop the Jonah Field by mandating unreasonable restrictions on the size of well pads and locations. Although EnCana is working to minimize the size of its well pads, the BLM’s expectations are not feasible. Topography and vegetation often dictate the size of and access to a well location. In previous authorizations for the JIDPA, the BLM approved an average 6.47 acres of new initial surface disturbance for each well location and associated resource roads and pipeline rights-of-way. See Decision Record Modified Jonah II EA and FONSI, pg. 15. The sentence should be redrafted as follows: “The Operators would limit new initial surface disturbance for well locations to the smallest feasible and practical size while taking into account safety concerns and topographic limitations.” 

TSuddatOHCauis FrsemsfOsosct

288
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

tiiTtp

L-90 79 A1 Conditions of 

Approval 

Technical Information 

The fourth proposed COA would require “hard-line” or centralized fracturing procedures whenever surface spacing is less than 1 well pad every 40 acres. It is inappropriate for the BLM to mandate a particular type of fracturing or “fracing” procedure. If anything, this requirement should be included in operator-committed measures rather than as an unreasonable BLM mandate. Further, it may be technically impossible to use central pad fracing technique on 40-acre spacing, and it may even lead to increased surface disturbance, especially in situations where the frac lines could not follow existing roads. This requirement should be redrafted as follows: “Central pad fracturing techniques would be encouraged for all well pads when surface density is ≥ 1 pad/40 acres if practical, feasible, and economic.” 

BwaisemrtuWtit bpfti“tAmtOstrewc

L-90 80 A1 Conditions of 

Approval 

Technical Information 

The final proposed COA on page 2-27 would require the Operators to utilize flareless completions for all wells in the JIDPA. As the BLM is aware, the Wyoming DEQ, not the BLM, has jurisdiction over flaring procedures and air emissions in Wyoming. In fact, the Wyoming DEQ has recently issued regulations regarding flaring in the Pinedale Anticline and Jonah Project areas. As such, it is neither appropriate nor necessary for the BLM to 

TNOofCcn

289
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

impose this requirement. If the BLM intends to maintain this requirement, it should be redrafted as follows: “Operators would comply with all Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality regulations regarding flaring in the JIDPA.” 

pcwuipfnfeateodo

L-90 81 A1 Conditions of 

Approval 

Technical Information 

On page 2-28, the JIDP DEIS suggests that the BLM will require the Operators to begin piping all produced water and condensate to central facilities no later than January 1, 2008. The piping of produced fluids and condensate should be an operator-committed measure rather than a BLM mandated requirement. Further, this measure must be applied only to newly constructed facilities; the BLM does not have the authority to mandate the installation of pipelines from existing facilities at this time. If the BLM intends to mandate this technique, the date by which piping facilities must be installed should be dependent on the date the JIDP ROD is actually issued; the Operators should have 18 to 24 months after the ROD is issued to have a system for piping fluids in place. 

IOtdOit btTac

L-90 82 A1 Conditions of 

Approval 

Soils The second COA on page 2-28, the sixth overall 

proposed COA, requires operators to eliminate or minimize surface and sediment discharge in the JIDPA and to comply with Wyoming DEQ requirements for storm water discharge. First, this requirement is unnecessary because there is no evidence that soil erosion will be a significant problem at this time. Second, storm water discharge specifications are beyond the jurisdiction of the BLM and are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Wyoming DEQ and the EPA. Finally, the BLM does not have the authority, and has not performed the necessary NEPA analysis, to mandate the proposed “retrofitting” of existing facilities. Rather than attempting to mitigate and manage matters which are beyond its jurisdiction, the BLM should redraft this 

SBaswis aaaTth

290
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

requirement by deleting the second and third sentences. As redrafted the provision would read: “To eliminate or minimize surface sediment discharge, all well pad and road construction shall comport to Wyoming DEQ and EPA storm water discharge specifications, standards, and permitting requirements.” 

wpep

L-90 83 A1 Conditions of 

Approval 

Technical Information 

The eighth proposed COA, the fourth bullet on page 2-28, requires the centralization of facilities to the maximum extent possible. As currently drafted, this COA is unreasonably restrictive and impractical. Requiring centralized facilities may actually require greater surface disturbance in some parts of the field because of topography and other constraints. Centralized facilities only become practical when 10-acre or less surface density is authorized and may become an important tool to reduce LOP surface disturbance. Further, the requirement is unreasonably vague because it does not clearly state that it applies only to new facilities. The performance objective should be redrafted as follows: “Utilize techniques to centralize new development and production facilities where feasible and practical.” 

TF

L-90 84 A1 Conditions of 

Approval 

Soils The Preferred Alternative’s ninth proposed COA 

regarding the installation of hydraulic structures is poorly defined and beyond the jurisdiction of the BLM. Depending on the size and nature of the structure, the installation or modification of hydraulic structures may be regulated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the Wyoming DEQ, and the EPA. This requirement is also unreasonably expensive and unduly burdensome given the fact the BLM has not completed soils analysis or modeling to demonstrate that such provisions are necessary. This proposed condition of approval should be completely eliminated. 

IwCipsprueuotctaf

L-90 85 A1 Conditions of 

Approval 

Soils Similarly, the BLM’s tenth proposed COA, regarding 

engineering construction so as to minimize sedimentation, is poorly defined and beyond the jurisdiction of the BLM. Depending on the nature and size of the construction activity, the engineering and design of construction may be regulated by the United 

SF

291
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

States Army Corps of Engineers, the Wyoming DEQ, and the EPA. Because this subject matter is extensively regulated, there is no reason for the BLM to regulate sedimentation and this COA should be eliminated. 

L-90 86 A1 Conditions of 

Approval 

Technical Information 

The BLM’s eleventh potential COA regarding closed drilling systems is likewise unreasonable. As the BLM is aware, drill cuttings must be buried in a pit within the JIDPA and, if not buried on site, the transportation of cuttings and fluids will lead to increased traffic, and increased surface disturbance in other parts of the JIDPA. There is simply no justifiable reason to eliminate the use of on-site pits to bury cuttings. Further, the requirement to have pits vacuumed or evaporated in less than 60 days is not economic or practical given the fact that fluids would be frozen several months of the year. This requirement is particularly concerning because the BLM has not indicated why such a restrictive and impractical requirement is necessary. This measure should be an operator-committed practice to be used when practical, economic, and necessary to minimize new initial surface disturbance. 

TsaichOdpetrtsJsTc

L-90 87 A Conditions of 

Approval 

Noise The BLM’s twelfth potential COA, requiring new 

compressor sites to be located away from noise sensitive areas, is generally acceptable to EnCana, although it is not well defined. The BLM has failed to map or identify noise sensitive areas. This requirement must be clarified further in the Final EIS. 

NinhcaTtps

L-90 88 A1 Conditions of 

Approval 

Soils On page 2-28, the thirteenth potential COA would 

require the Operators to design topsoil stockpiles to maintain viability and to minimize surface disturbance; unfortunately, these two requirements are inherently contradictory. If topsoil is stored to maintain viability, it must be spread out so that air and water can reach the soil, which leads to additional surface disturbance. EnCana agrees that steps must be taken in order to 

TF

292
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

maintain the viability of topsoil, and is currently developing and researching several techniques to maintain topsoil viability, but cannot be expected to comply with this potentially contradictory requirement. The BLM should clarify this potential COA in the Final EIS. 

L-90 89 A1 Conditions of 

Approval 

Wildlife The fourteenth potential COA, the tenth bullet listed on 

page 2-28, regarding locating facilities within specific distances around raptor nests is acceptable, with proper revision. The word “active” must be inserted into this requirement before the words “raptor nest,” “ferruginous hawk nests,” and “bald eagle nests.” Absent this modification, the requirement is unreasonable, unnecessary, and actually conflicts with the guidance contained in the Pinedale RMP. Thus, the requirement should read “Well pads, access roads, and other aboveground facilities would not be located within 825 feet of any active raptor nest, within 1,000 feet of active ferruginous hawk nests, and within 2,640 feet of active bald eagle nests.” 

Abcwfb

L-90 90 A1 Conditions of 

Approval 

Wildlife The final COA listed on page 2-28 relates to seasonal 

restrictions around certain raptor nests and feeding areas. To the extent these requirements are consistent with the existing Pinedale RMP, they are acceptable to EnCana. The limitation regarding bald eagle winter foraging areas, however, is unacceptable because it is not in conformance with the existing Pinedale RMP and should be eliminated. Additionally, the requirement is vague because the BLM has not attempted to define where bald eagle winter foraging areas are located, or the types of conditions present in bald eagle winter foraging areas. Finally, as written, this requirement could be construed to include any lands within the Pinedale Resource Area, much less the JIDPA, as bald eagles forage during the winter months wherever carrion or other food supplies may be located. 

TacrFFBdama

L-90 91 A1 Conditions of 

Approval 

Wildlife The first, second, and third bullet points on page 2-29, all 

relate to surface disturbing activities near sage grouse leks and sage-grouse brood-rearing habitat. It appears that each of these conditions of approval are based upon Wyoming Instruction Memorandum 2004-057 issued by the Wyoming State Office on August 16, 2004. This requirement is unacceptable because it is vague and ambiguous and because it does not clearly define 

Aa

293
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

the limitations which may be imposed on the Operators. First, the BLM has failed to map sage-grouse nesting or early brood-rearing habitat. Second, this requirement would seem to allow the BLM to regulate any and all areas within the JIDPA because it states that sagegrouse habitat beyond the 2.0-mile buffer would also be protected. The word “active” must be inserted into this requirement to state that only active leks and identified habitat will be monitored. Finally, the JIDP EIS should be clarified to require compliance with BLM state policy on sage-grouse, not the policy currently reflected in Wyoming State Instruction Memorandum 2005-057 which the State Director has indicated will be modified in the near future. Leaving the provisions as currently drafted could potentially create a situation where the JIDP EIS contains restrictions which are different from or even conflict with those included in the revised Instruction Memorandum. 

L-90 92 A1 Conditions of 

Approval 

Wildlife The nineteenth requirement, page 2-29, proposes to 

have the Operators inventory greater sage-grouse seasonal habitats within the JIDPA. This requirement is unacceptable for several reasons. First, it is the BLM’s responsibility to manage habitat for wildlife and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department’s responsibility to monitor and maintain wildlife populations within the State of Wyoming. Second, the JIDP DEIS itself notes that the BLM and Wyoming Game and Fish are currently mapping sage-grouse habitat in the JIDPA; there is no need for the Operators to duplicate these studies. See JIDP DEIS, pg. 3-67. Finally, the BLM has not defined what seasonal sage-grouse habitat has not been mapped or defined within the JIDPA. Presumably, this analysis was done in the Jonah I EA, the Jonah Field II EIS, the Modified Jonah II EA, the JIDP DEIS, and the annual monitoring conducted by EnCana and provided to the BLM. 

Aa

L-90 93 A1 Conditions of 

Approval 

Wildlife Similarly, the twentieth COA, page 2-29, requires the 

operators to map prairie dog towns within the JIDPA. This requirement is unacceptable for several reasons. First, it is the BLM’s responsibility to manage habitat for wildlife and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department’s responsibility to monitor and maintain wildlife populations within the State of Wyoming. Second, the BLM has not defined what prairie dog towns have not been mapped within the JIDPA. Presumably, this analysis was done in 

Aacca

294
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

the Jonah I EA, the Jonah Field II EIS, the Modified Jonah II EA, the JIDP DEIS, and the annual monitoring funded by the Operators and provided to the BLM. 

L-90 94 A1 Conditions of 

Approval 

Wildlife The twenty-first requirement, page 2-29, requires the 

Operators to maintain raptor nesting territories either within or adjacent to the JIDPA. This requirement is unreasonable and, at best, should be considered as part of EnCana’s Proposed Voluntary Compensatory Mitigation program. It is further inappropriate for the BLM to require this as part of the Preferred Alternative given the fact that the raptor nesting structures which the Operators have installed to date have not attracted nesting raptors. There is little reason to continue activities which have proven to be unsuccessful. 

Rw

L-90 95 A1 Conditions of 

Approval 

Transportation The twenty-second proposed COA, page 2-29, requires 

the Operators to limit traffic and OHV to BLM roads and trails and to avoid travel on non-all weather roads during saturated soil conditions. Although this condition is generally acceptable to EnCana, it should be redrafted to simply state that: “The Operators will conduct operations in such a way to prevent unnecessary erosion and damage during saturated soil conditions.” 

TF“wr

L-90 96 A1 Conditions of 

Approval 

Transportation In the twenty-third proposed COA, page 2-29, the BLM 

would require the Operators to inventory all roads and trails within the JIDPA and provide the monitoring data to the BLM. This requirement is unnecessary and unrelated to the Operators’ proposal. The Operators already provide the BLM with detailed information regarding any roads created or improved as a result of oil and gas development operations through the permitting process. Conducting inventories on BLM administered lands is solely the responsibility of the BLM, not the Operators. 

Tdeweaa

L-90 97 A1 Conditions of 

Approval 

The twenty-fourth requirement, page 2-29, requiring the Operators to maintain the NSO restriction around Sand Draw, is acceptable to EnCana. To clarify the requirement, the BLM should define the area encumbered by the NSO restriction around Sand Draw. Thus, the requirement should be redrafted as follows: “No surface occupancy would be allowed within 300 feet of Sand Draw.” 

TF

L-90 98 A1 Conditions of 

Approval 

Vegetation The twenty-fifth requirement, page 2-29, establishes 

specific guidelines for plant growth during reclamation. This condition, as currently drafted, is unacceptable for a 

Baw

295
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

number of reasons. First, the provision conflicts with the growth and reclamation standards and requirements contained on pages B-4 and B-5 of the BLM’s Reclamation Plan contained in Appendix B to Appendix G. Second, this requirement is unreasonably restrictive because it fails to take into account climate and other weather conditions. The requirement should be redrafted to say that the growth and reclamation standards should be goals rather than mandates; the Operators cannot guarantee growth. 

r8cc8cc

L-90 99 A1 Conditions of 

Approval 

The first bullet point proposed COA on page 2-30, the twenty-sixth overall, requires the Operators to maximize interim reclamation on all well pads and production facilities. While EnCana shares the BLM’s desire to maximize reclamation, and will include details on interim and contemporaneous reclamation in its reclamation plan, EnCana suggests the following potential revision: “To the extent practical, feasible, and safe, the Operators would maximize interim (production phase) well pad reclamation (reclaim up to the wellhead, or up to the wellhead and dehydrators and separators on those pads with central production facilities).” 

TF

L-90 100 A1 Conditions of 

Approval 

The final proposed COA in Section 2.14.2 requires the Operators to submit “field-wide interim and long-term reclamation plans to the BLM within one year from the date of the ROD for the JIDP EIS.” This requirement is acceptable to EnCana, although it should be redefined to require each operator to submit its own reclamation plan. The Final EIS should also clarify how the reclamation plan required by this COA will interact with the reclamation plan currently included in Appendix G of the JIDP DEIS. EnCana suggests the following language: “Field-wide interim and long-term reclamation plans would be submitted to BLM for approval by each of the Operators no later than one year from the date of this ROD. Site-specific reclamation plans would be incorporated into all Surface Use Plans for APDs and Plans of Development for ROWs. A reclamation quality assurance/quality control monitoring program would be implemented by each of the Operators until development 

and interim (production phase) reclamation is completed to BLM standards. If ongoing monitoring demonstrates that modifications to the reclamation plan are justified, the Operators would modify their reclamations plans.” 

BriRQmw“lorJf

296
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

L-90 102 D On-site 

Mitigation 

Wildlife Conditions of 

Approval 

The first proposed monitoring requirement would obligate the Operators to continue supporting existing wildlife studies. As currently drafted, this requirement is unreasonable because it does not establish the type of wildlife studies which may be necessary or establish a time limit on such studies. Further, this requirement is unreasonably vague because it does not define or list the “existing studies.” Finally, additional monitoring and studies should be addressed by the BLM either through agency budget requests, a voluntary compensatory mitigation measure, or an operator-committed practice. As already noted, EnCana addresses its willingness to fund additional wildlife monitoring studies in its Voluntary Compensatory Mitigation Proposal. 

AiMRAacca

L-90 103 A On-site 

Mitigation 

Water Resources 

Conditions of Approval 

The second proposed monitoring requirement relates to groundwater monitoring. This requirement is generally acceptable to EnCana, although the requirement for additional monitoring needs to be greatly clarified by the BLM. First, the requirement should be clarified to state that the groundwater monitoring program would only include wells permitted with the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office; it would be impractical, if not impossible, for the Operators to monitor wells which are not properly permitted with the State of Wyoming. Second, the necessary testing constituents must be negotiated and agreed to by the BLM, Wyoming DEQ, and the Operators. As currently drafted, the requirement could require the Operators to test for literally thousands of potential constituents at an unreasonable cost to the Operators. Finally, the requirement must be clarified to clearly define the scope of testing, both geographically and chemically. Monitoring should be limited to testing for quantitative determination of the constituents listed in EnCana Appendix 6 to these comments. The BLM and the Operators should work together to develop a proposed groundwater monitoring plan which could be included as an appendix to the Final EIS for the JIDP. 

TmrEcsPimloc

L-90 104 A1 On-site 

Mitigation 

Soils Conditions of 

Approval 

The third proposed monitoring requirement on page 2-30 requires the Operators to conduct soil and vegetation surveys throughout the JIDPA. This requirement appears unnecessary because the BLM is currently conducting soil erosion modeling which will be incorporated into the Final EIS for the JIDP. Further, the JIDP DEIS, as well as the previous NEPA documents for 

S

297
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

the Jonah Field, contains information regarding the soil types and vegetation present in the Jonah Field. See JIDP DEIS, pgs. 3-20 - 36, 3-49 - 3-56; Jonah II DEIS, pgs. 3-11 - 3-14, 3-17 - 3-18 Modified Jonah II EA, pgs. 88-90, 95-96. Given this abundance of information, the BLM has not justified why additional information is necessary, or how this information differs from that already developed. Further, as currently drafted, this proposed monitoring requirement is vague because it does not define the type of soil or vegetation studies that might be required. Because this monitoring requirement seemingly ignores the existing data developed regarding the Jonah Field, and because the BLM has failed to justify its inclusion, it should be eliminated from the Final EIS. 

L-90 105 A1 On-site 

Mitigation 

Water Resources 

Conditions of Approval 

Similarly, the fourth proposed monitoring requirement relates to the development of a “sixth-level watershed” model for the JIDPA. According to statements made by Prill Mecham during a public meeting with the Operators on March 7, 2005, the BLM is currently preparing a sixthlevel watershed model which will be incorporated into the Final EIS for the JIDP. As such, this proposed monitoring requirement should be deleted from the Final EIS. 

Ttagc

L-90 106 A1 On-site 

Mitigation 

Wildlife Conditions of 

Approval 

The fifth proposed monitoring requirement, pg. 2-30, would obligate the Operators to develop a plan to monitor the population trends of all federally-listed, proposed candidates, BWS, and other species including amphibians, reptiles, passerine birds, and small mammals, throughout the JIDPA. This requirement is unreasonable and unnecessary. As indicated on page 3-69 of the JIDP DEIS, only one federally-listed, proposed, or candidate species has the potential to occur in the JIDPA, the bald eagle. The JIDP DEIS notes, however, that bald eagles are uncommon in the JIDPA and that they occur in “such low numbers or in such small and widely scattered populations that an encounter during field development and operation is unlikely.” See JIDP DEIS, pg. 3-69. Further, of the approximately fifty (50) BWS, only seventeen (17) have some recorded occurrence in the JIDPA and that information comes directly from the wildlife monitoring currently funded by the Operators. See JIDP DEIS pgs. 3-72 – 3-73. In other words, the JIDP DEIS itself demonstrates that the most recent and accurate information regarding BWS comes 

Aacca

298
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

from the studies currently funded by the Operators. There is simply no need for the Operators to develop a plan for additional studies. Finally, the BLM, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department have the responsibility to monitor wildlife and wildlife habitat. The BLM should not impose additional wildlife monitoring requirements as part of the Preferred Alternative. Rather, additional monitoring and studies should be addressed by the BLM either through agency budget requests, a voluntary compensatory mitigation measure, or an operatorcommitted practice. As already noted, EnCana addresses its willingness to fund additional wildlife monitoring studies in its Voluntary Compensatory Mitigation Proposal. 

L-90 107 A1 Conditions of 

Approval 

Water Resources 

Soils The sixth proposed monitoring requirement, the final 

bullet point on page 2-30, requires the Operators to monitor first flush total suspended solids in coordination with the Wyoming DEQ. This requirement is beyond the jurisdiction of the BLM and should not be included in the ROD for the JIDP. As the BLM is aware, stormwater permitting and monitoring requirements rest exclusively with the Wyoming DEQ and the EPA. Further, this requirement is unnecessary as the BLM has failed to prepare soil studies and erosion modeling at this time demonstrating either that erosion or suspended solids will be a particular concern in the JIDPA. This requirement should be eliminated from the Final EIS or the need reassessed after the ongoing soil modeling is completed. 

Fadc(oftdnoslofSvAcs“HwhCiPTr

299
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

ncCTrpco

L-90 108 A1 On-site 

Mitigation 

Wildlife Conditions of 

Approval 

The seventh proposed monitoring requirement, page 2-31, relates to monitoring greater sage-grouse movements to determine if the populations are migratory. The BLM has failed to define what assistance would be required from the Operators and therefore this requirement is unduly vague. Further, additional monitoring and studies should be addressed by the BLM either through agency budget requests or a voluntary compensatory mitigation measure. As already noted, EnCana addresses its willingness to fund additional wildlife monitoring studies in its proposed compensatory mitigation package. 

Aacca

L-90 109 A1 On-site 

Mitigation 

Transportation The ninth and tenth monitoring proposals, page 2-31, 

would require the operators to monitor traffic on all collector roads, to monitor the number of visits to well pads, and to prepare a report for the BLM annually. The BLM has not indicated why this requirement is necessary, or how they expect the Operators to comply (actual monitoring versus sampling). As such, these requirements are unnecessary and should be deleted. 

Tgrisawwf“pJnrc

L-90 110 A1 On-site 

Mitigation 

Noise The eleventh proposed monitoring study, page 2-31, 

would require the Operators to monitor noise near certain “noise sensitive areas.” Once again, the BLM has failed to demonstrate why this requirement is necessary, identify noise-sensitive resources, or define testing protocols. As such, this requirement is unreasonably vague and ambiguous and should be deleted entirely. 

NinhcaL

300
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

atps

L-90 111 A1 On-site 

Mitigation 

Wildlife The twelfth proposed monitoring requirement, page 2-

31, relates to monitoring pronghorn numbers on the crucial winter range north and south of the JIDPA. First, the JIDP DEIS notes that “the proposed project would not affect any known pronghorn crucial winter range or bottlenecks; therefore, it would not contribute to cumulative impacts to these habitat features.” See JIDP DEIS, pg. 4-90. Because the infill project is not expected to have cumulative impacts on pronghorn the BLM has not demonstrated why this monitoring requirement should be conducted. Second, this proposal clearly requires monitoring beyond the boundaries of the JIDPA and, as such, should only be considered as part of a voluntary compensatory mitigation effort. See Instruction Memorandum 2004-069. EnCana addresses its willingness to fund additional wildlife monitoring studies in its proposed compensatory mitigation package. 

AaccaCJn

L-90 112 A1 On-site 

Mitigation 

Wildlife The final proposed monitoring requirement, page 2-31, 

requires the Operators to monitor certain raptors, sagegrouse, and various other species. The requirement is unduly vague because it does not address where, when, or how the wildlife would be monitored. Finally, EnCana addresses its willingness to fund additional wildlife studies in its Voluntary Compensatory Mitigation Proposal. 

AiMR

L-90 113 A Site-Specific 

Conditions of Approval 

Section 2.14.3 - Site Specific Conditions of Approval, Mitigation Monitoring, Surveying, and Best Management Practices First, the JIDP DEIS is not clear how or why the requirements listed in Section 2.14.3 are different from the proposed requirements and COAs discussed in Section 2.14.2. The BLM should either clarify how these requirements are different, or simply include them in the list of potential mitigation measures which may be utilized by the Operators. 

S

L-90 114 A1 Site-Specific 

Conditions of Approval 

Transportation The first proposed “site-specific COA,” page 2-31, 

relates to the conversion of resource roads to two-track roads during interim reclamation. EnCana agrees that resource roads should be converted to two-track roads 

PL

301
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

whenever feasible. Of course, given the topography in much of the JIDPA, two-track roads may not be safe or appropriate because of potential erosion effects. EnCana suggests redrafting this requirement as follows: “Convert resource roads to two-track roads during interim reclamation where practical, economic, and safe.” 

L-90 115 A1 Site-Specific 

Conditions of Approval 

Visual Resources 

The second and third proposed site-specific monitoring requirements, relating to nighttime lighting, were probably borrowed from the Questar Winter Drilling Proposal and have little applicability to the JIDPA. These requirements are unreasonable, potentially unsafe, and simply unnecessary given the fact the Jonah Field is located a considerable distance from any occupied residence. These requirements should be removed from the Preferred Alternative. 

TtrawcsrfarF

L-90 116 A1 Site-Specific 

Conditions of Approval 

Soils The fourth proposed site-specific COA relates to spoil 

pile reclamation and contouring. EnCana intends to contemporaneously reclaim topsoil to the greatest extent possible, and is beginning to experiment with moving topsoil from a recently disturbed area to an area where reclamation is taking place so that topsoil will not have to be stockpiled. However, the BLM should be aware that contouring spoil piles will actually lead to increased surface disturbance, increased habitat removal, and will damage the viability of additional topsoil. As such, this requirement should be eliminated. 

Tiraspmtem

L-90 117 A1 Analysis Section 2.16 - Summary of Environmental Impacts 

In the Final EIS, Table 2.12 should be corrected as follows. First, disturbance estimates should be clarified that they represent initial disturbance and do not account for interim reclamation. Second, Table 2.12 incorrectly lists 3,597 total well pads for the Preferred Alternative. On several occasions, including the public meetings on March 21st and 23rd, the BLM repeatedly indicated that it would not approve 3,100 wells in the Preferred Alternative. Further, as discussed in more detail below, and apparently reflected in new information presented by the BLM during the public meetings in Rock Springs and Pinedale, Table 2.12 incorrectly calculates tax revenue 

TanF

302
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

and royalty payments for the Preferred Alternative by suggesting the recovery value will be approximately the same as that for Alternative G. The BLM has recently suggested that the recovery volume for the Preferred Alternative will be approximately the same as for Alternative F. Third, the Compensatory Mitigation row should be eliminated in the Final EIS, because the values shown are not consistent with EnCana and BP’s compensatory mitigation program as originally proposed.

L-90 118 B Analysis CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 For the sake of clarity ... the JIDP FEIS should ... clearly reference the Jonah I EA (BLM 1994), the Jonah II EIS (BLM 1998), and the modified Jonah II EA (BLM 2000) in order to accurately inform the public of the significant NEPA analysis that has been conducted for the JIDPA, to give the public a more complete understanding of how development in the JIDPA has progressed over the years, to describe how development has impacted the environment in the JIDPA, and to provide the reader a more complete understanding of the infill development proposal. 

TasnSttlead

L-90 119 A Air Quality Section 3.1.2 - Air Quality 

In the second paragraph on page 3-9 the JIDP DEIS contains the following statement: “Residents of the Pinedale area consider visibility impairment to be a major concern.” The BLM should avoid making qualitative statements such as this in Chapter 3. First, the BLM identified and disclosed key public issues in Section 2.1.1 and in Appendix C; there is no reason to duplicate such statements again in Chapter 3. Second, the statement is a comment or perception, not a description of the existing environment. Finally, the comment adds little credible or factual information, and may actually create the misperception that there are air quality issues in the town of Pinedale. As reflected in the JIDP DEIS itself, the air quality in the Pinedale area is currently excellent. See JIDP DEIS, pgs. 3-10, 3-14 – 3-20. The JIDP DEIS indicates that the existing air quality in the Pinedale area will not be significantly affected by any of the alternatives considered in the EIS. See JIDP DEIS, pgs. 4-4, 4-13 – 4-26. The BLM should delete this inappropriate and potentially misleading statement in the 

NVBmv(Ips

303
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Final EIS. 

L-90 120 B Air Quality In the fourth paragraph on page 3-9, the JIDP DEIS 

includes the following information: “Visibility in the JIDPA air quality CIAA is considered very good with an average SVR of over 93.2 miles (150.0 km) (Malm 2000).” The JIDP DEIS presents visibility monitoring data in Figures 3.2 through 3.4 that substantiate this statement. In fact, Figures 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 indicate that visibility impairment in the Bridger Wilderness Area near Pinedale is non-existent and in some instances actually demonstrates improvement for the period of 1989 through 2003. Inexplicably, BLM never provides the reader with a complete interpretation of this data in the JIDP DEIS. The BLM should insert language discussing the monitoring data in the Final EIS in order to fully inform the reader. 

TsWmvs1rdmpwis orFisq

L-90 121 B Air Quality The third paragraph on page 3-10 contains the following 

assertion: “The USFS has indicated that the current green line values are set too high (personal communication, December 2004, with Susan Caplan, BLM Air Quality Specialist).” The BLM should not reference unsubstantiated, unverified, hearsay such as in this in the JIDP DEIS. As far as EnCana is aware, the Forest Service has not indicated in writing, initiated a rule-making, or otherwise announced or disclosed, in any manner, its intention to modify or change the Level of Concern for deposition. Until such time as the Forest Service formally announces its intention to modify the Level of Concern, the above statement is misleading. Further, the BLM does not have jurisdiction over air quality or deposition, thus the BLM should refrain from commenting on the appropriateness of matters which are beyond its authority and control. This statement must be removed from the Final EIS. Additionally, in the Final EIS, the BLM should provide additional information on the Levels of Concern, how they were developed by the Forest Service, and their regulatory impact and enforceability. 

BfwsHUpWtcdBaHrdFFEor

L-90 122 B Air Quality The BLM includes, but does not discuss the information T

304
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

expressed in Figures 3.5 - 3.10. The BLM should include a discussion of these figures in the Final EIS. These figures demonstrate that deposition levels in the area surrounding the JIDPA are well below the levels of concern and that the concentrations of nitrate, ammonium, sulfur dioxide, and sulfates have all remained stable, or even decreased, in the past several years, despite the increase in oil and gas development activities in the JIDPA and the Pinedale Anticline Project Area. 

oTlTafd

L-90 123 A Analysis Section 3.1.3 - Topography 

The first sentence in the second paragraph of Section 3.3.1, page 3-20, states that: “Natural gas development in the JIDPA now dominates the landscape, with over 500 wells and associated roads and pipelines.” This sentence improperly confuses personal visual impacts with topographical impacts. The JIDPA covers approximately 30,500 acres, of which only 4,200 acres can be disturbed at any one time under existing authorizations. This is approximately less than 14% disturbance in the JIDPA. Further, EnCana’s own analysis demonstrates that less than 3,500 acres have been disturbed to date in the JIDPA, much of which has already been successfully reclaimed. The BLM should delete this sentence and refrain from making potentially misleading and non-objective statements in the Final EIS. 

Tt

L-90 124 B Mineral 

Resources 

Section 3.1.4.1 - Mineral Resources The description of the mineral resource potential in the second paragraph of page 3-23 is not adequate and does not accurately inform the public of the unique qualities of the Jonah Field. The JIDP EIS should characterize the Jonah Field more completely by comparing it to other natural gas fields in the geographic region. A discussion of per well recovery and original gas in place (“OGIP”) per acre for the Jonah Field and other fields in Wyoming would be a useful comparison to inform the public of the unique qualities of this particular natural gas field. Currently, the Jonah Field produces almost 250 BCF of natural gas a year, or 13.5% of all the natural gas produced in Wyoming. In terms of the quantity of gas produced in Wyoming, the Jonah Field is second only to the Powder River Basin, which 

Trd

305
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

encompasses millions of acres in Campbell, Sheridan, and Johnson Counties in northeast Wyoming. Compared to other gas fields in southwest Wyoming, the OGIP for the Jonah Field is estimated to be more than 10,500 BCF compared to 2,933 BCF within the substantially larger 81,920 acre Bruff Field. On an acre by acre comparison, the Jonah Field contains approximately 0.5 BCF per acre compared to 0.036 BCF per acre in the Bruff Field, 0.022 BCF per acre in the Fontenelle Field, and 0.011 BCF per acre in the Wamsutter-Continental Divide Natural Gas Field. Thus, the Jonah Field contains approximately 25 times more OGIP and gas reserves per acre than other fields in southwest Wyoming, and the oil reserves (from condensate) are approximately 45 times higher than other fields in southwest Wyoming. The BLM must include additional information regarding the uniqueness of the mineral resource in the Jonah Field in the Final EIS for several reasons. First, the information regarding the quality and quantity of the resource are important to the public. Second, this information demonstrates the need for additional development in this unique and world-class resource. The level of development necessary to recover the resource in the JIDPA will not be necessary in the vast majority of fields in Wyoming. Finally, without this information, the public will be unable to fully understand the justification for additional development, and be unable to properly evaluate the impacts of infill development in the JIDPA. 

L-90 125 B Water 

Resources 

Section 3.1.6.1 - Surface Water Resources The sixth full paragraph on page 3-41 states that: “The quantity of sediment and associated salt loads within ephemeral flows from the JIDPA is unknown. However, Alkali Creek and several associated watersheds have been listed as salinity concerns under the designation of “Long Island Watershed.” This statement is unclear and presents incomplete and unexplained information. First, by whom have the Alkali Creek and other watersheds been listed as having a salinity concern? Second, what criteria were used to determine these watersheds were a particular salinity concern? Third, what lands or watersheds are included within the “Long Island Watershed?” 

T1RbUwr

oSsadL0dR

306
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

RRTf

L-90 126 A Water 

Resources 

The same paragraph on page 3-41 additionally states that: “Stream surveys of Alkali Creek down stream from the JIDPA have noted drops in the channel base level (headcuts) that, while not within the immediate area of the JIDPA, have the potential to be affected and eventually affect the channels within the JIDPA as well as the salt and sediment loads coming from the affected watersheds.” First, the document does not disclose when the stream surveys were conducted, or by whom they were conducted. Second, the statement suggesting that development in the JIDPA has the potential to affect streams outside the JIDPA is neither supported with analysis or evidence. The referenced headcut is located more than twenty miles outside the JIDPA. This misleading and potentially inaccurate statement should be removed from the Final EIS. 

TdT8sssordTsfgGm

L-90 127 A Water 

Resources 

The first paragraph under the heading Groundwater on page 3-44 inaccurately describes the number of permitted groundwater wells within the JIDPA. The JIDP DEIS states on page 3-44 that more than 130 recognized ground water wells are located within the JIDPA. Map 4.1, on page 4-54, accurately notes that there are only 25 permitted water wells within the JIDPA. The discrepancy likely results from the fact that each water supply well has a permit for each natural gas well it supplies. This discrepancy should be corrected in the Final EIS. 

T“ragTe(

L-90 128 B Vegetation Section 3.2.1.1 - Plant Communities 

On page 3-49, the JIDP DEIS indicates that the definitions of moderate-density sagebrush and lowdensity sagebrush have apparently been recently altered or modified. “Moderate-density sagebrush (formerly referred to as dense sagebrush) was the most common habitat type, occupying approximately 87.2% (26,601 acres) of the JIDPA... The low-density sagebrush (formerly referred to as moderate-density sagebrush) type occupies approximately 8.9% (2,721 acres) of the 

TentiTrddaD

307
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

JIDPA (Table 3.17).” The BLM should explain how or why these definitions have been modified, and how such changes potentially impact the analysis of the JIDPA. Without additional information, these statements are unclear and could be construed to suggest that the actual density of sagebrush in undisturbed areas of the JIDPA has decreased. 

L-90 129 A Surface 

Disturbance 

In the final paragraph before Section 3.2.1.2, on page 3-54, the DEIS indicates that “Approximately 4,200 acres of the JIDPA have been disturbed by existing oil and gas development (see Table 2.3).” Although the BLM has authorized 4,200 acres of initial surface disturbance, that level of disturbance has not actually occurred. According to information gathered by EnCana from satellite images, sideways looking infrared images, and field surveys, less than 3,500 acres have been disturbed within the JIDPA, some of which have been successfully reclaimed. The BLM should correct the Final EIS to state that: “Previous management decisions have authorized the disturbance of 4,200 acres of the JIDPA for oil and gas development. To date, however, approximately 3,500 acres have actually been disturbed by oil and gas activities.” 

St

L-90 130 B Wildlife Section 3.2.2.1 - Big Game/Other Mammals 

On page 3-56, in the second paragraph under the heading Pronghorn Antelope, the JIDP DEIS notes that: “approximately 27,200 acres (2.5%) of pronghorn crucial range in the Sublette Herd Unit have been disturbed.” The Final EIS should provide references for this data and should clarify that this level of disturbance is not only from oil and gas development. 

Fdbm

L-90 131 B Wildlife The third paragraph under the pronghorn heading on 

page 3-56 notes that: “The JIDPA is within the North sub-unit, which has a population objective of 22,000 and an estimated 2001 population of 18,600 (84.5% of objective). The population trend in the North sub-unit has been relatively stable in recent years, ranging from 17,900 head in 1998 to 19,700 in 1994 (WGFD 2001).” This data would seem to indicate that pronghorn populations in the project vicinity are relatively unaffected between the years 1994 and 2001 when the majority of oil and gas development in Jonah and the Pinedale Anticline Fields occurred. In fact, according to 

Ldhso

308
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

the numbers presented in the DEIS, the estimated population has increased from 17,900 head in 1998 to 18,600 head in 2001. Thus, the pronghorn herd has experienced a population increase of approximately 700 animals despite a period of extreme drought conditions and active oil and gas development activities. The BLM should emphasize this population increase and the apparent health of the North sub-unit herd in the Final EIS. 

L-90 132 A Wildlife Analysis Section 3.2.2.2 - Birds 

On page 3-63 and again on page 3-67, the JIDP DEIS suggests that male attendance at sage grouse leks has decreased in the JIDPA and that existing protection measures appear to be inadequate. The BLM should present the basis for this analysis and conclusion. The raw data presented seems to indicate some lek attendance declines in the JIDPA, see Table 3.18, but how does that data compare to declines mentioned for the “entire Upper Green River Basin” or the State of Wyoming? BLM should not rely on unpublished data and uncorroborated personal communications to draw such conclusions. Finally, declines in lek attendance may indicate population reductions, but BLM has provided no “cause and effect” data for the reader. 

TjbaJd

L-90 133 A Social One significant concern ... is that the description of the 

existing socioeconomic conditions in both Chapter 3 and in the Technical Support Document are marred by inappropriate and misleading statements attributed to personal communications. The BLM should not allow unsubstantiated and uncorroborated information to be included in the JIDP DEIS. The BLM must carefully scrutinize the entire socioeconomics section of the Chapter 3 and the Technical Support Document and remove all such statements. 

ItnSSb

CeTD(cWf(bte

309
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

UrsUscunATrcgGadrara(vGcomCufADoanw(CWbp(B

310
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

UbcShhloT1aha csnpCWCwfIoantt3aUcodtW1AdlnadO

311
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

di2ww(oaaAAf4aoeidla(GId1CnodddTA

L-90 134 A Social Section 3.4.3 – Housing 

The second paragraph on page 3-97 ... contains several “personal” statements from BLM employees and other members of the community regarding the lack of “acceptable” housing. However, the Wyoming Housing Database Partnership information demonstrates that “there were 4,579 vacant units available for housing in the study area in 2003, with a vacancy rate ranging from 12.8% in Sweetwater County to 31.8% in Sublette County.” See JIDP DEIS, pg. 3-97. The Socioeconomic 

T1oSb“spc

i

312
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Technical Support Document contains similar statements which are unsubstantiated by the data. See Draft Socioeconomic Analysis Technical Support Document, pg. 45-46. The BLM should refrain from including statements in the Final EIS where verifiable data conflicts with “personal statements.” 

iui3Chusif plppachrcrrcsspehbiPpbsufpSatPiebJ

313
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

hPswhpilocAtiqipdsp

L-90 135 A Social Section 3.4.5.1 - Crime 

The “crime” section of Chapter 3 also contains numerous egregious examples of unverified statements. For example, a “personal communication” from Marilyn Filkins suggests that crime rates in Sublette County have increased by 80% since 2000, and that this increase is attributable to oil and gas development. This assertion is completely inappropriate, and is not supported by any empirical evidence. Similarly, in the second full paragraph on page 3-100 the JIDP DEIS additionally states: “Ms. Filkins [Sublette County Attorney] also reports “gang-like behavior from various drilling and pipeline crews.” This statement is equally unsupported, and therefore not only misleading, but also incendiary. The BLM must remove all such inappropriate statements in the JIDP DEIS and the Socioeconomic Technical Support Document. See Draft Socioeconomic Analysis Technical Support Document, pg. 35 - 37, 45 - 46. 

TtT2

3

it

TD(cWf(bteUrsUscunA

314
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

TrcgGadrara(vGcomCufADoanw(CWbp(BUbcShhloT1

315
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

aha csnpCWCwfIoantt3aUcodtW1AdlnadOdi2ww(oaa

316
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

AAf4aoeidla(GId1CnodddTA

L-90 136 A Analysis Despite the fact the JIDP DEIS states that “[t]he use of 

adjectives (e.g., “moderate,” “low,” “negligible”) has been avoided because this EIS is an analytical document,” in the very same paragraph on page 4-1, the JIDP DEIS also states that “Impacts are considered adverse unless identified as beneficial.” The BLM should consistently avoid any references or assumptions regarding the impacts of oil and gas development and should objectively describe the potential impacts of development without making value judgments. The BLM must delete the final sentence of the second paragraph on page 4-1. 

Aadtsbis Tnr

L-90 137 A Analysis The definition of “significance” and “significance criteria,” 

as expressed on page 4-1, is not consistent with the CEQ’s definition of significance. The determination of significance, as defined by the CEQ, relates to the context and the intensity of an activity. Thus, a proposed action must be analyzed in several contexts—such as the immediate vicinity, affected interests, and the locality

TF

317
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

of the federal action. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(a) (2004). Intensity, as defined by the CEQ regulations, refers to severity of the impact, and must take into account both the beneficial and adverse impacts of the proposed federal action. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b) (2004). The BLM should revise its “significance criteria” to be more consistent with the governing CEQ regulations. 

L-90 138 A Analysis On page 4-2, the JIDP DEIS makes the following 

statement: Mitigation and other environmental protection measures are identified across alternatives in Chapter 2. Detailed descriptions of these measures are provided in Appendix A (BLM Standards), and Appendix B (Operatorcommitted practices). It is assumed that the application of identified mitigation and protection measures would reduce impact levels; however, the efficacy of many mitigations is unknown. Therefore, no quantitative variation in impact levels based upon the application of variable mitigations is provided. The JIDP DEIS does not contain “detailed” descriptions of mitigation measures in either Appendix A or Appendix B. As already discussed, Appendix A is merely a list of generic mitigation measures designed for inclusion in a resource management plan. Similarly, Appendix B is a list of operator-committed measures and an indication of EnCana’s—not all of the Operators in the JIDPA—willingness to commit to such measures by alternative. See JIDP DEIS Appendix B-1. Further, the BLM has not disclosed the efficacy of some of the mitigation measures identified in the JIDP DEIS. See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(f) (2004) (requiring agencies to include appropriate mitigation measures not identified in the preferred alternative); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.16(h) (2004) (requiring EISs to include information regarding the means to mitigate adverse effects). By admitting that the efficacy of several proposed mitigation measures is “unknown,” the BLM is inviting potential challenges to the ROD for the JIDP. The BLM must delete any references to the unquantified “potentially lower” impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative, see, e.g., Table E-1, because the BLM has not provided support for such assertions. 

TanF

318
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

L-90 139 A Analysis In the fourth paragraph on page 4-2, the JIDP DEIS 

alleges that: “Additionally, preliminary research and monitoring results indicate significant adverse impacts to many area resources have already occurred with existing development and mitigation requirements.” The BLM has not adequately supported or explained this statement. If preliminary research, which should not be relied on to make such statements, and monitoring results have been analyzed, BLM should present that data in the JIDP DEIS. 

Mtpwoftac

L-90 140 A1 Analysis Surface 

Disturbance 

Section 4.1.3.10 - Topography/BLM Preferred Alternative The JIDP DEIS’s description of potential impacts to topography resulting from the Preferred Alternative is inaccurate. The BLM has not provided supporting data that indicates that the impacts of the Preferred Alternative will be similar to that of the No Action Alternative. The Final EIS for the JIDP should disclose the potential impacts stemming from the Preferred Alternative in a manner consistent with its description of every other alternative. EnCana suggests the following language for insertion into Section 4.1.3.10: An estimated maximum of 12,525 acres of disturbance would occur under the Preferred Alternative (see Table 2.11), 8,678 acres of which would be short-term, because surface disturbance areas not needed for operations would be re-contoured and reseeded within 2 to 4 years after disturbance (e.g., portions of well pads and road ROWs and entire pipeline ROW areas). Longterm LOP disturbance is estimated at 3,847 acres and is anticipated to last for 76 years (250 wells developed per year) and until successful reclamation is achieved (see Table 2.11). An approximate 98% increase in new disturbance and 173% increase in LOP disturbance above the No Action Alternative would occur under the Preferred Alternative, impact duration would be extended at least an additional 13 years (76-year LOP), and significant impacts are anticipated. 

TanF

L-90 141 A Analysis Section 4.1.3.11 - Topography/Cumulative Impacts 

Similarly, on page 4-29, in the discussion of cumulative impacts to topography, the BLM suggests that significant 

TanF

319
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

impacts are only expected under the Proposed Action and Alternatives A, C, D, F, and G. This statement is not supportable. Specifically, BLM indicates that significant impacts “may occur” under the Preferred Alternative, but significant impacts “are anticipated” under Alternative C. The Preferred Alternative would allow 1,611 more acres of disturbance than Alternative C. This statement should be redrafted in the Final EIS to include recognition of the fact that significant cumulative impacts will occur under the Preferred Alternative, or explain why BLM believes only that they “may” occur. 

L-90 A Analysis Mineral 

Resources 

Section 4.1.4 - Mineral Resources The BLM’s description of its responsibilities to encourage the production of domestic energy supplies is generally inadequate. BLM correctly states the objectives of its land management practices in regard to mineral resources. However, the JIDP DEIS also state that: “The primary project impact to mineral resources would be from the depletion of recoverable gas and oil reserves from the Lance Pool and possibly other formations underlying the JIDPA (Table 4.2), and significant impacts are anticipated under most alternatives since these are non-renewable resources. The economic impacts from natural gas and oil recovery are described in Section 4.4.” First, this statement is inconsistent with the information on pages 4-30 - 4-32 which states that significant impacts to mineral resources would only occur from four of the ten Alternatives that were analyzed (Proposed Action, Alternatives A, G, and the Preferred Alternative). Further, as discussed in more detail below, now that the BLM had determined that the Preferred Alternative will result in the waste of 761 BCF of natural gas and 7,230,000 barrels of oil, it is incorrect for the BLM to suggest that the Preferred Alternative will have “significant effects” to mineral resources. Second, it is potentially confusing for the JIDP DEIS to indicate that its management goals are to facilitate and promote mineral resource development and production, while suggesting that the more effectively the resource is produced, the more significant the adverse impact. The BLM has not analyzed the adverse economic impacts if the natural gas is not effectively produced. The BLM 

h ld id tif b fi i l th “ i i t ” it

OnrjIris rpbmrSi(ploahis ttds

142 

PtstFt

320
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

should identify as beneficial the “economic impacts” it references in this section, or they are deemed to be adverse pursuant to the statement on 4-1. BLM must substantially revise this section in the Final EIS. 

L-90 143 A Analysis Mineral 

Resources 

Recently, the BLM has suggested that the recovery factor listed for the Preferred Alternative in Table 4.2 is not accurate and that approximately 761 TCF of natural gas and 7,230,000 barrels of oil (condensate) would not be recovered under the Preferred Alternative. This error in the DEIS must be corrected in the Final EIS. Further, the BLM must correct the following statement on page 4-32: “Under the Preferred Alternative, additional mitigation measures would be applied to facilitate achievement of specific management objectives and to minimize impacts to resources (see Section 2.14); however, since most natural gas resources would be recovered and would no longer be available, significant effects would occur.” It is not accurate for the BLM to suggest that “most natural gas resources would be recovered” under the Preferred Alternative. 

TpfipIi

L-90 144 A Analysis Mineral 

Resources 

The BLM must also correct its description of the potential cumulative impacts to mineral resources in Section 4.1.4.11. The BLM states that: “Since no additional development beyond that described herein is anticipated in the CIAA, cumulative impacts to mineral resources would be the same as described for the No Action, Proposed Action, Alternatives A through G, and the BLM Preferred Action.” First, the BLM is aware of additional mineral development potential within the CIAA for mineral resources, such as additional development within the Pinedale Anticline Project Area and the South Piney Natural Gas Development Project. Second, BLM’s analysis indicates that several of the Alternatives, No Action, B, C, D, E, F, and now the Preferred Alternative all result in “no significant impacts” to mineral resources although significant quantities of natural gas would be wasted. 

Pa4PccRcwP

L-90 145 A Analysis Mineral 

Resources 

Finally, in Section 4.1.4.12 the BLM appropriately acknowledges that if the natural gas in the JIDPA is not recovered several adverse impacts will occur. “Under the No Action Alternative and Alternatives B through F, there would be less-than-complete recovery of resources, which would either: 1) necessitate developing similar resources elsewhere with possible adverse effects; 2) d l th f th til

AdmwhD

321
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

delay the recovery of these resources until some unknown time in the future; or 3) result in the complete loss of non-recovered energy resources and the associated royalties.” See JIDP DEIS, pg. 4-33. Unfortunately, this statement conflicts with the previous statements in the JIDP DEIS that less than complete recovery of resources would NOT result in a significant impact. See JIDP DEIS, pgs 4-30 – 4-32. The BLM must clarify this discrepancy in the Final EIS. 

mcS

L-90 146 A Analysis Paleontology Section 4.1.6 – Paleontological Resources 

On page 4-34, the first paragraph, the JIDP DEIS states that: “For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that increases in surface disturbance correspond to an increase in the potential for impacts to paleontological resources.” This assumption is not entirely accurate as the impacts to paleontological resources are also a function of the presence of such resources. Clearly, if paleontological resources are not present, they will not be impacted by surface disturbance. The analysis in the JIDP DEIS additionally makes an inappropriate deduction regarding the likelihood of paleontological resources in the JIDPA. In the second paragraph on page 4-34, the JIDP DEIS states: “The recent discovery of Pleistocene horse bones (tentative identification) during well pad construction in the JIDPA affects potential future paleontological mitigation procedures for the area since Pleistocene paleontologic materials were previously unknown for the JIDPA. Significant fossils likely occur in the JIDPA.” (emphasis added). The document’s assertion that “significant” fossils are likely to be encountered in the JIDPA ignores the fact that only a single, yet unidentified, fossil has been encountered in the JIDPA despite the extent of surface disturbance that has occurred to date. The suggestion that significant fossils will be encountered is also not supported by the discovery of a single unidentified Pleistocene-aged fossil. In fact, the JIDP DEIS acknowledges in Section 4.1.6.11, pages 4-36 – 4-37 that the “potential for significant cumulative impacts is unknown since little paleontological inventory or evaluation has been conducted in the JIDPA.” The BLM must address this inconsistency in the Final EIS by removing the unsupported allegation that “significant” 

BtffptpcfrtdipGnmctaMaffPtdpsotso

322
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

fossils are likely to be encountered in the JIDPA. T

w

OJsoTo

L-90 147 B Analysis Paleontology In the second paragraph of page 4-34, the JIDP DEIS 

also suggests that: “In areas of paleontological sensitivity, a determination would be made by the BLM as to whether a survey by a qualified paleontologist is necessary prior to the disturbance.” The JIDP DEIA does not, however, identify the criteria that would be used to determine “areas of paleontological sensitivity,” or map and identify those areas. The JIDP DEIS also does not provide any information as to how it would determine whether or not “a survey by a qualified paleontologist” is necessary, what that survey would consist of, or what mitigation techniques would be employed to lessen impacts on paleontological resources. The BLM should address these issues in the Final EIS. 

TonpaguadfsataPlbmc

L-90 148 A Analysis Soils Section 4.1.7 – Soils 

On page 4-48, in Section 4.1.7.10, the JIDP DEIS suggests that: “Impact potential would increase as development occurs (for approximately 12 years); therefore, all surface disturbance would not be present at any one time.” While this statement is true, the BLM has included it only in the description of impacts resulting from the Preferred Alternative. In order for the JIDP EIS to be objective, the BLM must include this or a similar statement for each of the Alternatives. 

A eAvis 

L-90 149 A Analysis Soils In the second paragraph on page 4-49, the JIDP DEIS 

incorrectly states that the impacts to soil resources under the Preferred Alternative would be both less than and greater than the impacts for Alternative G. The BLM should correct this inconsistency in the Final EIS by

TF

323
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

noting that the impacts of the Preferred Alternative are expected to be less than those for Alternative C, not G. 

L-90 150 A Analysis Water 

Resources 

Section 4.1.8 – Surface Water and Ground Water The following statement in the second paragraph on page 4-53 contains numerous factual errors: The brackish water aquifer(s) that is the source of the produced water is thought to be isolated from the freshwater aquifer described above; thus, water production is not likely to impact the quantity or quality of fresh ground water. Furthermore, because it apparently is isolated, production and disposal or reuse of this water for the project is not likely to impact surface water resources within or outside of the JIDPA.” First, the source of produced water is not a “brackish water aquifer,” it is a natural gas reservoir. The water produced in connection with natural gas production is primarily condensed or distilled from the gas as it is produced and the pressure and temperature decrease as it is brought to the surface. The Operators’ experience demonstrates that there is very little movable water in the Lance Formation. Second, the JIDP DEIS should not contain speculative comments regarding the isolation of the Lance Formation from shallower strata. The Lance Formation is not thought to be isolated, or apparently isolated, it is isolated from shallower strata. If the natural gas reservoir in the Lance Formation was not isolated from the surrounding rock formations, the unique conditions necessary for a natural gas trap would not be present and the Jonah Field would not exist. The pressure data, demonstrating the separate pressure regime in the Jonah Field, is proof positive of the isolation of the reservoir. 

TstTbaismetaacgrbisbtc

L-90 151 A Analysis Surface 

Disturbance 

The first paragraph on page 4-60, Section 4.1.8.10, states that for the Preferred Alternative, approximately “69.2% (8,678 acres) of this disturbance would be reclaimed as soon as practical after disturbance.” Similar statements should be included for all of the Alternatives, not just the Preferred Alternative. 

TfAcs

L-90 152 B Analysis Water 

Resources 

On page 4-60, in the fourth paragraph, the BLM suggest that the Preferred Alternative will utilize less ground water consumption than several of the other Alternatives. Because the Preferred Alternative necessarily requires the use of greater water resources 

TPsga

324
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

for increased levels of directional drilling, this assumption is not correct. The Final EIS should clarify the fact that directional drilling requires considerably more water, and thus that the Preferred Alternative will have more significant impacts to groundwater than previously disclosed. 

WAtatn

L-90 153 A1 Analysis Economics Section 4.4 – Socioeconomics 

On page 4-109 the JIDP DEIS incorrectly cites to an unidentified document regarding the Little Colorado Herd Management Area as the source for socioeconomic “significance criteria.” A review of the Draft Socioeconomic Analysis Technical Support Document more accurately notes that the “significance criteria” for socioeconomics are actually derived from the preliminary draft resource management plan for the Pinedale Resource Area. See Socioeconomic Technical Support Document, pg. 164. It is inappropriate for the BLM to develop “significance criteria” using the preliminary draft Pinedale RMP, a document which has not been approved by the State Director or reviewed by the public, rather than the existing Pinedale RMP. The BLM must delete any references and analysis based on these improper “significance criteria” from the Final EIS. 

TPpT2fwtcBtrpf• LCd• e1tBiwst• re• dfeb

325
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

cd• ge

L-90 154 A Analysis Economics The Socioeconomic Analysis section of the JIDP DEIS, 

and the Socioeconomic Analysis Technical Support Document incorrectly assume that 3,100 wells will be drilled under the Preferred Alternative, and that the economic benefits (including employment, tax revenues, royalties, etc.) would approximate those as achieved under Alternative G. This assumption is simply not realistic. For example, Section 5.2 of the Technical Document, (page 167), states “For this analysis, it was assumed that all wells would be drilled and completed and there would be no dry holes.” Later under section 5.3 (page 172), the Technical Document gives expenditures and estimated economic activity generated by drilling conventional wells, and directional wells. The Technical Support document additionally asserts that: “This activity is assumed to remain constant across all alternatives on a per well basis.” These assumptions are not accurate. 

TtaitTbFsl

L-90 155 A Analysis Economics While drilling directional wells generally requires more 

activity, including additional employee hours, more materials, more water, and more fuel, than conventional vertical wells, directional wells are far more expensive. Thus, the BLM’s assumption that all the directional wells will be drilled, regardless of the additional cost, is incorrect and extremely unlikely. A number of factors will go into the decision whether or not to drill each well. They include, but are not limited to, the dollar amount of that added cost, natural gas prices, and the restrictions and stipulations imposed on drilling and development activities. The combination of excessive stipulations and restrictions associated with the Preferred Alternative, coupled with an over-reliance on directional drilling, will most likely make several prospective wells not economical to drill. Based on internal economic analysis, EnCana estimates that approximately 600 directional wells will not be drilled under the Preferred Alternative. The BLM must update its analysis in the Final EIS to account for this economic reality. Correcting this information will have a profound effect upon the 

TbFsar

326
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

economic assumptions the BLM utilized for the Preferred Alternative. For example, Table 5.29 in the Technical Document (page 233) indicates that the Preferred Alternative would bring more jobs than would the Proposed Action; the Document says the Proposed Action would bring 52,930-53,342 AJEs, while the Preferred Alternative would bring 53,740 to 54,193 AJEs. Those figures are based on the flawed presumption that 3,100 wells would be drilled under the Preferred Alternative, despite the fact that many of the wells slated for directional drilling under the Preferred Alternative are likely to be uneconomic. Uneconomic wells will not be drilled, and thus the employment estimates under the Preferred Alternative are inaccurate. In reality, the BLM’s adoption of the Preferred Alternative will result in fewer wells being drilled and developed, less jobs for the community, and less tax revenue for the counties, State of Wyoming, and the Nation. 

L-90 156 A Compensatory 

Mitigation 

Section 4.8 - Compensatory Mitigation The JIDP DEIS contains an inaccurate and incorrect description of EnCana and BP’s proposed off-site or compensatory mitigation proposal as expressed in the letter from Gary Gardiner to Prill Mecham dated November 20, 2003. EnCana and BP are submitting revised compensatory mitigation proposals with their comments on the JIDP DEIS. The BLM should either correct the description of, or remove any references to, the previous compensatory mitigation proposal from the Final EIS 

T

L-90 157 A On-Site 

Mitigation 

The JIDP DEIS notes on page 5-1 that: “Any of the listed actions may be required or recommended under any alternative if this project is approved. Decisions regarding the inclusion or exclusion of these actions will be made in the ROD for this project.” Several of the proposed mitigation measures, however, are beyond the BLM’s jurisdiction. As the BLM has done with the list of operator-committed practices, the BLM should identify which of the proposed additional mitigation measures are beyond the jurisdiction and authority of the BLM. 

TtS“briwbIs

327
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Sat

L-90 158 D On-Site 

Mitigation 

Air Quality Section 5.1.1 - Air Quality 

The first proposed mitigation measure, page 5-1, would require the Operators to install/conduct a HAP assessment at five locations within the JIDPA to address public concerns. Because air quality and air emissions are beyond the BLM’s jurisdiction, this provision should only be considered as an operator-committed practice or incorporated as a potential project under EnCana’s Voluntary Compensatory Mitigation Proposal. 

Bd

L-90 159 D On-Site 

Mitigation 

Air Quality The second proposed mitigation measure, page 5-1, 

which would require the use of alternative technologies to reduce emissions, is also beyond the BLM’s jurisdiction. This provision is more appropriately considered either as an operator-committed practice or incorporated as a potential project under EnCana’s Voluntary Compensatory Mitigation Proposal. EnCana is, however, utilizing several of the techniques listed in this provision, such as the use of remote telemetry, and will continue to work with the BLM and Wyoming DEQ to reduce air emission levels. 

Bcteitawrq

L-90 160 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

Air Quality The third proposed mitigation measure, page 5-1, under 

air quality, is poorly drafted and confuses condensate pipelines and gas transmission pipelines. Further, the BLM should be aware that the use of low-pressure gas gathering pipelines actually requires increased compression rather than reduced compression. For these reasons, the BLM should eliminate this proposed requirement/mitigation measure from the Final EIS. 

Ta“pdVgd

L-90 161 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

Air Quality Technical 

Information 

The fourth proposed mitigation measure, page 5-2, requires the Operators to install and use Tier IIcompliant diesel engines on all drill rigs as soon as they become available. Once again, this provision is beyond the BLM’s jurisdiction. Further, as currently drafted, this requirement is not acceptable because it would require the Operators to install new engines as soon as they are “technically” available. The current EPA rules regarding non-road diesel engines only requires new equipment built after 2006 to utilize Tier-II engines; existing

PcntRirtp

328
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

equipment is grandfathered. It is not feasible to install new Tier II engines on all of EnCana’s contractor’s equipment as soon as the engines become “technically” available. That said, EnCana plans to install Tier II engines, or other lower emission engines, on all new rigs and replacement rigs as soon as practical and feasible after the technology becomes available. Thus, the requirement should be redrafted as follows: “The Operators are encouraged to use Tier II-compliant diesel engines and/or other low emission drill rig engines, including alternatively powered drill rig engines (e.g., natural gas, hybrid non-diesel), on all new and replacement drill rigs operating in the JIDPA when they become available.” 

Ittapu

L-90 162 D On-Site 

Mitigation 

Air Quality The fifth suggested mitigation measure relates to 

developing and funding a HAP monitoring and control program with the Wyoming DEQ. See JIDP DEIS, pg. 5-2. While this provision/suggestion is generally acceptable to EnCana, because it relates to matters which are outside the BLM’s jurisdiction, it should only be considered as an operator-committed practice or incorporated as a potential project under EnCana’s Voluntary Compensatory Mitigation Proposal. 

S

L-90 163 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

Air Quality The final proposed mitigation measure under the air 

quality section, page 5-2, requiring the use of “alternative” energy sources to power internal combustion engines is not technically or economically feasible and should not be considered further. 

Be

L-90 164 B On-Site 

Mitigation 

Surface Disturbance 

Section 5.2.1 - Topography On page 5-2 the JIDP DEIS suggests prohibiting disturbances at rock outcroppings in the JIDPA. Although this requirement may be acceptable to EnCana, the BLM should map and identify topography to be avoided by Operators. Once mapped, the Operators will be able to respond to this proposal in more detail. 

Tw

L-90 165 A On-Site 

Mitigation 

Paleontology Section 5.1.3 - Paleontology 

The proposed mitigation measure for paleontological resources suggests the creation of an active program of inventory and classification of sediments known to contain paleontological materials. The BLM has not demonstrated the need for an “active program” to evaluate paleontological resources.

DerBnopC

329
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

evaluate paleontological resources. a

mnmi

L-90 166 D On-Site 

Mitigation 

Soils Section 5.1.4 - Soil Resources 

The first and second of three proposed mitigation measures to protect soil resources, listed on page 5-2, require the Operators to review soil and plant conditions prior to disturbance in order to propose future seed mixtures for reclamation and to determine potential soil amendment needs. Although such requirements may be acceptable to EnCana, they should be part of the Operators’ proposed reclamation plan, not mandated by the BLM. The final soil resource protection measure identified by the BLM is the requirement to use fertilizers during reclamation. This proposal is acceptable to EnCana, but should also be a part of the Operators’ proposed reclamation plan, not a mandate from the BLM. 

Barmasca c

L-90 167 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

Water Resources 

Section 5.1.5 - Surface Water Resources The first proposed mitigation measure, on page 5-3, suggests the creation of catchment basis or sediment ponds to capture potentially increased stormwater runoff from the JIDPA. As the BLM is aware, this mitigation measure is beyond the jurisdiction of the BLM and, depending on the size of the structure, implicates the Wyoming DEQ, the EPA, and potentially the Army Corps of Engineers. Further, because the BLM has not performed soil modeling and analysis for the JIDPA, the BLM has not demonstrated that such basins are necessary, or that they will reduce impacts. This proposed mitigation measure should be deleted entirely. 

TrtmmwHTga

L-90 168 A On-Site 

Mitigation 

Water Resources 

The second proposed mitigation measure on page 5-3 would require the Operators to monitor channels within the JIDPA and is generally acceptable to EnCana, but only as an operator-committed practice or incorporated as a potential project under EnCana’s Voluntary Compensatory Mitigation Proposal. Further, because the BLM has not performed soil modeling and analysis in the JIDPA, the BLM has not demonstrated that such 

TrtmmwHS

330
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

measures are necessary at this time. r

bnm

L-90 170 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

Water Resources 

The fourth proposed mitigation measure, page 5-3, would require the Operators to hold all stormwater runoff in the JIDPA as long as possible. First, this provision may actually be illegal if water leaving the JIDPA has been allocated to other users by the Wyoming State Engineer. At the very least, this requirement would likely require obtaining an appropriation permit from the State of Wyoming. See WYO STAT. ANN. § 41-4-501 et seq. Second, this mitigation measure is beyond the jurisdiction of the BLM and, depending on the size of the structure, implicates the Wyoming DEQ, the EPA, and potentially the Army Corps of Engineers. Finally, the BLM has not performed soil modeling and analysis in the JIDPA and has not demonstrated that such measures are necessary, or that they will reduce impacts. This requirement may have unintended impacts on grazing and wildlife and should not be considered further. 

TrtmmwHTga

L-90 171 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

Water Resources 

The fifth proposal would require an “adaptive management” surface water plan for the entire JIDPA which could include NPDES process and permits. See JIDP DEIS pg. 5-3. First, this mitigation measure is beyond the jurisdiction of the BLM and, depending on the size of the structure, implicates the Wyoming DEQ, the EPA, and potentially the Army Corps of Engineers. Second, the BLM has not performed soil modeling and analysis in the JIDPA and has not demonstrated that such measures are necessary, or that they will reduce impacts. The Operators have not proposed surface water disposal in the JIDPA, and thus this requirement is unnecessary, unacceptable, and should not be considered further. 

TrtmmwHTga

L-90 172 D On-Site 

Mitigation 

Water Resources 

The seventh and eight potential mitigation measures, page 5-3, would require water recycling and produced water treatment for water utilized during drilling and development procedures. EnCana currently recycles approximately 90% of the water used in the JIDPA. This proposed measure is already being met and, in fact, exceeded by EnCana. 

TE

L-90 173 A1 On-Site 

Miti

gation 

Water Resources

The final requirement, page 5-3, would require the operators to file NPDES permits with the BLM and to 

Tt

331
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Mitigation Resources consult with Wyoming DEQ, the BLM, and affected 

grazing permittees before water is released. First, this provision relates to matters which are beyond the jurisdiction of the BLM. Second, the Operators have not proposed surface water discharges as a part of development activities in the JIDPA. This requirement appears to have been “borrowed” from the Powder River Basin EIS and has no applicability in the JIDP EIS. To the extent EnCana files stormwater or NPDES permits with the State DEQ, the EPA, the BLM, or any other member of the public, has the right to access such information. There is no reason to provide the BLM information on matters which are beyond its jurisdiction. This requirement is unacceptable and should not be considered further. 

S“oJtTtsmcwp

L-90 174 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

Soils Vegetation Section 5.1.6 Vegetation, Including TEP&C and BWS 

Plant Species The first proposal, page 5-3, requires the operators to scalp and rip topsoil rather than removing topsoil for all new pipelines. This provision is acceptable to EnCana so long as it is redrafted as follows: “scalping and postconstruction ripping rather than removal and respreading of topsoil for all new pipelines where practical and feasible.” 

Tf“rspor

L-90 175 D On-Site 

Mitigation 

Vegetation The second mitigation measure would require the 

Operators to establish vegetative plots to scientifically evaluate reclamation success. While this provision/suggestion is generally acceptable to EnCana, it should only be considered as an operator-committed practice, included within EnCana’s reclamation plan, or included as potential project under EnCana’s Voluntary Compensatory Mitigation Proposal. 

Samoir

L-90 176 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

Vegetation The third proposed mitigation measure, page 5-3, would 

require the use of irrigation at reclaimed sites to improve germination and vegetation establishment. This provision is acceptable to EnCana so long as it is redrafted as follows: “in coordination with the BLM, Natural Resources Conservation Service and Sublette County Conservation District, Operators could utilize irrigation at reclamation sites to improve germination and vegetation establishment, where practical and feasible.” 

Ta

L-90 177 A1 On-Site 

Miti

gation 

Wildlife Section 5.1.7 Wildlife, including TEP&C and BWS 

Animal Species

Lw

332
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Mitigation 

The first proposed mitigation measure, on page 5-4, requires the use of low profile tanks near sage-grouse leks. This provision is generally acceptable, although it should be modified to indicate that it only applies to the installation of new tanks and that it only applies to active leks. Thus, the mitigation measure should be redrafted as follows: “wherever practical and feasible, the Operators will install low-profile tanks within line-of-sight, up to a maximum of 0.5 mile, of active greater sagegrouse leks.” 

w

L-90 178 D On-Site 

Mitigation 

Water Resources 

Wildlife The second wildlife mitigation measure identified on 

page 5-4 would require the operators to develop water sources within the JIDPA for wildlife and to convert existing project-developed water wells for wildlife when no longer required. All water wells permitted by EnCana in the JIDPA are permitted in the BLM’s name as well as EnCana’s so that after operations and production are complete, the wells can be turned over to the BLM for any purpose it deems appropriate. Additionally, the installation of water wells/guzzlers for wildlife is addressed in EnCana’s Voluntary Compensatory Mitigation Proposal. 

TEWb

L-90 179 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

Wildlife The third mitigation measure would require the 

Operators to avoid all raptor territories rather than just raptor nests during the nesting season. This provision is contrary to the provisions of the governing Pinedale Resource Management Plan which only requires avoidance of active raptor nests and the stipulations included on EnCana’s federal oil and gas leases. Further, the BLM has not defined what constitutes “raptor territory” and, as such, all of southeastern Wyoming could be considered raptor territory. This provision is unacceptable and should not be considered further. 

Raits

L-90 180 D On-Site 

Mitigation 

Wildlife The fourth mitigation measure, page 5-4, would require 

the Operators to extend and expand the annual wildlife studies prepared and submitted to the BLM. As part of EnCana’s proposed compensatory mitigation proposal, discussed below, EnCana would agree to increased wildlife monitoring under several of the proposed Alternatives. This requirement should not be considered further, outside of the EnCana Voluntary Compensatory Mitigation Proposal. 

Aacca

333
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

L-90 181 D On-Site 

Mitigation 

Wildlife The sixth proposed mitigation measure, page 5-4, would 

require the Operators to develop habitat to accommodate displaced wildlife. Habitat improvement is a major component of EnCana’s Voluntary Compensatory Mitigation Proposal which is discussed in Appendix 1 to these comments. As this mitigation measure can only be accomplished through off-site or compensatory mitigation, the BLM should not consider this proposed mitigation measure outside the context of EnCana’s Voluntary Compensatory Mitigation Proposal. 

Rwm

L-90 182 A On-Site 

Mitigation 

Wildlife The final proposed mitigation measure would require the 

Operators to inventory and block-clear for Black Footed Ferret within the South Piney white-tailed prairie dog complex. Either the South Piney prairie dog complex lies outside the JIDPA and does not relate to impacts of additional development in the JIDPA, or because the vicinity of the JIDPA has been block cleared for blackfooted ferrets, see JIDP DEIS, pg. 4-94, this prairie dog complex should be mapped and adequately protected for threatened and endangered species. The BLM should clarify this discrepancy in the Final EIS. 

Tt

L-90 183 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

Cultural Resources 

Section 5.1.8 - Cultural Resources The second proposed mitigation measure for cultural resources, page 5-4, would require the Operators to conduct larger cultural resource surveys when sitespecific development is proposed. This provision is not necessary. The Operators are currently surveying and “clearing” a ten-acre area for every well pad constructed and the BLM has not demonstrated how or why additional surveys should be conducted. This requirement is unacceptable and should not be considered further. 

WAsod“wtbspedrBaJmapne

334
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

uprTrc

L-90 184 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

Cultural Resources 

The final proposed mitigation measure for cultural resources would require the Operators to “intensify” data collection efforts at high-value archeological sites in “exchange for” disturbance at other locations. This is not an appropriate mitigation requirement for the Operators and should not be considered further. 

TtmtoPtswpc

L-90 185 A On-Site 

Mitigation 

Livestock/ Grazing 

Compliance Section 5.1.9 - Land Use/Livestock Grazing 

The first mitigation proposal, page 5-4, would require the Operators to work with potentially impacted permittees to mitigate the loss of AUMs. As you are aware, BLM Instruction Memorandum 2005-069 suggests this mitigation measure is prohibited by law. To the extent that this is incorrect EnCana is willing to discuss mitigation options for grazing permittees and will conduct future discussions with affected permittees and the BLM.

TacBag

L-90 186 D On-Site 

Mitigation 

Air Quality Livestock/ 

Grazing 

The second proposed mitigation measure, page 5-5, would require the Operators to control fugitive dust on all roads. EnCana and the other operators currently control fugitive dust as necessary and required in the JIDPA. 

T

L-90 187 D On-Site 

Mitigation 

Water Resources 

Livestock/ Grazing 

The final proposal would require the Operators to convert water wells in the JIDPA to livestock use when development and production operations are complete. All water wells permitted by EnCana in the JIDPA are permitted in the BLM’s name as well as EnCana’s so that after operations and production is complete, they can be turned over to the BLM for any purpose it deems appropriate. Additionally, the installation of water wells/guzzlers for wildlife and livestock is addressed in EnCana’s Voluntary Compensatory Mitigation Proposal. 

TE

L-90 188 D On-Site 

Mitigation 

Recreation Section 5.1.10 Land Use/Recreation T

h

335
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

The JIDP DEIS suggests the installation of a “quality” interpretive site or sites regarding natural gas development within publicly accessible areas of the JIDPA. The installation of interpretive sites is addressed in EnCana’s Voluntary Compensatory Mitigation Proposal. 

mps

L-90 189 D On-Site 

Mitigation 

Transportation Section 5.1.11 - Land Use/Transportation 

The first and fourth proposed mitigation proposals, page 5-5, require the Operators to develop and submit to the BLM road development, transportation, and maintenance plans for roads in the JIDPA. First, a transportation plan has already been prepared and is included in the JIDP DEIS in Appendix G. Second, EnCana and the other Operators currently have a road use and maintenance agreement which has been approved by the BLM. 

AcaamoStJMrapd

L-90 190 D On-Site 

Mitigation 

Transportation The second proposed mitigation proposal would require 

the use of car pools and bus crews. EnCana is already requiring its employees to carpool when feasible and will continue to do so in the future. 

T

L-90 191 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

Visual Resources 

Section 5.1.12. - Visual Resources The JIDP DEIS suggests the funding of a visual resource specialist for the Pinedale Field Office. A hosted worker is not necessary for visual resources because all of the Jonah Field is designated for Class IV VRM and changes to the landscape are authorized. Because this proposed mitigation requirement would not address impacts in the JIDPA, it should not be considered further. See Instruction Memorandum 2005-069. 

TBhmqmivwcremtpptr

336
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

sYomlaaeoftpaodeivocsm

L-90 192 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

Health / Safety Hazardous 

Materials 

Section 5.1.13 - Health and Safety/Hazardous MaterialsThe first proposed mitigation measure on page 5-6 would require the Operators to provide the BLM with copies of all SWPPs, SPCCs, and other spill and emergency response plans. Because such matters are beyond the BLM’s jurisdiction, this requirement is not necessary and should not be considered further. 

Tis ddterfdswmCatc

L-90 193 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

Health / Safety Hazardous 

Materials 

The second mitigation proposal would require the Operators to fill pipelines with cement at abandonment. This requirement is not necessary and is impractical. By filling the lines with cement, the lines would not break down or deteriorate over time and thus would lead to lasting impacts. This provision should not be considered 

IcPaslo

337
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

further. g

T

L-90 194 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

Health / Safety The third proposed mitigation measure, page 5-6, would 

require the Operators to install signs within the JIDPA. This requirement is not necessary, would not reduce adverse impacts, and should not be considered further. Further, a sign indicating the presence of natural gas development activities is already in place in the JIDPA. Finally, the Operators have neither the responsibility nor the authority to inform members of the public that they cannot utilize public lands. 

AetdaaTF

L-90 195 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

Health / Safety The final proposed measure under Section 5.1.13 would 

require the Operators to install and lock gates. Onshore Order 3 addresses site security requirements. As such, this provision is unnecessary. 

Ad

L-90 196 A On-Site 

Mitigation 

Land Ownership 

The second requirement would force the Operators to file surface use agreements between the Operators and surface owners with the BLM. Neither the Operators nor the surface owners should be required to disclose to the BLM, and thus to the public, purely private contracts. This provision is unacceptable and is actually contrary to the provisions of Instruction Memorandum 2003-131, and should not be considered further. See Instruction Memorandum 2003-131 (The Surface Owner Agreement between the surface owner and the lessee or its operator is not to be submitted as part of the APD or SN, since it may contain confidential information regarding the agreement between the surface owner and the lessee or operator.”). Filing surface owner agreements is also prohibited by Wyoming’s new split-estate law. See WYO STAT ANN.§ 30-5-403 (2005). 

Aur

L-90 197 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

Land Ownership 

The third proposed mitigation measure would require the Operators to purchase private property within the JIDPA. It would be illegal and inappropriate for the BLM to require EnCana or other operators to acquire private land in the JIDPA. This provision should not be considered further. 

Twpa r

L-90 198 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

Technical Information 

The fourth and fifth proposed mitigation requirements relate to the use of currently undeveloped technologies. Such technologies have not been developed or tested, are at least twenty years from application, and thus not feasible for this project. 

SF

338
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

L-90 199 A On-Site 

Mitigation 

The second proposed mitigation measure on page 5-7 suggests increasing bond amounts for Operators in the JIDPA. EnCana is currently complying with the BLM regulations regarding lease bonds and has a nationwide bond in place. 43 C.F.R. § 3104.3 (2004). The BLM is only authorized to increase bond amounts after determining that EnCana poses a risk. 43 C.F.R. § 3104.5(b) (2004). To date, EnCana has demonstrated its willingness and its ability to perform all of its obligations under the terms of its leases. The BLM has not identified any justifiable reason to increase the amount of EnCana’s lease bond. 

Tansafnmd

L-90 200 A On-Site 

Mitigation 

Technical Information 

The seventh proposed mitigation option would require the Operators to submit electronic data for wells, pipelines, and pads. Although this requirement is unclear, EnCana will consider this requirement where and when feasible. 

SF

L-90 201 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

The eighth proposed requirement involves funding a hosted worker in the Pinedale Field Office. Although the BLM cannot require the Operators to fund a hosted worker, and although such matters are beyond the scope of this document, EnCana may consider funding a hosted worker if a need arises in the future. At this point in time, however, this proposal should not be considered further. 

ACsmabRr

L-90 202 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

The ninth proposed mitigation measure would require the Operators to provide natural gas from the JIDPA to local gas users. EnCana is not a public utility and thus cannot provide natural gas directly to consumers. WYO STAT. ANN. § 37-1-101(a)(vi)(6) (Lexis 2003). Further, Wyoming law clearly prescribes which entities can receive natural gas free of charge. See WYO STAT. ANN. § 37-3-105 (Lexis 2003). As such, this mitigation measure may be illegal and should not be considered further. 

Pc

L-90 203 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

The tenth proposed mitigation suggestion would require the Operators to install larger pipelines in the smallest ROW possible. The Operators attempt to utilize the smallest ROW for all of their pipelines and road construction. The installation of larger pipelines would require increased compression and thus lead to increased air quality impacts. As such, this requirement may lead to increased impacts and should not be 

ACsmabRr

339
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

considered further. 

L-90 205 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

Health / Safety The seventh compensatory mitigation proposal 

developed by the BLM would obligate the Operators to fund public service projects such as sewage treatment facilities and West Nile inoculation programs. Initially, it appears this provision was “borrowed” from the Powder River Basin EIS and, thus, has little applicability here. EnCana has demonstrated its willingness to participate in the community and to fund various projects. This provision, however, should be eliminated from detailed study in the Final EIS because the analysis to date does not demonstrate a direct off-site impact as a result of additional development in the JIDPA. 

ACsmabRr

L-90 206 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

Wildlife The eighth mitigation suggestion listed by the BLM, the 

first bullet point on page 5-9, would require the Operators to purchase a conservation easement to establish and install various raptor nesting structures. Although EnCana is willing to install nesting structures if monitoring efforts demonstrate a need, EnCana is not willing to consider purchasing conservation easements at this time. 

Bcmohm

L-90 207 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

Social Economics The ninth proposed mitigation measure would require 

the Operators to work with the local communities to install “portable” infrastructures to assist with “boom times.” EnCana is willing to consider the installation of a “mancamp” to assist with the potential socioeconomic impacts of additional workers on the regional communities. This requirement, however, should not be considered in detail in the Final EIS given the many uncertainties surrounding the installation and use of such a facility. 

ADtabn

L-90 208 A1 On-Site 

Mitigation 

Transportation The tenth mitigation measure listed in the JIDP DEIS 

would require the Operators to work with the Wyoming Department of Transportation to install signs outside the JIDPA to identify potential hazards. Although EnCana is working with local officials to address this issue, it does not relate to impacts in the Jonah Field and should not be considered in the Final EIS. 

TaaDdp

L-90 209 B OperatorCommitted 

Practices 

APPENDIX B – OPERATOR-COMMITTED PRACTICESThe BLM has included several modifications and amendments to the set of Operator-Committed Practices without informing or consulting with the Operators. 

Tosi

340
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

EnCana has reviewed and modified the set of OperatorCommitted Practices in Appendix B and submits those changes, as well comments supporting such changes, in EnCana Appendix 7 attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Because Operator-Committed Practices are voluntary, the BLM must accept these changes and incorporate such changes into the Final EIS. 

L-90 210 A Analysis Alternatives APPENDIX G – TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT 

In general, the role of Appendix G to the JIDP DEIS is unclear and potentially misleading. As noted above, the vast majority of the information contained in the main body of Appendix G was originally supplied by the Operators in connection with their description of the Proposed Action. Thus, large sections of the “Technical Document” may not apply to development procedures under the Preferred Alternative, or if other lower impact development opportunities, such as the use of two track roads and mat drilling, are utilized in the Jonah Field. For example, the description of topsoil stockpiling on page 7 of Appendix G does not necessarily comply with the requirements for protecting topsoil under the Preferred Alternative, see JIDP DEIS, pg. 2-28. Similarly, the description of a typical well pad and typical drilling procedures in Appendix G conflicts with the requirement under the Preferred Alternative to eliminate reserve pits. See Appendix G, pgs. 7-8, 15, 19; see also JIDP DEIS, pg. 2-28. The BLM should clarify the role of Appendix G in the Final EIS and should specifically explain that the information contained in Appendix G is intended to describe “typical” natural gas drilling and development operations, but are not intended as strict guidelines or limitations on future activities. 

TedbiwpStcATAubpati

war

L-90 211 A1 Analysis Alternatives In addition to the comments regarding Appendix G, 

EnCana submits with these comments a “redlined” or “corrected” version of Appendix G with suggested and proposed changes. A copy of the proposed revisions to Appendix G are incorporated herein by this reference. 

C

L-90 212 A1 Analysis Although the BLM may have developed the “Technical 

Document” for both the JIDP and the South Piney Natural Gas Development Project, the BLM should eliminate any and all references to the South Piney Project from Appendix G. Including information about 

Ap

341
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

both projects may potentially confuse the reader or cause members of the public to assume the two projects are connected or somehow related. Deleting any and all references to the South Piney Project is particularly important and appropriate in this case for two additional reasons. First, other than the introduction and cover page, Appendix G does not actually address development in the South Piney Field; much of the information contained in Appendix G relates only to the Jonah Field. Second, many of the production techniques and potential environmental impacts associated with the South Piney Project will be different than those utilized and experienced in the Jonah Field because the South Piney Project involves the development of coalbed natural gas. 

L-90 213 A1 Editorial The acronyms and abbreviations for the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 and Environmental Assessment are incorrect and should be corrected in the Final EIS. See Revised Appendix G. 

TF

L-90 214 A1 Analysis In order to accurately describe the potential impacts of 

development in the JIDPA, Tables 2.1 and 2.2 in Appendix G, pages 4 and 5, should be expanded to include the traffic and work force requirements for directional drilling in addition to vertical drilling. See Revised Appendix G. Table 5.3 in the Draft Socioeconomic Analysis Technical Support Document should also be corrected to accurately reflect the workforce requirements for vertical and directional wells. 

T52jtsd

L-90 215 A1 Analysis Table 2.1 in Appendix G suggests that the LOP for the 

JIDP will be fifty-three (53) years. Table 2.2 of the JIDP DEIS, page 2-8, states that the LOP will vary from forty (40) to eighty-two (82) years. In the Final EIS, the BLM should explain this apparent discrepancy, or explain why a LOP of fifty-three (53) years was utilized in Appendix G. 

SG aua 

L-90 216 A1 Editorial Table 2.2 contains several mathematical errors which 

should be corrected in the Final EIS. For example, Table 2.2 incorrectly states that drilling operations require 528 days rather than 484 days for a vertical well (22 x 11 x 2 = 484). See EnCana Appendix 8, Revised Appendix G. 

ATdrDP

342
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

T

L-90 217 A Analysis Transportation Section 2.3, page 7 of Appendix G, states that all roads 

constructed in the JIDPA shall comply with the requirements set forth in the BLM’s Gold Book or BLM Manual 9113. To the extent the Operators attempt to utilize “two-track” roads rather than “BLM Resource Roads,” the Operators will not be complying with the guidance contained in the BLM Gold Book. 

Wntbs

L-90 218 A1 Analysis Economics DRAFT SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSIS TECHNICAL 

SUPPORT DOCUMENT In order to accurately describe the potential impacts of development in the JIDPA, Table 5.3 in the Draft Socioeconomic Analysis Technical Support Document should be expanded to include the traffic and work force requirements for directional drilling in addition to vertical drilling. See Table 2.2 in Revised Appendix G (same table and 5.3 of the Socioeconomic Technical Support Document). 

TT2aa1asa

L-93 1 A Water 

Resources 

Surface Disturbance 

Briefly, as a result of surface disturbance, the DEIS anticipates significant impacts to: vegetation from removal or compaction, surface water quality from soil erosion, wildlife from habitat destruction and fragmentation. There is also potential for wetlands impacts from surface activities located in playas. 

Dadwdtlo

L-93 2 D Alternatives EPA believes BLM should consider for this project, 

phased development based on geographic considerations and associated potential impacts. Recent court rulings in Montana support the need for this approach. The supplemental analysis process that is currently underway could provide the framework for evaluating such alternatives and potential impacts with regard to all resources. 

N

L-93 3 A Wildlife Compliance On-Site 

Mitigation 

Although the DEIS states that the BLM preferred alternative reduces impacts to wildlife when compared to the industry's proposal, it is not known if the alternative provides adequate protections to sensitive species. Therefore, EPA recommends the inclusion, in the Final EIS, of findings from the Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion and the Wyoming Department of Natural Resources, so as to provide the identification of needed mitigation of significant impacts. 

Trw

343
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

L-93 4 A Wildlife Water 

Resources 

Analysis Considering the unusual intensity of the well spacing for 

the proposed action, the mitigation being proposed may not be adequate. Considering all of the significant impacts identified in the DEIS to wildlife and surface water, EPA finds the DEIS lacking in providing specific approaches for maintaining ecosystem viability. 

Crw

L-93 5 A Technical 

Information 

Land Ownership 

The DEIS states the purpose of the project is to provide for the development of the gas resource and prevent drainage of federal minerals by wells located on adjacent private and state leases. However, the leases in the Jonah field are almost all federal with only two sections or 1,280 acres that are state leases. In addition, because of the nature of the tight sand gas reservoir for this field, as is demonstrated in this DEIS, very intense well densities are required in order to economically remove the gas. The same reservoir properties also make drainage of off-lease gas very difficult since the influence of a nearby gas production well is also minimal. Since drainage is of little potential, BLM should remove this from the discussion in the section on Purpose and Need.

TtsfstdTarwpPnrmaa

L-93 6 D Alternatives Although BLM has provided ten alternatives in the DEIS, 

most of the alternatives are heavily weighted toward a quick rate of drilling approach which impacts the entire area. With the opportunities presented as a result of the majority of the leases being controlled by BLM, additional alternatives could present development scenarios that would control the rate of development and the geographic focus of additional infill. 

TaaF

L-93 7 A Wildlife Compensatory 

Mitigation 

Another alternative could also look at enlarging the project area from the standpoint of wildlife habitat and improvements. The EIS could establish zones of habitat protection of high value and habitat improvement needs in other areas within the zone. Because the surface impacts will be quite intense due to the well density, as the DEIS points out, there will be significant habitat losses that will require wildlife to avoid or move out of the area. Prior to implementing the proposed action, BLM should provide more monitoring and analysis on the habitat surrounding the Jonah field and consider establishing habitat protection areas and buffers that 

AiMR

344
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

would provide suitable habitat. EPA recommends these stipulations be included in the EIS. 

L-93 8 D On-Site 

Mitigation 

Vegetation The BLM could also consider a management approach 

to drilling practices that would require drilling to be limited geographically to a small area and that reclamation of vegetation and habitat be completed prior to additional nearby drilling. 

JctTole

L-93 9 A1 Alternatives Surface 

Disturbance 

Under the 24% and 19% disturbance areas for the preferred alternative, BLM requires the following, "well pad density limitation would be applicable until monitoring data, with up to 10-year trends, conclusively show that denser that 40-acre surface spacing meet performance-based field development and production objectives." This requirement needs to also be applied to the 14,310-acre area being considered for up to 34% disturbance, also under the preferred alternative. 

TanF

L-93 10 A Technical 

Information 

The DEIS preferred alternative does not explicitly include directional drilling as an option that will reduce surface impacts ... If this well drilling method is not applicable, the DEIS should present information stating why this widely used method of reducing surface impacts is not being considered for this project. 

SdwpwdOpAahdswdbwaEhr

L-93 11 A Performance 

Objectives 

Soils Water BLM Preferred Alternative Outcome Based Performance 

Objectives EPA agrees with the list of performance objectives listed under this section. However, Chapter 4 of the DEIS shows that some of these objectives will not be met 

TaFicr

345
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

under the preferred alternative. For example, because surface water modeling was not included in the DEIS, it is not known if the project activities will maintain sediment erosion (salt and silt discharge rates) at WDEQ- and BLM-acceptable levels. The objectives in this section should be reiterated in the appropriate resource sections of Chapter 4 and it should also be demonstrated (in the FEIS) how appropriate levels of mitigation or development practices will be implemented to meet these objectives. 

tceii

L-93 12 A Compensatory 

Mitigation 

Compensatory mitigation (Section 2.14.4, p. 22-31) BLM should consider providing compensatory mitigation concurrent with development in the FEIS. The development should progress in such a way as to look for habitat improvements that could be made concurrently with development on nearby land. 

Mmwtnrow

L-93 13 A Water 

Resources 

Riparian and wetlands area (Section 3.2.1.2, pp. 3-54 to 3-55) Although the section has indicated that wetlands verification was conducted, the discussion did not mention the "functioning condition" of the wetlands resource area within the project area. EPA recommends this information be included in the FEIS. 

Pswb

L-93 14 A Water 

Resources 

Compliance Based on recent court rulings, it should also be noted 

that the Wyoming General Permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, regarding oil and gas activities and wetlands may no longer be viable. Consequently, individual permits may now be necessary for these activities. 

GwmpJolorf<l/

L-93 15 A Water 

Resources 

Soils Surface 

Disturbance 

Under the preferred alternative, almost half of the surface disturbance of 12,525 acres would be located in Sand Draw-Alkali Creek. BLM has applied the nosurface occupancy stipulations for some leases near Sand Draw. However, large amounts of vegetation removal and soil erosion could indirectly impact the 

Ttpssa 

346
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

Sand Draw-Alkali Creek drainage through increased sediment loads and changes to channel stability and hydrology. EPA believes it is important that the BLM address this issue with the proposed modeling that will be provided in the Final EIS. 

dimlesanrecsoarasdqa

L-93 16 A Soils Water 

Resources 

Vegetation The DEIS soil loss modeling will be provided in the Final 

EIS (p. 4-37). As pointed out above, the potential for increased sedimentation, erosion, runoff and invasive species analysis also depends on this analysis. This analysis should be reviewed in the FEIS in view of the soil loss modeling results. 

Ttpssa dimlesanrecsoTestapp

347
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

L-93 17 A Water 

Resources 

Compliance Since this project is located within the Green River 

Watershed which is tributary to the Colorado River Drainage Basin, BLM should consider the potential for salinity loading from project runoff and recognize the requirements within the Colorado Salinity Compact. 

TcSacd

L-93 18 A Water 

Resources 

Surface Disturbance 

The DEIS states, "No impacts to and/or from flooding are anticipated because areas adjacent to drainages would be avoided." However, flooding can also result from significant surface disturbance within the watershed increasing runoff rates. This scenario should be discussed in the FEIS. 

TcSacd

L-93 19 A Water 

Resources 

Soils Surface 

Disturbance 

BLM also points out in the analysis on page 4-52 that, "While proper design, construction, and maintenance of proposed facilities would reduce erosion potential, these actions may not entirely compensate for anticipated increased flows." Based on the modeling that will be provided, BLM should consider additional mitigation in the FEIS to further reduce runoff, if necessary. These additional approaches could entail limiting the amount of surface disturbance allowed within a watershed at any one time to avoid significant impacts. 

Ttpssa dimlesanrecsoarasdqa

L-93 20 A Water 

Resources 

Surface Disturbance 

The analysis of impacts resulting from the preferred alternative are only listed in terms of acres of surface disturbance. Although it is pointed out by BLM that additional modeling of impacts to surface water will be provided in the Final EIS, the DEIS is lacking the pertinent information to be able to determine the extent of impacts that will result from implementing the 

Rteimaw

348
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

preferred alternative. EPA requests that the analysis be provided in the Final EIS so as to allow reasonable determinations as to whether water quality standards are being met. 

pdsWRt

L-93 21 A Vegetation On-Site 

Mitigation 

Vegetation - BLM Preferred Alternative (Section 4.2.1 pages 4-66 to 4-75) Significant impacts are anticipated to vegetation in the project area through loss of habitat, forage, and soil protection, and increased growth potential for invasive, non-native species under any alternative. We believe the Final EIS should include more specific actions that could be taken to minimize the effects of invasive, non-native species on disturbed lands. 

TP“aaiwtcOa

L-93 22 A Wildlife The BLM Preferred Alternative does not include a clearly 

defined management plan for protection of the greater sage-grouse population in the area. The EIS indicates that a surveying and monitoring plan will be developed; however, there is no indication how this information is to be used or whether any attempt will be made for protection of sage-grouse and their habitat. As noted in the document (p. 3-63) areas in central and western Wyoming cumulatively represents one of the species' last strongholds. As also acknowledged (p. 3-67) the management strategy (e.g., keeping activities within specified distances from active leks) is not successful and the population is in active decline in the area. The DEIS suggests that protecting a boundary surrounding the lek during specified months is protective of the species. BLM may wish to consider a more robust management plan, specific to the conservation of greater sage-grouse brooding and nesting habitat. The plan may include a systematic approach for selecting and maintaining areas of existing contiguous sagebrush stands, which are critical for sage-grouse survival. EPA recommends that BLM consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding this issue. 

AiMR

349
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

L-93 23 A Wildlife On-Site 

Mitigation 

Conditions of Approval 

Page 2-28, Section 2.14.2, bullets 10 and 11: There are two different distance limitations/requirements established for construction/location of well pads, access roads, and other above-ground facilities within raptor nest areas. The distances presented in Bullet 10 would result in facilities being constructed and thus may be in active operation during nesting. The distances in bullet 11 are recommended for all facilities regardless of the season. These two statements appear to be contradictory and should be clarified in the FEIS. 

Oo

L-95 1 A Alternatives Analysis The biggest concern we have with your application of 

landscape analysis is that it appears that it was used to evaluate (which is good), but not guide the creation or selection of the Preferred Alternative. For instance, the core area maps along with biological information on pronghorn migration paths and habitat use or quality could be used to modify patterns of drilling and infill to moderate activities in the most important habitat areas while allowing denser infill in other areas. 

TanF

L-95 2 A Wildlife Analysis Compliance In the discussion of "All Species" on pages 4-86 and 4-

87, specifically discusses habitat fragmentation and impacts on wildlife using the metrics that you have generated. The section states that "significant adverse impacts to some wildlife resources are anticipated under all alternatives including the No Action Alternative." Were the impacts of the core area or distance to road measures used to modify the alternatives or reduce habitat impacts? The statement also raises the issue of whether or not the draft plan follows the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) requiring BLM to develop land use plans and manage the public lands in accordance with the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. 43 U.S.C. Sect. 1712(c)(1); 43 U.S.C. Sect. 1732 (a). FLPMA requires the agency to "minimize adverse impacts on the natural, environmental, scientific, cultural, and other resources and values (including fish and wildlife habitat) of the public lands involved." 43 U.S.C. Sect. 1732(d)(2)(a) and to "take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands." 43 U.S.C. Sect. 1732(b). 

MmbRctFEpwurFwtlar

L-95 3 F Wildlife Another concern is the incomplete use of biological 

literature on the spatial effects of developments (roads and development activities) on the wildlife along with the results of your measures of core area or distance to 

Crc

350
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

road. The metrics become most informative when combined with the results of biological field studies. While there is not, (and may never be) a definitive, quantitative study on the impacts of a roads or drill pads on pronghorn, Sage-Grouse, and other species, there are substantially more studies than are cited in the document that shed light on potential impacts on species present in the Jonah Field. Many of these are provided by WGFD in Minimum Recommendations for Development of Oil and Gas Resources Within Crucial and Important Wildlife Habitat on BLM Lands and our report Wildlife at a Crossroads: Energy Development in Western Wyoming. 

L-95 4 A Wildlife Analysis Related to this, the Draft EIS states on page 4-82 that 

"... it is reasonable to assume that the project would have some adverse impacts to pronghorn populations as a result of direct habitat removal and a reduction in habit function on areas adjacent to development activities." This is followed by a statement on the lack of research on "specific quantitative estimates of such impacts". We agree. Yet you still seem to draw the conclusion that "... impacts on pronghorn populations in the Sublette Herd Unit resulting from development of the JIDPA, including habitat fragmentation and a reduction in habitat function, are anticipated to be less than significant on both a local and a management area level." (page 4-87). This last statement seems to be one you can not draw based on your own interpretation of the current level of scientific knowledge of pronghorn response to habitat fragmentation levels. 

SF

L-95 5 F Surface 

Disturbance 

One suggestion we have in improving upon your use of landscape metrics in the future is to include roads as well as drill pads in your build-out scenarios. This would allow you to calculate a road density measure as well as core area. Route density is easy to measure and is commonly linked to wildlife impacts in biological literature. We realize that this involves the placement of roads as well as drill pads in the GIS layers for your infill alternatives. We have found this to be valuable in a comparably sized study area in Colorado. We were able to digitize roads for two different well spacings in the course of two afternoons while keeping in mind the practical constraints of topography (with another day for quality check and review of the road layer). While well pad and road locations may not reflect the exact position 

T

351
Table II-B. DEIS Comments and BLM Responses (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number Category Keyword 1 Keyword 2 Keyword 3 Comment Text B

of future infrastructure, these more complete build-out scenarios are an excellent tool for visualization and generations of landscape metrics for designing and evaluation infill or new development. We would be happy to provide more information on the methods used. 

L-95 6 A Analysis NEPA Another suggestion is to evaluate landscape metrics and 

wildlife habitat for a broader landscape context surrounding the Jonah field. This would allow you to assess the functioning of the planning area in relation to the related surrounding areas and better assess the indirect and cumulative impacts of ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities in the surrounding landscape, which are also affecting the resources in the planning area. This broader scope of analysis is crucial to performing the thorough analysis required by NEPA of the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of current, proposed and foreseeable actions both in and outside the planning area on the resources in the Jonah Field. 

TvDbaasPRcsD

L-95 7 C Alternatives Land Use Lastly, the Draft EIS reminded us of an issue discussed 

in our meeting, the issue of sacrifice zones (and refuges) versus "multiple use" across the landscape. Our impression from our discussion is that the BLM's position is that multiple use means permitting all uses of the public lands to proceed at the same time. However, FLPMA recognizes that management in accordance with the concepts of multiple use and sustained yield includes limiting or even excluding certain uses in different areas. In fact, the statute defines "multiple use" to mean "the use of some lands for less than all of the resources," in addition to other aspects of management. 43 U.S.C. Sect. 1702(c). Because the level of habitat fragmentation from development is already high within the Jonah Field, shouldn't that suggest that there should be alternatives with a lower density of drilling, increased reclamation schedule, and/or increased directional drilling in portions of the field that have the potential to provide higher quality habitat or migration routes for species? 

TamhnPftatPtrTwumprTt

352
Part III: Substantive Comments Related to Air Quality 

Issues Received During Public Comment Analysis 

Process of the Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Table III-A. Persons Submitting Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues 

Submittal 

ID 

Submittal 

Type First Name Last Name Organization Address City S

1 E-mail J.R. Justus Shell Rocky Mountain Production, 

LLC 

4582 South Ulster Street Parkway, Suite 500 

Denver 

2 E-mail Bruce Pendery Wyoming Outdoor Council 444 East 800 North Logan 3 E-mail W.R. Picquet Ultra Resources, Inc. 304 Iverness Way South, Suite 295 Englewood 4 E-mail Darla Potter Wyoming DEQ - Air Quality 

Division 

122 West 25th St., Herschler Bldg 4W 

Cheyenne W

5 E-mail John Schopp EnCana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc. 370 17th Street, Suite 1700 Denver 6 E-mail Jim Sim Western Business Roundtable 350 Indiana Street, Suite 64 Golden 7 E-mail Marc W. Smith Independent Petroleum 

Association of Mountain States (IPAMS) 

410 Seventeenth Street, Suite 1920 Denver 

8 E-mail Jeff A. Sorkin USDA Forest Service - Rocky 

Mountain & Intermountain Regions 

P.O. Box 25127 Lakewood 

9 E-mail Vicki Stamper Wyoming Outdoor Council 1630 Rainbow Avenue / P.O. Box 

1805 

Laramie W

10 E-mail Bob Yuhnke Wyoming Outdoor Council 2910 County Road 67 Boulder 11 Letter Mark Barron, Mayor Town of Jackson, Wyoming Box 1687 Jackson W12 Letter John Robitaille Petroleum Association of 

Wyoming 

951 Werner Court, Suite 100 Casper W

13 Letter Ron J. Pasco First Interstate Bank - Casper 

Office 

104 South Wolcott / P.O. Box 40 Casper W

14 Letter Ronald P. Walker P.O. Box 224 Daniel W15 Letter David Brown BP American Production 

Company 

u.s. Onshore Business Unit-HSSE, 1660 Lincoln Street, Suite 3000 

Denver 

16 Letter Robert E. Roberts United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 8 

999 18th Street, Suite 300 Denver 

17 Letter John Corra Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality 

Herschler Building, 122 West 25th Street 

Cheyenne W
Table III-A. Persons Submitting Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d

Submittal 

ID 

Submittal 

Type First Name Last Name Organization Address City S

18 E-mail Jeff Sorkin USDA Forest Service - Rocky 

Mountain & Intermountain Regions 

P.O. Box 25127 Lakewood 

19 Letter Andrew Blair 344 Amoretti St. Lander W20 Letter Fran Carrier Rock Springs Chamber of 

Commerce 

1897 Dewar Dr. / P.O. Box 398 Rock 

Springs 

W

21 Letter Sharon Wales 1030 Thorpe St. Rock 

Springs 

W

22 Letter The 

Honorable Michael B. 

Enzi, United States Senator

United States Senate Russell Senate Building Washington 

23 E-mail Kristin Espeland Wyoming Public Radio Dept. 3984, 1000 E. University 

Avenue 

 Laramie W

24 Letter Eric Fairbanks PO Box 10 Boulder W25 Letter Leslie F. Henderson 317 College Lane Rock 

Springs 

W

26 Letter Timothy A. Kaumo, Mayor The City of Rock Springs 212 D Street Rock 

Springs 

W

27 Letter Amy McReynolds 13040 Antelope Flats Road Moose W28 E-mail Burke L. Morin Box 96 Green 

River 

W

29 E-mail Ann Morris 30 E-mail Susan E. O'Ney Grand Teton National Park P.O. Drawer 170 Moose W31 Letter Jim Robinson, 

Mayor 

Town of Marbleton 11 East 2nd Street Marbleton W

32 Letter Phil Smith, Mayor Town of Big Piney 401 Budd Avenue Big Piney W33 E-mail Stan Swearingen 34 E-mail Eric Williams Environomics, Inc. 203 First St. Cheney W

2
Table III-A. Persons Submitting Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d

Submittal 

ID 

Submittal 

Type First Name Last Name Organization Address City S

35 Letter Betty Fear Board of County Commissioners, 

County of Sublette 

P.O. Box 250 Pinedale W

35 Cramer William W. Board of County Commissioners, 

County of Sublette 

P.O. Box 250 Pinedale W

35 Linn John Board of County Commissioners, 

County of Sublette 

P.O. Box 250 Pinedale W

36 Letter George Lemich Greenhalgh, Lemich, Stith & 

Cannon, P.C., Attorneys at Law 

205 C Street Rock 

Springs 

W

37 Letter C.B. Stanley Questar 180 East 100 South / P.O. Box 45601 Salt Lake 

City 

38 Letter Bill Murphy Wyoming Business Alliance, 

Wyoming Heritage Foundation 

145 South Durbin, Suite 101 Casper W

3
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

1 1 B Emissions, Project Manufacturers’ Emissions Factors More Accurately 

Reflect Drill Rig Emissions compared with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) AP-42. The use of conservative EPA AP-42 emission factors overestimates rig emissions from the Pinedale Anticline. It would be more appropriate to use manufacturers’ emissions to provide greater accuracy in full field (2017) and near-term (2006) modeling. 

Neither drilling engnor manufacturer’be obtained for reEPA Tier 1 and 2 better approximatefactors, they could analysis because projected to operaemissions factors 

1 2 B Emissions, Project If EPA AP-42 factors were to be used, correct emission 

factors for appropriate engine size should be considered. The Jonah Infill Drilling Project (JIDP) analysis of drilling emissions uses EPA AP-42 Section 3.3 emission factors, which apply only to engines less than 600 hp. Lower emission factors from Section 3.4 of AP-42 should have been used for the larger engines on the drill rigs, such as the 800 hp machines that are specified in the AQTSD. 

One 500-hp enginspecified by Opera500-hp engines anspecified for direc3.4-1 is applicable Because not all enthan 600 hp, and was desired for usfactor from AP-42 used.

1 3 B Emissions, Project Flaring Emission Reductions From “Green 

Completions” Should Be Included. The emission reductions from green completions were not taken into account in the air quality analysis. Consequently, flaring emissions are overestimated. As an example, the analysis on page B-2 assumes that one, two or three flares operate continuously throughout the year, and in Table D.1.30 on page D-33 continuous operation of four to five flares has been assumed. The analysis appears to assume that the wells are exploratory and do not have access to gathering systems, even after production begins. Shell Exploration and Production Company (SEPCo) typically flares only five percent of historic operational emissions, if at all, prior to completing its wells. Otherwise, the produced gas is diverted to a gathering system. In July 2005 Wyoming Department of Environment Qulaity’s (WDEQ’s) regulatory permitting for flaring during completions went into effect for the Pinedale and Jonah Fields. This regulation should be incorporated into the analysis because the requirements are mandatory. AQTSD Supplement. 

The conservative simultaneously opof “green completIt is important to nestimates is applieon any given day,days throughout thTable G-3 shows reductions with anThe emissions invwere conducted pWDEQ-Air Quality guidance, and flardata obtained from emissions reductioare further discussimpact statement Preferred Alternat
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

1 4 B Emissions, Project Duration of Well Drilling is Overestimated in the 

Pinedale Anticline Project (PAP). The assumption of 60 drilling days per well on the PAP overestimates emissions from the PAP. SEPCo typically requires less than 40 days to drill a well, not 60. Calculated emissions per well on this basis and the total PAP contribution to cumulative emissions is thus overstated. 

Project-specific emacheived by variodrilling durations. Drilling duration wfield Operators, anwells in the PAP.

1 5 B Emissions, Project Use of Ultra-low Sulfur Diesel (15ppm) Should Be 

Considered in 2017 Modeling. The estimated 2017 emissions apply the incorrect diesel fuel sulfur content (500 ppm versus 15 ppm). Ultra-low sulfur diesel regulations that will be in effect in 2010 are not included in the modeling of 2017 emissions. Thus, the cumulative impact analysis does not consider reasonably foreseeable future actions. The higher sulfur content in the diesel in year 2010 and beyond will result in over estimating sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions 

and higher estimates of Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) values. 

Thank you for youthat the data and environmental impAQTSD while conimpact assessmenProject-specific emacheived by variolow sulfur diesel.

1 6 B Emissions, Regional Baseline Emissions Should Use Best Available Data. 

Although NEPA requires use of best available data, the air quality analysis does not use the best available data to estimate regional baseline emissions. Instead of using 2002 actual emissions, which are available through WDEQ’s Wyoming Inventory System for Emissions (WISE), the analysis uses “changes in potential emissions” as reported in WDEQ’s Southwest Wyoming Emissions Tracking Report and submitted to the Wyoming Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

WDEQ-AQD’s WIat the time the emperformed.

1 7 B Ozone & VOCs The methodology used in the November 2004 Draft 

AQTSD uses outdated methodology to estimate ozone impacts. It is not possible to comment on the ozone analysis used in the Supplemental AQTSD as it defers analysis of ozone and volative organic compounds (VOCs) to the FEIS. More accurate emissions data and a more accurate modeling tool should be used to predict ozone impacts. The 1988 VOC/oxides of nitrogen (NOX) Point Source Screening tables by 

Richard Scheffe that are used to estimate ozone impacts, are inadequate and represent outdated methodology. It is a useful tool for looking at single day ozone episodes of one-hour standard. It is not useful for predicting multi-day episodes and the 8-hour ozone

Thank you for youThe ozone calculaFEIS and AQTSD appropriate/realistthat considers wewhich result in declife of wells and a in-field compressoIn recognition of thconcentrations, mthe Jonah Field arBoulder. 

2
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

standard. Best available emissions data and a more accurate modeling tool should be used to predict ozone impacts. The Draft EIS (DEIS) offers no explanation why only a screening tool rather than a gridded air quality model such as Comprehensive Air Quality Model (CAMx) or Community Multiscale Air Quality model (CAMQ) is being used to estimate air quality impacts of a project of such large magnitude and duration. 

Ozone models are are very expensivimplement. The Sprovide the best tobut the BLM believprovided in the EIthis impact assessThe BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

2 8 B Early Project 

Development Stage Modeling 

The reason BLM conducted the “Early-ProjectDevelopment Stage Modeling” in the air quality supplement was an assertion that “peak regional impacts appear to occur prior to the [JIDP] maximum emissions as a result of the development of other natural gas projects in the region, specifically the PAP, South Piney Project, Riley Ridge Project, and Jack Morrow Hills Project. Based on this unsupported assertion, BLM selected 2006 as “representative of a maximum emissions scenario for regional emissions” for analysis in the early-project-development stage modeling. Again, this assertion was made in naked fashion with no supporting analysis to demonstrate that emissions will be higher in 2006 than during later years when emissions from the JIDP are expected to increase. 

The use of 2006 adevelopment stagtwelve year differeemissions and mait is a placeholder when the least adis available. Thusrefer to regional ewell emissions duFurthermore, this current conditionsproject. BLM’s assertion is emissions from drearly stages of the maximum emissiorig engines; as timbetter emission coavailable. BLM recognizes thprojects is unlikely 2006 to represent from drilling as a hconservative” cas

2 9 B Early Project 

Development Stage Modeling 

In fact, it is highly unlikely that any of the four projects selected for special treatment in the early-projectdevelopment stage modeling will see maximum emissions rates in 2006 or soon thereafter: 

Please see commFurther National E

docu

mentation for 

3
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

1. The Pinedale Anticline Project. The PAP, which was authorized in 2000, did not even begin until well after the Jonah Project began in 1994. Moreover, the approved number of wells/well pads for this project is 700 versus only 497 in the Jonah Field. On these bases alone it is unreasonable to assume, with no supporting analysis of the number of wells permitted and in operation compared to the approved total for each project, that the PAP will see maximum emissions in 2006, 11 years before the predicted maximum in the Jonah Field. Furthermore, when the PAP DEIS was prepared, the maximum “downhole” (below-ground) well density that was allowed was one well every 40 acres. Yet now the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC) is approving down-hole well spacing requests in the PAP of 20 and even 10 acres. Thus, the number of wells on the surface of the PAP Area could double or even quadruple beyond what was initially permissible when the project was approved. That is, far more wells will be required to meet the current approved downhole spacing level even if the surface spacing (one well every 40 acres) were to remain unchanged (i.e., multiple wells would be drilled from each pad to maintain the 40 acre surface spacing yet achieve the approved downhole spacing density). It is important to recognize that the PAP EIS did not set a limit on the number of wells that could be drilled; it set a limit on the number of well pads that could be constructed. Thus, even if it was originally contemplated or implied that there would be one well per pad, for a total of up to 700 wells, the current increase in approved downhole spacing density could lead to a doubling or quadrupling of that number to 1,400 or 2,800 wells. And there is no doubt the operators on the PAP are in fact already drilling large numbers of wells from single pads. Infill is already occurring. For example, BLM has just approved a proposal from Anschutz, Shell and Ultra to drill as many as 20 wells from a single well pad. All of these actions make it very unlikely that maximum emissions from the PAP will occur in 2006, and in fact make it likely those maximum emissions may well occur on a timeline that is more similar to the JIDP than dissimilar to it. 

PAP, Riley Ridge, further detail on thcumulative air quathese projects.

4
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

2. The South Piney Project. The South Piney Project has not even been approved yet. A DEIS has not been released to date. Given this, it is not certain any well drilling will have begun in the South Piney Field in 2006. Emissions from this Project cannot be assumed to be at a maximum in 2006. 3. The Riley Ridge Project. The Riley Ridge Project is currently closed to the approval of well drilling (with limited exceptions) pending preparation of a Supplemental EIS. So far as the parties know, there has not been a notice of intent to prepare this EIS published in the Federal Register to date. A FEIS and ROD is highly unlikely before the end of 2006. Even if a FEIS and ROD were signed during 2006, it is unlikely BLM could approve many applications for permit to drill (APDs) for this project in time for drilling to commence before year end. It is arbitrary and capricious for BLM to assume a level of drilling that will lead to maximum emissions during 2006 or any time soon thereafter. 4. The Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan. Again, this project has not even been approved yet. The FEIS was released in 2004, but it is under protest and BLM has not decided that protest. Given the uncertain state of this project it is highly speculative to assume that well drilling will reach a maximum rate in this area in a year or even less. Until BLM approves the project, it is arbitrary and capricious to assume that drilling will be occurring during 2006, especially at maximum emissions rates. 

2 10 B Early Project 

Development Stage Modeling 

For all of these projects [PAP, South Piney, Riley Ridge, Jack Morrow Hills], BLM seems to be using a double standard. For purposes of creating its emissions inventory BLM only included NEPA projects if NEPA analysis had been completed and the project approved. Yet here [early-project-development stage modeling], BLM is willing to assume with no justification whatsoever that these four uncompleted and unapproved NEPA projects will show maximum emissions of air pollutants in 2006. This is unsupported 

speculation and contrary to the facts, which is arbitrary

Please see comm

5
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

and capricious. BLM must objectively demonstrate that emissions levels from these projects are likely to be at a maximum on or near 2006 and not on or near 2017 (the presumed time of maximum JIDP emissions) before it can engage in modeling of the impacts of these projects that is detached from the modeling of maximum impacts from the JIDP. Yet lack of final approval for the project under NEPA does seem to be the common denominator of these four projects. We are unaware of any other common characteristic they posses that might provide a basis for BLM to subject these projects to unique and special treatment, such as it did in the early-projectdeveloppment stage modeling and that portion of the air quality Supplement. It appears to us that BLM is trying to “hit a homerun” and meet its NEPA obligations relative to air quality analysis for all of these uncompleted NEPA projects in one fell swoop. The early-project-development stage appears to have almost nothing to do with the JIDP, the nominal purpose and need of this NEPA analysis, rather it appears to be part of the NEPA compliance needed for other projects. 

2 15 B Ozone & VOCs The August 2005 Draft AQTSD Supplement states that 

VOC emissions were not modeled for this interim report, and revised VOC emissions and corresponding ozone impacts will be included in the FEIS. This is unacceptable, because it precludes the public from the opportunity to submit meaningful comments on this extremely critical aspect of the air quality analysis. BLM must perform competent modeling of both the nearand far-field impacts of the JIDP and other existing and reasonably foreseeable development in order to fulfill its responsibilities under NEPA and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). To do this, regional inventories of NOX, VOC, and carbon 

monoxide (CO) emissions must be developed, and modern photochemical air quality models must be applied. 

The BLM has balathis EIS in a timely appropriate analysmodeling of some development of thhydrologic modeliavailable for publiBLM has performenear- and far-field comments on the A revised estimate is provided in the demonstrates that contribute to an exozone standards. In recognition of th

concentrations, m

6
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

the Jonah Field arBoulder. The ozone calculaFEIS and AQTSD appropriate/realistthat considers wewhich result in declife of wells and a in-field compressoOzone models are are very expensivimplement. The Sprovide the best tobut the BLM believprovided in the EIthis impact assessThe factors contribconcentrations in date, there is no fistandard violation

2 16 B Ozone & VOCs Though based on an arbitrarily incomplete portion of 

the anticipated emissions from the JIDP, and performed using a rough screening nomograph produced with an outdated air quality model, the analysis of near-field ozone impacts that was presented in the November 2004, Draft AQTSD nevertheless suggests that the ozone impacts of the project would be very significant and would likely lead to near-field exceedances of the 8-hour ozone (O3) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS). While the November 2004 Draft AQTSD provides no information whatsoever on the farfield ozone impacts of VOC, NOX and CO emissions from the JIDP and other existing or reasonably foreseeable sources in the region, the emissions estimates provided suggest that far-field effects on ozone could also be highly significant. Table 3.7 of the Draft AQTSD shows that a small part of the JIDP would contribute near-field 8-hour average O3 concentrations 

of 78.3 micro-grams per cubic meter (μg/m3) (40 parts 

per billion [ppb]). The small seg

ment of the project

Thank you for youSee comment 2-1The ozone calculaFEIS and AQTSD appropriate/realistthat considers wewhich result in declife of wells and a in-field compressoIn recognition of thconcentrations, mthe Jonah Field arBoulder. The BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

7
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

modeled is thus estimated to produce O3 equal to about 

50% of the federal 8-hour standard of 80 ppb. Assuming a background concentration equal to 75.2 μg/m3, the AQTSD predicts total 8-hour O3

concentrations of 153.5 μg/m3 (78 ppb), which is 98% of the NAAQS. However, this value is apparently a gross underestimate, because the background O3

concentration of 75.2 μg/m3 used in the AQTSD is a 

long-term annual average O3 concentration, and greatly 

underestimates the shorter-term maximum concentrations that are relevant to the ozone NAAQS. The NAAQS is a short-term standard based on health consequences of short-term exposure to O3, with violations judged based on maximum concentration values. Specifically, an area where the 3-year average of the 4th highest 8-hour average O3 concentration each year is above 84 ppb is in violation of the NAAQS. BLM must use an O3 concentration that is 

representative of maximum 8-hour concentrations for the area as the background concentration for its analysis. The same conditions that would lead to elevated background concentrations are also expected to be those that would produce the most O3 from JIDP 

emissions, so in contrast to the assertion in the AQTSD, it is not “overly conservative” to combine a model prediction for hot, stagnant meteorological conditions that are conducive to high O3 production with 

background concentrations that correspond to similar meteorological conditions. Table 3.1 of the AQTSD shows that the second highest 8-hour concentration at the Green River monitor from June 1998 – December 2001 was 147 μg/m3 (75 ppb), which is 94% of the 

NAAQS. BLM has no grounds whatsoever for substituting a much lower, long-term average background concentration in its analysis. Combining the predicted O3 concentrations from the JIDP with a 

reasonable estimate of background O3 concentrations 

would yield a clear violation of the standard, from just a subset of the estimated JIDP emissions. 

2 17 B Ozone & VOCs The Draft AQTSD also appears to underestimate O3

impacts because it considers emissions from a single one square-mile “patch” of 128 producing wells, 

accounting for 3,703.5 tons per year (tpy) of VOC and

See comment 2-1

8
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

5.8 tpy of NOX; and a single compressor station, 

accounting for 171.6 tpy of NOX and 124.7 tpy of VOC. 

No justification is given for omitting from the ozone modeling analysis more than 90% of the VOC emissions and most of the NOX emissions associated 

with the JIDP. The wells in this project are so tightly spaced that ozone “plumes” from the whole area would likely overlap, potentially leading to much higher concentrations than captured in the Draft AQTSD’s partial analysis. Ozone is formed over spatial scales of tens of miles or more, and time scales of hours or more, so the appropriate scale for an analysis of the incremental ozone impacts of the JIDP is to analyze the impact of the whole project, including emissions from all project phases that would be in operation at one time. 

2 18 B Ozone & VOCs The Draft AQTSD estimates near-field ozone impacts 

using a very rough screening nomograph that was developed in the late 1980’s using a Lagrangian photochemical model that is now very out-of-date, compared to the state of the science. Scheffe (1988) ran the Reactive Plume Model, version II (RPM-II) to estimate ozone impacts of a point source of VOC and NOX emissions in two “environments” that were 

characterized by measurements of urban and rural background concentrations made in the mid 1980’s. Lagrangian models, like the RPM model, isolate a plume of ozone and its precursors and at best only partially account for pollution transport and reactions that are simultaneously occurring in the background air that mixes with the plume. Because they do not adequately treat the influence of emissions, transport and chemistry going on outside the “plume”, they are widely viewed as inadequate to predict the impacts of fresh emissions on ozone concentrations. The preferred method for estimating ozone production from a particular source is to use a “plume-in-grid” treatment. In this approach, chemistry and transport in the plume from a point source is modeled as it disperses and mixes with the surrounding air, while the emissions, chemistry and transport going on in the background air are simultaneously modeled using an Eulerian grid framework. Models that are currently widely used and

Thank you for youThe ozone calculaFEIS and AQTSD appropriate/realistthat considers wewhich result in declife of wells and a in-field compressoIn recognition of thconcentrations, mthe Jonah Field arBoulder. Ozone models are are very expensivimplement. The Sprovide the best tobut the BLM believprovided in the EIthis impact assess

9
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

recommended for predicting ozone impacts for regulatory purposes, including the CAMx and the CMAQ have this capability. And, unlike the Scheffe (1988) approach, these models can account for the interacting suite of variables that actually determine how much ozone would be produced from a new source of emissions. These variables, which are neglected in BLM’s analysis, include the chemical speciation and hence reactivity of the source’s VOC emissions, CO emissions from the source, the background emissions and concentrations of VOCs, NOX, CO, free radicals and ozone which react with the added emissions in an often highly nonlinear fashion, and the meteorological conditions that actually occur at the site, including sunlight intensity, humidity, temperature, atmospheric turbulence and mixing, and wind speed and direction. Ozone formation is highly sensitive to all of these factors. 

2 19 B Ozone & VOCs Beyond estimating the near-field impacts of the JIDP, it 

is imperative that BLM estimate downwind impacts on ozone. Ozone and its precursors can be transported over distances of hundreds of miles, so communities, parks and wilderness areas far downwind of the Jonah Field may be affected by its VOC, NOX, and CO 

emissions. In particular, many of the light alkanes associated with gas production react over time scales of days, so their impact on ozone can occur hundreds of miles downwind. Maximum ozone concentrations across much of the West are approaching the federal standard. For example, EPA data indicate that two exceedances of the 8-hour 80 ppb standard were recorded at Thunderbasin Grassland in northeastern Wyoming, over the period from 2002 – 2004; concentrations exceeded 70 ppb on 11 days during the same period. Ozone concentrations at Yellowstone National Park have increased significantly over the past decade. In addition to health effects, the impacts of ozone on vegetation are a significant concern in Class I areas; injury to vegetation may occur at concentrations below the primary NAAQS. 

Thank you for youThe ozone calculaFEIS and AQTSD appropriate/realistthat considers wewhich result in declife of wells and a in-field compressoIn recognition of thconcentrations, mthe Jonah Field arBoulder. Ozone models are are very expensivimplement. The Sprovide the best tobut the BLM believprovided in the EIthis impact assessThe BLM believes provided in the EI

10
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

this impact assess

2 20 B Ozone & VOCs Finally, if the VOC emissions projections contained in 

the Draft AQTSD are even close to correct, the VOC emissions associated with the project would nearly double the 66,000 tpy of VOC emissions that EPA estimates were released from all point and area sources in the entire State of Wyoming in 1999. EPA’s National Emissions Inventory is thought to significantly underestimate emissions from oil and gas activities, so another point of comparison is the new oil and gas inventory that was recently developed by Environ for the Western Regional Air Partnership. That report estimates total 2002 VOC emissions of 119,000 tpy from all oil and gas activities in Wyoming. Based on the estimates provided in the Draft AQTSD, the JIDP would increase these emissions by 50%. Given the dramatic increase in VOC emissions the JIDP appears to represent, BLM cannot claim to have done a comprehensive assessment of the effects of the project on air quality unless cumulative ozone impacts of emissions from this and other nearby oil and gas projects are modeled using modern approaches and tools. 

VOC emissions esand AQTSD to accurves. The ozone calculaFEIS and AQTSD appropriate/realistthat considers botcurves that result over the life of werepresentation of and emissions. In recognition of thconcentrations, mthe Jonah Field arBoulder. Ozone models are are very expensivimplement. The Sprovide the best tobut the BLM believprovided in the EIthis impact assessThe BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

2 21 B Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Visibility 

The standard for visibility impairment in the Class I areas addressed in the Air Quality Impact Analysis Supplement should be 0.5 deciview (dv), not 1.0 dv. The Clean Air Act (CAA) defines “visibility impairment” 

as including reduction in visual range and atmospheric discoloration. In its regional haze regulations, EPA concludes that states must consider a change of 0.5 dv as indicating that a source contributes to visibility impairment for purposes of determining Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) applicability. EPA stated in 

the BART rulemaking that “changes in light extinction of 

The 1.0 dv value iDepartment of AgNational Park SerBLM as the signifivisibility impairmeQuality Related VaThe 1.0 dv is a sigstandard (there is visibility impairmeEPA has identified necessary to show 

11
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

5% will evoke a just noticeable change in most landscapes. The reference for this statement is a 1990 National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) report that estimated perception thresholds for landscapes using a psycho-physical model of just noticeable changes in scenic brightness. An even lower threshold might occur for some viewers, scenes, and viewing conditions. The model used in the NAPAP assessment to derive the 0.5 dv threshold is relevant for situations of uniform haze, which is the case at issue with oil and gas development, where construction and production phases involve dispersed sources of NOX, SO2, particulate matter (PM) less than 2.5 

microns in diameter (PM2.5) and particulate matter less 

than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), all of which contribute to visibility degradation. Of note, the 2002 paper by Professor Ron Henry that is often cited for the suggestion that a threshold value higher than 0.5 dv should be used is not persuasive, because it considers thresholds for perceptible changes in colorfulness, ignoring brightness. Both of these visibility attributes are important, and are better captured by using the 0.5 dv standard. 

achieving the NatiRegional Haze Rethreshold represeof 1.0 to 2.0 dv ind(Pitchford M.L., anDevelopment and Index, Atmospherto be a just-noticeconditions. The oidentified as a visiFLAG Guidance foDeterioration (PSDwhen only a single Even FLAG uses threshold for cumuvalue simply reprenoticeable changeThe threshold of 0to provide an early impairment is apprecognizes the vain the AQTSD app

2 22 B Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Visibility 

In their 2002 FLAG report, the Federal Land Managers (FLMs) concluded that “for the case of visibility impairment which changes the appearance of a viewed background feature [i.e., uniform haze as opposed to a plume], thresholds of perceptibility, where a just noticeable change occurs in the scene, have been found to correspond to a change in extinction (

Δbext) as 

low as 2% under ideal conditions, up to 20% (NAPAP, 1990; Pitchford and Malm, 1994). A 

Δbext of 5% will 

evoke a just noticeable change in most landscapes (NAPAP, 1990). The FLMs are concerned about situations where a change in extinction from new source growth is greater than 5% as compared against natural conditions. Changes in extinction greater than 10% are generally considered unacceptable by the FLMs and will likely raise objections to further pollutant loading without mitigation. (A 2% or 5% change in extinction corresponds approximately to a 0.2 dv or 0.5 dv change, respectively, on the deciview scale.) 

The BLM respectfcomment. The USFLAG agencies) dtheir threshold for nor is their any justheir impact threshassessment. Thedv as their significreviewing potentiamandatory federaindustrial source aPermit Application potential cumulativ1.0 dv as their sigthe BLM. 

12
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

As the DEIS Air Quality Impact Analysis Supplement states, the USFS and the NPS use a 0.5 dv change as their threshold for identifying visibility impairment. Because the Bridger, Fitzpatrick, Popo Agie, Teton, and Washakie Wilderness Areas and the Wind River Roadless Area are under USFS control, and the NPS administers Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks, BLM must use their impact threshold of 0.5 dv in its impact assessment. At a minimum, it must fully discuss and analyze impacts at the 0.5 dv level because this is the level at which “adverse impacts” are deemed to occur by the FLMs with an “affirmative responsibility” under the CAA to protect visibility in Class I areas, and thus this is a legally appropriate and relevant standard. A failure to fully analyze impacts at the 0.5 dv level not only fails to meet the “other environmental . . . policies” of the relevant FLMs (USFS and NPS) it also fails to “achieve the requirements” of sections 101 and 102(1) of NEPA. 

2 23 B Near-Field Modeling The modeling performed for the near-field impacts of 

the Preferred Alternative is deficient because of reliance on PM10 and PM2.5 data collected in Cheyenne, 

Wyoming, to represent background concentrations for these pollutants, and reliance on data that are more than 20 years old to represent background concentrations of SO2. The AQTSD Supplement further 

fails to specify what percentile of the concentration distributions are represented by the 3-hour and 24-hour average concentrations listed in Table 2.3, so it is not clear what these background concentrations actually represent, in comparison to the applicable NAAQS and Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards (WAAQS). Moreover, the emissions inventories used to model these concentrations are deficient in numerous respects, likely leading to significant underestimation of emissions. 

Ambient concentrdioxide utilized in the most represenvalues available aconducted. PM10 monitoring w

Jonah, Daniel, anPreliminary results to the previous daarea that was incoefforts. For furthehttp://deq.state.wy

2 24 B Near-Field Modeling While it is not clear how the near-field modeling was 

performed for the AQTSD Supplement, the single wellpad modeling scenarios described in the November 2004 AQTSD and the Air Quality Assessment Protocol could result in a significant underestimate of near-field 

concentrations, if plumes from multiple pads overlap. 

Air quality impacts analyzed using CAfield model resultsdesigned to predicfrom construction/maximum impacts 

13
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

While this is a particularly serious concern with PM10, 

because Appendix C of the AQTSD Supplement shows modeled concentrations for several scenarios approaching the NAAQS, it must be investigated for all of the pollutants modeled with AERMOD. As with the Industrial Source Complex (ISC) model it was developed to replace, AERMOD is designed to estimate superimposed concentrations resulting from a large number of sources. There is thus no practical reason why the source configuration for the in-field analysis could not be expanded. BLM is required to ensure the scientific integrity of its NEPA analyses. Moreover, BLM is obligated to consider the air quality impacts of the whole project, not just the isolated effect of development of a single pad. 

off significantly witsource.

2 25 B Near-Field Modeling The description of the meteorological inputs used with 

AERMOD that is provided in the October 2003 Air Quality Assessment Protocol is deficient, in that it omits discussion of data sources or assumptions for the terrain and roughness height data used in the model. Concentrations predicted with AERMOD are highly sensitive to the roughness height, which helps control how rapidly pollutants are dispersed vertically in the atmosphere. Inaccurate specification of this parameter can lead to drastic underestimation of concentrations. 

The input data assAERMET are now however, the protorevised.

2 26 B Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling 

The modeling performed for the far-field impacts of both the Preferred Alternative and the early-projectdevelopment stage is deficient because of reliance on inappropriate monitoring data for use as background concentrations, and because of significant deficiencies in the emissions inventories. 

See comment 2-2

2 27 B Background 

Concentrations 

The modeling in the AQTSD Supplement also appears to underestimate far-field concentrations of PM10 and 

PM2.5, because ammonium ion (NH4+) concentrations appear not to have been counted. But for the presence of SO4 or nitrate (NO3), gas-phase ammonia would not 

be converted to particle-phase NH4+. Consequently, 

NH4+ concentrations should also be included in the 

total PM concentrations attributed to the JIDP and other projects. Furthermore, BLM must ascertain whether the ammonia concentrations input to the CALPUFF model are reasonable for the area being modeled. According 

to the Air Quality Assess

ment Protocol for this analysis,

The use of 1 ppb selected for this streview which incluBLM, WDEQ, EPAActual ammonia cthe CASTNET staindictate annual a

concentrations clo

The BLM believes 

provided in the EI

14
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

a background ammonia concentration of 1 ppb was assumed for the CALPUFF modeling of PM and visibility impacts, based on Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Monitoring (IWAQM) Phase 2 guidance for “arid lands”. The full quote from the IWAQM Phase 2 guidance is actually “Accurate specification of this parameter [the ammonia concentration] is critical to the accurate estimation of particulate nitrate concentrations. Based on a review of available data, Langford et al. (1992) suggest that typical (within a factor of 2) background values of ammonia are: 10 ppb for grasslands, 0.5 ppb for forest, and 1 ppb for arid lands ... IWAQM recommends use of the background levels provided above, unless specific data are available for the modeling domain that would discredit the values cited.” The full quote raises the question of whether the 10 ppb value for grasslands, as opposed to the 1 ppb value for arid lands, should have been used for this application. In fact, current emissions inventories and data on concentrations of ammonium ion in precipitation suggest that eastern Idaho and southwestern Wyoming have ammonia levels that are much higher than those in other parts of the Interior West and comparable to levels in the Great Plains and agricultural areas of the Midwest. Agricultural activity in Idaho and the extensive livestock production that occurs in the Upper Green River Valley both contribute significant ammonia emissions. Partitioning of nitric acid (HNO3) to aerosol phase NH4NO3 is highly 

sensitive to the availability of ammonia, both in reality and in the MESOPUFF chemistry scheme used in the CALPUFF model. Underestimation of ammonia concentrations would lead in turn to underestimation of PM2.5 concentrations, PM10 concentrations, and visibility impacts from NOX emitted from the JIDP and 

other sources in the region. 

this impact assess

2 1 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments 

After having engaged in this thorough review of the Air Quality Supplement and the underlying DEIS, it is the conclusion of the parties to these comments that BLM must do the following to protect air quality in the Upper Green River Basin of western Wyoming and to meet its obligations under the FLPMA, NEPA, and the CAA • The BLM must develop a valid cumulative impacts 

The BLM believes analysis contained valid for the JIDP. cooperatively with and as such is conThe BLM will prov

15
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

analysis of air quality issues in the Upper Green Basin, particularly with respect to visibility in Class I areas (Wilderness Areas and National Parks) and emissions levels hazardous to human health. Specifics regarding what is required for a valid cumulative impacts analysis are provided by these comments. As discussed in these comments, the air quality supplement, Jonah Infill DEIS, and all other existing BLM NEPA documents fail to meet the need for a valid cumulative impacts analysis. 

• The BLM must use its authority under FLPMA, 

NEPA, and the CAA to ensure the striking views in National Parks and Wilderness Areas (Class I areas) are protected. Visibility in local communities must be protected as well. 

• The BLM must ensure that human health is 

protected by preventing emissions increases that will contribute to violations of the ozone NAAQS and other NAAQS, and ensure limits on the incremental increases in pollutant concentrations in PSD areas are not exceeded, including Class II increments. 

• BLM must ensure high mountain watersheds are 

not acidified. 

• To accomplish these things BLM must set a limit on 

emissions from oil and gas development that cannot be exceeded so as to ensure that all requirements of the CAA, NEPA, and FLPMA are met. 

• BLM must adopt effective strategies to implement 

these limitations on emissions. Emissions tracking tied to permit issuance has proven to be a reasonable strategy to ensure compliance with emissions caps. 

• BLM must require phased development of oil and 

gas as a means to ensure that emissions remain below the emissions limits while allowing for 

orderly develop

ment of the resource across the

authority to protechigh mountain waappropriate use of How the BLM will described in the rethe FEIS (see Secdevelopment will bseveral performanreclamation. In terBLM will continue and USFS to devemitigation measurThe BLM also recBACT processes regulatory authoritThe BLM will abid

agreement with th

Monitoring and miaccomplished by t(JIO) (see FEIS SThe BLM will not aNEPA, FLPMA, or 

16
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

region. 

• The BLM must ensure that industry applies the best 

available control technology (BACT) in all stages of gas field development to minimize emissions of pollutants. 

• The BLM must reinstitute and faithfully abide by the 

NOX tracking agreement with the WDEQ it entered 

into initially on June 16, 1997 and reaffirmed on April 7, 2000. 

• BLM must also ensure that scientifically valid and 

thorough monitoring of air pollutant emissions and ambient pollutant levels in both affected areas and background areas is implemented and maintained in the Upper Green River Basin. 

These measures must be implemented to avoid the extreme impacts to visibility in Class I areas, likely violations of NAAQS, violations of increment levels in Class I and Class II areas, and degradation of other air quality related values that are documented in these comments and BLM’s own NEPA documents. Absent these measures, BLM will be engaging in the approval of actions (oil and gas development) that will violate the NEPA, FLPMA, and CAA. 

2 2 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments 

When we step back and look at the “big picture” presented by BLM’s own analysis it is clear that BLM is preparing to unleash widespread deterioration of the regional environment in violation of numerous legal standards through the oil and gas development it proposes to authorize and even promote. It plans to transform an area with some of the cleanest air in the world that is home to some of the most treasured protected landscapes in the world into an area where haze obscures views for about a third of the year, human health is threatened, and treasured high mountain fisheries are acidified. These impacts cannot be allowed to happen, and are prohibited by law. This is true for the many particular legal reasons discussed in these comments, but it is

The BLM respectfconclusions reacheverything within iuses assigned to fdevelopment to puproper implementto this being acco

17
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

also true if BLM is to meet a goal of NEPA to “assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;” under FLPMA to manage the public lands “in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, . . . ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric . . .values . . . ;” and under the CAA “to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation’s air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of the population,” and to ensure “the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory class I Federal areas . . . .” See also 42 U.S.C. § 7470 (the purpose of the PSD program is to “protect public health and welfare from an actual or potential adverse effect” even where an area complies with applicable NAAQS). 

2 3 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments 

When the additional NOX emissions expected from the 

development analyzed in the Air Quality Supplement for this area are added to the impacts identified by the WDEQ analysis of increment consumption, Appendix B, the NO2 Class II increment will be exceeded. In 

addition, the large increase in PM10 concentrations 

attributed to direct impacts from the proposed development will cause violations of the Class II increment for PM10. The analysis of visibility impairment predicted in the Jonah Infill DEIS and Air Quality Supplement also demonstrate massive deterioration in visibility in the region. And the monitored exceedances of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS also indicate the likelihood that the ozone NAAQS will be violated if large increases in ozone precursors are allowed in the region. 

Consequently, BLM must amend the Pinedale Resource Management Plan (RMP) to establish limits on the timing and magnitude of development to ensure that these predicted impacts from increased oil and gas development will not occur and that they are adequately analyzed and accounted for at the proper level of NEPA and FLPMA analysis. We would only note that if BLM does not amend the Pinedale RMP, any development in excess of the levels of 

develop

ment authorized by the current RMP will not be

Conformance of thRMP is discussed has been updated regarding this matconcluded that neto the Pinedale RMof the JIDP.

18
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

in conformity with the RMP, and therefore will violate FLPMA and BLM’s implementing regulations requiring that management actions conform to the RMP. 

2 4 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments 

Under EPA’s regional haze rule at 40 C.F.R. §§ 51.308 and 309, the State of Wyoming must submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that complies with these rules so as to achieve “reasonable progress” toward the national goal of no impairment of visibility due to manmade sources of air pollution in Class I areas. Under EPA’s rules, the December 17, 2007 SIP must provide for compliance with the provisions of 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(d)(1)-(4). 40 C.F.R. §51.309(g)(3). Under these rules the SIP must “provide for reasonable progress toward achieving natural visibility conditions.” It must do that by providing for “improvement in visibility for the most impaired days” and “no degradation in visibility for the least impaired days.” The SIP must also “include enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals established by States having mandatory Class I Federal areas. The effect of BLM’s approval of the JIDP Preferred Alternative as currently contemplated will be to make it difficult or impossible for the State to meet these requirements. BLM will be in the midst of actively degrading visibility in Class I areas in 2007. This will make it impossible for there to be “improvement” in visibility on the most impaired days and for there to be “no degradation” on the least impaired days. At a minimum, the Jonah Infill DEIS and Air Quality Supplement must be revised to provide a specific accounting as to what the effects of this project will be on the State of Wyoming’s ability to submit an approvable SIP to EPA, and for the standards specified in EPA’s regulations to actually be met. 

BLM recognizes WRegional Haze Ruair quality protectiwith the reasonabquality performancAlternative (see FInfill Preferred Altedemonstrate that the proposed projeassociated with an 80%. BLM encousignificant potentiaproposed project a

2 5 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments 

BLM has independent duties under FLPMA and NEPA to ensure compliance with the CAA relative to the impacts of these gas fields on visibility in addition to any provisions the State of Wyoming might make in its 

SIP. The basis for this independent duty is discussed

The BLM recognizNEPA to ensure cincluding the CAAproject-developme

conducted becaus

19
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

in detail throughout these comments. If nothing else, the early-project-development stage impacts are predicted to occur in 2006, well before the 2007 SIP is even due. Furthermore, some means to control air pollution are within BLM’s authority to regulate and not WDEQ’s, such as controlling the rate of overall well permitting (the overall pace of development). The conduct of oil and gas operations on a lease shall be “in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts to . . . air . . . visual, and other resources.” BLM specifically has the “right to deny approval of operations” where impacts are greater than normal. “Lessor reserves the right to specify rates of development . . . in the pubic interest . . . if deemed necessary for proper . . . operation of . . . these leased lands.” BLM shall take “any” action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the public lands. Thus, BLM specifically retains the right and responsibility to regulate the overall pace of development as a means to meet its independent responsibilities under NEPA, FLMPA, and the CAA, a right which WDEQ does not enjoy under the current PSD SIP which is based on a first-come firstserved approach to issuing facility permits pursuant to WDEQ’s authority to regulate individual pollution sources. Consequently BLM must employ and pursue this area of authority to meet is obligations under the law, regardless of and in addition to any provisions in the Wyoming SIP that may grant authority to WDEQ to deny individual permits based on evidence of expected violations of CAA requirements. 

obligation and doethe actions of the The pace of develcontrolled by seveof field Operators Preferred Alternatterms of pace of dwith the EPA, WDimplement applicalegal requirementsallow for multiple ulands and will do slease, in a manneadverse impacts. 

2 6 C Health The Jonah Infill DEIS states that with regard to cancer 

risks due to hazardous air pollutants resulting from oil and gas development, all cancer risks are acceptable “except for [the maximally-exposed individual] benzene scenario, which falls at the lower end of the 1 x 10-4 to 1 x 10-6 cancer risk range.” 

This statement is obscure and needs to be explained. It appears to be saying that under some scenarios a recognized acceptable level of cancer rates may be exceeded. If this is true it needs to be disclosed and carefully explained. Neither the decision-maker (BLM 

and to so

me extent other agencies) or the public can 

The EIS and AQTstate that all of the benzene and formpresumptively accx 10-6) as stated The focus of BLM impacts from the Pincluding No Actiocalculate the increhuman health risk formaldehyde emiproject. 

20
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

make informed decisions or provide informed input into this process when a potentially significant issue is obscured with vague, unexplained language and the data is provided in tables that are not read by most people, or carefully explained to them by BLM. Furthermore, BLM’s estimates are for incremental risk associated with the project, and would be imposed on top of existing cancer risks. Under NEPA, BLM has an obligation to disclose the cumulative impacts of the project. EPA has found that baseline cancer risks from benzene and formaldehyde are elevated across much of the country. BLM provides no baseline data for potentially carcinogenic chemicals to determine background exposure to which estimates of Jonah Infill Drilling Project emissions and risks can be added. BLM must also clearly disclose that its evaluation of cancer risks associated with the Jonah project underestimates risks associated with formaldehyde, because BLM’s analysis only addresses primary formaldehyde emissions, not the contribution of other VOCs emitted from the project to the formation of secondary formaldehyde in the atmosphere downwind from the points of emission. Additionally, BLM’s assessment has entirely neglected the cancer risk associated with diesel exhaust emissions from oil and gas development, which may be highly significant. There is no doubt that many thousands of heavy diesel truck trips will be required to develop and operate the field, and well drilling may well be largely done by large diesel powered drilling rigs. BLM must disclose these potential impacts in association with the risks presented by formaldehyde and benzene emissions. 

Calculation of secis beyond the capthat was selected approved by the athat included EPAAs stated by EPA document for diesthough available ethat diesel exhauscarcinogen, the coevaluation is that tsufficient to confidor unit risk range.” sufficient informatpotential carcinogexhaust. As more BLM will consider air quality analysescientifically defenThe BLM believes information for pumaking is provide

2 7 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments 

In 1997 BLM entered into a Letter of Agreement for Tracking NOx Emissions with the WDEQ. That 

commitment was reaffirmed in April 2000. In this agreement, BLM committed to tracking NOX

emissions sources (new, abandoned or modified) within 

the vast airshed enco

mpassed by the Rock Springs,

BLM will abide by 

emissions.

21
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

Pinedale, and Kemmerer Field Offices. Changes in emissions from existing sources and new sources were to be tracked. Tracking was to be based on the maximum potential to emit that was authorized in permits issued by WDEQ. BLM specifically committed to doing a number of things, including maintaining separate records for the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline Fields due to their proximity to the Bridger Wilderness, and preparing an annual report of emission source information. The Pinedale Anticline EIS ROD provided a separate, binding commitment to continue this monitoring. Yet as recently revealed in the Questar Year-Round Drilling EA, BLM has failed to abide by its commitments to track NOX and other emissions. This must be corrected 

and BLM must abide by both the mitigation commitment adopted in the Pinedale Anticline ROD and the Letter of Agreement so that reliable and accurate information on pollutant emissions is available to the agencies and the public. 

This requires monitoring not just in the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline Fields. Rather, under the Agreement, BLM must carefully and accurately monitor NOX

emissions throughout western and southwestern Wyoming in the Rock Springs, Kemmerer, and Pinedale Field Offices. 

2 11 C Mitigation The Air Quality Supplement is entirely non-definitive 

about what mitigation will be used to avoid or eliminate adverse air quality impacts and who would undertake those measures. The Mitigation Options that are modeled are presented as “examples” not commitments. BLM claims it may not even be able to implement some mitigation measures. The role the State could or will play in adopting and implementing these mitigation measures is not discussed or defined. BLM has obtained no commitments from the State that cumulative impact analyses will be performed before minor source permits are issued, or that permits will be denied if aggregate emissions will cause or contribute to violations of NAAQS, PSD increments, visibility impairment, and adverse impacts on acid sensitive

The BLM will provFLMPA, NEPA, ancommitted to in thAQTSD Appendix document. The sprequired are specin the FEIS (Sectipromulgated in the incorporated in the BLM. The BLM hwork with the EPAand implement ap

22
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

waters. Even in the Jonah Infill DEIS itself only vague possibilities to mitigate impacts are mentioned (but not analyzed), and no definitive regulatory role for the State is described. BLM must adopt measures that are both sufficient to provide for compliance with the CAA, and enforceable directly by BLM or by an enforceable agreement with the State to meet its obligations under the FLPMA, NEPA, and the CAA. 

2 12 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments 

The WDEQ just released its Summary Report, Southwest Wyoming NO2 PSD Increment Consumption 

Modeling. This document suffers from several flaws that make it impossible for BLM to rely on it for meeting its obligations under NEPA to disclose cumulative impacts to air quality of the JIDP, or to demonstrate under FLPMA that BLM will provide for compliance with the CAA relative to protecting air quality. These problems include the following: 

1. There is no analysis of impacts to visibility, the 

ozone NAAQS, or PSD increments for PM or SO2. Just NO2 is analyzed. 

2. It is not a comprehensive increment consumption 

analysis since it specifically omits sources that contribute to NO2 concentrations in the region. 

WDEQ states that it will supplement the analysis by future, more complete analyses (to include sources within a 300 kilometer [km] range around the Class I areas), but pending this it cannot be a deemed a comprehensive analysis. 

3. It does not address BLM’s obligation under NEPA 

and FLPMA to determine the cumulative impacts of the proposed JIDP. It only considers existing sources of emissions as of 2004. Emissions from proposed developments (including the JIDP) are not considered at all, even though gas fields in proximity to Class I areas are shown to have a dominant effect on air quality in Class I areas. 

4. The amount of NO2 increment consumed by the 

nearby existing development included in the 

analysis de

monstrates that if concentrations

WDEQ chose to fo

and has the authoregulatory PSD Infor PM and SO2. 

BLM air quality animportance of potemonitoring has bearea as well as ne

The WDEQ report preliminary reportWDEQ has the reregulatory PSD InPreliminary results unlikely that the JIof the NO2 increm

Area. The intent odetermine the curconsumption. Althare included (if the project has been ainconsistent with tprogram to estimaconsumption.

23
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

predicted by BLM for the proposed JIDP were added, the NO2 increment will be violated. 

2 13 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments 

The BLM Must Consider The Numerous Existing NEPA Air Quality Analyses In The Jonah Infill Drilling Project EIS. Over the years BLM has prepared many, many NEPA documents that addressed air quality, many intended to have widespread application in western Wyoming, just as is the case for the Jonah analysis. Yet these documents are not disclosed and discussed in the Jonah Infill DEIS and Air Quality Supplement, an important oversight. Given the amassed air quality analyses and available information represented in these prior NEPA analyses, they cannot be ignored by BLM. They represent an important source of existing information and analysis that must be acknowledged by and considered by BLM, and we request that they be considered in the Jonah Infill Drilling Project EIS. These documents show and demonstrate many things. For example, they show that BLM has previously set limits on emissions from oil and gas development projects (i.e., it knows how to do this), that it has acknowledged that is has authority to phase the pace of oil and gas development, that it recognizes that it (not just WDEQ) has a responsibility to comply with, implement and enforce the requirements CAA, etc. Yet now BLM seems unwilling to acknowledge and consider these past positions and actions. This needs to be explained. In the past, BLM has recognized that Class I areas such as the Bridger Wilderness provide “visual experiences that are almost unequaled any other place along the Rocky Mountain Range.” Yet now BLM is almost silent about the values of these areas and of the importance of protecting air quality generally, bloodlessly documenting the extreme impacts that would occur due to the JIDP and other projects with little or no expression of interest or concern about the values involved. This should be rectified; impacts cannot be adequately analyzed absent recognition of and definition of the values affected. These documents also show levels of 

emissions BLM has previously estimated, which could

The BLM is aware documents. As nothe AQTSD, EIS, NEPA documents into this process. them all. Such a predundancies. The BLM has revivariety of gas projdevelopments, anmitigations for the best professional jwith other air qualChapter 3 of the Evalues of the variopotentially impactebelieves this has bway that reflects tparties. All of thesutilization are of a 

24
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

have relevance to the current analysis, and certainly any changes or discrepancies need to be considered and explained. Thus, we include these documents as part of our comments and ask that BLM consider these NEPA documents as it prepares the FEIS. 

2 14 C Ozone & VOCs Information On Ozone Concentrations In The Jonah 

Field. On September 26, 2005 the EPA sent the parties a response to a Freedom of Information Act request for data from the Jonah and Boulder air quality monitoring stations. That response was sent to the parties electronically by EPA, and the parties forwarded that response electronically to BLM on September 26, 2005 asking that the information be incorporated by reference into these comments. 

The data from the monitoring stations shows that there were exceedances of the ozone 8-hour standard (80 ppb) on February 3 and 26, 2005 at the Jonah station (98 and 89 ppb, respectively), and on February 20, 2005 at the Boulder station (88 ppb reading). 

BLM agrees that trecorded exceedaNAAQS. The factozone concentratiunclear. To date, air quality standarIn recognition of thconcentrations, mthe Jonah Field arBoulder. 

3 1 B Emissions, Project Flaring Emission Reductions Should Be Reflected in 

the Analysis. The emission reductions from “flare-less” completions were not considered in the air quality analysis. 

Consequently, flaring emissions are overestimated. The analysis on page B-2 assumes that one, two, or three flares operate continuously throughout the year, and in Table D.1.30 on page D-33 continuous operation of four to five flares has been assumed. The analysis appears to assume that the wells do not have access to gathering systems, even after production begins. To the contrary, most wells currently being drilled by Ultra are development wells and have immediate access to gathering infrastructure. Ultra's usual practice on such wells is to immediately divert flow of the produced gas into the field gathering system. This results in a minimal amount of flared gas. On July 1, 2005 WDEQ's regulatory permitting for flaring during completions went into effect for the Pinedale and Jonah Fields. This regulation should be incorporated into the analysis because the requirements are mandatory. 

The conservative three simultaneouthe use of flarelescompletions. It is these estimates is happen on any givhappen on all dayAppendix G Table specific emission flaring. The emissions invwere conducted pWDEQ-AQD flarinassumptions were field Operators. Treductions benefitfurther discussed Project-specific emachieved by variocompletions.

25
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

3 2 B Emissions, Project Use of Engine Manufacturers’ Emissions Factors 

Provide a More Accurate Estimate of Drill Rig Emissions Compared with EPA AP-42. The use of conservative EPA AP-42 emission factors overestimates rig emissions from the Pinedale Anticline. It would bemore accurate to use manufacturers' emissions estimates in full field (2017) and near term (2006) modeling. 

Neither drilling engnor manufacturersbe obtained for reAdditionally, althofactors may have manufacturers’ emused exclusively idrilling engines wewhich only AP-42 applicable.

3 3 B Emissions, Project Use of EPA AP-42 factors should employ the correct 

emission factors for appropriate engine size. The Jonah Infill analysis of drilling emissions uses EPA AP42 Section 3.3 emission factors. These factors apply only to engines less than 600 hp. 

Lower emission factors from Section 3.4 of AP-42 should have been used for the larger engines on the drill rigs. 

One 500-hp enginspecified for straigengines and two 8for directional drillapplicable to enginot all engines sphp, and because a desired for use in factor from AP-42 used.

3 4 B Emissions, Regional Baseline Emissions Should Use Best Available Data. 

Although NEPA requires use of best available data, the air quality analysis does not use the best available data to estimate regional baseline emissions. Instead of using 2002 actual emissions, which are available through WDEQ's WISE, the analysis uses changes in potential emissions as reported in WDEQ's Southwest Wyoming EmissionsTracking Report and submitted to the Wyoming BLM. 

At the time the regconducted, the Woperational. Chanobtained from statestablished the bainventory; howeveWyoming Emissioutilized.

4 1 A1 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section 1.0, Page 2. After the last paragraph, insert the following text that has been added to the TSD supplement on page 2 in the second paragraph: “The Preferred Alternative modeling ... or the Preferred Alternative modeling analyses.” 

This text was addeSupplement.

4 2 A1 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section 2.0, Page 3, 3rd paragraph, last sentence. Add the following on to the last sentence: “...AQTSD, to maintain consistency and comparability with the results reported in the DEIS (BLM 2005) and AQTSD (TRC 2004).” 

Although arranged added to the Augu

4 3 A1 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section 2.0, Page 3/4, 4th paragraph. After the first sentence, Insert the following as a new sentence: “The PSD demonstrations serve information purposes only 

and do not constitute a regulatory P

SD Increment

This text was addeSupplement.

26
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

consumption analysis, which may be completed as necessary by WDEQ-AQD.” 

4 4 A1 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section Table 1, Page 7, PSD Class I Increments row & PSD Class II Increments row. Add the following footnote: “The PSD demonstrations serve information purposes only and do not constitute a regulatory PSD Increment consumption analysis.” 

This text was addeSupplement.

4 5 A1 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section Table 1 and 2, Page 7 and 8. In looking at the tables in light of the direction to present information in a format that is clear and easy to read, it is hard to believe that a member of the public would be able to understand what is represented without a significant amount of effort to decipher the acronyms and the significant amount of data contained in the table. If a change to a table with more of a reader friendly format (e.g., text such as “Potential concentrations would be in compliance with applicable NAAQS and WAAQS”) is not supported. BLM should ensure that these tables be printed in color. 

Tables 1 and 2 of Supplement were 

4 6 A1 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section 2.2.2, Page 11, Far-field impacts, 1st paragraph. After last sentence, Insert the following as a new sentence: “These SILs are proposed by EPA as an indicator of significance of New Source Review projects to determine additional analysis requirements.” 

This text was addeSupplement.

4 7 A1 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section 2.2.3, Page 13, Far-field impacts, 1st paragraph. After last sentence, Insert the following as a new sentence: “These SILs are proposed by EPA as an indicator of significance of New Source Review projects to determine additional analysis requirements.” 

This text was addeSupplement.

4 8 A1 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section 2.3, Page 15. After the first sentence, insert the following text that has been added to the TSD supplement on page 2 in the first paragraph: “Cumulative analyses include...included ambient air background values.” 

This text was addeSupplement.

4 9 A1 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section Table 3, Page 21, Example Mitigation Options. Column heading needs to have a footnote indicating that the example is based on 50% straight / 50% directional drilling. 

This text was addeSupplement.

27
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

4 10 A1 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section 3.0, Page 22. After the last paragraph, insert the following text that is in the TSD supplement on page 19 as the last sentence in the first paragraph: “Unlike the Preferred Alternative modeling...are not directly comparable to the results presented in the DEIS.” 

This text was addeSupplement.

4 11 A1 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section 3.0, Page 23, 1st paragraph, 1st and 2nd full sentences. The acronym “PAP” is missing from both lists of other projects. 

The acronym was Supplement.

4 12 A1 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section 3.1, Page 24. After the 3rd sentence, insert the following as a new sentence: “The PSD demonstrations serve information purposes only and do not constitute a regulatory PSD Increment consumption analysis, which may be completed as necessary by WDEQ-AQD.” 

This text was addeSupplement.

4 13 A1 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section Table 4, Page 25, PSD Class I Increments row & PSD Class II Increments row. Add the following footnote: “The PSD demonstrations serve information purposes only and do not constitute a regulatory PSD Increment consumption analysis.” 

This text was addeSupplement.

4 14 A1 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section Table 4 and 5, Page 25 & 26. In looking at the tables in light of the direction to present information in a format that is clear and easy to read, it is hard to believe that a member of the public would be able to understand what is represented without a significant amount of effort to decipher the acronyms and the significant amount of data contained in the table. If a change to a table with more of a reader friendly format (e.g., text such as “Potential concentrations would be in compliance with applicable NAAQS and WAAQS”) is not supported. BLM should ensure that these tables be printed in color. 

Tables 4 and 5 of Supplement were 

4 15 A1 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section 3.2, Page 27, Far-field impacts, 1st paragraph. After last sentence, Insert the following as a new sentence: “These SILs are proposed by EPA as an indicator of significance of New Source Review projects to determine additional analysis requirements.” 

This text was addeSupplement.

4 16 A2 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section Exec Sum, Page v, 1st paragraph, last sentence. There are two periods. Delete one. 

This change was AQTSD Suppleme

28
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

4 17 A2 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section Table ES-1, Page vii, PSD Class I Increments row and PSD Class II Increments row. Add the following footnote: “The PSD demonstrations serve information purposes only and do not constitute a regulatory PSD Increment consumption analysis.” 

This text was addeSupplement (see 

4 18 A2 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section Table ES-1 and ES-2, Page vii & viii. In looking at the tables in light of the direction to present information in a format that is clear and easy to read, it is hard to believe that a member of the public would be able to understand what is represented without a significant amount of effort to decipher the acronyms and the significant amount of data contained in the table. If a change to a table with more of a reader friendly format (e.g., text such as “Potential concentrations would be in compliance with applicable NAAQS and WAAQS”) is not supported. BLM should ensure that these tables be printed in color. 

AQTSD Appendix have been printed the following footn“Results summarieindicate that potenair quality standarrecognized significof concern. Resu(bold text) indicatabove these levels

4 19 A2 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section Exec Sum, Page ix, 1st paragraph. After last sentence, insert the following as a new sentence: “The PSD demonstrations serve information purposes only and do not constitute a regulatory PSD Increment consumption analysis, which may be completed as necessary by WDEQ-AQD.” 

This text was addeSupplement (see 

4 20 A2 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section Exec Sum, Page xi, 2nd paragraph. After last sentence, insert the following as a new sentence: “The PSD demonstrations serve information purposes only and do not constitute a regulatory PSD Increment consumption analysis, which may be completed as necessary by WDEQ-AQD.” 

This text was addeSupplement vii (se

4 21 A2 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section Table ES-3, Page xii, PSD Class I Increments row & PSD Class II Increments row. Add the following footnote: “The PSD demonstrations serve information purposes only and do not constitute a regulatory PSD Increment consumption analysis.” 

This text was addeSupplement (see 

4 22 A2 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section Table ES-3 and ES-4, Page xii - xiii. In looking at the tables in light of the direction to present information in a format that is clear and easy to read, it is hard to believe that a member of the public would be able to understand what is represented without a significant amount of effort to decipher the acronyms and the significant amount of data contained in the table. If a change to a table with more of a reader friendly format (e.g., text such as “Potential 

AQTSD Appendix have been printed they are copied, abeen added: “Results summarieindicate that potenair quality standarrecognized signific

of concern. Resu

29
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

concentrations would be in compliance with applicable NAAQS and WAAQS”) is not supported. BLM should ensure that these tables be printed in color. 

(bold text) indicatabove these levels

4 23 A2 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section 3.2, Page 27, Last paragraph, last line. There appears to be a formatting error on the last line, which is introducing a lot of white space. 

This change was Supplement (see 

5 1 B Conservative 

Analysis 

Unfortunately, BLM’s analysis is so overly conservative it is extremely unlikely the described potential air quality impacts will ever occur from additional infill development at Jonah. Even more unfortunate is that BLM did not disclose or explain the conservative nature of its analysis in the documents. In general, BLM’s analysis could be described as estimating the potential “worst case” of air quality impacts rather than a “reasonably foreseeable” analysis which is the legal standard. Although EnCana appreciates BLM’s desire not to understate impacts that could occur as a result of the JIDP, by being overly conservative, BLM has exaggerated its description of the potential air quality impacts and has failed to provide the public a framework for interpreting these results and determining for themselves if the modeling assumptions and results are realistic. BLM has effectively reverted to a “worst case” analysis that Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) eliminated from the NEPA regulations almost twenty years ago. 

BLM recognizes thinappropriate and Jonah is reasonab“Reasonable but cCEQ guidance for where more accurand it is not reasoinformation. The BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

5 3 B Conservative 

Analysis 

An analysis of the direct and indirect environmental effects of the projects should only include the “reasonably foreseeable” effects, not every possible effect that could occur. In fact, CEQ eliminated the requirement to conduct a “worst-case” analysis from its regulations almost twenty years ago. The modeling scenarios in the JIDP DEIS and the accompanying documents disclose and analyze more than a reasonable range of foreseeable air quality impacts with respect to the JIDP. Furthermore, BLM’s thorough discussion of the potential air quality impacts and analysis will be given deference as courts generally apply a “rule of reason,” that defers to the agency’s analysis of the impacts. 

See comment 5-1

30
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

5 4 B Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments - Air Quality Standards 

Modeling does indicate that certain scenarios, including the Preferred Alternative and Proposed Action, have the potential to exceed the significant impact levels (SILs) for NO2 and PM10 in Bridger Wilderness Area. 

However, the SILs, which were originally proposed in the 1996 amendments to the New Source Review Rule, were not promulgated by the December 31, 2002 final rule. 

BLM recognizes thpromulgated in the comparisons with information purpospotential standard Stakeholder group comparison of moSILs.

5 5 B Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments - Air Quality Standards 

Three points are important to JIDP increment modeling and the importance of the SIL: 1) BLM performed full increment modeling which demonstrates that the increments are not violated (so the SILs have no meaning here); 2) the SILs have never been promulgated by EPA and are not standards even if they were adopted; 3) the SILs do not apply to NEPA review, and again, since full increment modeling was performed, the SILs (a de minimis threshold to determine the need for full increment modeling) have no meaning. At this time, the SIL is merely a de minimis threshold tool in completing the increment analysis, and because BLM evaluated the increments and found no increment violations, the SILs are meaningless in this context and can be ignored. 

WDEQ is in the prPSD increment coComparisons with when the PSD incnot yet complete. Stakeholder group comparison of moSILs.

5 6 B Conservative 

Analysis 

While EnCana concurs that the DEIS and Air Quality Supplement create an adequate administrative record that cannot be disputed (as BLM has analyzed all conceivable scenarios for air impacts), the supplemental Preferred Alternative Scenarios exaggerate the potential impacts from the JIDP. Three emission scenarios are over exaggerated: drilling rig engines, flares, and vertical/directional drilling. 

The analysis is intconservative. Project-specific emachieved by varioflareless completioEmissions from drancillary, as well aThe BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

5 7 B Emissions, Project Drilling Rig Engine Emissions: BLM’s modeling for the 

Preferred Alternative utilized so called “Tier 0” engines, which may reflect 1960 drilling rig engine emissions, but do not reflect current EPA off-road diesel rules or the engines that are currently operating at Jonah Field. In addition, BLM used the wrong AP 42 emission factor for the Tier 0 drilling rig engines. The analysis uses the

Neither drilling engnor manufacturer’be obtained for reAdditionally, althofactors may have manufacturer’s em

used exclusively i

31
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

AP 42 Table 3.3-1 emission factor (0.031 pound per horsepower-hour [lb/hp-hr]) rather than the AP 42 Table 3.4-1 emission factor (0.024 lb/hp-hr). Rig emissions are therefore overestimated by 29% solely as a result of this error. Of great concern is the High Emissions Scenario which assumes 80% of the drilling rigs at Tier 0 emissions and 20% at Tier 1 emissions in 2017. Based on BLM’s modeling for the Proposed Action, (which includes none of the mitigation EnCana anticipates occurring), no drill rigs would be at Tier 0 emissions, and instead 50% would be at Tier 1 emissions and 50% at Tier 2 emissions. As a result, the High Emissions Scenario of BLM’s Preferred Alternative results in considerably greater impacts than the Operators’ Proposed Action. These two models can be effectively compared once the reviewer understands that the difference is related to the NOX emissions of 

drilling rig engines. Emissions will not be this high, as new drilling rig engines will have emissions levels at Tier 2 or greater, as manufacturers no longer produce engines with Tier 0 and Tier 1 emissions levels. Accordingly, new Tier 0 engines will not be available for use in 2017—nor will WDEQ ever allow them. In addition, any existing Tier 0 engines will likely either have been retrofitted or replaced long before 2017. Despite these facts, the use of mostly Tier 0 engines is a base assumption in BLM’s Preferred Alternative modeling. 

drilling engines wewhich only AP-42 applicable. One 500-hp enginspecified for straigengines and two 8for directional drillapplicable to enginot all engines sphp, and because a desired for use in factor from AP-42 used.

5 8 B Emissions, Project Flaring Emissions: Flaring emission assumptions in all 

models is another example of BLM over predictions. EnCana pioneered and perfected the technique of “flareless flowback” which eliminates almost all flares in the Jonah Field. This flareless technique was then adopted by WDEQ in its air regulations last year, and has become an existing regulatory requirement. BLM modeling, however, assumes three flares running continuously, 8,760 hours a year every year in all forty model runs. The emissions associated with these three flares equal drilling and completing over 300 wells per year (exceeding the 250 well development rate [WDR] model assumption). BLM’s modeling apparently assumes that the WDEQ flaring requirement does not exist. 

The conservative three simultaneouthe use of flarelescompletions. It is these estimates is happen on any givhappen on all dayAppendix G Table specific emission flaring. It is recognized thguidance/regulatiothe inventory and were co

mpleted p

32
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

guidance/regulatioThe BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

5 9 B Emissions, Project Vertical Drilling: EnCana also notes that each of BLM’s 

Preferred Alternative scenarios assumed 50% directional drilling and 50% vertical drilling. BLM’s own modeling demonstrates that directional drilling results in greater ambient air impacts than vertical drilling and in fact can increase emissions by as much as 25% as compared to vertical drilling. Vertical drilling results in shorter drilling times, smaller drilling rig engines, and reduced vehicular traffic, thereby reducing air emissions. Although directional drilling may reduce surface disturbance in some instances, EPA and the public have stressed that their greatest concern is potential air quality impacts. In addition, EnCana already actively reclaims more previously disturbed land than it disturbs with new drilling sites in order to reduce the amount of habitat disturbance. Accordingly, a cost-benefit analysis of vertical drilling versus directional drilling, in light of the greatest environmental concern, would result in the utilization of 100% vertical drilling for JIDP. As such, EnCana encourages BLM to adopt primarily vertical drilling in the FEIS and ROD. 

This comment is aAlternative in the 

5 11 B Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Visibility 

EnCana has analyzed BLM’s modeling assumptions and parameters to better assess how realistically BLM’s modeling predicted the levels of visibility impacts. Upon review of the DEIS air quality analysis, EnCana notified BLM of three major concerns with the modeling that resulted in an overestimation of impacts to visibility. EnCana was disappointed that BLM did not explain the effects of these modeling assumptions in the Supplement. As a result, the air quality analysis overestimates the impacts to visibility. 

See comments 5-The BLM believes provided in the DEfor this analysis The BLM used seoverestimate imparather than Methoair quality modelinrightly so. 

5 12 B Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Meteorological Data 

IKINE Option of the CALPUFF Model: Evaluation of the modeling used to produce meteorological input for both the initial air quality analysis and the supplemental air quality analysis revealed that BLM activated the IKINE switch in the CALPUFF model used for far-field modeling. EPA guidance recommends that modelers

Thank you for youAs a result of evalSouthwest Wyom(SWWYTAF) wind 

this analysis to co

33
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

turn off this switch for far-field modeling in order to prevent aberrant, tornado-like, wind patterns that can appear in the second layers of the windfield model. BLM’s failure to follow the IWAQM recommendation, in combination with its other assumptions, resulted in truly “worst case” air quality impact modeling, for both the DEIS and Supplement, containing inconsistent and unexplainable tornado-like wind currents. Specifically, very strong downslope drainage winds, well in excess of 100 miles per hour, were introduced into the second layer of the wind field. In addition, the choice of using the IKINE option resulted in wind direction reversals in the second layer compared to the first and third, with persistent winds flowing upslope, continuously moving JIDP emissions towards the Bridger Wilderness Area. These anomalous wind flows are a result of the IKINE switch being activated for JIDP air modeling and do not represent actual wind currents. The use of the IKINE switch distorts JIDP visibility impacts in the Bridger Wilderness Area and elsewhere. These distorted wind speeds and wind directions result in an unrealistic and significant increase in the projectrelated visibility impairment predicted by model results for the Bridger Wilderness Area. CH2MHill re-ran the model with the IKINE switch inactive for both the Proposed Action and the Preferred Alternative (High Emissions Scenario), resulting in a 50% decrease in the anticipated visibility impacts from the project. CH2MHill ran the Proposed Action model by turning the IKINE switch on, and using FLAG-type backgrounds and obtained results indicating 9 days above 1.0 dv change, results similar to those derived from BLM’s modeling of the Proposed Action. When CH2MHill proceeded to turn the IKINE switch off, the results indicate just 3 days above 1.0 dv change. Accordingly, it is clear that the inappropriate IKINE setting alone confounds the model and accounts for a significant number of days of visibility impacts that are simply not grounded in real world data. BLM must clearly indicate that its air impact modeling represents a “worst case” scenario. Based on comments on the modeling of other projects,

calculations in CAadditional surface revised model codeffects (IKINE) opTests indicated bepredictions/performspeeds. The BLM recognizwith the IKINE algproblems with settBLM considers the appropriate for thi

34
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

EPA agrees that the IKINE model should not have been activated for JIDP modeling runs. In light of the reliable and considerable opposition to the use of the IKINE setting, BLM should explain the significant overestimations the use of this switch creates in the modeling results. BLM only stated, in the Supplemental AQTSD and not in the Supplement to the DEIS, that “model tests for the DEIS cases indicated that the use of IKINE produced more conservative (slightly higher) model predictions at the Bridger Wilderness Area.” The term “slightly higher” does not reflect the overestimations of impacts (which additional modeling indicates would be almost 66% less), and in fact, gives the wrong appearance to the public. 

5 13 B Background 

Concentrations 

Background Ammonia: BLM’s modeling also used an exaggerated background ammonia concentration. The background ammonia concentration for both the DEIS and Supplement modeling was set to a constant level of 1.0 ppb. This selection was driven by the recommendation in the FLAG Phase I Report. Specifically, the FLAG document states that: An appropriate estimate of ambient free gaseous NH3 is 

needed for the modeling analysis. IWAQM refers to Langford et al. (1992), who suggest that typical (within a factor of 2) background values of NH3 are: 10 parts 

per billion (ppb) for grasslands, 0.5 ppb for forest, and 1 ppb for arid lands at 20 degrees C. Langford et al. (1992) provide strong evidence that background levels of NH3 show strong dependence with ambient temperature and a strong dependence on the soil pH. However, given all the uncertainties in NH3 data, 

IWAQM recommends use of the background levels provided above, unless better data are available for the specific modeling domain. 

In this case, better data are available for this specific modeling domain and BLM should use that data to assure accurate analytical results. Specifically, ammonia is measured within the JIDP modeling domain at the CASTNET station in Pinedale, Wyoming. Longterm seasonal averages from the Pinedale station from 1989 through 2003 are as follows: 1st Quarter: 0.22 

ppb; 2nd Quarter: 0.31 ppb; 3rd Quarter: 0.34 ppb; and

The use of 1 ppb selected for this streviews, which incBLM, WDEQ, EPAThe BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

35
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

4th Quarter: 0.21 ppb. These long-term averages indicate consistency over time. This domain data, and the lack of any local ammonia sources such as animal feedlots, indicates that the background level of 1 ppb chosen for the JIDP modeling is overly conservative by a factor of four. As a result, BLM has overestimated the formation of visibility reducing aerosols in the DEIS and Air Quality Supplement modeling because background ammonia is needed to preferentially produce ammonium sulfate and then ammonium nitrate in the atmosphere. If the formation of ammonium sulfate totally consumes the ammonia, then the formation of ammonium nitrate will be curtailed or even prevented. This situation is called ammonia limiting and it is applicable at Jonah Field. As a result of this ammonia limiting, the emission of even large quantities of nitrogen oxides has little effect on visibility since the ammonia required to complete the reaction from nitrogen oxides to a visibility limiting particle (ammonium nitrate) will be exhausted. This overly conservative ammonia concentration, particularly when coupled with the use of the IKINE setting, results in significant over-projections of visibility impacts from the project. When CH2MHill, as part of the re-modeling of the Proposed Action described above, reduced the ammonia background to a more reasonable level (0.25 ppb), the days of impacts were reduced (CH2MHill had already turned off the IKINE switch) from 3 days above 1.0 dv change to 2 days above 1.0 dv change. Accordingly, the results provided in the DEIS, Air Quality Supplements, and AQTSD are overly conservative and over-estimate the impacts from the JIDP on Class I areas, particularly the Bridger Wilderness Area. 

5 14 B Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Visibility 

Precipitation/Weather Events: Finally, the model has several post-processing options which can take into account changes in relative humidity and naturally obscured visibility due to snow, rain, clouds, or fog. These assumptions are routinely used by modeling experts to address the tendency of weather events to overstate visibility impacts in models such as those 

used to quantify the potential air quality impacts of the

Thank you for youThe BLM agrees tscientifically justififrom visibility analoccur for analyses data inherent in thvisibility calculatio

36
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

JIDP. BLM modeling did not account for precipitation events such as snow and rain, or other weather events when determining the impacts on visibility in protected areas from the development in Jonah Field. In effect, BLM modeling assumes that days where snow or rain or fog impacts visibility were caused by the JIDP, which contributes to the “worst case” results. 

However, the BLM monthly average rregional haze rule inappropriate to devents from the visince relative humweather event are analysis.

5 15 B Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Visibility 

Adjusting BLM Modeling Results in Reasonably Foreseeable Air Impacts: JIDP Will Cause No Adverse Air Impacts in Class I Areas: As described above, the modeling assumptions from the IKINE setting, the ammonia background concentration, and the lack of accounting for precipitation events, results in a significant overestimation of the visibility impacts from the JIDP. Remodeling of the Proposed Action by CH2MHill, with each of the concerning assumptions accounted for, demonstrates a reduction in days of visibility impacts from 9 days above 1.0 dv change to a single day above 1.0 dv change. The described revisions to the model show that the Proposed Action will cause one day of visibility impacts in the Bridger Wilderness Area, and that mitigation can eliminate all JIDP potential air quality impacts. With respect to the Preferred Alternative modeling, the complete re-modeling of the High Emissions Scenario, with each of the concerning assumptions accounted for, indicated a reduction in days of visibility impacts from 31 days above 1.0 dv change to 9 days above 1.0 dv change. Though these modeling assumptions alone do not eliminate all days of visibility impacts, an appropriate adjustment for the overestimations from the assumptions of 80% Tier 0 emissions and 20% Tier 1 emissions does eliminate most days of visibility impacts even in the Preferred Alternative High Emissions Scenario. Accordingly, given the proper assumptions, modeling corrections, and acknowledgement of existing mitigation, such as flareless completions, JIDP emissions will not result in the potential for more than one day of impaired visibility in Class I airsheds. 

Thank you for youThe BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

37
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

5 16 B Emissions, Project ...the project emission inventories that have been 

developed and used to obtain the modeling results contain inappropriate assumptions that enhance the overestimations described above. The project totals in the Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative are endof-project emissions and inherently assume that the emission totals increase instantly. However, there would realistically be a gradual increase in emissions over time. In addition, there are new regulatory initiatives during the lifetime of the project, i.e. off-road engines will become cleaner from 2005 to 2017, etc., which will result in fewer emissions than predicted from many of the modeled sources at Jonah Field. This is particularly true with respect to the cumulative analyses. The development scenarios do not assume the retirement of existing Tier 0 drilling rig engines in favor of Tier 1, 2, and 3 engines, natural gas engines, Selective Catalytic Reduction, electric engines, or the retirement of flares in favor of flareless flowback at any natural gas fields. However, in reality, many of the sources considered in the background concentration and as part of the cumulative analyses will be retrofitted with BART under the Regional Haze rule, or retired, and will not be active for the entire life of the JIDP. As a result, these future emission reductions should be accounted for by BLM in its consideration of the true impacts and the potential corresponding mitigation. An appropriate estimation of these factors would eliminate the number of days of predicted visibility impacts even further. 

The FEIS clarifies impacts apply to tdevelopment (i.e., 13 under the PropAlternative) and adrilled and most poccurring. This mbut is anticipated tProject-specific emacheived by variocleaner-burning eBLM agrees that ccontribute to emissources. Howevewhen and to what occur.” Either redforeseeable, or we conservative” assreductions likely wapplication of BesFEIS Section 5.1.Please note that mpotential impacts fnot to cumulative 

5 17 B Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Visibility 

Sources from Outside Wyoming Cause Most of the Haze. Previous modeling indicates that oil and gas projects like the JIDP are not the primary sources of visibility impacts in the Bridger-Fitzpatrick Class I areas in Wyoming. In fact, previous modeling performed for the State of Wyoming, EPA, and the USFS (SWWYTAF) suggests that 90% of the impacts at the Bridger Wilderness Area come from distant sources outside of Wyoming and not from local sources such as Jonah Field. The SWWYTAF study was performed to evaluate air quality impacts of the cumulative development of the energy industry in Southwest Wyoming. The analysis looked at all forms of 

BLM agrees that eWyoming contributhat mitigation reqonly to the proposSource apportionmwas applicable in current conditionspotential future im

38
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

development including the development of oil and gas fields such as Jonah Field, and the operation of electric power plants. The study attempted to explain the concentrations of particulate matter measured by the USFS at the Bridger Wilderness Area nteragency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring site. Even after all of the actual and projected energy development activities in Southwest Wyoming were put into the regional CALPUFF model (the same model used by BLM) the model would not accurately predict the concentrations of particles—until nine times the amount of the local emissions were also added to the model as distant sources. Only then did the model accurately predict the measured values at Bridger Wilderness Area. This result indicates that 90% of the impacts of particles which impair visibility at Bridger Wilderness Area come from sources outside of Wyoming and not from local sources such as the Jonah Field. Accordingly, given the limited or non-existent impacts from the JIDP alone, the JIDP should not be forced to bear the burden of other more prominent and distant sources that actually contribute more predominantly to visibility concerns. 

5 18 B Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Visibility 

Visibility Impact Threshold: 2.0 Deciview BLM has itself determined that a 1.0 to 2.0 dv change represents a small but perceptible change in visibility; however, BLM utilized a 1.0 dv change to evidence impacts to visibility in the DEIS and Supplements. EnCana notes that significant debate exists in the scientific community over whether a human being can discern a 1.0 dv change, and scientific research demonstrates strong arguments indicating that the threshold should or could be greater than 1.0 dv change. The most widely referenced scientific basis for setting the just noticeable change threshold at 1.0 dv comes from a paper written by Pitchford and Malm, as referenced by BLM in the DEIS. Pitchford and Malm conclude that “a 1 to 2 dv change corresponds to a small, visibility perceptible change in a scene appearance where the assumptions used in developing 

the deciview scale are met,” however, that should not

BLM has chosen tvisibility impact thconservative” assalso indicated undtopography, a justless than 1.0 dv. not require that alatmospheric/targeanalyzed under N1.0 dv as the signas a “reasonable bThis value is also that 1.0 dv is the sshow reasonable National Visibility Regulations PerioFLAG agencies uswhen analyzing powhen conducting 

39
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

be the end of the discussion. EnCana notes that Pitchford and Malm reference a 1.0 to 2.0 dv change, implicitly indicating that the level of deciview increase that results in a “just noticeable change” could vary among Class I areas. This proves particularly true given the caveat of “where assumptions used in developing the deciview scale are met.” In order to ensure that a 1.0 or greater dv change is the appropriate level of deciview change, BLM should review the assumptions that were made in the development of the deciview scale to determine if the 1.0 to 2.0 dv threshold should apply to Bridger Wilderness Area and any other affected Class I areas. EnCana believes that it does not. Scientific evidence exists indicating that a 1.0 dv change is in fact never noticeable. In fact, Henry concludes from his detailed analysis that “the deciview scale is not uniform in perception over a wide range of visibility conditions. In fact, the change in deciviews needed to be noticeable varies greatly depending on the optical distance of the landscape features and its inherent colorfulness.” Accordingly, EnCana does not agree with BLM’s use of 1.0 dv change as the just noticeable threshold and believes this adds another level of conservatism to the impacts predicted by BLM’s modeling. There is no federal statute or regulation requiring BLM to utilize a 1.0 deciview change as the just noticeable change threshold. Despite the fact that no legal requirement exists to utilize a 1.0 deciview change, EnCana has evaluated the visibility impacts predicted by BLM and agreed to certain mitigation measures with BLM’s use of the 1.0 dv change threshold in mind. EnCana opposes the use of a 0.5 dv change as the just noticeable change threshold as it has no scientific basis. Accordingly, BLM should remain consistent with its findings in the past and refuse to embrace a 0.5 dv change based on its obligation to “insure scientific integrity” in the NEPA process. 

5 19 B Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Inconsistencies with Monitoring Data 

Air Quality & Visibility Trends in Southwest Wyoming is Improving. The overestimations of the modeling become even more apparent when contrasted with the monitoring results obtained for the Southwest Region of 

Monitoring data arMonitoring serves has great value. H

40
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

Wyoming for more than a decade. Undoubtedly, monitoring results are a more accurate reflection of the impacts from regional and local sources than the hypothetical results achieved through the modeling process. In this case, monitoring evidence at both Bridger Wilderness Area and Pinedale shows stable or improving air quality in Southwest Wyoming. Specifically, actual ambient monitoring indicates that air trends for nitrogen oxide concentrations are stable or slightly improving and that the levels of nitrogen oxides fall well below the national ambient air quality standards. Levels of nitrogen oxides are important predictors of visibility impacts and these demonstrated improvements indicate that the impacts from the JIDP cannot be as significant as indicated in the DEIS and accompanying documents. 

measure conditionModeling is needeconditions for locaavailable and for pAlthough Bridger Tbeen updated sincIMPROVE aerosoDecember 2004. 

5 20 B Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Visibility 

The starkest contrast to the model results comes from the monitoring of visibility at Bridger Wilderness Area. Since the IMPROVE station began operating in 1989 in Bridger Wilderness Area, monitors have noted an overall improvement of visibility at this location. The following data were obtained from the USFS Bridger Wilderness Area IMPROVE site by the Desert Research Institute (DRI) in Nevada, a non-profit research institution affiliated with the University of Nevada. For the 20% clearest days for each year from 1998 to 2003, the trend has been toward improving visibility with 2003 showing half of the visibility impairment compared to 1998 (3.3 -1Mm compared to 5.8 -1Mm). For the middle 60% of the days, ranked by visibility impairment, the data show a similar trend in improvement but the improvement is not as pronounced. From 1998 to 2003, the average visibility has improved about 25% (9 -1Mm in 2003 compared to 12 -1Mm in 1998). For the 20% of days with the poorest visibility, the trend is flat from 1998 to 2003 but improved slightly from 1996. The Western Governor’s Association Attribution 

BLM agrees that tand that the haziethe same from 19should be noted threquires that the hconditions by 2064yet tell us of the trand cannot tell us proposed project i

41
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

of Haze Committee has determined that the 20% “worst” days are mostly impacted by fires and road dust, not stationary source emissions. 

5 21 B Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Visibility 

To put the JIDP into context as a “contributor to haze,” it is important to understand the causes of haze. JIDP mainly emits NOX, which ultimately contributes only 4.5 

percent to haze in Bridger Wilderness Area. Bridger Wilderness Area measurements show that sulfur compounds are the largest component of visibility impairment. The DRI data suggest that sulfur is the largest contributor to visibility impairment at Bridger Wilderness Area; clearly the Jonah Field is not the source of SO2. As described above, the main sources 

of impairment for this area originate out of state. 

SO2 emissions from large coal-fired power plants and 

OMC contribute more greatly to visual impairment. WDEQ and the Western Governors Association’s Western Regional Air Partnership findings acknowledge that visibility will primarily improve by reducing SO2

emissions from area coal fired power plants. 

Thank you for you

5 22 B Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Visibility 

EnCana encourages BLM to weigh more heavily the WDEQ plans for more accurate and positive monitoring with respect to visibility (as opposed to the overly conservative and speculative modeling results). These past and future monitoring results are important for BLM to consider, especially in light of the predictions from the early-project-development stage modeling described below. 

BLM agrees that tgreat value, and Buse the relevant m

5 23 B Early Project 

Development Stage Modeling 

EnCana...questions the need to complete modeling for a timeframe only four months from now, particularly when visibility monitoring data exists, as described above, which indicate that no negative impacts to visibility are occurring from the current natural gas production in Southwest Wyoming. The 2006 modeling has little to do with the JIDP, and is not relevant to this project’s environmental impact analysis. 

BLM sees this moopportunity for Enpotential impacts fproject alone can reduction in potenincreased use of fdrilling, and emiss

5 24 B Early Project 

Development Stage Modeling 

EnCana notes that the 2006 modeling does not appropriately describe the state of affairs for the year 2006. The 2006 modeling includes emission estimates for well drilling and flaring from the JIDP, PAP, South Piney Project, Riley Ridge Project and Jack Morrow 

See comment 2-8

42
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

Hills Project. EnCana has significant concerns with these assumptions particularly with respect to the South Piney Project and the Jack Morrow Hills Project, neither of which have been approved at this time. In fact, BLM has not yet released the DEIS for the South Piney Project and therefore it is unlikely that emissions from the project will occur in 2006. With respect to the existing projects at Jonah Field and Pinedale Anticline, BLM includes in its assumptions the operation of additional drill rigs and the utilization of completion flares, despite WDEQ regulations that require more flareless completions in the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline Natural Gas Fields. BLM also includes compression estimates expanded beyond those anticipated for the JIDP for the year 2017, thereby exaggerating emissions from the JIDP in 2006. 

5 25 B Early Project 

Development Stage Modeling 

As a more general matter, BLM’s 2006 modeling includes in the emissions inventory, regional sources permitted through March 31, 2004 by the State of Wyoming, including sources other than oil and gas projects. Many of the background sources, particularly those recently permitted by the State, will not be operational by 2006 due to procedural and litigation delays. Furthermore, regardless of the year chosen for the emissions calculation (either 2006 or beyond), many of the operators of these projects, either prior to operation or during the lifetime of the project, will have incorporated new technologies and/or in many cases, will be required to meet new regulations. For example, many of the previously permitted projects established levels of control on compressors at 2 g/hp-hr. However, current BACT levels for such engines reflect levels of control at 0.7 g/hp-hr. As a result, the operators will not install the remaining compressors at an emission level of 2 g/hp-hr. Rather, the new technology will result in reductions of approximately 65% from the older technology. Accordingly, the 2006 Modeling overestimates the impacts from these non-project regional sources for the year 2006. Ultimately, estimated emissions from previously approved projects will be or already have been considerably reduced, indicating once again that impacts from the 2006 modeling are considerably overestimated. 

See comment 2-8

43
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

5 26 B Early Project 

Development Stage Modeling 

EnCana encourages BLM not to overemphasize the hypothetical predictions from the 2006 modeling or curtail development in Jonah Field, or elsewhere in the Upper Green River Valley, based on these unrealistic modeling predictions. EnCana notes that BLM, in performing the 2006 modeling, assumed an approximate 4,000 tpy increase in NOX emissions from 

the JIDP and other regional activities from 2001 to 2003. The WDEQ total oil and gas production NOXemissions for Sublette County were 4,291 tpy in 2003, so the 2006 modeling assumption is faulty. Further, the IMPROVE monitoring demonstrates improvements in visibility in 2003. Accordingly, the modeling of a 4,000 tpy increase in NOX emissions predicts far more 

impacts than the monitoring data in the Bridger Wilderness Area from this same level of emissions. BLM should discuss this disconnect between prediction and reality in the FEIS. 

The 2006 analysis current conditionsadequate to repreresponsible for anenergy developmein the Pinedale AnThe BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

5 27 B Early Project 

Development Stage Modeling 

For all of the foregoing reasons, BLM should not rely upon the early-project-development stage modeling in making any JIDP decisions. If anything, this modeling should inform WDEQ future air quality decision-making, and be analyzed further by WDEQ. 

The BLM believes applicable and wilJIDP decision-maproject-developmefacet of the modeland will continue tJIO, which is discu2.4.5), and other c

5 28 B Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Visibility 

In modeling, BLM utilized baseline data from Class I areas to model the visibility impacts in regional communities. Specifically, because no IMPROVE or other monitoring data were available in any of these locations with respect to visibility, BLM used the IMPROVE values from the Bridger Wilderness Area and the FLAG assumptions to calculate the change in visibility for regional communities. As a result, BLM significantly underestimated the baseline visibility levels in these communities which in turn caused an overstatement of the visibility impacts. Instead of representing visibility levels in communities with considerable mobile source emissions, wood-burning stoves and other locally-produced, visibility impacting sources, the baseline levels represent those in a clean pristine environment such as the Bridger Wilderness Area. Inappropriate baseline data proves particularly

Thank you for you

44
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

problematic with modeling such as that conducted here, where the modeling predicts the visibility impacts based on the changes in visibility from pre-project, existing levels to post-project levels. Unfortunately, these results are derived from an underestimation of the existing visibility levels, and accordingly, provide no valuable information about the true impacts to visibility in these locations. 

5 29 B Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Visibility 

In addition, BLM’s visibility threshold for visibility impacts, i.e. a 1.0 dv change, should not apply. BLM modeling significantly overestimates the visibility impacts to regional communities by utilizing underestimated background levels but also inappropriately applies thresholds designed for Class I locales to Class II areas. However, EnCana commits to mitigation as a good citizen, which will mitigate the visibility impacts in both Class I and Class II areas. 

The BLM believes change visibility thBLM also appreciafuture mitigation ethere from.

5 33 B Conservative 

Analysis 

EnCana requests that BLM explain the conservative nature of the modeling and air quality impacts analysis in the FEIS. This will ensure that the administrative record is clear, and everyone has an opportunity to properly evaluate the record prior to the issuance of the ROD. 

As is common to Nused and modelinconservative to enare appropriately the decision makemake sure the publanguage has beebeen provided as 

5 2 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments 

BLM has fulfilled its NEPA obligations to evaluate the project’s air and environmental impacts (albeit worst case); no further modeling or air analysis is necessary; and BLM should expeditiously complete the FEIS as soon as possible. 

The BLM has commanner as possib

5 10 C Conservative 

Analysis 

BLM should inform the public that the Preferred Alternative High Emission Scenario is a “worst case” analysis that overstates the foreseeable potential air quality impacts. While the Proposed Action emission levels are exaggerated for flaring and drilling rig emissions, they are at least more “reasonably foreseeable” than the High Emission Scenario. 

The August 2005 range of emissionlow to high, as weAQTSD Appendix public should be adevelopment scenimpacts. While thconservative, it woa “worst case” scepredecisional judgmake sure the publanguage has beebeen provided as 

45
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

5 30 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments 

As it finally did in the case of Fontenelle and Moxa Arch, BLM must leave air quality regulations to the WDEQ through its SIP and permitting processes. 

The BLM acknowlquality are not witHowever, there arcan require that wappropriate mitigathe ROD.

5 31 C Mitigation EnCana has engaged in mitigation discussions directly 

with BLM, and mitigation commitments can be simply applied to the Proposed Action. 

The BLM appreciaEnCana and any mperformed by othecommitted mitigatanalysis of the varFEIS Appendix C)

5 32 C Conservative 

Analysis 

BLM modeling, unfortunately, utilized the results and assumptions from the “worst case” High Emissions Scenario to develop mitigation scenarios, i.e. modeling analyses for situations in which mitigation would reduce the emissions from JIDP by 20%, 40%, 60% and 80% respectively. The High Emissions Scenario is not “reasonably foreseeable,” so the starting point for mitigation is improper, though the general approach has merit. BLM provides a mitigation analysis of extremely inflated impacts, again resulting in an overstatement of the potential air quality impacts of the project even when considering mitigation. Once BLM uses a more realistic “reasonably foreseeable” starting point (such as the Proposed Action) then the flexible mitigation modeling approach itself has merit. Mitigation from a realistic estimate of the NOx emissions from JIDP would result in the elimination of visibility impacts. However, BLM has only provided the public with an estimation of mitigation that starts with an unreasonably high level of emissions. Unfortunately, the public does not have the capability to conduct its own modeling, and therefore relies on BLM’s statements to understand the impacts from a project. The solution is to include in the FEIS an array of mitigation approaches to realistic project alternatives, i.e. the Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative Low Emissions Scenario. EnCana encourages BLM to consider the Proposed Action with Operator-cimmitted mitigation measures. This Proposed Action scenario, with EnCana’s mitigation will eliminate the predicted impacts to visibility from the JIDP. 

Please see commCEQ Guidance realternative actions and if any of those “significant, advermitigation measurThe BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

46
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

6 1 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments 

The initial DEIS for the Jonah project contains more than ample air quality data. Requiring further modeling and analysis will provide no measurable environmental benefit. The BLM air quality analysis process has already delayed the ROD by over one year. The State of Wyoming has already prepared cumulative analysis, which it has the primary legal obligation to perform, and any additional analysis by the BLM is just a delay by the agency with no environmental benefit. The agency’s insistence on performing additional cumulative impacts analysis in both the DEIS and the Air Quality Supplement are redundant and unnecessary. 

The BLM, EPA, anadditional air quala final decision coproposal for infill dBLM has not madAs can be seen by modeling results, environmental benbetter position to r

6 2 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments 

BLM’s action infringes on the rights of the State of Wyoming. The CAA gives states, not BLM, the authority to regulate air emissions from sources such as the JIDP. Despite threats of legal actions and regulatory delay from other federal agencies and outside interests, BLM should make no attempt to usurp this authority. Instead BLM should abandon all supplemental air quality analysis and issue a FEIS and ROD and let Wyoming determine the level of environmental health and economic welfare of the state. 

The BLM acknowlquality are not witHowever, there arcan require that wJIDPA. Such appincorporated into tThe BLM has not Wyoming’s authorclosely with the W

6 3 C Mitigation It is WDEQ that should be charged with developing and 

implementing mitigation measures for the project, be it on federal, state, or private lands. Mitigation measures should be included in terms that allow flexibility to the operator to meet the requirements in the ROD completed by BLM. We disagree with BLM’s interpretation that the early-stage-development modeling evidences the need for phased development to mitigate impacts to visibility. 

The BLM respectfcommenter and wmitigations--for air those portions of tlands. This is its rprocess. The BLM has not development is neis not necessarily (see FEIS Section required impact remet through a var

7 2 B Emissions, Project The modeling scenarios completed by BLM result in a 

grossly exaggerated estimation of the impacts from the JIDP, both from the project alone and from the 

cu

mulative impacts. First, the Preferred Alternative high 

The BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

47
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

emissions scenario assumes the use of 50% directional drilling and 50% vertical drilling, along with 80% Tier 0 emissions and 20% Tier I emissions. The assumptions with respect to the drill rig emissions are outrageous. The modeling appears to ignore the fact that the impacts are estimated for the year 2017, long after Tier II, Tier III, Tier IV, or lower emission engines will be commercially available. The modeling for the JIDP is overly conservative because it is impractical to assume that in the year 2017 operators in the Jonah Field will be using Tier 0, Tier I, or Tier II engines. Given existing EPA regulations regarding non-road diesel engines, it is more likely that operators will be using Tier IV engines by that time. Despite all this, and the fact that the operators proposed the use of both Tier I and Tier II engines even from the outset of the project, the high emissions scenario analyzed the use of only Tier 0 and Tier I engines. As a result, the Preferred Alternative high emissions scenario results in greater impacts than even the Operators’ Proposed Action. Thus, this modeling does not provide a useful understanding of the impacts that could results from the JIDP, and instead only result in accusations of impacts that will not actually occur, and result in procedural delays that undermine economic growth. 

Project-specific emachieved by variocontrolled drill rig 

7 3 B Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Meteorological Data 

BLM, despite EPA guidance to the contrary, utilized the IKINE switch setting in the far-field modeling - a setting that produces uncharacteristic wind flows that do not represent actual or potential wind currents. As a result, the model indicated numerous impacts to visibility that will not actually occur from the JIDP. BLM must address the overestimations from the use of the IKINE switch. 

As a result of evalSouthwest Wyom(SWWYTAF) wind this analysis to cocalculations in CAadditional surface revised model codwas selected for Cmodel predictionslayer wind speeds

7 4 B Background 

Concentrations 

In addition to the improper use of the IKINE setting, BLM used inaccurate background ammonia concentrations in the modeling. BLM used 1.0 ppb for both the DEIS and Supplemental air quality modeling; a level recommended by the FLAG only when better data is not available for the specific modeling domain. In this case, ammonia levels are measured within the 

JIDP modeling do

main at the C

A

STNET station in 

The use of 1 ppb selected for this streview, which incluBLM, WDEQ, EPAThe BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

48
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

Pinedale, Wyoming. This monitoring station indicates a long-term average of between 0.21 ppb and 0.34 ppb for ammonia background levels. Accordingly, BLM should have used an ammonia background level of around 0.25 ppb, instead of an academically determined number more than three times as high. BLM’s failure to include accurate ammonia concentrations resulted in an overestimation of the impacts to visibility in Bridger Wilderness Area. 

7 5 B Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Visibility 

Finally, BLM’s model does not account for precipitation events such as snow or rain that cause significant impacts to visibility on numerous days throughout the year. 

See comment 5-1

7 6 B Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Visibility 

IPAMS is also disturbed by the overestimation of impacts in BLM’s modeling, in light of the monitoring results in the Southwest region of Wyoming over the past two decades. Actual ambient monitoring indicates that air trends for nitrogen oxide are stable or slightly improving and that levels of nitrogen oxides fall well below the ambient air quality standards. Even more importantly, according to the Cause of Haze Assessment (COHA) Bridger Wilderness Area Trends Analysis, monitoring in Bridger Wilderness Area indicates an overall improvement of visibility, and indicates that sulfate contributes significantly more to light extinction than nitrate. This indicates that NOX

emissions are not a primary or even significant culprit in visibility impairment in the Bridger Wilderness Area. Accordingly, the JIDP should not be made the scapegoat for impacts to visibility in Bridger Wilderness Area. 

See comment 5-2

7 7 B Early Project 

Development Stage Modeling 

IPAMS has significant concerns about the basis for and the potential conclusions from the so-called early stage development modeling for 2006. To begin with, why would BLM model for 2006 (approximately three months from now) when there are existing air quality ambient monitors in the vicinity? If the goal is to analyze what the current conditions are, why not use current conditions ambient modeling, not an algorithmic model that is known to have bias. This modeling should have been incorporated into the DEIS for this project. In fact, IPAMS does not understand the basis for this modeling in light of the extensive modeling that

See comment 2-8The 2006 analysis current conditionsadequate to repreresponsible for anenergy developmein the Pinedale An

49
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

has occurred on the Jonah Field through this NEPA review and others. In addition, many of the assumptions about emissions from various sources are inaccurate and do not account for procedural delays, new regulatory requirements and advancements in technologies. For example, many of the sources considered in the background concentration and as part of the cumulative analyses will be retrofitted with Best Available Retrofit Technology under the Regional Haze rule, or retired, and will not be active for the entire life of the JIDP. For example the coal fired power plants in Wyoming will all likely be retrofitted with Best Available Control Technology by 2013 or retired by 2017. In addition, off-road engines will become cleaner and EPA will adopt new regulations requiring the implementation of these engines. Ultimately the reality is that by 2006, emissions will be substantially reduced from those predicted in the early stage development modeling, and the predicted impacts will not come to pass. 

7 1 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments 

The extensive modeling that has been completed for Jonah Field should have been utilized to reduce the time and cost of preparing the EIS; instead, BLM has engaged in additional, unnecessary, and timeconsuming modeling (the so-called early-stagedevelopment modeling) that NEPA does not require, resulting in duplicative analyses with respect to the Jonah Field. As the extensive modeling demonstrates, the JIDP can be fully developed and the air impacts can be mitigated; accordingly, the benefits of this project should not be delayed further. 

The BLM, EPA, anadditional air quala final decision coproposal for infill dadditional modelinBLM’s developmeFEIS Section 2.4.utilization of the fie

7 8 C Mitigation With respect to the consideration of mitigation for the 

JIDP, IPAMS encourages BLM to defer to WDEQ for site-specific review and permitting requirements regardless of surface ownership (federal, state or private). Furthermore, mitigation measures should be included in terms that allow flexibility to the operator to meet the requirements in the ROD completed by BLM. IPAMS particularly disagrees with any interpretation by BLM that the so-called early-stage-development modeling evidences the needs for phased development to mitigate impacts to visibility. IPAMS strongly opposes phased development and does not believe it will result in considerably reduced impacts. The benefits of 

The Preferred Actnot necessarily incHowever, other fareclamation, would of the developmenwould effectively bcould work coopeexpeditious yet enThe BLM has not development is nepart of the Preferr2.4.5). Preferred 

50
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

phased development do not outweigh the costs. Phased development would significantly delay the ability of the operators at Jonah Field to assist in meeting the demands of this nation for a clean, reliable and domestic energy source during a time of high demand and economic hardship. In addition, phased development would hinder employment in the region by providing intermittent and unstable positions, thereby hindering growth in the region and harming the economy of Wyoming and the West in particular. If BLM begins to implement or require phased development for oil and gas projects, smaller and medium-sized producers will be at an extreme disadvantage, as the extended costs and delayed benefits of phased development may be too difficult a hurdle for them to overcome. Accordingly, we ask BLM to seriously consider the region-wide and industry-wide ramifications of requiring phased development at Jonah Field. Simply put, BLM should not curtail energy production in Jonah Field as there is no legal basis to do so. However, if BLM chooses to phase development below the 16,000 acres full development drilling Proposed Action, BLM must prepare a Statement of Adverse Energy Impact pursuant to the Executive Order. 

reduction conformvariety of means. The BLM is aware fulfill all of its legalaws and regulatio

8 4 A1 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section 2.1, Page 7, Table 1. Please include the Deposition Analysis Threshold (DAT) and the PSD SILs in this table. The USFS regions 2 & 4 use the DAT as a reference level to understand the significance of impacts. 

DAT comparisons (equivalent table) AQTSD Appendix are for modeling pin the AQTSD (seAddenda G-C and 

8 5 A1 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section 2.1, Page 7, Table 1. Please reconsider representing this table as the results of all ambient air quality standards, PSD increments, significance threshold values and levels of concern (as stated on page 6). Using Table ES-1 from the Supplemental Air Quality Technical Support Document (AQ TSD) might be more appropriate, adding the PSD SILs. 

Table G-ES-1 in threlevant table. SIonly, but are preseAQTSD, Appendix 

8 6 A1 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section 2.1, Page 8, Table 2. Please list the assumptions that this table represents (based on 2017, no PAPA drilling etc.) as well as listing the analysis methods represented by these numbers (IMPR

OVE vs. 

Further detail on tthe AQTSD SupplG). In general ass1) develop

ment o

51
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

FLAG, and MVISBK = 6 vs. 2). project (approxima

full field productio

2) 50% straight dwells; 3) regional Operacompression insta4) drilling activity other fields being 5) values reflect h(MVISBK=6) or FL

8 7 A1 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section 2.1, Page 8, Table 2. There appears to be a discrepancy between the numbers represented in this table vs. Table C.8.22 in the Supplemental AQTSD. This table displays when a change in deciview is greater than 1.0 rather than greater or equal to 1.0 dv. At a quick glance, this will change the project-only impacts at the Bridger Wilderness from 31 to 33 days for the high emission scenario and the Bridger Wilderness impacts for the cumulative low emission case from 15 to 16 days. FLAG methodology states that changes in dv greater or equal to 1.0 are considered significant. Also, on page 5 of this document (second paragraph), it states that... “The BLM considers a 1.0 dv change as a significant adverse impact....” Please adjust the numbers in the tables as necessary to reflect all days that are greater or equal to a 1.0 deciview change. 

The change in decSection 2.1, Page supplement reflecchange values as postprocessor CAdisplays deciview places. The daily G Table G-C.8.22CALPOST output places. As a resudeciview change vwere reported as dThese tables have and AQTSD (see 

8 8 A1 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section 2.4, Page 21, Lines 5-7. This section explains that Table 3 is an example of how a change in well drilling rate, drill rig emissions, or active flares could achieve various levels of emission reductions. Please indicate where a calculation of these emission reductions can be found. Please indicate if these numbers are estimations and explain how these mitigation options were determined. Please prepare a similar table to show how the same emission reduction percentages might affect the 2006 early project development scenario. 

Project-wide emisfrom changes in dnumber of active fwere developed aof possible field opthe number of opeflares, and by appemission rates. Dpresented in the AG-B. Emission raalternatives were EPA Tier emission emissions it compfield mitigation weJIDP emissions by 

the 80%, 60%, 40

52
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

scenarios. Since the 2006 eaanalyses represensubstantiated devassociated with thhas elected not to reduction affects adevelopment stag

8 9 A1 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section 2.4, Page 22, Table 3. The numbers in this table are not complete. Please adjust the numbers to reflect impacts > or = 1.0 dv change. Please add a column to include the 3 days of visibility impairment from the no action alternative to show the total impairment indicated by the modeling. 

See comment 8-7Days of visibility imalternative are proand AQTSD.

8 10 A2 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section 3.0, Page 23, Line 12. This cites the ROD for the Pinedale Anticline project as (BLM 1999), however, the ROD was not released until July 2000. Please correct the date in the references. 

The August 2005 reprinted. Howevis correct; it is not Anticline ROD but technical support Appendix G, Sectcomment 8-16, be

8 11 A2 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section 3.2, Page 27, Table 4. This table does not depict all significance thresholds or levels of concern, because the DAT and PSD SIL values are not shown. 

DAT comparisons ES-3 (equivalent t(see AQTSD Appepurposes only, bu(see AQTSD, AppE).. 

8 12 A1 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section 3.2, Page 28, Table 5. Please identify the analysis method represented by these numbers. Mixing of methodologies is occurring within and between the tables. This table shows 61 days represented by the FLAG method and the max deciview change = 6.57 from the IMPROVE method. Please display one method or identify the method used for each number represented, and provide a rationale for choosing to display one over another. 

See comments 8-Results tables weimpacts regardlesreflective of maximIMPROVE methodmethods and the rin the AQTSD SupG).

8 13 A1 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section 3.2 and 3.3, Page 26-30. General. Please include the additional analysis of the MVISBK = 2 vs. 6. Please discuss the difference in the analysis and explain what results are being displayed and why. 

MVISBK = 2 vs. Mprovided in the AQAppendix G, Sect

53
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

8 14 A2 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section Exec Summary, Page iii, Table ES-1. This table is missing the PSD SILs. Please add them. 

SILs are for modepresented in AQTAppendix G, Adde

8 15 A2 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section Exec Summary, Page iv, Table ES-2. Please see comment 3 [repeated below] and adjust numbers to reflect change in dv > or = 1.0 dv. Also list the methods used for the numbers that are displayed (FLAG vs. IMPROVE, and MVISBK = 2 vs. 6), also add the assumptions at the bottom so readers can see the difference between this 2017 modeling and the 2006 modeling. [Comment #3, Section 2.1, Page 8, Table 2. There appears to be a discrepancy between the numbers represented in this Table vs. Table C.8.22 in the Supplemental AQTSD. This table displays when a change in deciview is greater than 1.0 rather than greater or equal to 1.0 dv. At a quick glance, this will change the project-only impacts at the Bridger Wilderness from 31 to 33 days for the high emission scenario and the Bridger Wilderness impacts for the cumulative low emission cast from 15 to 16 days. FLAG methodology states that changes in dv greater or equal to 1.0 are considered significant. Also, on page 5 of this document (second paragraph), it states that... “The BLM considers a 1.0 deciview (dv) change as a significant adverse impact....” Please adjust the numbers in the tables as necessary to reflect all days that are greater or equal to a 1.0 deciview change.] 

See comments 8-

8 16 A2 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section Exec Summary, Page vi, Last line. See Comment 6 [repeated below]. [Comment #6, Section 3.0, Page 23, Line 12, This cites the ROD for the Pinedale Anticline project as (BLM 1999), however, the ROD was not released until July 2000. Please correct the date in the references.] 

The citation was cPinedale Anticline AQTSD Appendix 

8 17 A2 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section Exec Summary, Page ix, Table ES-3. Please add the PSD SILs. 

SILs are for modepresented in the AG, Addenda G-C a

54
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

8 18 A2 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section Exec Summary, Page x, Table ES-4. See Comment 8 [repeated below]. [Comment #8, Section 3.2, Page 28, Table 5, As in comment 2, please identify the analysis method represented by these numbers. Mixing of methodologies is occurring within and between the tables. This table shows 61 days represented by the FLAG method and the max deciview change = 6.57 from the IMPROVE method. Please display one method or identify the method used for each number represented, and provide a rationale for choosing to display one over another.] 

See comments 8-

8 19 A2 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section 2.0, Page 5, Line 2.0. The USFS is concerned that VOC emissions were not revised in this report, and no information is provided relative to the VOC emissions for the Preferred Alternative. We look forward to seeing VOC emissions for the Preferred Alternative and the early project stages in the FEIS. 

VOC emissions fopresented in the Aemissions for the are not presented

8 20 A2 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section 2.4.1, Page 11, Table 2.3. Please include ozone in this table. 

Background conce2.3 (AQTSD Appeare added to far-ficould affect visibilOzone backgrounof existing JIDPA FEIS (see FEIS T

8 21 A2 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section 2.4.4, Page 15, Last paragraph. The Bridger IMPROVE site is located at a year round ski resort with ongoing construction, restaurant, and associated traffic; therefore please consider the use of the word “pristine” in a comparative sense. 

The AQTSD Suppword “more“ to qu“pristine”. The reaeven in this area timpacts. This lan

8 22 A2 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section 3.3.4, Page 33, Visibility. Please add more discussion of the various modeling runs conducted and the parameters or assumptions used. Indicate the preferred method or display with an associated rationale. 

AQTSD Appendix Results is intendeonly. Please refer included in the anmodel parameters The FEIS and AQrecognition of the may use different (see FEIS Section and Appendix G). 

55
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

8 23 A2 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Page C, Tables C.8.*. Please list the scenario number from Tables like C.8.22 to facilitate tracking of information on the various tables. 

AQTSD Appendix C.8.20 provide the Tables G-C.8.21 tscenario number aG Addendum G-Cthe modeling scentables (see AQTS

8 24 A2 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Page C-166, Table C.8.22, Table C.8.22 and similar tables such as C.8.4 are not consistent in how information is displayed. The number of days of impact differ due to one table displaying change in dv >1.0 dv and the other showing changes of > or = to 1.0 dv. This results in displaying less impact than are predicted. Please see comment 3 [repeated below]. [Comment #3, Section 2.1, Page 8, Table 2. There appears to be a discrepancy between the numbers represented in this Table vs Table C.8.22 in the Supplemental AQTSD. This table displays when a change in deciview (dv) is greater than 1.0 rather than greater or equal to 1.0 dv. At a quick glance, this will change the project-only impacts at the Bridger Wilderness from 31 to 33 days for the high emission scenario and the Bridger Wilderness impacts for the cumulative low emission cast from 15 to 16 days. FLAG methodology states that changes in dv greater or equal to 1.0 are considered significant. Also, on page 5 of this document (second paragraph), it states that... “The BLM considers a 1.0 deciview (dv) change as a significant adverse impact....” Please adjust the numbers in the tables as necessary to reflect all days that are greater or equal to a 1.0 deciview change.]. 

See comments 8-

8 25 A2 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Page E-157, Table E.10.6. Please identify the source of the background N deposition (footnote 2)? 

The Background N determined from tmeasured near Pibeen added to the Appendix G, Adde

8 26 A2 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Page E-158, Table E.10.6. Please identify the source of the background S deposition (footnote 2)? 

The Background S determined from tmeasured near Pibeen added to the Appendix G, Adde

56
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

8 29 A3 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

The USFS noted that the Pinedale Anticline ROD stated: when NOX emissions in the Pinedale/Jonah 

area exceed 693 tons per year, additional analysis will be completed. Please discuss in the EIS that emissions are above this level and discuss how they are being addressed. In the FEIS, please discuss this issue by displaying what additional analysis is being done and what mitigation has been imposed to reduce these levels of NOX emissions. 

Air quality analysis showed that the aAnticline ROD had The early-project-included to addresby the Pinedale AAppendix G, Chapmitigation and moin the JIDP ROD (and 5.1). 

8 28 B Ozone & VOCs The USFS is concerned that analysis of ozone was not 

included in the supplemental analysis for the preferred alternative (2017) and the early development stage (2006). It is stated that this analysis will occur for the FEIS. The original modeling for the 2017 scenario alternatives was approximately 98% of the ozone NAAQS and it is possible that ozone modeling for 2006 may show higher concentrations. 

A revised estimate is provided in the demonstrates that contribute to an exozone standards. In recognition of thconcentrations, mthe Jonah Field arBoulder. 

8 1 C Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

In order to meet its affirmative responsibility and avoid the need for consideration of an adverse impact determination or certification of visibility impairment, the USFS recommends: • Sufficient mitigation is employed at the onset of the 

project, and during all phases, to avoid impacts in the wilderness areas. 

• Additional mitigation for the proposed project is 

requested because the preferred alternative, under all mitigation scenarios, predicts significant impacts to the wilderness areas. · 

• Government and industry work together to identify 

additional mitigation to further reduce emissions and the corresponding predicted impacts. 

The BLM appreciaensure that approauthority to implemJIDP. There will bgovernment to woidentify mitigation projects and the Bprospect.

8 2 C Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Specifically, reduction in impacts from drill rig emissions should be required as a condition of project approval. These reductions should be sought as soon as possible and at the greatest level achievable in combination with various phased development options. Solutions such as electrification of the well field, voluntary emission offsets from existing sources (in-field or otherwise), and 

energy conservation and efficiency measures may also

The BLM Preferrequal;ity mitigation FEIS Section 2.4.

57
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

help mitigate impacts by reducing emissions. 

8 3 C Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Successful implementation of this and future projects depends on innovative and creative solutions. Since the pace and scale of energy development continues to increase in this area, we suggest quarterly meetings with our partners to help strengthen ongoing adaptive management efforts, allow for timely responses to changes occurring in the gas fields and their associated effects, and provide the foundation for cooperative solutions. This interagency workgroup could:· • Provide semiannual assessment reports indicating 

the air quality status in SW Wyoming. 

• Track enforcement of mitigation • Recommend additional actions as needed. 

The Preferred Alteinteragency workinaid in the adaptive Details of JIO opeSection 2.4.5 and 

8 27 C Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Supplemental analysis of early project development (2006) has shown significantly greater impacts to visibility in nearby Class I areas compared with the impacts modeled in the original DEIS based on assumed 2017 emissions. However, in the analysis of the 2006 scenario, the BLM did not analyze a “No Action Alternative” using those same assumptions. The USFS requests that additional analysis be completed for the FEIS to determine the current conditions that would be expected to occur if a “no action” alternative were selected (specifically on deposition and visibility). 

The BLM does noNo Action Alternatwas done to appro

8 30 C Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Since the release of the supplemental air quality analysis there have been 3 significant changes in the geographic area related to gas production which may affect air quality. The USFS requests that the BLM address and consider these new issues in the decision making process for this project. The changes are: 1. WOGCC allowed Questar to go to 10 acre spacing on their leases. This may result in an increase of 10,000 to 12,000 additional wells on the Pinedale Anticline if other leaseholders follow suit. 2. The approval of the ASU winter drilling pilot project. How will these added drill rigs operating on the Mesa affect air quality in the Green River Basin in wintertime inversion conditions? 3. The proposal from Devon Energy to develop an additional 1,250 wells in the Continental Divide area. What impacts will this have on the assu

mptions made

The BLM can carranalysis without reproposal is presenlikely to change thassessment. The seasonal meteoroEnergy’s proposanecessarily a “readevelopment.” 

58
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

in the current modeling and prediction of impacts? 

8 31 C Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Please coordinate with the WDEQ-AQD to update the mitigation costs listed in Vol. 1 of the DEIS, Page 5-7, Section 5.2. 

The mitigation cosdiscussion purposChapter 5 have beShould any propodefinitive cost infothat time.

8 32 C Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Mitigation measures to be considered for the Jonah Field could consider the retrofit of all of the Jonah Field operations to include water and condensate pipelines, centralized production facilities and BACT. 

Centralized produsimilar mitigations into the Preferred 2.4.5).

8 33 C Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Mitigation measures to be considered for the Jonah Infill development could also include a detailed analysis of phased development, extending the development of the project over 30 years. 

Under the Preferredevelopment wouseveral performanreclamation. Additwork with the EPAand implement apmeet legal require

8 34 C Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Please consider discussion of the pros and cons of implementing a NOX emission cap for the Upper Green 

River Valley. Such a cap would limit NOX emissions to 

a level that will not impact visibility in adjacent Class I and II Wilderness areas. Who has the authority to implement such a cap if one were developed? What are the limitations and benefits? 

The BLM does noimplement a NOx 

responsibility and rest with the WDE

8 35 C Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Mitigation measures to be considered for the Jonah Infill development could include an analysis of current and proposed air quality and air quality related value monitoring to determine if the adjacent Class I and II wilderness areas are being adequately monitored for potential visibility and depositions impacts. Please include a request for the addition of new monitors if the need is indicated by the analysis. 

Potential air qualitactions are provid

8 36 C Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

The USFS is concerned by the magnitude of impacts to visibility in the Bridger, Popo Agie, and Fitzpatrick Wilderness areas for the project alone preferred alternative (2017), as well as the large cumulative impacts projected for that year. The USFS is very concerned that the early project development (2006) will have a higher number of days of impact. The

The Preferred Altepotential visibility 2.4.5). Additional the ROD as providIn recognition of th

concentrations, m

59
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

USFS is also concerned that ozone impacts for the early project development stage (2006) and preferred alternative (2017), which approached 98% of the NAAQS in the initial DEIS, are not displayed in the DEIS or AQTSD Supplements. 

the Jonah Field arBoulder. BLM agrees that mreadily accessible

8 37 C Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Please consider adding discussion about the 0.5 dv and 1 dv thresholds utilized by the USFS. Please indicate that a goal stated in the FLAG document is that a specific project will have zero days of impact at or above the 1 dv level in any class I area. 

The FEIS and AQstatement.

9 1 B Conservative 

Analysis 

...there are deficiencies in the Jonah Infill project inventory and regional inventories, as well as the modeling done for direct project PM10 impacts, such 

that the BLM’s analysis already underestimates the impacts. Thus, a proper analysis may show that the level of development allowed under the preferred alternative could directly cause Class II PM10 increment 

violations within JIDPA under all modeling scenarios. 

BLM maintains thaprovides a reasonof potential PM10 i

9 2 B Conservative 

Analysis 

...there are deficiencies in the Jonah Infill project inventory and regional inventories as well as regarding the modeling done for direct project NO2 impacts that 

would underestimate ambient impacts, so the extent of the NO2 increment violations could be much worse than 

shown in the August 2005 Air TSD. 

BLM maintains thaprovides a reasonof potential NO2 im

9 3 B Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments - Air Quality Standards 

Further, the WDEQ recently released a report on NO2

increment consumption in Sublette County, Wyoming. This analysis indicated that a maximum of anywhere from 11.16 μg/m3 to 12.23 μg/m3 of NO2 increment is 

consumed in Sublette County, and the maximum NO2

increment consumption was found to occur in the Jonah Pinedale Development Area. When this data is considered with the direct Jonah Infill project impacts presented in the August 2005 AQTSD Supplement for both the preferred alternative and the early project development scenario, the result is that NO2 increment violations will occur as a result of the Jonah Infill project without significant mitigation measures required. For example, assuming a maximum increment consumption of 11.5 μg/m3 based on the results of the WYDEQ 

CALPUFF modeling and adding that to the BLM’s direct Jonah Infill project, NO2 increment violations would 

occur in all of the high emission scenarios and all of the mitigation scenarios except the 80% mitigation 

Modeled concentrfor comparison to additive unless theand concurrently. Under current feddrilling activities swithin the JIDPA d

60
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

scenario. Considering that oil and gas sources within the Jonah-Pinedale development area consume most of the NO2 increment consumption for the majority of 

the highest NO2 increment consumption concentrations 

predicted in the WDEQ modeling, it seems likely that the maximum NO2 impacts from the Jonah Infill project 

will also occur near the locations of peak NO2

increment consumption identified in WDEQ’s modeling, and thus the BLM’s modeling results can be added to the WDEQ modeling results at least until a more refined analysis is performed by the BLM. Considering the flaws in the BLM’s Jonah project emission inventory and modeling as well as the significant underestimate of remaining Pinedale Anticline air emissions, there is even greater likelihood of NO2 increment violations for 

all project scenarios modeled. Further, the BLM must not model any lower level of emissions or assume mitigation unless it can mandate and make enforceable such lower emissions or level of mitigation. 

It is important to note that, even though these increment violations could be due to well drilling emissions, these emissions consume the PSD increment because the emissions from drilling at a “source” (i.e., all of the pollutant emitting activities under common ownership or control on contiguous and adjacent properties (see definitions of “source,” “facility” and “structure, building, source, equipment, installation, or operation” in the Wyoming PSD rules)) will not be temporary. Collectively, such drilling will go on for several years, well in excess of the two years typically considered by EPA as temporary. 

9 9 B Background 

Concentrations 

The BLM relied on ambient air monitoring data to reflect all sources in existence as of 2001, rather than modeling the existing sources to more accurately determine background concentrations. However, there has been no analysis or verification that the air monitoring data accurately reflect maximum background concentrations of the various pollutants in the Jonah Infill region or in the Class I areas of concern. Further, neither the DEIS or the air quality assessment reports provide any indication that the monitoring data relied on was reviewed to ensure

Precedent has bebackground data. been used wherevrecently initiated in Boulder areas. Prsuggest conditions and incorporated the FEIS impact aWithin operationamonitored air qua

61
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

conformance to quality assurance and other monitor siting and operation requirements. Considering the high concentrations of PM10, PM2.5, and ozone 

predicted within the Jonah Infill region that are relatively close to the NAAQS or WAAQS, it is imperative that appropriate background concentrations be determined to more accurately predict whether the Jonah Infill project, by itself and/or with other existing and projected emission sources in the region, will result in violations of the health and welfare based ambient air quality standards. 

represent actual sfrom all impacting attempt to mathemIn recognition of thconcentrations, mthe Jonah Field arBoulder. 

9 10 B Background 

Concentrations 

The BLM relied on PM10 and PM2.5 monitoring data 

collected in Cheyenne, Wyoming to reflect the background concentrations due to all existing sources in the Jonah Infill regional inventory region (an area that reaches into eastern Idaho, northern and northeastern Utah, and northwestern Colorado, but that does not even encompass Cheyenne as it only extends from the Jonah Infill area to roughly 100 miles west of Cheyenne). It seems inconceivable that Cheyenne PM10 and PM2.5 data could reflect background concentrations of all existing sources in the Jonah Infill region, and thus BLM should have provided an analysis to support that assumption. BLM’s assumption that Cheyenne monitoring data reflects PM10 background 

concentrations in the Jonah Infill area is also highly questionable when there is a State and Local Air Monitoring Site (SLAMS) located much closer to the Jonah Infill region in Rock Springs, Wyoming. Data collected at that monitor in 2001 show an annual average PM10 concentration of 26 μg/m3 and a 2nd 

maximum 24-hour average PM10 concentration of 64 

μg/m3, much higher than the Cheyenne background 

concentrations used the Jonah Infill modeling of 16 μg/m3 (annual average) and 33 μg/m3 (24-hour 

average). Adding the Rock Springs PM10 monitoring 

values as background to those modeled impacts in the Jonah Infill region would result in PM10 NAAQS 

violations for some of the preferred alternative scenarios modeled. The appropriateness of whether Rock Springs monitoring data reflect background PM10

concentrations would need to be evaluated, but this monitoring data that is from a location much closer to

See comment 2-2The BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

62
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

the Jonah Infill project area and within the modeling domain clearly makes the validity of using the Cheyenne PM10 monitoring data as reflective of 

sources impacting the Jonah Infill region highly suspect. Considering that the air quality modeling analysis shows significantly elevated PM10 impacts, it is 

imperative that the BLM use background data for PM10

that truly reflects the background concentrations in the Jonah Infill project area. 

9 11 B Background 

Concentrations 

The BLM also relied on NO2 and ozone data collected 

at the Green River monitoring site in 2001. While Green River is closer to the Jonah Infill project area than a monitoring site such as Cheyenne, the BLM did not provide any information to indicate that the Green River site reflects the maximum NO2 and ozone concentrations for the region. Considering that the winds in the area are typically from the northwest (based on Jonah Field wind rose in Figure 3.1 of the Draft Air Quality Technical Support Document for the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Environmental Impact Statement, November 2004 (November 2004 Air TSD)) and that Green River is due south of the areas which have been developed for oil and gas, it is not crediable to assume that the monitor reflects maximum concentration of the emissions from existing oil and gas sources 100 miles to the North. 

According to information obtained by Wyoming Outdoor Council from the EPA, Region VIII office, there are other ozone and NO2 monitors operating within or close 

to the Jonah field. Specifically, monitors are currently being operated in Boulder and in the Jonah field. The Jonah site is an industrial site 40 miles northwest of Farson and, according to data available on EPA’s AirData website, the purpose of this monitor is identified in part as “general background.” The NO2concentrations at that monitor are much greater than the annual average NO2 concentration of 3.4 μg/m3 at 

the Green River site in 2001. Specifically, according to the data obtained from EPA, the annual arithmetic mean in 2004 was 0.0107 parts per million, or 20.2 μg/m3. Further, the ozone concentrations are also 

much higher than the ozone background concentration 

Data collected throBasin Visibility Sturepresentative bactime of the analysMonitoring prograearly 2004, and onassured/controlled available at the timcompleted for the The BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

63
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

used in the Jonah Infill modeling. Indeed, there have been exceedances of the 8-hour average ozone NAAQS. Ozone concentrations at the Farson station reached 98 parts per billion (ppb) and 89 ppb on February 3 and 26, 2005, respectively. Ozone concentration reached 88 ppb on February 20, 2005 at the Boulder station. These high levels are of particular note since they occurred in the winter, not during the summer, which is typically thought of as “ozone season.” While no direct comparison of the two monitoring sites can be made because the Farson monitor began operation in November 2004 and the Green River site is no longer operating, the data from the Farson monitor provides strong evidence that the Green River monitoring site does not reflect maximum NO2 or ozone 

concentrations, especially not current concentrations. 

9 12 B Background 

Concentrations 

Not only should the NO2 data available in the Jonah 

project area have been used in determining the appropriate background NO2 concentrations, but the available ozone and PM10 data should have been 

evaluated in determining the data most appropriate to use as reflecting the maximum background concentrations in the Jonah Infill area. This data was readily available and should not have been ignored by BLM. 

The BLM has not evaluated all of the available data to determine whether more representative and/or more current data is available from within or near the project site. Data from locations as far away as Green River (NO2 and ozone data) and Cheyenne (PM10 and PM2.5

data) may only be used if more current and/or more representative data are not available from proximate monitoring locations and if the BLM is able to determine that these sites adequately represent the maximum concentrations of all sources in the region. Without such an analysis to establish that the selected background monitor locations are relevant to the Jonah field, there is no credible basis for determining that the Jonah Infill project in conjunction with all other sources in the region will co

mply with the NAAQS or WAAQS,

Monitoring prograearly 2004, and onassured/controlled available at the timcompleted for the The BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

64
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

especially with all of the deficiencies in the emission inventory and modeling. 

9 13 B Emissions, Project The emissions inventory for the air emissions sources 

associated with the Jonah Infill project is flawed and underestimates the total emissions due to Jonah Infill sources alone. First, the BLM’s emission inventory for the analysis of all Jonah Infill project alternatives including the preferred alternative did not evaluate the increased size of drill rigs that has been shown in practice to be necessary in the nearby Pinedale Anticline project area, as well as in the Jonah II project area. Specifically, the number and size of drill rigs operating in the Pinedale Anticline are much higher than assumed for the original Pinedale Anticline EIS. The Pinedale Anticline EIS assumed only eight drill rigs would operate at one time, but in the summer of 2004 there were 32 drill rigs operating. Further, the Pinedale Anticline EIS assumed a single drill rig would require 1,000 horsepower (hp), and now it is estimated that a single drill rig in the Pinedale Anticline area ranges in size from 3,000 to 5,000 hp. For the Jonah II EIS, the drill rig size was assumed to be 1,000 hp but in practice, drill rig sizes have been 2.5 times that size. 

However, for the Jonah Infill project inventory used in all of the alternatives modeling analyses, it was assumed there would be three drilling rigs per straightdrilled well – two at 800 hp and one at 500 hp for a total of 2,100 hp, and a total of 2,600 hp for drill rigs at directional drilled wells. Based on what has actually been occurring in the Pinedale and Jonah fields, the size and number of drill rigs assumed for the Jonah Infill alternatives modeling seems to be underestimated. Interestingly , the BLM’s “early project development stage modeling” did consider increased drill rig size and numbers for the Pinedale Anticline and considered increased numbers of drill rigs for the Jonah Infill area. Thus, the BLM has essentially admitted that the drill rig assumptions in the preferred alternative and other alternatives modeling were wrong. Based on all of the available information, the BLM’s assumption for its 

alternatives modeling analyses that only 2,100 of hp

Drilling rig sizes swere obtained from drilling requiremen

65
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

would be needed for drilling each well in the Jonah Infill project area is entirely unjustified. The difference in emissions if it was assumed that drill rigs of 3,000 hp would be used could be quite significant. For example, for straight-drilled wells, an increase of 2.63 tpy of NOX per well could occur 

assuming Tier 0 emission rates, an additional 1.3 tpy of NOX per well for those rigs operating at Tier 1 emission 

rates, and an additional 0.6 tpy of NOX per well for 

those emitting at Tier 2 rates. Thus, this is a very significant issue that must be addressed. The BLM must not underestimate emissions from drill rigs but must be conservative in its estimate of emissions, to avoid the same mistakes that have been shown in the Pinedale Anticline and Jonah II EIS’s. 

9 14 B Emissions, Project Another issue with the Jonah Infill project emission 

inventory is that no maximum short term average emission inventory was developed for modeling compliance with standards with shorter than annual averaging times, such as the 24-hour PM10 and PM2.5

NAAQS, PM10 PSD increments, and the visibility 

standard. There were only summaries of annual emissions provided in the air TSDs, and it appears that the models were run based on an even distribution of these annual emissions over the year. This is a significant issue with respect to drilling emissions, because more drilling occurs in the summer months versus the winter months. Thus, there are likely to be more than the assumed 20 drilling rigs operating in some months, as well as more road and well pad construction activities. It should also be noted that, if the modeling only considered 20 drill rigs each month, then even the annual modeling underestimated drill rig emissions because 20 drill rigs per month total to a WDR of 240 per year rather than the 250 WDR allowed in the DEIS. To adequately assess the actual impacts that could occur on the short term NAAQS, PSD increments, and visibility, the BLM must compile and model a maximum short term emissions inventory for Jonah Infill project sources. 

Further, drilling emissions have already been 

WDEQ has recent

and near the Jonabeen measured. 

Maximum predicteof emissions sourwould occur nearblargest stationary compressor statioobtained from the compressor statio

CO, and formalde

Modeling scenarioestimate” each proconsideration giveemissions. It wouand costly to modalternative given temissions duratiorates. For exampaverage 19 days ffor directional drillto 80 hours per weonly 20 percent of If 250 wells were d

50/50 split for vert

66
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

underestimated, not only based on the drill rig size issue discussed above, but also because of the assumption that all drill rigs will operate for 23 days per well, when well drilling and completion can take as long as 36 days. The BLM should have included the more conservative estimate of 36 days for drilling in a maximum short term emissions inventory to assess worst case impacts of the Jonah Infill project on the short term average NAAQS, PSD increments, and visibility standards. 

require 5250 drillin250 wells) and 16days). This results per day and 0.46 fscenario for this cflares operating coassumption is a laemissions from thestimate of what cday during the yeaprovide an adequapossible range of The drilling duratioSection 1.1 have bestimates as provdays for vertical ddrilling. All emissithese values.

9 15 B Emissions, Project Another deficiency with the Jonah Infill project 

emissions inventory pertains to the assumptions made on limitations of emissions. For example, the 2017 emission inventory for the alternatives presented in the DEIS and for the preferred alternative assumed 50% of the drill rigs would meet Tier 1 emission rates and 50% would meet Tier 2 emission rates. However, it is important to note that EPA’s regulations for nonroad diesel engines require that all engines manufactured after certain dates meet Tier 1 and, later, Tier 2 emission standards. Nothing prohibits the operation of nonroad engines built before those deadlines that do not meet those standards, unless the BLM and/or WDEQ mandate otherwise. The 2017 Jonah Infill project inventory also assumes a 50% control rate in fugitive dust emissions due to road wetting. According to Appendix 4 of the Rawlins Draft RMP/EIS, this level of control “is characterized as the maximum possible.” It is not a reasonable assumption that the particulate emissions from roads will be controlled to the maximum extent possible, unless the BLM and/or the WDEQ will be imposing a 50% reduction requirement as an enforceable measure. No commitment to establish federally enforceable limits has been made to date. 

It is BLM’s practicconservative casetier engines and rodevelop the reasoThe BLM PreferreOperators demonthe proposed Jonathose associated wof the reasonable Required mitigatioin the project ROD

67
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

Similarly, the modeling analyses assume completion flares on only 20% the wells and that they will all be equipped with smokeless flares but no justification is provided to support that claim. The BLM’s assumptions are not justified without being identified as mitigation measures and made enforceable by the BLM or the WDEQ. 

9 16 B Emissions, Project Yet another deficiency in the Jonah Infill project 

inventory is that separator heater emissions used in production may have been greatly underestimated. Specifically, it was assumed that these heaters only operate for 7.5 minutes every hour during September through April. However, other EIS air analyses have assumed separator heaters would operate for 15 minutes per hour. Thus, based on emissions assumptions made by BLM in prior NEPA documents, the production emissions from separator heaters were underestimated by half in the Jonah Infill project inventory. No basis was provided by the BLM as to why such heaters would operate for half the time assumed for such heaters in other project analyses in the region. 

Please see Sectioemissions data (wper hour) was obtaemissions test dat

9 17 B Emissions, Project In addition, no information was provided as to how the 

increased compression requirements were determined or why it was only assumed that the increased compression needs would all be met through increased compression ability added at existing compressor stations. The BLM’s early project development modeling highlights the likelihood that the BLM underestimated compression needed for the Jonah Infill project because BLM added 48,000 horsepower of expanded compression beyond that evaluated for the DEIS and the preferred alternative for the Jonah Infill area alone. Thus, the early project development modeling assumed almost 300 tpy of additional NOX

emissions from Jonah Infill compressors. Yet, no explanation was provided for why these more refined estimates of needed compression were not carried over into the preferred alternative modeling, except possibly because the BLM wanted the preferred alternative analysis to be based on the same inventory as the other analyses presented in the DEIS. Since the BLM 

clearly believes it is important to include these higher 

The level of additithe DEIS was the regional operatorsDEIS analysis and supplemental ana(see AQTSD AppeThe Preferred Altethe AQTSD SupplG) utilized the samthe DEIS modeling allow for comparisAll additional comregional operator based on any veriBLM proposed ac

68
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

emission estimates in its early project development modeling, there is no valid reason to not include these emissions in the preferred alternative analysis. These emissions increases could have readily been included in the preferred alternative modeling. Considering that the compressor engines are one of the most significant sources of NOX emissions associated with production, it 

is imperative that the BLM provide more detail on the assumptions used and ensure that the preferred alternative modeling include the maximum level of increased compression expected. 

9 18 B Emissions, Regional The regional emissions inventory did not consider any 

sources which were operating prior to January 1, 2001, unless such sources obtained permits to modify between January 1, 2001 and June 30, 2003. As discussed above, the BLM instead assumed that monitoring data reflected all sources in existence as of 2001. If the BLM cannot adequately justify that the monitoring data reflect all existing sources, then a regional emission inventory must be developed that includes the current emissions of those sources not reflected in the monitoring data for the NAAQS/WAAQS analysis. Without proper justification of the use of monitoring data to reflect all existing sources, the BLM’s ambient air impacts analyses are flawed and cannot be relied on by the BLM to show that the Jonah Infill project sources, in conjunction with all other emissions sources in the region, will be in compliance with CAA standards. 

See comment 9-9The BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

9 19 B Emissions, Regional A comprehensive emission inventory must be 

developed in order to assess whether the additional air emissions sources allowed under the Jonah Infill project would cause or contribute to a violation of any PSD increment in any area or cause or contribute to an adverse impact on visibility at any of the Class I areas that could be impacted by the project development. Regardless of whether the BLM can demonstrate that the monitoring data can be relied on to accurately reflect all existing sources, it is not appropriate to use background monitoring concentrations to show compliance with the PSD increments or with air quality related values such as visibility. 

While BLM recognneed to compare PSD increments, regulatory authoritconsumption analof the applicable “Preliminary results consumption analconsumption for N

5.6%. Please revhttp://deq.state.wy

BLM disagrees th

69
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

For the PSD increments, state and federal regulations provide that all of the emission increases that occur after the applicable PSD baseline date consume the available increment. Because monitoring data cannot discern between source emissions that were in existence before the applicable PSD baseline date or after it, monitoring data cannot be used to show compliance with PSD increments. The relevant PSD baseline dates occurred well before the 2001 cutoff date for the emissions inventory compiled for the air analyses. First, all major sources on which construction or modification commenced after the major source baseline date must be included in the increment inventory. The major source baseline dates are set in Federal regulation as January 6, 1975 for SO2 and 

PM10 and February 8, 1988 for NO2. Second, any 

increase in emissions at any minor, area, or mobile sources after the minor source baseline date also consumes the available increment. The applicable minor source baseline dates should be obtained from the WYDEQ, but it appears that the minor source baseline dates were triggered statewide in 1978 for SO2, in 1979 for PM10, and in 1988 for NO2. 

The regional emissions inventories for the Jonah Infill modeling considered only emissions from sources permitted and “reasonably foreseeable” new sources that operated or would begin operations after 2001. This method of analysis effectively treated 2001 as the PSD baseline date because it failed to account for any of the emissions added by sources that were permitted after the PSD regulatory baselines discussed above were set. As a result, the modeling approach provided only a highly truncated assessment of the consumption of the allowable increments during the last three years (2001-2003) and omitted any assessment of the increment consumed after the establishment of the regulatory baseline dates but before 2001. Thus, in order to provide for a proper assessment of whether the Jonah Infill development would cause or contribute to a violation of any PSD increment, a separate emissions inventory must be developed by the BLM to reflect those emission changes since the applicable baseline 

dates, and those emissions must be modeled to

date”. The potentcurrent and potenmeasures of increcompares the potetotal increment to into perspective, nwhich increment hFor more informatIncrement Consumhttp://deq.state.wy

The BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

70
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

demonstrate compliance with the PSD increments. 

9 20 B Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments - Air Quality Standards 

The PSD increments are separate ambient air quality standards that apply in addition to the NAAQS in clean air areas. It is imperative that the BLM properly evaluate the impacts of the Jonah Infill development along with all other existing and reasonably foreseeable development on these ambient air standards both in the vicinity of the proposed development (i.e., the Class II increments) and in the Class I areas that will be impacted by the proposed development. The BLM cannot rely on SIP programs such as preconstruction permitting requirements to conduct a full PSD increment consumption analysis. Because BLM is required under FLPMA to ensure compliance with all regulatory requirements and because the “maximum allowable increases” (i.e., PSD increments) are separate ambient standards not to be exceeded, BLM must conduct a thorough analysis of whether the increments will be complied with. 

The BLM believes accurately represePreferred Alternatforeseeable develforeseeable future monitoring results efforts ensure that for. The BLM will ensuthe CAA. Ongoinoversight by the Jaid the BLM in enThe BLM is not reincrement analysisthe permitting reqperformed by the 

9 21 B Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments - Air Quality Standards 

The WDEQ has recently released its assessment of NO2 PSD increment consumption in Sublette County, 

Wyoming. However, the WDEQ analysis did not consider the impact of Jonah Infill sources or of any other future sources of emissions in the region. Thus, the WDEQ analysis by itself cannot be relied upon by BLM as satisfying the requirement that BLM disclose whether the PSD increments will be complied with pursuant to the Jonah Infill project and all other contributing sources. 

The WDEQ analysis indicated that a maximum of anywhere from 11.16 μg/m3 to 12.23 μg/m3 of NO2

increment is consumed in Sublette County, and the maximum NO2 increment consumption was found to 

occur in the Jonah Pinedale Development Area. When this data is considered with the direct Jonah Infill project impacts presented in the August 2005 Air TSD for both the Preferred Alternative and the early project development scenario, the result is that NO2 increment 

violations will occur as a result of the Jonah Infill project 

without significant mitigation measures required. 

A regulatory PSD Analysis would adyear (in this case, (in this case, 2004program is to deteincrement consumemissions are inclpoint source projeyet built), it is incointent of the PSD future increment cFor more informatIncrement Consumhttp://deq.state.wy

71
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

Considering the flaws in the BLM’s Jonah project emission inventory and modeling and also the significant underestimate of remaining Pinedale Anticline air emissions, there is even greater likelihood of NO2 increment violations for all project scenarios 

modeled. Further, the BLM must not model any lower level of emissions or percent mitigation unless it can mandate and make enforceable such lower emissions or level of mitigation. This WDEQ data highlights the necessity for BLM to properly assess PSD increment consumption by both Jonah Infill project sources and other existing and reasonably foreseeable development to determine the levels and extent of increment violation and to determine the mitigation that will be needed to avoid increment violations. 

9 22 B Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments - Air Quality Standards 

The PSD increment inventory of all existing and reasonably foreseeable increment-consuming sources, once fully developed, also must be used to analyze whether the development allowed under the plan amendments would cause or contribute to adverse impacts on visibility in any Class I area affected. While the visibility regulations do not provide for a visibility baseline date, as the goal of the program is to restore visibility to natural conditions, the Federal Land Managers typically require the modeling of all PSD increment consuming sources in a cumulative visibility analysis. Thus, in order for the BLM to properly analyze the cumulative impacts on visibility that could occur at Class I areas in the region and the cumulative impacts on any PSD increment, it must develop a separate emissions inventory than used in the NAAQS analysis that includes emissions from all new and modified sources added after the regulatory major and minor PSD baseline dates. BLM is required to do this not only to comply with its obligations under the CAA and FLPMA, but also to comply with its obligations under NEPA to consider the direct and indirect impacts of the action, and its cumulative impacts. 

BLM’s obligations simply to assure itcomply with applicfederal air quality obligations under disclose potential impacts to the pubincluding “direct aand its cumulative made to deny, appthe Proposed Actiobligated to develinventory than useincludes emissionsources added aftminor PSD baselinis the regulatory athe CAA (with EPA PSD Increment C

9 23 B Emissions, Regional Even assuming that reliance on air monitoring 

concentrations was appropriate (which might be the case only for compliance with the NAAQS/WAAQS, but 

t th PSD i t i lit l t d l

BLM maintains thaa comprehensive 1996. Emissions th b k d 

72
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

not the PSD increments or air quality related values as discussed above), the regional inventory baseline should have been based on the same base year used for the Pinedale Anticline EIS. In the Pinedale Anticline EIS, a base year of 1995 was used for development of the inventory for the cumulative air quality analysis. Based on the Pinedale Anticline EIS emission inventory and modeling analyses, emission “levels of concern” were developed. Further, the WDEQ and the BLM have been tracking changes in permitted source emissions and actual emissions (although the BLM has not completed an actual emissions inventory report since 2000) since January 1, 1996. With the BLM now using an inventory of emissions changes since January 1, 2001 for the Jonah Infill project EIS, it is difficult to reconcile the regional inventory compiled for Jonah Infill with the emissions tracking that has been done in the region based on changes since January 1, 1996. The emissions tracking done as a result of the Pinedale Anticline EIS modeling is considered necessary to ensure that air quality standards are complied with. This emissions tracking is one of the main tools the public and government officials have to determine whether adverse air quality impacts will occur as a result of development in the region. Thus, the regional air emissions inventory for the Jonah Infill EIS should have reflected all changes since January 1, 1996. 

the background co9, above. BLM recognizes itemissions.

9 24 B Emissions, Regional According to the November 2004 Air Quality TSD, the 

area which was inventoried was not large enough to encompass all sources which might impact the areas that the Jonah Infill sources could impact. For assessing near-field impacts, the area inventoried must at least include all sources within 50 km of the significant ambient impact area of the Jonah Infill project sources and must also include large sources such as coal-fired power plants located farther away, up to 300 km that could have a significant ambient impact on the Jonah Infill project area. 

For the far-field analysis, the regional inventory area must extend out to 300 km from all Class I areas that could be impacted by the Jonah Infill project. Those 

The modeling domdeveloped primariBridger, Fitzpatricareas and for the the areas that werreview as the areaadversely affected The domain followfor these Class I aFurthermore, this for estimating projimpacts at the oth(Teton and WashaTeton and Yellowsmeteorological co

73
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

Class I areas would include all Class I areas in Wyoming (Yellowstone National Park, North Absaroka Wilderness, Washakie Wilderness, Teton Wilderness, Grand Teton National Park, Fitzpatrick Wilderness, and the Bridger Wilderness). A review shows the regional inventory clearly does not extend far enough from the Jonah Infill project area or from the Class I areas that will likely be affected to provide for a comprehensive cumulative assessment of both near-field and far-field ambient impacts. The result of the BLM truncating the area to be included in the inventory is that the BLM’s ambient air analyses underestimated the amount of emissions impacting the Jonah Infill project area and the nearby Class I areas. 

transport JIDP emcontained within th

9 25 B Emissions, Regional The regional inventory is incomplete because it did not 

consider all reasonably foreseeable sources that could significantly impact the same areas that could be impacted by the Jonah Infill sources. The reasonably foreseeable inventory should have included those sources recently permitted or which have recently submitted complete PSD permit applications but which are not yet operating. In addition, any data on sources permitted after June 30, 2003 should have been included if such information was readily available. Further, the BLM did not include all expected emissions from development of projects currently being developed in Wyoming. The BLM also failed to include other reasonably foreseeable development aside from just those projects to be located in Wyoming. As a result, the BLM’s analyses underestimate total regional emissions and thus underestimated ambient air impacts. 

PSD permit applications have been submitted, and some permits have been issued, for several coal-fired power plants to be located within the region, and those facilities should have been included in the regional inventory. Those new power plants which have not yet received air quality permits include the proposed Unit 2 at the Bonanza power plant in northeastern Utah and the proposed Unit 4 at the Hunter power plant in Utah. In addition, a revised P

SD permit application was

An appropriate invsize was necessatimely completion The BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assessThe purpose of a like this one is to fspecific impacts, ncould impact projeVOC emissions winventory since the regional inventorieemissions that courelated values (ac

NO2, PM10, and P

haze formation, w

74
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

recently submitted for the Wygen 2 power plant to be located near Gillette, Wyoming. The regional inventory also did not include the permitted Two Elk power plant to be located in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming. (Although the Two Elk permit expired due to lack of construction, it was reissued in May 2003.) The regional inventory also did not include the permitted Roundup power plant and the Hardin Generating Station, both in southeastern Montana. These power plants could impact the same areas that could be impacted by Jonah Infill project sources, and thus should have been included in the regional inventory. Further, the December 6, 2004 Southwest Wyoming NOX Emission Tracking Report prepared by WDEQ shows that, in 2004, there were permitted increases of 371 tpy of NOX at Solvay Chemicals in Sweetwater 

County and 350 tpy of NOX at compressor stations 

located in Sublette County. (Although the emissions inventory for the “early project development modeling” did include additional sources permitted from June 30, 2003 up until March 31, 2004, none of these increases in NOX emissions were included in that update because 

they were permitted after March 31, 2004. Further, no updates to the permitted source inventory were made for the modeling of the Preferred Alternative provided in the supplemental AQTSD.) These permitted increases at Solvay Chemicals and the Sublette County compressor stations could have been readily included in the regional inventory for the supplemental Jonah Infill project analyses, since the WDEQ issued its 2004 tracking report in December of 2004. 

In addition, for the state permitted source inventories, only sources with NOX, SO2 and PM10 emissions were 

inventoried. It was a significant oversight to fail to inventory sources of VOCs in the region due to the contribution of these compounds to ozone formation. 

9 26 B Emissions, Regional The regional inventory also failed to include NEPA 

projects in other states that could be impacting the same area as the Jonah Infill sources, such as the Vernal (Utah) sources, the Price (Utah) RMP sources, 

the Roan Plateau (Colorado) RMP sources, projects in 

BLM recognizes thimpact areas poteJIDP. BLM maintthe Jonah Infill EIS on the potential im

75
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

the Moffat County, Colorado (Little Snake Field Office) area such as the Vermillion Basin Project, and the Powder River Basin (Montana) coalbed methane sources. The remaining development in the many NEPA-approved projects in these areas should have been as readily available to BLM as the Wyoming NEPA project data. In any event, these project areas are within the modeling domain so BLM was obligated to acquire these data. 

rather than to inclucould impact, for eIt should be noted inherently measur

9 27 B Emissions, Regional In addition, while the regional inventory purportedly 

included all Wyoming NEPA projects, there were several projects for which no emissions data were quantified or for which incomplete emissions data was compiled. For example, no emissions inventory data was available for the Atlantic Rim and Seminoe Road projects. The BLM’s regional inventory should have at least estimated emissions for these NEPA projects until more detailed data becomes available, particularly since the scoping notices and other NEPA documents for these projects provide estimates of the levels of development anticipated. Moreover, the Atlantic Rim Project is proceeding apace despite the lack of a completed environmental impact statement because BLM is approving elements of the project piecemeal via various EAs approving multi-well “PODs” in the area (Brown Cow Pod EA, Blue Sky Pod EA, etc.). Thus, information on that project is currently available and is not speculative, and BLM must include emissions for those sources in the regional inventory. 

The BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assessprojects will undouquality analyses pprovide further im

9 28 B Emissions, Regional The BLM’s estimates of emissions from projects 

currently being developed were also underestimated in the reasonably foreseeable development inventory. Importantly, the emissions for the nearby Pinedale Anticline project were greatly underestimated. Table C.12 (page C-40) of Appendix C of the November 2004 AQTSD indicates that there are only 16.01 tpy of NOX

remaining due to development yet to occur in this project area. No details are provided as to how this amount remaining was estimated, but it seems greatly in error. According to data available on the WOGCC site, approximately 300 wells have been completed (as of 2005). The Pinedale Anticline ROD (July 2000) 

allowed 900 well pads to be developed. So, at the very

All wells permitted area/modeling domproducing wells, earea or as “other” ensure all wells wnumber of wells dproject area is not wells were considarea if they were gthat project area. outside of BLM pr“other” county welNote that natural g

76
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

minimum, the amount of NOX emissions yet to be 

developed would be two-thirds of the production emissions identified in the Pinedale Anticline emission inventory (at least two thirds of 44.76 tpy) and at least two thirds of the compression NOX emissions identified 

in the Pinedale Anticline emission inventory (at least two thirds of 251.06 tpy). Thus, at least 195 tpy of NOXfrom production are remaining to be developed in the Pinedale Anticline area. However, the June 1999 emissions inventory relies on an assumption that only one well is to be drilled per well pad. It is important to recognize that that the Pinedale Anticline EIS did not set a limit on the number of wells that could be drilled; it set a limit on the number of well pads that could be constructed. Thus, even if it was originally contemplated or implied that there would be one well per pad, for a total of up to 700 wells, the current increase in approved downhole spacing density could lead to a doubling or quadrupling of that number to 1400 or 2800 wells. And the operators on the Pinedale Anticline are in fact drilling large numbers of wells from single pads. For example, BLM is currently analyzing a proposal from Anschutz, Shell, and Ultra to drill as many as 20 wells from a single well pad. Thus, the BLM must include a realistic estimate of emissions from the expected gas production from the Pinedale Anticline field in 2017 including additional compressor engines needed to accommodate the expected gas production rate that is clearly above the level contemplated in the Pinedale Anticline air analyses. 

Further, significant emissions from well construction are expected in the Pinedale Anticline, likely well in excess of the 272 tpy of NOX emissions assumed in the June 

1999 Pinedale Anticline Emission Inventory. This is based on the findings stated in the Questar Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) that the size of drill rig engines and length of operating time is much higher than evaluated in the Pinedale Anticline air analyses, as well as based on the fact cited above that many more wells than originally contemplated in the Pinedale Anticline air analyses will be drilled in the Pinedale Anticline region. 

utilized by WOGCextent or location field project areasProduction wells hwaivers with emisbe wells that were by WOGCC. The Pinedale Antibeing prepared withe Pinedale Antic

77
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

While BLM may claim that such production emissions are included in the WDEQ permitted source inventory and the Wyoming oil and gas inventory, the WDEQ permitted source inventory does not include all development that has occurred in the Pinedale Anticline area from 2000 to date. First, the WYDEQ permitted source inventory only includes sources permitted through June 30, 2003. Yet, gas production in the Pinedale area doubled between 2003 and 2005, so the BLM’s WDEQ permitted source inventory ignored some substantial emission sources that were permitted after June 30, 2003. Also by failing to inventory Wyoming sources with emissions less than 3 tpy BLM ignored a significant quantity of air emissions from sources associated with gas production in the Pinedale Anticline, as well as elsewhere in the region. Further, the BLM’s WOGCC inventory of oil and gas well emissions only indicates 1.66 tpy of NOX from oil and 

gas wells in Sublette County permitted after January 1, 2001 through 2002. Even using the questionable emission rate assumed by the BLM of 0.045 tpy of NOX

per gas well, this would only equate to 36 gas wells permitted in Sublette County, far short of the 900 wells authorized by the Pinedale Anticline ROD. In fact, 416 wells were completed in Sublette County in this time period. Of these, 140 wells were completed in the Pinedale Anticline during this timeframe. 

9 29 B Emissions, Regional Further, for the majority of Wyoming NEPA projects 

inventoried in the reasonably foreseeable development (RFD) inventory, only NOX emissions were inventoried. 

VOC emissions were not included for any project, and those emissions can be quite significant. For the Pinedale Anticline project alone, BLM estimated that VOC emissions from production would be over 7,000 tpy. Thus, the RFD inventory, in additional to underestimating emissions, is very incomplete with respect to all air emissions expected from NEPA projects. 

VOC emissions winventory since the regional inventorieemissions that courelated values (acSO2, NO2, PM10, a

regional haze form

The BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

9 30 B Emissions, Regional In summary, the regional inventory of reasonably 

foreseeable development is incomplete and must be revised to reflect all sources that could impact the same areas that will be impacted by the Jonah Infill project, to 

co

mpletely and accurately reflect currently allowed

See comments 9-

78
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

increases in air emissions, and to completely and accurately reflect all proposed new sources of air emissions. Without such revisions to the regional inventory, the BLM’s inventory underestimates emissions and thus underestimates ambient air impacts expected in the region. Thus, the BLM’s ambient air analyses cannot be relied on as credible for the purpose of approving the Jonah Infill project. 

9 31 B Emissions, Regional According to the discussion of the State AgencyPermitted Industrial Source Inventory in the August 

2004 AQTSD, all sources with emissions less than 3 tpy were excluded from the Wyoming inventory and were considered to be included in the WOGCC inventory. There were hundreds of such small sources, mostly production wells that were excluded from the regional inventory. Specifically, more than 360 sources were omitted because their emissions were less than 3 tpy, and the majority of these sources were located in Sweetwater or Sublette Counties. Collectively, these facilities represent significant emissions and, thus, these sources must not be excluded from the inventory. 

There are several problems with the emission estimates for WOGCC source inventory and thus it is not appropriate to assume all of these small sources are included in the WOGCC inventory. For the projected oil and gas agency sources, a NOX emission 

rate was assumed for each well of 0.045 tpy NOX. 

However, in looking at the database of WDEQ permitted emission facilities for the Rawlins Resource Management Plan, upon which the Wyoming inventory for the Jonah Infill project appears to be based, the exempted “production wells with emissions < 3 tpy” included numerous sources with allowable NOX

increases well in excess of 0.045 tpy including one well with an allowable NOX rate of 4.6 tpy. In fact, none of 

WDEQ permitted production wells identified in the permitted source database had allowable emissions as low as 0.045 tpy. Further, the projected oil and gas emissions from WOGCC sources only included oil and gas sources permitted as of 2002, whereas the WDEQ permitted source database compiled for the Jonah Infill modeling included sources permitted through June

As described on pexclusion of sourcgas or coal bed msources were asspermits obtained ffacility classificatio1 tpy. A single emissions in the Rawlins RMNote that the allow

emissions source analysis; rather, thwas compared to 

Well data for 2003 the inventory was well development estimated. 

79
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

2003. Roughly 25% of the production wells excluded from the WDEQ source inventory were permitted in 2003, and thus the WOGCC source inventory did not include at least 25% of new oil and gas wells. Consequently, the projected oil and gas inventory underestimated emissions from wells, and it was not appropriate to exclude these production wells with emissions less than 3 tpy from the WDEQ permitted source inventory. The permitted source inventory was likely a better source of information for these wells, and it should have been evaluated in conjunction with the data from the WOGCC rather than simply excluding all of these small sources of emissions from the permitted source inventory. As a result, the BLM’s emission inventory underestimated emissions and thus underestimated ambient air impacts. 

9 32 B Emissions, Regional To estimate emissions from natural gas and oil wells, 

data were obtained from the state oil and gas permitting agencies such as WOGCC and then emissions were estimated based on certain assumed emission rates from each well. However, these emission rates were not adequately justified by the BLM as representing emissions from each well. For NOX, an emission rate 

of 0.045 tpy per gas well was assumed. PM10, PM2.5, and SO2 were assumed to be negligible. Further, no 

evaluation of VOC emissions was provided for these wells. The BLM apparently used stack test data provided by Encana for its estimate of NOX emissions 

due to the WOGCC sources. The BLM did not adequately justify its emission estimates used for the WOGCC inventory, and other data and documents indicate that the WOGCC inventory used in the Jonah Infill modeling greatly underestimated emissions. 

First, the WOGCC inventory did not include any estimate of VOC emissions from the existing wells. According to the emission estimates for the Jonah Infill sources, the BLM estimated a total of over 18 tpy of VOC production emissions per well. This is a significant oversight to not include VOC emissions for the WOGCC inventory. 

VOC emissions wtherefore, VOC emregional inventoryVOC emission calintended to reflect Action or alternativThe FEIS and AQof VOC emissions decline curve effeemissions. 

80
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

Second, although the BLM assumed the same NOX

emission rate for Jonah Infill project sources of 0.045 tpy emissions (not including traffic or compression), previous BLM documents assumed much higher production emissions from gas wells. Specifically, in the recently issued Rawlins Resource Management Plan DEIS, the average NOX emission rate per well for 

operation excluding compression was assumed to be 0.09 tpy per well. This is double the assumed rate of 0.045 tpy per well for the WOGCC sources in the Jonah Infill inventory. Further, the WDEQ permitted emission rates for the production wells were often much higher than these estimates. 

Third, the WOGCC inventory did not include estimates of emissions due to well pad construction (including emissions from construction traffic – both tailpipe and fugitive dust, as well as due to initial flaring). It also appears to have excluded emissions from traffic emissions during well operations. Clearly these are not insignificant emissions of PM10 as well as NOX and 

PM2.5 and should have been included in the regional 

inventory estimate. 

Fourth, the WOGCC regional inventory for oil and gas sources only looked at changes in production between 2000 and 2002. Thus, it does not reflect all oil and gas source emissions in the region, and it does not even reflect current oil and gas source emissions in the region. For all of the above reasons, the BLM’s regional inventory of oil and gas source emissions underestimated air emissions from these sources. 

9 33 B Emissions, Regional The regional source inventory did not include any 

inventory of VOC emissions in the region. Instead it focused only on NOX and, also for some sources, SO2

and particulates. Yet, VOC emissions from oil and gas development can be quite significant. Further, monitoring data collected in the Jonah field area indicate recent ozone concentrations in excess of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In addition, monitoring data collected at the Green River Basin Visibility Study site, considered by the BLM to represent background 

conditions for the Jonah Infill project area, indicate very

The FEIS and AQof VOC emissions decline curve effeemissions. In recognition of thconcentrations, mthe Jonah Field arBoulder. 

81
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

high concentrations of ozone (94% of the 8-hour average ozone NAAQS) as of the last date of operation of the monitor at the end of 2001. Thus, it is imperative that the BLM track and model ozone precursor emissions in the region. This is especially significant considering that the ozone assessment for the Jonah Infill project, even with its numerous deficiencies discussed below, predicted concentrations that were 98% of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The regional inventory is seriously deficient in ignoring this important ozone precursor. 

9 34 B Emissions, Regional The permitted source inventory appears to take credit 

for recently permitted emission reductions that have occurred or will occur in the near future. To credit any decreases in emissions from a facility, the BLM must first analyze and verify that those sources’ emissions are reflected in the background monitoring data as discussed above. Second, only decreases in actual emissions must be credited. Decreases in allowable or potential emissions do not reflect what will really be affecting the air quality in 2017. If the BLM has no data on the actual emission reductions that have occurred at these sources, then the reductions must not be considered in the reasonably foreseeable futre actions (RFFA) inventory. Without such proper analyses and crediting of the decreases in emissions, the BLM’s permitted source emission inventory underestimated emissions and underestimated ambient impacts. 

The permitted souemissions. Dispeactual emissions femission data avaall future sources, only emission data dispersion modeli

9 35 B Near-Field Modeling Based on the information provided in the November 

2004 AQTSD, the near-field PM10 and PM2.5 modeling 

is deficient and likely underestimated ambient impacts. Considering that the modeling of both the Preferred Alternative and the early project development stage showed PM10 concentrations in excess of the Class II 

PSD increment and approaching violations of the PM10

and PM2.5 NAAQS, it is imperative that an analysis be performed that accurately represents the maximum near-field concentrations that could result with implementation of the Jonah Infill project. 

Specifically, according to the November 2004 AQTSD, the near field PM analysis only included the modeling of 

one well pad and one 2.5 mile resource road. Further 

In-field pollutant cfrom multiple wells with production acCALPUFF model Section 4.6.1. Comparisons of pwith PSD incremepurposes, and do increment consumwith the authority Increment Consumpreliminary results Class II NO2 incre

violated. 

82
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

the modeling did not consider the impacts of terrain on PM concentrations. The BLM did not provide any justification to show that these assumptions would reflect maximum PM impacts. Indeed, both of these assumptions could result in a significant underestimate of ambient PM impacts. Considering the tight spacing of wells that will be allowed in the Jonah Infill project, there will very likely be an overlap of PM impacts from each well and access roads, especially if topographic features are taken into account, the BLM must perform a more comprehensive assessment of near-field impacts expected as a result of Jonah Infill sources directly and in combination with all other sources of PM in the region. 

For further informaincrement consumhttp://deq.state.wy

9 36 B Near-Field Modeling According to the November 2004 AQTSD, it appears 

that only emissions from production (well site and compression) were modeled for the near-field NO2

impacts, based on the first sentence of Section 3.4.3 which states “Emissions from production activities (well site and compression) would result in the maximum near-field NO2 concentrations.” However, a review of 

the emission inventory data for the DEIS generally shows much higher NOX emissions from construction 

than from production. For example, for the high emissions case WDR 250, the NOX emissions from construction and flaring are 7 times greater than the NOX emissions from production. This concern is 

validated by the Questar Year-Round Drilling Proposal EA and FONSI. There it is shown that well production, compression, and completion/flaring in 2004 only accounts for nine percent of the NOX emissions, while 

construction and drill rigs account for the remaining 91 percent of NOX emissions. Thus, the near-field 

analysis is significantly inadequate if it only included NOX emissions from production. The BLM must 

perform a subsequent air analysis for NOX that 

considers emissions from both construction and production. 

In addition, because of the BLM’s focus on production emissions being in their view the most significant, finegridded receptors were only placed around the 

co

mpressor engines. However, the BLM should have

Production NOx em

from construction engines are consi

was conducted foincluded a compreSection 3.4.3). Replaced throughout compressor statio3.4).

83
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

placed tightly gridded receptors near modeled drill rig emissions sufficient to capture maximum concentrations from a drill rig including the overlap of emission impacts from other drill rigs and compressors in the area. As a result of these issues, along with deficiencies in the emission inventory discussed above, the NO2 nearfield assessment underestimated NO2 ambient air 

impacts. 

9 37 B Ozone & VOCs Along with the deficiencies in the emission inventories, 

including the failure to include VOC emissions for regional sources, the ozone modeling assessment underestimated ambient impacts by not adding a representative background ozone concentration to the results of the ozone modeling analysis because the BLM claimed it was “overly conservative.” However, the BLM is ignoring the fact that its ozone analysis likely underestimated ambient impacts for various reasons. First, it did not include NOX emissions from 

construction in its analysis, which as discussed above are generally much higher than NOX emissions from 

production including compression. Second, it also excluded the VOC emissions from well construction. Third, it appears that it did not include NOX or VOC 

emissions from other sources in the region. Fourth, the analysis was only based on a “patch” of 128 wells and one compressor engine, a fraction of the full development that could be allowed under the Jonah Infill project. Fifth, no analysis of the Green River monitoring site was done to verify that it reflects maximum ozone concentrations in the Jonah Infill area, and it seems likely that it does not. 

The BLM used an ozone concentration of 75.2 μg/m3

(one-hour average) as reflective of background concentration in its ozone analysis with the Scheffe method. The BLM attempted to justify its use of an ozone concentration that is half of what it considered elsewhere in the November 2004 AQTSD as reflecting background ozone concentration by stating that “. . . it is overly conservative to add a maximum concentration 

to a screening level estimated concentration.” 

The ozone calculaFEIS and AQTSD appropriate/realistthat considers wewhich result in declife of wells and a in-field compressoIn recognition of thconcentrations, mthe Jonah Field arBoulder. The BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

84
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

However, it is important to note that the background ozone concentration provided in the November 2004 Air TSD is the second high concentration, not the maximum concentration measured at the Green River site. Further, it is common practice to add the maximum, or at worst, second maximum measured value as background to model results. In addition, current ozone monitoring data from within the Jonah field have shown ozone concentrations in excess of the 8-hour average ozone NAAQS. Thus, the background ozone concentration to be added to the ozone modeling results should have been even higher than the assumed background concentration provided in the November 2004 AQTSD. For all of the above reasons, the BLM’s analysis is significantly flawed. Even with the BLM’s flawed assumptions, the predicted ozone concentration is 98% of the ozone NAAQS. It seems quite likely that ozone NAAQS exceedances will continue occur in the Jonah Infill region with approval of the project. It is imperative that BLM conduct a proper assessment of the ozone impacts to fully disclose the extent of likely ozone NAAQS violations in the region. 

9 38 B Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Meteorological Data 

The far-field air quality modeling analysis only used one year of meteorological data from 1995. However, common practice and EPA’s Guideline on Air Quality Models requires use of at least three years of mesoscale meteorological data or five years of National Weather Service (or comparable) data when evaluating long range transport of air emissions. As stated in EPA’s Guideline on Air Quality Models, “The model user should acquire enough meteorological data to ensure that worst-case meteorological conditions are adequately represented in the modeling results.” EPA’s recommendation to ensure this mandate is met is to use three years of mesoscale meteorological data or five years of other meteorological data to adequately reduce the variability in model estimates due to meteorological data. Thus, the BLM’s far-field air quality analysis for the Jonah Infill project does not meet these current standards for air quality modeling 

de

monstrations and there is no assurance that the

The revision to the Models requiring ameteorological daprotocol developmTuesday April 15, revised guideline tinitial and final prostakeholders apprMM5 data, 1995, fThe BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

85
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

BLM’s analysis represents the worst case meteorological conditions. 

9 39 B Early Project 

Development Stage Modeling 

It is not exactly clear whether the BLM considers the modeling analyses of the “early project development stage” as required as part of the decision making process for the Jonah Infill DEIS. Yet, the August 2005 Air Supplement indicates that peak emissions in the region, considering the Jonah Infill project and other projects in the region cumulatively, will occur before the most likely year of maximum emissions modeled for the Jonah Infill project. Thus, a thorough analysis of the peak regional emissions must be considered as required under NEPA for the Jonah Infill project. Another reason identified by the BLM for the early project development stage modeling is that the BLM is required to perform further air analyses for the region because the NOX emissions from the Jonah and 

Pinedale Anticline gas fields have “substantially exceeded” the NOX cap of 693.5 tpy established in the 

Pinedale Anticline ROD (1999). Thus, if BLM considers this analysis to satisfy the requirement for an updated NEPA analysis that meets the requirements of the Pinedale Anticline ROD, it should be explicit in that determination and explain how it does in fact meet those requirements and how, if at all, the Pinedale Anticline ROD will be modified to reflect the early project development analysis. 

Whether this analysis was done as part of the Jonah Infill EIS, a need to supplement the Pinedale Anticline EIS or the Pinedale RMP revision, or all of these, it is deficient in several respects and thus does not adequately assess the impacts that will be occurring in the next few years.... 

The early-project-was part of the moduring the decisioproject. The cumulative imconsidered in the analysis of the FEThe BLM is not suthe need for furthePinedale Anticline supplement the Pdeveloped explicitdecision on the JIanalysis is clearly August 2005 DEIS 

9 40 B Background 

Concentrations 

The BLM assumed that background air monitoring data reflected all existing source emissions. Interestingly, the BLM chose to use 2002 as the study baseline year for the early project development modeling, when the BLM used 2001 as the baseline year in the modeling of all other analyses (i.e., Preferred Alternative and other 

alternatives) performed for the Jonah Infill project. 

The year of 2002 development modrecent year where accurate well field statistics were avawell drill rigs and f

Jonah Infill, Pined

86
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

However, although the BLM used 2002 as the study base year for the early project development modeling, it used the same monitoring data from 2001 (or for SO2

from 1982-1983) as was used in the analysis of the Preferred Alternative and other alternatives analysis. Thus, the BLM assumed that emissions occurring from oil and gas development in the region in 2002 were reflected in 2001 monitoring data (or in the case of SO2, 

1982-1983 monitoring data). Considering the exponential growth of gas drilling in the area, this is an incredibly flawed assumption. Reference to the WOGCC website shows hundreds of new wells were completed in Sublette County between 2001 and 2002. Probably the majority of those were completed in the Jonah field. 

Further, it is not appropriate to assume that the monitoring data reflect the oil and gas or any other emissions sources without an analysis verifying the accuracy of that assumption. The BLM’s netting approach, in which 2002 emissions were subtracted from projected 2006 emissions and the difference was modeled, provides further reason that such an analysis of the appropriateness of the background monitoring data must be done in order for this early project development modeling to be of any use. If the BLM cannot verify that the monitoring data reflect all existing source emissions (and surely the 2001 monitoring data does not reflect all emissions existing in 2002), then it must model all existing sources in the NAAQS/WAAQS analysis. Yet another problem with assuming 2002 drilling and flaring emissions are accounted for the 2001 NO2 and 

PM10 monitoring data from Green River and Cheyenne 

is that the BLM did not use actual emissions for the 2002 inventory. While the BLM purportedly had actual data on well development rates and drilling activities in the region, BLM “assumed” Tier 0 emission rates for drill rigs, “assumed” 100% straight hole drilling, and “assumed” 100% of the wells required flaring in its 2002 emissions inventory. The assumptions regarding the emission rates of the drill rigs and 100% flaring would 

potentially tend to overestimate emissions. An 

Ridge, and Jack Memissions that wedata for year 2002subtracted from themissions estimatconstruction emissThere were 700 wthe JIDPA for the The visibility trend indicates that the Bridger has improin Chapter 3 of the The use of potent2006 emissions is assumptions for thidentical for each appropriate actuathese sources. 

87
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

overestimate of emissions is usually a conservative approach for an air analysis but not in this case when the 2002 emissions have been subtracted from the 2006 emissions in determining the net level of emissions to model. The August 2005 AQTSD highlights this inaccuracy regarding flaring, as it indicates that far less than 100% of the wells had operating flares in 2002, especially for the Jonah Infill and Pinedale Anticline areas. If the BLM does not have actual emissions data for 2002 emissions sources, then this simply highlights the flaws with its “net out” approach. Assuming it is appropriate to use background monitoring data as reflecting all existing sources, which is highly questionable especially without an analysis to verify the assumption, any netting out of existing source emissions from 2002 must be based on actual emissions data not assumed emission rates. If the BLM truly wanted to avoid “double-counting” existing background conditions, then it should have used an earlier base year that did not reflect the majority of emissions from drill rigs and completion flares in the region. 1996 is a much more appropriate year to use as a base year for this early project development scenario modeling. 

9 41 B Background 

Concentrations 

At the minimum, if the purpose of this analysis is to serve as a supplemental analysis since the regional emissions have exceeded the NOX level of concern 

identified in the Pinedale Anticline ROD, then the BLM should have assessed all emission increases that have – or will – occur since the monitoring base year date used in the Pinedale Anticline air analysis of January 1, 1996. This base year date essentially reflects the date after which the majority of oil and gas development (at least in the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline Fields) really began to boom in the area. Modeling of all changes since that date would give indication of whether the oil and gas sources in the region are causing, or would cause, NAAQS/WAAQS violations, PSD increment violations, or adverse visibility impacts at nearby Class I areas. 

The BLM disagreeemissions inventoBLM practice to eimpact by making concentrations. Tappropriate metho

88
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

9 42 B Early Project 

Development Stage Modeling 

The 2006 emission inventory underestimated the likely emissions that will occur in the region in 2006. First, with respect to the Jonah Infill project, it was only assumed that 20 drill rigs would operate each month even though the annual well development rate would be 250 per year. Thus, emissions from drilling and completing 10 wells were left out of the Jonah Infill emission inventory. Second, several assumptions on limiting emissions were made that may or may not bear true without an enforceable requirement on such emission limitations. With respect to the Jonah Infill sources, the assumptions included a 50% split between directional and straight drilled wells, that 80% of wells would have flareless completions, and that 20% of drill rigs would meet Tier 1 emission rates. For the Pinedale Anticline sources, similar assumptions were made. These assumptions are not appropriate unless the limitations on emissions are enforceable requirements for all operators in the Jonah Infill and Pinedale Anticline areas. BLM recognizes that these potential mitigation measures are speculative and not enforceable when it states with respect to them, “However, BLM’s authority to regulate flare numbers, drill rig emissions rates, and or WDRs has not been defined.” In addition, the BLM assumed that drill rig sizes in the Jonah Infill area would be roughly 2,100 to 2,600 hp. This seems unlikely when, in the immediately adjacent Pinedale Anticline field, significantly larger drill rig engines have been used. It was also assumed that the majority of drill rigs in the Pinedale Anticline area would be 3,216 hp, which represents the low end of the 3,000 – 5,000 hp range of actual operating drill rig sizes provided in the Questar FONSI. It is also questionable whether the drill rig sizes assumed for the South Piney, Riley Ridge, and Jack Morrow Hills areas are appropriate given what is actually occurring in the Pinedale Anticline area. The BLM should have obtained recent data on the size of drill rig engines actually being used in those areas, and used that data in its 2006 inventory. Those data are readily available 

given the large number of drill rigs operating at all times

Well drilling activitdrilling and 23 dayflaring activities lathe assumption is would require flariin 1 year, with a 5drilling, it would reyear (21 days x 25(0.2 x 250 x 3.3 daof 14.4 drill rigs peThe modeling scedrill rigs and 3 flarthe year. This assof annual emissiowas an estimate ospecific day during Drill rig size informon data obtained fThe BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

89
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

in the Pinedale Field Office under BLM permit. Further, the 2006 inventory did not include any emissions from production or from traffic due to production or construction for the Pinedale Anticline or other gas projects in the region. This is a major omission, especially for PM10 due to traffic. These 

sources of emissions are not adequately reflected in the regional, RFD or WOGCC inventories. 

Other issues with the Jonah Infill inventory further underestimate emissions because the BLM relied on those same flawed assumptions for the 2006 early project development stage inventory. Thus, the 2006 gas project emission inventory underestimated emissions and thus the modeling analysis underestimated the ambient air impacts due to these sources. 

9 43 B Early Project 

Development Stage Modeling 

For the early project development stage modeling, the permitted source inventory was updated to include all sources permitted as of March 31, 2004. However, a WDEQ emission tracking report reflecting all emissions changes in the region as of October 31, 2004 was available in December 2004 (several months before the June 2005 protocol was prepared for the early project development scenario) and thus additional sources could have readily been included in the early project development 2006 inventory. Specifically, the December 6, 2004 Southwest Wyoming NOX Emission 

Tracking Report prepared by WDEQ shows that, after March 31, 2004, there were permitted increases of 371 tpy of NOX at Solvay Chemicals in Sweetwater County 

and 350 tpy of NOX at compressor stations located in 

Sublette County. All emissions changes through October 31, 2004 should have been included in the regional inventory for 2006. 

The BLM’s update to the permitted source inventory also included a supposed 550 tpy decrease in NOX 

emissions at the Williams Field Services Opal Gas plant. However, the cover letter to the WDEQ’s emission tracking report does not report such a

An inventory end-necessary to allow modeling analysisthe inventory was permitting records emissions inventoDEIS modeling incDEIS source invendate of June 30, 2emissions increasobtained from statthrough March 31

90
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

decrease in emissions at this plant, and the data identified for the Williams Field Services “Opal 4-21” plant (assuming this is the same as the “Opal Gas Plant”) does not identify such a decrease in NOX

emissions. Thus, this significant decrease in emissions considered in the permitted source inventory for the 2006 modeling seems to be in error. Further, the BLM should not have credited any decreases in emissions unless it has verified that the source’s emissions are accounted for in the background air monitoring data. 

In addition, there are several sources listed in the RFFA inventory for the DEIS modeling (and presumably carried over into the preferred alternative modeling) that were not included or for which different emissions were listed in the RFFA for the 2006 early project development scenario modeling. For example, Table D.1.63 of the August 2005 TSD identifies a 33 tpy decrease in NOX at Exxon Mobil’s Shute Creek facility, 

whereas Table C.11 of the November 2004 AQTSD shows a 141 tpy increase in emissions at this facility. As another example, Table C.11. of the November 2004 AQTSD identifies as RFFA the Quester Mesa 1 compressor station with NOX emissions of 63 tpy, but 

that source is not included in the RFFA for the early project development modeling in Table D.1.63 of the August 2005 AQTSD. No discussion is provided in the TSD for why the included RFFA lists fewer sources or lower emissions for some sources for the early project development modeling as compared to the DEIS modeling. 

The RFFA inventory includes decreases in emissions from two sources – the Exxon Mobil Shute Creek facility and the Sinclair Refinery. To credit any decreases in emissions from a facility, the BLM must first analyze and verify that those sources’ emissions are reflected in the background monitoring data. Second, only decreases in actual emissions must be credited. Decreases in allowable or potential emissions do not reflect what will really be affecting the air quality in 2006. If the BLM has no data on the actual emission reductions that have occurred at these sources, then 

91
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

the reductions must not be considered in the RFFA inventory. 

9 44 B Early Project 

Development Stage Modeling 

We have identified several other deficiencies in the emission inventories assumed for the DEIS and Preferred Alternative year 2017 modeling that also apply to the 2006 inventory. Those include failing to develop a maximum short term emissions inventory for modeling compliance with short term ambient air standards (e.g., 24-hour PM10 NAAQS and increment) 

and the visibility standard, failing to develop a complete PSD increment-consuming inventory, that the area of the regional inventory does not extend far enough from potentially affected areas to encompass all contributing sources, failing to include recently proposed and permitted power plants in the region, underestimating emissions from NEPA projects, failing to include PM10

and VOC emissions from all sources, failing to inventory sources with emissions less than 3 tpy, and underestimating emissions from WOGCC sources. All of these deficiencies have been described in detail and will not be repeated here except to state that these same deficiencies apply to the 2006 inventory for the early project development scenario. 

This comment is a comments providehave been provide

9 45 B Early Project 

Development Stage Modeling 

Similar to the DEIS and Preferred Alternative modeling, the BLM did not prepare comprehensive emission inventories of all PSD increment-consuming emissions. 

See comment 9-1

9 46 B Early Project 

Development Stage Modeling 

Even without the modeling of all increment consuming emissions, the early project development modeling makes clear that the Jonah Infill sources – even before full development - will adversely impact visibility in the Bridger and Fitzpatrick wilderness areas by causing changes in visibility of more than 0.5 dv on several days. The modeling also shows that, cumulatively, extensive degradation of visibility will occur at all western Wyoming Class I areas, and the BLM’s emission inventory makes clear that this degradation is largely the result of emissions associated with oil and gas development in the region. If the BLM were to prepare a complete incrementconsuming inventory and address all other deficiencies

The modeling estiimpacts. The potePlease note that trequires potential mitigated as descFor further informaanalysis, please s

92
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

in the inventory discussed above, the impacts on the PSD increment and visibility in Class I areas expected by 2006 would likely be much worse. 

9 47 B Early Project 

Development Stage Modeling 

No evaluation of increased VOC emissions was done as part of the early project development stage assessment. Further, no analysis of the impacts of NOX and VOC emissions on the ozone NAAQS was 

done. Considering the already high levels of ozone that have been monitored in the region, this was a major oversight of the BLM. Such an analysis must be performed for the 2006 early project development modeling when BLM claims emissions in the region will be the greatest. 

VOC emissions winventory since the regional inventorieemissions that courelated values (acSO2, NO2, PM10, a

regional haze form

The ozone calculaFEIS and AQTSD appropriate/realistthat considers wewhich result in declife of wells and a in-field compressoIn recognition of thconcentrations, mthe Jonah Field arBoulder. The early-project-completed primarieffects, and the Banalyses provided adequate for this i

9 4 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments 

Yet neither the DEIS or the August 2005 AQ Supplement disclosed these potential CAA violations. The NEPA documents appear to intentionally mislead the public and the decisionmaker by including tables that purport to summarize adverse impacts reported in the AQTSD, but which instead indicate in green ink that there will not be violations of PSD increments - in marked conflict with the modeling results reported in the TSD. Indeed, the PSD increments appear to be considered second class CAA requirements by the BLM (see, e.g., BLM’s statement in the DEIS “The PSD demonstrations serve information purposes only and do not constitute a regulatory PSD increment consumption 

analysis, which may be co

mpleted as necessary by the

PSD increment coonly the far-field Careas. There are increments at any While modeling haPM10 concentratio

increment, the impscreening approacregulatory PSD in

The BLM cannot cthat would allow thviolated. Howeve

93
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality – Air Quality Division,”). Yet, the “maximum allowable increases” (also known as “PSD increments”) are separate ambient air quality standards not to be exceeded, that apply in addition to the NAAQS in clean air areas. BLM is required under FLPMA, to “provide for compliance with” all CAA requirements, and thus BLM cannot authorize an action that would allow the PSD increments to be exceeded. 

Increment violatioWyoming (with EPmore information, http://deq.state.wyBLM appreciates The BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

9 5 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments - Air Quality Standards 

Not only does the BLM’s modeling show that project emissions will cause violations of the Class II PM10 and 

NO2 increments within JIDPA, but the emission 

inventory of Jonah Infill sources and other incrementconsuming sources and modeling approaches are woefully inadequate. Thus, it is very likely that the PSD increment violations are more egregious and widespread than predicted in the air quality analyses prepared for the Jonah Infill project. 

BLM must conduct a thorough and technically complete analysis, including consideration of the WDEQ NO2

Increment Report released on September 15, 2005, to determine whether all of the PSD increments will be complied with, and BLM must not authorize the Jonah Infill project, or any other projects, unless there will be no PSD increment violations in the region as a result of the Jonah Infill project or in combination with other increment-consuming sources in the region. The CEQ’s NEPA regulation provide that “Environmental impact statements shall state how alternatives considered in it and decisions based on it will or will not achieve the requirements of sections 101 and 102(1) of the Act and other environmental laws and policies.” 

Please see comm

9 6 C Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Visibility 

The BLM must not authorize the Jonah Infill project if it will cause or contribute to adverse impacts on visibility in any Class I area. 

The U.S. Congresvisibility in mandaas their National Vstandard. The Preferred Altepotential visibility 2.4.5). Additional the ROD as provid

94
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

9 7 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments - Air Quality Standards 

The BLM’s modeling analyses also predicted concentrations of PM10, PM2.5, and ozone within JIDPA 

that are dangerously close to the health and welfare based NAAQS. While no revised ozone analysis was done for the Preferred Alternative, the ozone NAAQS analysis performed for the other alternatives showed 8-hour average ozone concentrations approaching violations of the 8-hour average ozone NAAQS. However, because of the deficiencies in the emissions inventory as well as with the modeling approaches, these impacts were underestimated. It is imperative that the BLM properly and fully assess whether the health-based NAAQS will be complied with in the JIDPA region, and that it not allow any development that would threaten compliance with these standards. 

Thank you for youThe ozone calculaFEIS and AQTSD appropriate/realistthat considers wewhich result in declife of wells and a in-field compressoIn recognition of thconcentrations, mthe Jonah Field arBoulder. 

9 8 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments 

The air quality analyses and emissions inventory do not comport with currently accepted standards for such analyses. As a result the analyses under-predict the already adverse impacts expected as a result of the Jonah Infill project. The BLM’s disregard for the adverse air quality effects is at odds with the policy of NEPA, which provides that federal agencies “shall to the fullest extent possible use all practical means. . . [to] avoid or minimize any possible adverse effects of their actions upon the quality of the human environment.” The BLM’s proposed action also conflicts with FLPMA, which requires land use plans to “provide for compliance with applicable pollution control laws” as well as the BLM’s own planning criteria that actions must comply with federal laws and regulations. Further, the Jonah Infill air analyses do not provide government officials or the public with a full understanding of the environmental consequences of the Jonah Infill project and thus the BLM has failed to meet the intent of the NEPA; “NEPA process is intended to help public officials make decisions that are based on an understanding of environmental consequences, and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment.” If the BLM authorizes this project, its actions will not protect, restore, or enhance air quality. The BLM must prepare a proper air quality analysis and then must develop an 

alternative that results in no violations of CAA 

The BLM feels tha– performed in coand USFS – have with NEPA. The mdecision makers ainformation. Thessignificant adverse have upon air quaobligation noted bimpacts “to the fulbalanced against resource, includinJonah Field. To every extent prmitigations to brinwith applicable pomitigations are oupromulgated in the 

95
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

standards. 

9 48 C Mitigation In light of the adverse impacts that are already 

predicted to occur as a result of the Jonah Infill project sources both alone and in combination with other sources and the fact that the extent and magnitude of 

the adverse impacts are likely underestimated for all of the reasons discussed in this letter, the BLM must develop a mitigation plan that demonstrates compliance with all CAA standards including the NAAQS, the PSD increments (both Class II and Class I), and the visibility standard. Mitigation includes, among other things, avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action, minimizing impacts by limiting the magnitude of an action, and reducing or eliminating the impact over the life of the action. Mitigation is not just limited to emission reduction strategies for the air emissions sources. 

Any potentially reqintended to eliminto visibility. Visibility has guidastandards. The Uprotection of visibClass I areas as thCurrent EPA reguto continue in thes

9 49 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments 

BLM cannot authorize this project if it will allow violations of CAA standards to occur. Under FLPMA, land use plans must “provide for compliance with applicable pollution control laws.” The Pinedale RMP requires that “Air quality will be maintained within or above required standards through cooperative management [with industry and government].” In addition, the BLM has committed to ensuring protection of CAA standards in its performance objectives of the Preferred Alternative. Yet, the Preferred Alternative does not meet these objectives, and the early project development modeling shows that the CAA standards will be violated early on in the Jonah Infill development timeframe. BLM must develop a Preferred Alternative with a level of development and emission reduction requirements that can occur without violating any CAA standards. Such an analysis should take into account all of the deficiencies noted above and be based on commonly accepted practices for air quality analyses to ensure the scientific integrity of the analysis. And, such analysis should define a level of emissions from the project and 

the region that will ensure no violations of CAA 

The BLM will not sThe BLM, in coopstakeholder agencimplementation ththe mitigations incthe necessary staIn addition, Sectiorevised to discuss RMP.

96
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

standards, so that compliance can be verified through the tracking of emissions. 

10 18 B Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments - Air Quality Standards 

Protection of Air Quality Increments is the Heart of PSD. The essential element of an increment consumption analysis is a determination of the extent to which the allowable increment has been consumed since the baseline was set for the area affected by the proposed projects. Because the EIS does not conduct a regulatory analysis, it does not identify the minor source baseline dates for any of the pollutants in the affected area. In Wyoming the NO2 baseline area is the entire 

project area. The NO2 baseline area in Wyoming is 

Statewide. The minor source baseline date was set February 28, 1988, soon after the February 8,1988, trigger date established by EPA. 

For PM, the trigger date was in 1978, and the minor source baseline dates were set soon thereafter. Thus all new sources, both major and minor stationary sources, as well as additional mobile source emissions, contribute emissions to the “maximum allowable increase” established under the CAA after those dates. The emissions analysis performed for the DEIS and Air Quality Supplement, however, considered new emissions as beginning with the permitted and “reasonably foreseeable” new sources after 2002. The analysis was performed using ambient air quality measurements made during the period prior to 2002 in other parts of the state, and then developing an emissions inventory for the proposed Project and other new and “reasonably foreseeable” sources. The models were run by adding the expected ambient concentrations resulting from pollutants emitted from these new sources to existing ambient concentrations in 2002. This method of analysis effectively treated 2002 as the baseline date because it failed to account for any of the emissions added by sources that were permitted after the PSD baselines were set in 1979 (for PM) and 1988 (for NO2). As a result, the modeling 

approach may be reasonable for the purpose of 

While BLM recognneed to compare PSD increments, regulatory authoritconsumption analof the applicable “WDEQ-AQD is cu

increment analysis including Sublette http://deq.state.wyand preliminary re

While modeling haPM10 concentratio

increment, the impscreening approacregulatory PSD in

The BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

97
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

determining compliance with absolute limits in the ambient air such as the NAAQS and WAAQS when reliable ambient air quality data is available from the area where increased emissions will occur, but provides only a highly truncated assessment of the consumption of the allowable increments during the three years (post 2002) for which new emissions sources were considered, while omitting any assessment of the increment consumed between the establishment of the regulatory baseline dates and 2002. 

10 19 B Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments - Air Quality Standards 

The sources omitted from the increment consumption analysis are highly significant since the omitted sources include all of the emissions from east of the Bridger and Fitzpatrick class I areas that have been predicted to cause the PM10 increment to be exceeded in the 

Washakie wilderness area, and some large increment consuming coal-fired power plants in the region, regional growth in VMT, as well as at least 67 postbaseline date sources identified by Environmental Defense in an independent review of public documents. 

Among the 67 sources omitted from the emissions inventory used for the modeling of increment consumption, emissions were reported on EPA’s AIRS website for 48. NOX emitted from these 48 sources was 

approximately four times greater than the NOX

emissions used in the air quality analysis to estimate increment consumption. PM emissions from the omitted sources also far exceeded modeling emissions. Sources accounted for in the Emission Inventory represent no more than a fraction of the NOX and PM emissions added into the modeling domain during the period since the regulatory PSD baselines were set. 

This has significant consequences for the current DEIS because increments at some Class I areas may have already been fully consumed, and the Class II increments in areas such as Cloud Peaks have been substantially consumed by Colestrip, Roundup and other earlier new sources and increased traffic emissions. The incomplete increment consumption analysis released in Septe

mber 2005 by the WDE

Q

See comment 10-

98
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

shows that 12.7 μg/m3 of the class II NO2 increment (25 

μg/m3) has been consumed by emissions added 

between the baseline date and 2004. This consumption of increment is not accounted for in the modeling analysis performed for the project. 

Based on the analysis performed for direct emissions from the project, all development scenarios except the 80% reduction scenario are shown to exceed the class II NO2 increment. Similarly, only the 80% reduction 

scenario will limit impacts of PM10 emissions to a level 

less than the 24-hour class II increment (30 μg/m3). 

10 20 B Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments - Air Quality Standards 

The failure to include emissions from post-baseline date existing sources in a comprehensive increment consumption analysis renders the DEIS and Air Quality Supplement inadequate because without such analysis it is impossible to determine whether increments have been previously consumed by prior development, or whether the proposed actions will cause the increments to be exceeded. It is clear that compliance with the Class II increment for PM10 (24-hr) and NO2 cannot be 

demonstrated when the Direct Predicted Impact from unmitigated project emissions will exceed the maximum allowable increase of 30 μg/m3 for PM10 and 25 μg/m3

for NO2. But even the lower emissions predicted for the 

20%, 40%, and 60% emission reduction scenarios levels are a significant misrepresentation of the magnitude of pollution levels that will result when the cumulative impacts of the project are added to all other new emissions sources since the regulatory baseline dates. 

Before BLM can determine the rate at which the resources may be developed without causing or contributing to PSD increment violations, the magnitude of violations must be determined by accounting for emissions from all sources that consume increment. The true magnitude of increment violations may only be determined by a regulatory increment consumption analysis that satisfies EPA’s criteria. 

See comment 10-

10 21 B Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments - Air 

Q lit St d d

EPA has for many years brought to BLM’s attention this obligation to perform a full increment consumption analysis with regard to oil and gas developments. In the 

t t f th EIS f th J h II N t l G

BLM maintains thato perform a regulConsumption Ana

99
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

Quality Standards context of the EIS for the Jonah II Natural Gas 

Development Project in Wyoming’s Green River Basin, EPA’s Regional Administrator informed BLM that “CEQ clearly states that mitigation measures must cover the ‘range of impacts’ of the proposed action and that the DEIS must identify the ‘relevant’, reasonable mitigation measures that could improve the project...even if they are outside the jurisdiction of the lead agency...’.” In order to fully assess the magnitude of any increment violations that would need to be mitigated, EPA called upon BLM to conduct “a PSD increment consumption analysis [f]or [sic] NOX [that] should be completed for all 

sources to the west and southwest of the Bridger Wilderness Area and all sources to the east of the Fitzpatrick and Popo Agie Wilderness Areas that could reasonably have an impact.. 

Even if BLM may satisfy NEPA with a methodology somewhat less rigorous than required by a regulatory increment consumption analysis, BLM must at least account for all emissions from sources that are known to have commenced operation after the baseline dates, that are currently operating, and for which reliable estimates of emissions are available from the source’s compliance reports, the state, or EPA. Where the state has performed an increment consumption analysis, BLM must disclose the results of that analysis, and may adopt the analysis as part of the NEPA analysis of increment consumption provided that BLM independently reviews the analysis and determines that it satisfies applicable NEPA requirements. It is arbitrary and capricious for BLM to simply ignore emissions from post-baseline date sources in order to deceive the public and the decisionmaker by masking the true cumulative impact of new emissions from oil and gas development. 

WDEQ has begun Consumption Anasee http://deq.stat

The BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

10 25 B Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Visibility 

0.5 dv is Measure of Perceptible Degradation In the analysis of visibility impairment BLM needs to consider all the criteria for determining perceptible impairment. The CAA defines perceptible impairment to include discoloration of the atmosphere, reduction in visual range, and perceptible light

Please see commThe CAA actually “include[s] reductiatmospheric disconoticeable changelogarithmically dep

100
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

extinction measured as change in deciviews (dv). Both the FLAG Report and EPA recognize that 0.5 dv change is the threshold of perceptible impairment in visibility. The FLMs workgroup concluded that: “For the case of visibility impairment which changes the appearance of a viewed background feature [i.e., uniform haze as opposed to a plume], thresholds of perceptibility, where a just noticeable change occurs in the scene, have been found to correspond to a change in extinction (Dbext) as low as 2% under ideal conditions, up to 20% 

(NAPAP, 1990; Pitchford and Malm, 1994). A Dbext of 

5% will evoke a just noticeable change in most landscapes (NAPAP 1990). The FLMs are concerned about situations where a change in extinction from new source growth is greater than 5% as compared against natural conditions. Changes in extinction greater than 10% are generally considered unacceptable by the FLMs and will likely raise objections to further pollutant loading without mitigation. 

EPA concluded in its review of the science as part of the regional haze rulemaking that--”The EPA agrees with the comment that a one deciview change should not be considered the threshold of perception in all cases for all scenes. The EPA believes that visibility changes of less than one deciview are likely to be perceptible in some cases, especially where the scene being viewed is highly sensitive to small amounts of pollution. EPA refers to the NAPAP report for the assertion that “a change in extinction coefficient of approximately 5% [~ 0.5 dv] will evoke a just noticeable change in most landscapes.” The technical basis for the statement is a model of perception thresholds in sharpness in video image displays. In the body of the NAPAP report, the authors argue that this model is relevant for situations with uniform haze, which is certainly appropriate for a situation with lots of small sources, like an oil and gas field. Based on this evidence, the analysis of 

perceptible visibility impairment should be based upon 

visual range conddeveloped the decno analysis methoevaluate “discolorhaze impacts. 

101
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

a 0.5 dv change, not 1.0 dv. 

10 27 B Ozone & VOCs Ozone Modeling Requires Use of Best Available 

Models 

BLM has not used a model approved by EPA for this application. It is inappropriate for BLM not to use an EPA-approved model to determine compliance with the ozone NAAQS for two reasons. First, BLM’s obligation to “provide for compliance with” federal air pollution control law and air pollution standards requires that BLM use the methods prescribed pursuant to the CAA for determining compliance with that Act and NAAQS. Second, NEPA requires that BLM “shall ensure...the scientific integrity” of the methods and analysis used in the EIS. To the extent that a sister agency with special expertise in the area of analysis used in the EIS, such as EPA with expertise in the application of atmospheric dispersion models, has identified a preferred model for performing an analysis, BLM has an obligation to at least consider any models approved by EPA for the estimation of ozone concentrations resulting from a large number of sources of NOX and VOCs dispersed 

over a large area. BLM has not explained why it has not chosen a model designed to integrate emissions from a large number of sources, or why the model it selected is better suited to the application. 

Thank you for youThe modeling proselected during stincluded represenEPA, NPS, and UThe ozone calculaFEIS and AQTSD appropriate/realistthat considers wewhich result in declife of wells and a in-field compressoIn recognition of thconcentrations, mthe Jonah Field arBoulder. The BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

10 1 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments 

The Air Quality Supplement is deficient in a number of respects, including the failure to address the full cumulative impact of emissions of air pollutants from Oil and Gas development in the Green River Basin on critical air quality standards and other CAA requirements, as well as technical deficiencies in the methods used, the failure to develop a comprehensive emissions inventory that accounts for many emissions sources that contribute to impacts in areas to be effected by new emissions from the Jonah field and other oil and gas fields in the region, and the absence of analysis to identify mitigation measures that, if adopted and implemented, would be sufficient to avoid violations of NAAQS, PSD increments, and prevent visibility impairment and other adverse impacts on air 

This summary of cspecific response; are provided at otThe BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

102
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

quality related values. 

10 2 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments 

The deficiencies identified in the current AQ Supplement are identical to many of the deficiencies currently under review in the pending litigation questioning the adequacy of the 2003 Montana and Wyoming FEISs and RODs for the Powder River Basin Oil and Gas Project. A decision adverse to BLM in that case based upon determinations that BLM’s omissions violate NEPA and FLPMA will likely result in major delays in resource development in the Green River Basin. Commenters therefore urge BLM to avoid that risk by undertaking a full assessment of air quality impacts, by identifying the mitigation options available to prevent adverse air quality impacts, and by working cooperatively with the State of Wyoming in the selection and implementation of permitting strategies that will effectively avoid or eliminate expected violations of the CAA. 

The BLM has undquality impacts, idworked cooperativthe process. The stakeholder agencin the implementa

10 3 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments 

Failure to Take a “Hard Look” at Cumulative Impacts of Project Emissions on Air Quality in the Upper Green River Basin. BLM has failed to satisfy each of these obligations under NEPA and FLPMA because BLM has not prepared a complete air quality analysis that includes an assessment of the cumulative impacts of project emissions together with other emissions from sources in the region that contribute to PM10, PM2.5, and ozone 

concentrations to identify possible NAAQS violations, potential violations of PSD increments for PM10 and 

NO2, and adverse impacts on air quality values in class 

I areas including visibility impairment and acid deposition. Without performing a comprehensive assessment of the cumulative impacts of emissions from all identifiable sources that contribute to potential 

violations of these standards and air quality related values, BLM cannot satisfy its obligation under NEPA to determine whether emissions from the project will cause or contribute to pollution in the ambient air “significantly affecting the quality of the human 

environment,” within the mandate of NEPA, because it

This summary of cspecific response; are provided at otThe BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

103
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

“threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.” The NEPA rules also require that the EIS must “state how alternatives considered in it and decisions based on it will or will not achieve the requirements of [NEPA] and other environmental laws and policies.” 

10 4 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments 

BLM has consistently identified NAAQS, PSD increments, and air quality related values in Class I areas as air pollution standards and requirements of the CAA that must be addressed as part of its obligation to “provide compliance with” pollution control laws under FLPMA. The Air Quality Supplement fails to even address major air pollution standards that BLM acknowledges fall within the scope of this duty. There is no assessment of ozone NAAQS violations despite reported exceedances of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the study region. The Supplement fails to include any assessment of emissions increases from sources that have been added to the region during the period between the PSD baseline date and 2002 for each pollutant for which PSD increments are in effect. The Supplement omits any discussion of the violations of PSD Class II increments for PM10 and NO2 predicted in 

the AQTSD. These major omissions of “significant impacts” demonstrate that BLM has failed to satisfy its NEPA obligation to take a “hard look” and inform the public and decisionmakers of the air quality impacts of emissions from the project. 

In cases where mhigh, additional mnot justify the expeimportance of potemonitoring has bearea as well as neA revised estimate is provided in the demonstrates that contribute to an exozone standards. PSD increment coonly the far-field Careas. There are increments at any 

10 5 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments - Air Quality Standards 

The Air Quality Supplement is also deficient because it fails to acknowledge that other air quality assessments have already identified expected violations of PSD increments and visibility impairment in class I areas within the impact zone of emissions from Green River Basin projects. The Powder River Basin Project air quality assessment performed for the 2003 Powder River Basin FEISs demonstrated that total emissions from oil and gas projects in the Powder River Basin will cause a) violations of the PM10 PSD increment in the 

Washakie Wilderness Area, and b) visibility impairment beyond the levels that are perceptible in all 15 class I areas included in the Powder River Basin modeling 

do

main, and c) acid deposition in excess of acceptable

Please see commThe BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

104
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

limits of change to acid neutralizing capacity in protected watersheds. BLM cannot meet its obligation under NEPA to address cumulative impacts without at least considering how additional emissions from sources in the Green River Basin will add to and exacerbate predicted violations. In order to meet its obligation under FLPMA to “provide for compliance” with the requirements of the CAA, BLM must determine the maximal level of emissions that may be allowed without causing or contributing to violations of pollution limits in the ambient air or adverse impacts on air quality related values in class I areas, and identify mitigation capable of preventing such violations. 

10 6 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments 

BLM must determine whether unconstrained emissions from the proposed project will cause violations, and how mitigation can reduce emissions to prevent violations of standards and adverse impacts on air quality related values protected under the CAA. The Air Quality Supplement contains emissions scenarios to estimate emissions based on various well development rates, but it does not include an investigation to determine the maximally permissible emissions from the project that will not violate the CAA and air pollution standards as required by FLPMA and NEPA. This determination needs to be combined with consideration of phased development and other reasonable mitigation strategies that could ensure that aggregate emissions from the project will not exceed the maximal permissible increase in emissions allowed under the CAA and FLPMA. For these reasons, commenters request that the Air Quality Supplement be revised and published for additional comment. The Supplement must be augmented by – 1. modeling using an appropriate, EPA-approved 

model to determine the effects that increased NOX

and VOC emissions will have on ambient ozone concentrations and possible ozone NAAQS violations; 

2. modeling all increased emissions since the P

SD 

It can be inferred tAlternative would specific significant through 4.3). Whipotential in-field P

the PSD 24-hour iassessment does increment analysis

1. In cases 

ozone arimpracticexpenseimportanconcentrinitiated ias near D

2. The BLM 

potential and the cWDEQ to this woulonly and regulatorAnalysis. 

3. EPA’s Re

ultimate v2064 to b

105
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

baseline dates, or using the WDEQ analysis of NO2 increment consumption and adding all 

proposed sources that BLM intends to authorize, to obtain comprehensive assessment of cumulative emissions on the maximum allowable increase for NO2; 

3. modeling to determine the impact of all emissions 

from sources that have been added to the year when greatest progress was demonstrated toward the national visibility goal as determined based upon the post-1977 year when visibility in the Bridger Class I area was best, and determining what level of emissions increase for the major project pollutants could be allowed without contributing to a 0.5 dv change in visibility on the 20% cleanest days; 

4. identify rates of acid deposition in class I area 

lakes that can be expected to cause harm and perform modeling to determine maximal permissible project emissions that will not cause those levels to be exceeded; 

5. identify permitting and emission tracking programs 

and phased development policies designed to ensure that project emissions, when considered together with other emissions in the region, will not exceed maximally permissible levels of emissions associated with each air pollution standard and other requirement under the CAA. 

1977 lev

4. In this an

BLM will reduction potential 

5. WDEQ a

BLM doeauthority 

The BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

10 7 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments 

BLM May Not Rely on Prior Inadequate EISs. The FEISs issued for the Pinedale Anticline, Continental Divide/Wamsutter, Desolation Flats, Jack Morrow Hills, and Rawlins RMP were all seriously deficient in their consideration of cumulative air quality impacts, and may not be relied upon as the basis for approving further development, including permits issued for drilling pads, road construction, compressor stations, and other polluting activities reviewed in the earlier environmental documents. These EISs were factually, technically, and legally deficient for numerous reasons, including, but not limited to, the failure to consider the cumulative impact of emissions from all 

sources that contribute to a) the concentrations of 

The BLM regularly documents and usthe NEPA processrecommended this above). If inadequprocess, improvemcurrent documentallow for the revisand actions may sRODs. Cumulative impacthe proposed JIDP discussed in the Fmodeling efforts b

106
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

pollutants subject to “maximum allowable increases” under section 163 of the CAA, b) the frequency of days when emissions would exceed the threshold of perceptible visibility impairment, c) possible ozone NAAQS violations, and d) the failure to determine the maximal permissible emissions that would not cause or contribute to violations of each of the applicable requirements under the CAA. In addition, some of the earlier environmental documents identified the level of emissions that could be allowed from previously approved projects without causing visibility to be perceptibly impaired, but BLM has determined that in all cases those permissible levels of emissions have been exceeded by development activities that have already been permitted. Therefore, none of the prior environmental reviews can be relied upon for continuing approval of additional permits until a comprehensive assessment of impacts has been completed, emissions levels needed to provide for compliance with CAA requirements have been determined, and adequate mitigation adopted to ensure that permitted activities will not cause maximally permissible levels of emissions to be exceeded. 

stakeholder agencimpacts are accoumitigations are ide2.4.5 and 5.1.1) aROD. 

10 8 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments 

Air Quality Supplement and Prior EISs Fail To Fulfill BLM’s Duty To Ensure Compliance With CAA. The BLM acknowledges that pursuant to these statutory mandates, “under both FLPMA and the CAA, BLM cannot authorize any activity which does not comply with all the applicable local, state, tribal, and federal air quality laws, statutes, regulations, standards, and implementation plans. “These requirements include the NAAQS and WAAQS which set the maximum limits for several air pollutants, and PSD increments which limit the incremental increase in certain air pollutants (including NO2, PM10, and SO2) 

above legally defined baseline concentration levels. 

BLM failed to carry out these statutory responsibilities in the 2003 FEIS and ROD. Despite comments from EPA requesting mitigation measures to prevent 

predicted P

SD violations and visibility impairment at

This comment is nDrilling Project. Fregarding the Pinecontact the Pineda

107
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

class I parks and wilderness in violation of the CAA prohibition against perceptible impairment of visibility, and protests from Environmental Defense and others asking BLM to adopt measures in the RMP to prevent these violations, BLM took no action. 

10 9 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments 

BLM May Not Rely Upon Wyoming Permit Program to Avoid Affirmative Duties Under NEPA and FLPMA. The Air Quality Supplement provides no explanation for why a complete PSD increment consumption analysis is not being performed. It simply states that the methods and procedures used for the Preferred Alternative are consistent with the procedures applied in the DEIS. The DEIS also offers no rational explanation for the failure to perform a complete PSD increment consumption analysis. In the Powder River Basin EIS, BLM claimed that it need not conduct a “regulatory” PSD increment consumption analysis because it will be addressed by Wyoming through the permit process. Reliance on the Wyoming permitting process cannot be substituted for the affirmative duty imposed on BLM to “provide for compliance” with NAAQS and the increments, both because FLPMA requires that the RMPs contain the measures necessary to ensure compliance, and because BLM has no assurance that the states will perform a complete increment consumption analysis that includes emissions from the proposed new activities on federal lands before BLM revises the RMP and issues other approvals that will allow the proposed actions to be commenced and thereby contribute to additional emissions that will add to further exceedances of NAAQS and cause increments to be violated. In Wyoming, the WDEQ is undertaking an analysis of increment consumption in and adjacent to the Bridger Class I area. This analysis, however, only includes emissions from sources permitted through 2004. It does not include an assessment of the additional increment likely to be consumed by emissions from the 

additional gas develop

ment BLM is proposing to

The BLM is aware under the NEPA athat the modeling other stakeholder incorporated into tFEIS Section 2.4.The BLM recognizauthorities in air qrequired to perform Such an analysis requirements andthe WDEQ.

108
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

authorize in the Jonah Infill and other gas field developments in the Upper Green River Basin. 

10 10 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments - Air Quality Standards 

At a meeting on October 5 between Wyoming Outdoor Council representatives, John Cora, WDEQ Administrator, and Dan Olsen, WDEQ refused to make any firm commitment to perform an increment consumption analysis that considers the proposed source emissions before issuing future permits. For these reasons, the EISs must include the increment consumption analysis so that BLM’s obligation to develop and adopt sufficient mitigation measures may be performed as part of the project NEPA analyses, and adopted as conditions in the ROD as required. 

PSD monitoring wJonah, Daniel, anPreliminary results to the previous dainto the modeling please reference: 

10 11 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments - Air Quality Standards 

In the past, BLM has implied that it need not conduct a “regulatory” increment consumption analysis because “the determination of PSD increment consumption is a legal responsibility of the applicable air quality regulatory agencies, with EPA oversight.” The fact that the state has a legal responsibility to protect increments does not mean that BLM is thereby relieved of its independent responsibility under FLPMA to adopt RMPs that “provide for compliance with pollution standards,” or its obligation under NEPA to fully describe the cumulative impacts of the proposed projects, to identify mitigation measures to prevent adverse impacts, and to determine whether the alternatives studied in the EIS and any decisions based on the EIS will provide for compliance with the CAA as required by FLPMA. Commenters object to BLM’s failure to perform these obligations imposed on BLM itself by federal law. 

BLM maintains thi

10 12 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments 

BLM acknowledged in the Powder River Basin EIS that only “some of the impacts predicted in the Final EIS” will be prevented through the state permit process. It does not claim that all violations will be prevented, nor does it claim that even most of the violations will be prevented by the Wyoming permit program. Here, BLM does not even claim that the Wyoming permit program will be adequate to prevent any adverse impacts from minor sources. There is no agency analysis explaining that any violations are likely to be addressed through 

the state permit program. Even if BLM had a rational 

As noted by this cBLM cannot avoid defer these to the be recognized thaquality regulation WDEQ and are ouThe FEIS identifieall reasonable mitensure compliancauthority (see FEIThere is no need f

109
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

basis for expecting that the Wyoming permit program could be expected to prevent some violations in the context of the Powder River Basin Projects and therefore might be as effective in the Green River Basin, BLM offers no explanation why the violations that BLM did not expect the state permit program to prevent for development in the Powder River Basin would likely be prevented in the Green River Basin. The violations that even BLM did not expect the state program to prevent must be disclosed. BLM must under NEPA and FLPMA take actions to prevent the violations that will not be prevented by the state permit programs. 

explanations of pacurrent effort.

10 13 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments 

The Wyoming SIP Cannot Be Relied Upon to Prevent Violations of Air Pollution Standards Caused by Emissions from Multitudes of “Minor Sources.” The adequacy of the Wyoming air permit program to address the cumulative air quality impacts of emissions from tens of thousands of “minor” new sources has never been considered by BLM. Neither the current Air Quality Supplement nor any of the prior Wyoming BLM’s EISs or RODs for oil and gas development have ever provided any discussion or analysis of Wyoming’s new source review permit program to determine whether it includes legal authority to ensure compliance with NAAQS, PSD increments, or adverse impacts on visibility and other air quality related values in Class I areas caused by emissions from a vast number of socalled “minor sources.” The EISs mislead the public and the decisionmaker by implying that State permit programs will address the violations identified in that EIS without any consideration of whether WDEQ has the legal authority to do so even if it wants to control these impacts. 

The BLM recognizquantify these numsources of air emiprovide for unreliabackground air moincorporated into tthe Preferred AlteSuch data should these minor sourc

10 14 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments 

The Air Quality Supplement and Jonah Infill DEIS predicts that activities authorized under the RMP amendments will include over 3,100 expected new gas wells, hundreds of miles of new dirt roads, hundreds of diesel compressor stations and hundreds of other facilities. In the estimates of emissions developed for the EIS, one of these sources is shown to exceed the 

statutory threshold for a “major source,” defined by

Comments regardRMP should be diOffice. Air monitoring was Daniel, and BouldPreliminary results to the previous da

110
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

section 169(1) as 250 tons per year, which triggers the requirement for a “PSD permit” under CAA section 165. The Wyoming PSD State Implementation Plan (SIP) uses the same emission threshold to trigger PSD review. However, these occasional big rigs could easily escape PSD analysis by agreeing to accept limits on total operating hours that would reduce annual emissions to 249.9 tons, below the 250 ton threshold for major source review. Section 165 and the Wyoming PSD SIP both require a determination that emissions from a “major” source will not cause or contribute to violations of NAAQS and PSD increments, or cause adverse impacts on air quality related values in Class I areas. No such analysis is required either by the CAA or the SIP as a pre-condition for permitting individual minor sources. In fact, a review of the PSD SIP shows that nothing in the SIP even authorizes the state to require a minor source permit applicant to perform such analyses, or to deny a permit based upon a failure of an applicant to determine whether NAAQS, PSD increments, or thresholds for adverse impacts have been exceeded. The Wyoming PSD SIP only requires that major sources perform an increment consumption analysis and an assessment of visibility impairment in Class I areas. The provisions governing the permitting of minor sources only require that the applicant demonstrate that “the proposed facility will not cause significant deterioration of existing ambient air quality in the Region as defined by any Wyoming standard or regulation that might address significant deterioration.” This provision does not explain what standard applies, if any, nor does it describe the “region” that must be considered, whether emissions from the minor source must be considered together with emissions from other permitted and reasonably anticipated sources, or what pollutants are to be considered. There is clearly no obligation to conduct a “regulatory” increment consumption analysis as described by EPA’s criteria for determining PSD increment consumption, or as described by BLM. Furthermore, this SIP provision does not address visibility impacts in 

Class I areas at

into the modeling please reference: 

Drill rigs are a temnot subject to PSD 

111
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

all. Visibility is addressed only in Chapter 9 of the Wyoming SIP rules. That provision applies exclusively to “major stationary sources.” The CAA and EPA’s regulations require that the State track emissions to determine whether aggregate emissions in an area have or will cause NAAQS or PSD increment violations, and states are required to remedy visibility impairment caused by existing sources. When Wyoming completes the analysis of NO2 increment consumption 

currently underway, BLM may rely on it to show that existing sources have or have not fully consumed the PSD increments for NO2. But until now Wyoming 

acknowledged that it had not performed the kind of analysis required by these regulations for any pollutants, and is now undertaking an analysis only for NO2. 

10 15 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments 

BLM Has Not Received Any Commitment from WDEQ to Develop and Apply the Information Needed to Prevent Violations Caused by Cumulative Impacts from Multiple “Minor” Sources. Nor has BLM received any commitment from Wyoming that such analyses will be performed prior to the permitting of minor sources, or that the results of such analyses would be used to limit or prevent the construction of minor sources when NAAQS or increments have been exceeded or would likely be exceeded, or when aggregate emissions will contribute to perceptible visibility impairment or unacceptable changes in lake chemistry. Wyoming could commit in an MOA to perform increment consumption analyses and visibility impairment assessments, and use that information to deny additional permits to minor sources. But short of such an agreement with BLM, there is no basis for assuming, as BLM seems to do, that Wyoming will either perform such analyses for pollutants other than NO2, or use the 

results of the NO2 analysis in the permitting process. 

Absent an enforceable commitment by Wyoming to apply its regulatory authority, BLM cannot merely assume that NAAQS, PSD increments, and visibility will be protected by the state’s permit process. 

Air monitoring was Field, Daniel, and Preliminary results to the previous dainto the modeling please reference: 

10 16 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments 

Even if BLM were able to show that Wyoming’s current regulatory requirements establish an affirmative obligation on the state to mitigate the impacts of 

t i i f l b f i

Please see to Comrecognizes its reswill incorporate ap

ithi it l f 

112
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

aggregate emissions from large numbers of minor sources before those sources are permitted, this state obligation would not obviate BLM’s affirmative obligation under FLPMA. Nothing in current law that governs Wyoming’s permitting of minor sources can be relied upon by BLM to avoid its primary responsibility under NEPA to take a “hard look” at cumulative impacts of emissions from activities on federal lands, to disclose expected violations of increments, and its duty under FLPMA to adopt such measures as may be necessary to “provide for compliance” with increments by ensuring that emissions from activities authorized by BLM on federal lands will not cause violations of standards or adverse impacts on air quality related values in Class I areas. Therefore, the failure to include in the DEIS and the Air Quality Supplement a complete assessment of the effect of project emissions on possible violations of NAAQS, PSD increments, and visibility impairment and impacts on lake chemistry in class I areas that takes into account emissions of all other sources that consume increment, and the failure to identify maximally permissible emissions, renders the DEIS and Air Quality Supplement inadequate under both NEPA and FLPMA. 

within its realm of BLM will continue other air quality stcompliance of the that its air quality acooperation with tfor the project.

10 17 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments 

Failure to Conduct Complete Increment Consumption Analysis Violates FLPMA and NEPA. No reason is given for the failure to perform an increment consumption analysis as part of the EIS. The Air Quality Supplement simply states that “the PSD demonstrations serve information purposes only and do not constitute a regulatory PSD Increment consumption analysis.” BLM acknowledged in the Wyoming FEIS, that “[a] regulatory PSD Increment Consumption analysis may be conducted as part of a New Source Review, or independently.” The current NEPA documents provide no rational basis for not performing an independent increment consumption analysis as part of the EIS review. 

Please see comm

113
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

10 22 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments 

BLM Must Disclose Perceptible Visibility Impairment. Where the EISs identify expected violations of the CAA prohibition against causing increases in perceptible impairment of visibility, 43 USC §1712(c)(8) requires that the RMPs may not be approved until sufficient mitigation measures are adopted to prevent or remedy these violations. To determine how much mitigation is necessary, BLM must determine the amount of new emissions that is permissible without causing perceptible impairment. 

Please see commComments regardRMP should be diOffice. 

10 23 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments 

DEIS and Air Quality Supplement Fail to Implement FLAG Guidelines. Acting through the NPS, the Department of Interior has cooperated with other FLMs in the development of visibility review procedures and criteria for assessing when visibility impairment is not acceptable. The DEIS and Air Quality Supplement mention the FLAG Report, but provide no analysis to explain how the acceptability criteria will be applied by the Secretary to the evidence of visibility impairment provided in the air quality assessment. Even more troubling is the lack of any discussion of the mitigation measures that could be applied through the RMP to protect visibility in Class I areas. The Air Quality Supplement provides ample information showing that if the Preferred Alternative is approved, degradation of visibility will occur in the Bridger WA, Fitzpatrick WA, and Teton NP when measured by the 1.0 deciview (dv) metric of change. Yet despite this evidence of extensive deterioration in visibility, the EIS is completely silent regarding how the Secretary will carry out her affirmative responsibility to protect visibility in these areas. To identify the maximal permissible emissions, BLM must identify the mitigation measures that can achieve the level of protection for visibility described in the FLAG guidelines. 

Please see commComments regardRMP should be diOffice. The Preferred Altepotential air qualit2.4.5). Additional the ROD as provid

114
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

10 24 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments 

DEIS and Air Quality Supplement Fail to Implement EPA’s “No Degradation” Policy Under the CAA. In addition to the affirmative responsibility to “protect” visibility in Class I areas under her charge as an FLM, the Secretary acting through BLM under FLPMA, also has a responsibility to ensure the national visibility goal established by the CAA is implemented in all Class I areas likely to be impacted by emissions from developments authorized by RMPs. The CAA “declares 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.” EPA has promulgated rules to implement this national goal. These regulations include requirements defining reasonable progress toward the national goal. “The reasonable progress goals must provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same period.” This interpretation of the CAA as requiring that existing visibility not be further impaired during the period when progress toward the national goal is being implemented was affirmed by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in response to an attack by industry arguing that EPA is not authorized by the Act to establish a “no degradation” standard.. This standard for reasonable progress has not been addressed in the EIS, but should have been. At a minimum, the Air Quality Supplement must identify the visibility for the least impaired days in each of the Class I areas where significant impacts are predicted, and the extent to which the additional emissions from the projects combined with other regional emissions increases would cause degradation on those days. The information needed to identify the least impaired days is available from the transmissometer data used for the visibility impact analysis, and the output from the 

CALP

UFF model provides the information to provide a

Please see commThe U.S. Congresvisibility in mandaas their National Vstandard, and curvisibility impairmeareas until 2064. disclose potential impacts (including regulatory responsVisibility Goal. Comments regardRMP should be diOffice. The Preferred Altepotential air qualit2.4.5). Additional the ROD as provid

115
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

meaningful assessment of the extent to which visibility will be degraded on the least impaired days. Thus that information should be developed and included in a further supplement to the DEIS. The results of that analysis should then be considered for the purpose of identifying the kinds of mitigation measures necessary to achieve the no degradation standard. This should also be addressed in any supplemental EIS to provide the factual context for determining the extent of emission reduction needed to determine mitigation measures as part of the ROD. 

10 26 C Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Acid Deposition/Sensitive Lakes 

Acid Rain Impacts Identified, But Significance Not Disclosed. The Air Quality Supplement compares modeled acid deposition rates with outdated criteria for determining the limits of acceptable change adopted by the USFS nearly twenty years ago, but now considered inadequate to protect lakes from adverse impacts. BLM’s obligation to disclose adverse impacts requires more than acknowledgment that the criteria used are not protective. BLM has an independent obligation under NEPA to use the best science available to identify possible harm to aquatic species that may result from significant changes in lake chemistry. BLM has undertaken no investigation of the research that convinced USFS that its original criteria are no longer protective, or any other research addressing the adverse impacts of acid deposition into waters with little acid neutralizing capacity. BLM has not satisfied its obligation to take a hard look. 

The BLM appreciaare being revieweperformed. Howeaccept them as si

10 28 C Health Impacts on Public Health from Fine Particle Exposures 

Not Identified. 

The emissions sources included in the proposed projects will be a major source of NOX emissions which 

are transformed in the atmosphere to form fine particle nitrates. Given the potentially severe adverse health effects associated with fine particle exposures, commenter requests that the Air Quality Supplement fully assess the potential adverse public health effects 

associated with cu

mulative emissions of fine particles

Additional air monthe Jonah, DanielWDEQ. Levels of 

the health based Nplease reference: 

116
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

and fine particle precursors from the current and proposed sources of fine particles. The 2003 EISs for the Powder River Oil and Gas Project predicted large increases in exposure to fine particles from background concentrations of 20 to 66 mg/m3 (more than the 

current NAAQS for PM2.5) in Montana, and from 19 to 

42 mg/m3 in areas of Wyoming. 

The recent evidence of the effects of fine particle exposures at these expected future concentrations demonstrates that increased premature mortality, hospitalizations, asthma, and other respiratory disease episodes, increased medication and health care costs, increased loss of work days and lost wages as well as lost school days for children are expected at these levels of exposure. The EISs fail to address this new evidence, and fail to inform the public of these adverse health impacts. 

10 29 C Health The adverse health effects of fine particles (i.e., 

particles <2.5 μm in diameter) must be evaluated in the Air Quality Supplement to determine acceptable levels of exposure to avoid endangering public health, and then to assess the impact emissions from the proposed projects will have on current background concentrations of PM2.5. If emissions from the proposed projects will 

cause or contribute to the exposure of residents above levels associated with adverse health effects, then the Air Quality Supplement must identify mitigation measures sufficient to prevent those effects. 

This analysis of fine particle health effects in the NEPA context is made necessary by EPA’s failure to promulgate PSD increments for PM2.5 as required by 

the CAA, and its unlawful delay in promulgating revised NAAQS for PM2.5. 

This analysis is made necessary because the fine particle NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 1997 does not prevent adverse health effects demonstrated by the health effects research published since 1996 when EPA closed the last version of the PM Criteria Document relied upon to set the 1997 NAAQS for PM2.5to protect public health pursuant to the CAA. 

It is beyond the scevaluate adverse pollution. This is tfalls under their authis regulation by 

117
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

Therefore, the 1997 NAAQS appears no longer to be adequate to protect against adverse health effects identified in the health effects research identified by EPA in its revision to the Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter. The residual adverse health effects allowed by the 1997 NAAQS that have been identified by EPA must also be disclosed to the public under NEPA, and considered by the decisionmaker when developing mitigation measures. In the event it is determined that emissions from the Oil and Gas Project will contribute to adverse health effects among the residents of Wyoming, mitigation measures must also be considered under NEPA to prevent those effects. 

10 30 C Mitigation Mitigation. 

BLM modeled a number of different emissions scenarios, but did not identify any scenario that would “provide for compliance with” all applicable standards under the CAA. While it appears that the 80% reduction scenario with WDR 250 achieves the lowest impacts of any alternative considered, it nonetheless predicts 19 or 21 days of visibility impairment in the Bridger class I area, depending on the analytical method chosen. This level of impairment fails to satisfy the statutory requirement for “no degradation” of humanly perceptible visibility in the Class I area. Based upon this evidence, the 80% reduction scenario, standing alone, cannot satisfy BLM’s obligation to “provide for compliance with” the CAA. Additional reductions will be needed, such as those that can be achieved by reducing the well drilling rate through the implementation of phased development. In addition, the lack of a reliable modeling analysis of the impact that increased NOX and VOC emissions will 

have on ozone concentrations precludes any final determination of an acceptable level of emissions increases from the Jonah Infill and other gas field developments in the Upper Green River Basin. Given that exceedances of the 8-hour NAAQS have been reported in 2004 and 2005, it may be that no new sources of emissions may be added to the air shed without corresponding decreases in emissions from 

Please see commBLM can require mimpacts of the proThe Preferred Altepotential air qualit2.4.5). Additional the ROD as providIn cases where mhigh, additional mnot justify the expeimportance of potemonitoring has bearea as well as neThe factors contribconcentrations in date, there is no fistandard violationPlease note, howerequirement for “nperceptible visibili

The BLM will track 

continue to consufor this suggestion

118
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

existing sources. This issue cannot be determined based on the inadequate analysis contained in the current record. If BLM completes an adequate ozone modeling analysis that provides a rational basis for determining the limits on increased emissions, BLM must prescribe in the RMP the maximally permissible limit needed to protect the resource most at risk. To ensure that the limit is enforced, we ask that BLM adopt as a requirement of the ROD an emission tracking program to ensure that emissions do not exceed the permissible annual maximum, and that the tracking data be used to defer any new APDs for activities that would cause the maximally permissible level to be exceeded. The emission tracking program should be coordinated with air permits issued by WDEQ. To ensure this coordination, BLM should require an applicant for APD to show that it has obtained a WDEQ permit demonstrating the allowable emissions from the facility, and that prior permits issued by WDEQ do not exceed the maximally permissible level. 

10 31 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments 

Commenters request that BLM prepare a comprehensive assessment of air quality impacts that remedies the deficiencies in this and prior EISs in order to provide a sound basis for determining maximally permissible emissions combined with emissions tracking as part of a permit program, and phased development, as mitigation strategies to prevent expected violations of various CAA requirements identified in the Air Quality Supplement, and other likely violations of other CAA requirements that may be identified if the deficiencies in the air quality analysis discussed above are addressed. 

WDEQ and BLM wnot unilaterally set Alternative requirethat potential impaare below significapossible.

11 1 C Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Visibility 

It is our understanding after reading the statement that 

the major area of concern with air quality is related to visibility, and not necessarily particulates. In Table 5 of the analysis it shows Grand Teton National Park and Yellowstone National Park experiencing eight and three days of haze respectively during the early project development stage of the Jonah Field Drilling Project. We believe any amount of haze encroaching on this 

The BLM recognizBACT processes regulatory authoritAugust 2005 TSD Appendix G) was not intended to ouAppropriate mitiga

concerns are deta

119
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

pristine environment is unacceptable. We encourage you to mandate use of BACT rather than simply suggesting its use. Additionally, we feel the plan should better detail the steps to be taken, and the penalties if any, in the cases of high haze situations. 

2.4.5 and 5.1.1) aROD. 

12 2 B Emissions, Project Same as Submittal # 7, Comment #2. See comment 7-212 3 B Emissions, Project The WDEQ has adopted policies regulating flaring 

emissions in fields such as Jonah, and the BLM modeling totally ignores those requirements and over estimates flaring emissions. 

See comments 5-The emissions invwere conducted pWDEQ-AQD flarinassumptions were field operators. Temissions from ththe FEIS (see SecAlternative analys

12 4 B Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Meteorological Data 

Same as Submittal #7, Comment #3. See comment 7-3

12 5 B Background 

Concentrations 

Same as Submittal #7, Comment #4. See comment 7-4

12 6 B Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Visibility 

Same as Submittal #7, Comment #5. See comment 7-5

12 8 B Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Visibility 

Same as Submittal #7, Comment #6. See comment 7-6

12 9 B Early Project 

Development Stage Modeling 

Same as Submittal #7, Comment #7. See comment 7-7

12 1 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments 

Same as Submittal #7, Comment #1. See Comment 7-1

12 7 C Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Visibility 

In total, the exaggerated modeling assumptions resulted in a significant overestimation of the visibility impacts that BLM should discuss, analyze, and resolve 

i th F

EIS i t th i l t ti

While the BLM cobe conservative, it assumptions were di i i d 

120
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

in the FEIS prior to the implementation or recommedation of any measures to mitigate the overrated impacts, and specifically prior to issuing the ROD. 

discussion is deem

12 10 C Mitigation Same as Submittal #7, Comment #8. See Comment 7-813 1 B Conservative 

Analysis 

Air quality modeling is a tool in developing strategies to reduce emissions. The current model used for the Jonah Field Infill Project EIS is a worst-case scenario and does not factor in new emission reduction solutions and other key data. 

See comments 5-

13 2 B Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Inconsistencies with Monitoring Data 

On the other hand, monitoring provides hard data that indicates the actual trends in the Bridger Wilderness Area emissions are stable and improving. An approach which integrates modeling, monitoring, and significant mitigation will show that properly managed development of the Jonah Field should continue to reduce emissions. 

See comments 5-

14 1 B Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Meteorological Data 

I continue to object to the meteorological inputs being used in the modeling process. Wind histories from several years back may not be indicative of present realities as my own three years of studies seem to suggest. I get an impression that the modeling effort attempts to address mixing and transport as a result of upper winds in addition to surface winds. Winds aloft and attendant mixing dynamics cannot be claimed to be receiving accurate model treatment on the basis of values interpolated between Riverton and Salt Lake, the two nearest upper atmosphere sounding locations. On this point I have agreement from an atmospheric scientist from the University of Wyoming. Therefore, there is a serious need for a federal weather monitoring station at the Pinedale Airport which includes radiosonde soundings of upper wind behavior. While this falls well outside the purview of BLM, one would hope that WDEQ might take up the cause and follow its channels through EPA for support in this matter. 

The meteorologicaanalyses are repreinclude measured from 55 stations astations, which are 448 km modeling addition, hourly mhorizontal grid spamodel, which inclumb, were used to the modeling dommeteorological moscientific peer revdetermine a modethe surface, upper incorporates fine sto determine an ha 4 km horizontal up to 2,980 meteravailable tool for uwhich can then be impacts from a pro

availability of more 

121
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

modeling domain, CALMET. BLM agrees that umodeling can be smodels are currenthese types of anathat data specific 3.1) were used in 

14 2 C Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments 

The air quality analysis document contains the frequent use of the statement “The exceedances of these thresholds trigger a management concern but are not necessarily indicative of an adverse impact.” This statement is absurd. If there are “exceedances” causing “concern” then adverse impact is sure to follow if for no other reason than future increases in levels of activity in the Jonah that will build upon the exceedances beyond those of the present JDIP. Rather than wait for adverse impacts to build to levels that will result in draconian federal and state reaction, and associated increases in corrective action costs for operators (who will object mightily to such costs), BLM and regulators chartered to address this prospect need to activate adaptive management methodologies now. No doubt BLMPinedale will fall back upon its now practiced mantra that no actions can be taken on “pre-decisional issues.” I continue to argue just as doggedly that BLM is a federal agency required to meet requirements in the CAA. This can be done if not by regulatory action, then through stipulations that “encourage” operators to exert major and serious efforts to clean up all aspects of their operations with an eye toward eliminating the cited exceedances. 

Please understand (AQTSD Appendix It is not possible to implementation of results, although lTherefore, it is reamodeled exceedanot cause an adveThe BLM Preferremanagement prindiscussed in FEIS This office will moproject and ensure well as other regu

14 3 C Emissions, Project To EnCana's credit, it has acted upon my personal 

effort to introduce it to a new dehydrator technology. It is undertaking a project to winter test two of the new units that employ technology methods which render them near zero emitters with regard to the significant criteria pollutants known to come from dehy operations. I am confident that the tests will demonstrate what EPA has already certified about the units, ie. their extraordinarily clean operation. That being so, hopefully, EnCana will proceed to retrofit its present

Thank you for you Operators to reduthe BLM.

122
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

dehy fleet to the new standard and install the newer model on all future wells. Such a commitment would result in a reduction of criteria pollutants on the order of 1000%. Should this happen, the present dire predictions of the new air quality analysis should indeed be rendered excessively worst case. I have attached the EPA report and my own comparison summary. 

14 4 C Monitoring Data Finally, the weakness of reliance upon model 

predictions in this region continues to be the absence of actual pollutant quantitative data. It is of little credibility to declare on the basis of these model results that certain levels of impact will occur until they have been validated by actual empirical measurements. However, this process of empirical data accumulation is glacial and the analysis lengthy. It is therefore appropriate for BLM to, at the most, grant EnCana a preferred alternative go-ahead that incorporates conditions of operation that impose limits on all-out development until we know more about gas industry contributions to the visibility problem which is in fact worsening in the adjacent Class I regions. 

The Preferred Alteadaptive managemand Appendix E). quality monitoring modeling efforts. an adaptive manaconcerns express

15 20 A4 Emissions, Project Page 9 

“2.1 PROJECT EMISSIONS Criteria pollutant and hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions were inventoried for construction activities, production activities, and ancillary facilities. Criteria pollutants included nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon 

monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), and particulate matter less 

than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5).” 

Technically, nitrogen oxides are not a criteria pollutant. Rather, nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is the criteria pollutant, 

formed in the atmosphere as a result of NO emissions and trace amounts of NO2 emissions (NOX) in the 

presence of ozone (O3) 

This statement ha

15 21 A4 Emissions, Project Page 9 

“Additions to WDEQ-AQD Oil and Gas Production Facility Emission Control and Permitting Requirements for the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline Gas Fields were

The AQTSD now potential effects o

123
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

approved by the Air Quality Advisory Board on July 28, 2004. The additional guidance became effective upon approval and applies to all wells reported to WOGCC after the approval date of July 28, 2004. The additional guidance revised emission control requirements and permitting process currently utilized under WDEQ-AQD Notice of Intent (NOI)/Presumptive Best Available Control Technology (P-BACT) permitting processes. Because the Project air emissions inventory and dispersion modeling analysis was complete prior to the adoption of the guidance referenced above, the revised guidance is not reflected in this analysis.” Based on when this analysis began, this assumption is appropriate. However, it is necessary to qualitatively discuss any new requirements in the AQTSD and indicate how they would change the emission assumptions as equipment is installed. A new source will have to comply with any new requirements and if these requirements result in more stringent emission controls than were assumed in this analysis, reductions in projected emissions levels would occur. Not including these into the emission inventory development and subsequent analysis, will lead to conservative (overstating emissions and impacts) analyses. The decision maker and the public should be aware of such additional conservatism that is included in this analysis. 

15 22 A4 Emissions, Project Page 9 

“2.1.1 Construction Emissions Construction activities are a source of primarily criteria pollutants. Emissions would occur from well pad and resource road construction and traffic, rig-move/drilling and associated traffic, completion/testing and associated traffic, pipeline installation and associated traffic, and wind erosion during construction activities. A timeline illustrating the duration of construction activities for a single well is provided in Figure 2.1. Up to 3,100 natural gas wells may be developed; however, a lesser number of developed wells are considered under two alternatives. Regardless of total wells developed, three 

separate WDRs were examined in this emissions

This statement is Construction emislevel of constructioin time, not to the come before. For estimated maximuassumed (i.e., 20 developed). This assumption (i.e., toverestimates emEmissions by yeaAQTSD and these adjusted for field p

124
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

inventory: 75, 150, and 250 wells developed per year. Well pad and resource road emissions would include fugitive PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from 1) construction 

activities and 2) traffic to and from the construction site. Other criteria pollutant emissions would occur from diesel combustion in haul trucks and heavy construction equipment. On resource roads, water would be used for fugitive dust control, effecting a control efficiency of 50%. On collector roads (e.g., Luman. Road) magnesium chloride would be used for dust control, effecting a control efficiency of 85%.” 

The development of project emission inventories in the manner listed above can be misleading to both the public and decision makers. One problem is that emission totals are presented at the end of the project and the public and decision makers would likely assume that the emission totals would increase instantly. This assumption is incorrect as there would realistically be a gradual increase in emissions over time. The projected emission increase also assumes that there will be no new regulatory initiatives during the lifetime of the project. It is important for BLM to present emission inventories at a minimum of 5-year increments so that the public and decision makers can understand the actual rate of development as well as all of the assumptions associated with development. The AQTSD needs to provide information beyond the assumption of the number of wells that can be drilled each year. Additionally, as part of development over time, changes in emissions of existing sources as a result of well depletion need to be included into the overall emission calculations. 

15 23 A4 Emissions, Project Page 10 

“After the pad is prepared, rig-move/drilling would begin. Emissions would include fugitives from unpaved road travel to and from the drilling site and emissions from diesel drilling engines (three total engines). At directionally drilled wells the amount of traffic would increase by 20%, and one additional drilling engine (a total of four engines) would be utilized. Emissions from well co

mpletion and testing would include fugitive PM10

Thank you for youThe BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

125
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

and PM2.5 emissions from traffic and emissions from 

diesel haul truck tailpipes. During the completion phase, gas and condensate are both vented to the atmosphere and combusted (flared). Emissions from the venting of natural gas include hazardous ir polluntants (HAPs) and VOCs. Flaring emissions from the combustion of natural gas and condensate include NOX, CO, VOCs, and HAPs.” 

A flare is a pollution control and safety device that converts hydrocarbons to CO2 and water with residual 

amounts of CO, VOCs and HAPs. NOX emissions 

occur as a result of combustion in the flare and the AQTSD document should reflect these facts. 

15 24 A4 Emissions, Project Page 11 

“Pollutant emissions would also occur from pipeline installation activities, including general construction activities, travel to and from the pipeline construction site, and diesel combustion from on-site construction equipment. Fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) would occur 

during well pad, road, and pipeline construction due to wind erosion on disturbed areas. A summary of singlewell construction emissions for both straight and directionally drilled wells are shown in Table 2.1. Construction emission calculations are provided in detail, showing all emission factors, input parameters, and assumptions, in Appendix B (Project Emissions Inventory).” 

The emissions presented in Table 2.1 are confusing and misleading. Table 2.1 indicates that NOX

emissions from construction are responsible for 12.23 pounds of NOX per hour, a result of scraper, motor 

grader and dozer operations. In Table 2.1 the unit of measure is presented as pounds per hour while in Table B.1.4 the unit of measure is listed as pounds per hour per well. It is assumed that these are the same unit of measure. The problem is that these emission sources only operate 10 hours per day and therefore the 12.23 pounds per hour only occurs for a portion of a day. Table 2.1 should present an additional column indicating pounds per day so that the reader 

A footnote to the lTable 2.1 has beeemission rate persplease see Appenbasis.” The existing footnexplain that the emof multiple activitiethe phrase “; thessimultaneously ovEmission totals in context and have Emissions occurriwere modeled oveduring which they scalars were utilizemissions during emission rates in operating hours x daily emissions fodiurnal factors is bof the modeling pr

126
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

understands that these emissions are not continuous. It is further assumed in these calculations that all three pieces of equipment operate simultaneously over this 10-hour period. If true, this assumption should be stated in the document. The columns in Table 2.1 and Table B.1.4 should include the time period that reflects average well development in the calculations of emissions per well. Presenting emissions without a corresponding time period associated with them is meaningless because it is impossible to relate such units of measure into air quality impacts. Also, emissions units of measure should be consistent between Appendix B and Table 2.1. The emission totals presented in Table 2.1 are also misleading. The assumption that the reader makes is that the pounds per hour emissions listed in the table are truly additive. In reality, construction, rig moving and drilling, completion and testing and pipeline construction are activities that do not occur at the same time. Thus, one could not go to a well construction site and measure emissions of this magnitude. The total column should be modified (or be footnoted) so that the total indicates the maximum short-term emissions that could occur. This value should then be used in any air quality impact analysis. The major issue with these calculations is how they are incorporated into the dispersion modeling. The construction sources do not operate 24 hours a day and only operate at a given location for a finite amount of time. Therefore, it is difficult to realistically describe them in air quality modeling. The AQTSD does not provide information on how this was done. As a result, detailed comments could not be prepared regarding this point. It is recommended that BLM provide detailed calculations regarding how temporary sources were incorporated into the air quality modeling. 

15 25 A4 Emissions, Project Page 11 

“2.1.2 Production Emissions 

Because stack testhree types of heawas utilized in the 

127
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

Heaters required at each well site include an indirect heater, a dehydrator reboiler heater, and a separator heater. Stack testing was performed for NOX and CO 

on these heaters by Operators in 2003 to obtain an accurate estimate of these emissions from these sources. These stack test emissions were used throughout this air quality analysis. Heater emissions for all other pollutants were calculated using AP-42.” 

Since a dehydration reboiler heater and a separator heater have approximately the same heat capacity (MMBtu/hr), the stack test data used for the reboiler emissions should be applicable to all heaters of this general size. Chapter 2 of the AQTSD does not make any mention of installation of new compressor engines as a part of the proposed action. Later in the document, tables for new compressor sites are presented without justification. The addition of new compressor engines for this project is very confusing and needs to be clarified in the AQTSD. 

Although the JIDP compression, air qconcern that expabeyond those docpermitted sourcesof the JIDP. At stfuture compressioseveral operators Sublette County, acompression was now provided on tto clarify why thes

15 26 A4 Emissions, Project Page 13 

“HAPs and VOC emissions would occur from fugitive equipment leaks (i.e., valves, flanges, connections, pump seals, and opened lines). Condensate storage tank flashing and glycol dehydrator still vent flashing emissions also would include VOC/HAP emissions. Emissions from these sources were provided by Operators.” The AQTSD should provide the basis used to estimate dehydrator still vent emissions and condensate flashing losses. Also, for a “typical” well, information should be presented on how emissions change over time. After 1 year flashing uncontrolled emissions would be approximately 20 percent of the initial rate and after 5 years flashing losses from condensate storage would be approximately 10 percent of the initial emission rate. 

Such changes in emissions are important, when 

Condensate storacalculated by LeSEnCana. Glycol demissions were caLeSair EnvironmeA discussion regaemissions over ththe AQTSD. 

128
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

attempting to estimate total project emissions, and BLM needs to incorporate the effect of decline in production into the AQTSD. In addition WDEQ requires BACT evaluations for each new source. 

15 27 A4 Emissions, Project Page 13 

“Total production emissions of criteria pollutants and HAPs occurring from a single well are presented in Table 2.2. Production emission calculations are provided in detail, in Appendix B, showing all emission factors, input parameters, and assumptions.” It is unclear how the 4.7 lbs/1000 scf was derived and a gas composition analysis should be presented so that the density of the gas can be determined and this emission factor can be checked. Given that the typical composition of gas is approximately 97.5 percent 

methane and ethane (non VOC compounds) and would likely contain some water as well as other inorganic compounds, the calculated emission rate for gas (not including condensate) seems unrealistically large. Also, it is physically impossible to be venting pure gas and not have any condensate associated with the vent stream. It is recommended that additional documentation be provided on this calculation. 

In Table B.1.12 it is assumed that the flare has a destruction efficiency of 50 percent. This assumption is inconsistent with current literature on flare destruction efficiency. Currently, WDEQ assumes that flares for condensate flashing reduce VOC emissions by 98 percent. The AQTSD is contradictory regarding what type of device is used during well completions. In Chapter 2 it specifies a flare stack and in Chapter 4 it specifies a flare pit. The difference in removal efficiency between a stack and a pit are considerable. BLM needs to provide clarification on this point. 

The 4.7 lbs/1000 scomposite gas anwells. This compoof a “raw” gas anacompletion stage such data. The coreferenced and incThe 50% destructconservative estimcompletion analysconstituents of the 

15 28 A4 Emissions, Project Table 2.2 and Appendix B are unclear regarding how 

the total for VOC emissions during the production phase was calculated (18.59 tpy). 

The following presents our attempt to replicate the VOC estimates contained in the AQTSD: 

Footnote 2 of AQTcondensate storagare controlled and Breakdown of emDehydration Unit: 

129
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

As indicated in Table 2.2 and Appendix B, the significant VOC emission sources for a well are dehydration emissions, process fugitives, and condensate flashing. The Appendix B uncontrolled VOC emissions from the dehydration still vent are 12.8 tpy and controlled emissions are 1.2 tpy. It was assumed that 75 percent of the dehydration units would have a pump limit and 25 percent would have benzene, toluene, ethylbenzen and xylene (BTEX) controls. Based on this information, the following average dehydration emissions could be calculated: Emissions (tpy)= (12.8*.75)+(1.2*.25) = 9.9 tpy. Appendix B presents VOC emissions from process fugitives account for 0.24 tpy. Table B.2.8 presents VOC emissions from condensate flashing from storage tanks. The table is not clear regarding the actual emissions nor what percentage of the tanks would have emission controls for VOCs. The table indicates that emissions from condensate flashing are 98 percent controlled, but the table does not provide any estimate of controlled VOC emissions. Assuming that uncontrolled emissions from flashing are 15.9 tpy and controls are 98 percent effective, then controlled emissions would be:15.9 tpy * (1-98/100) = .32 tpy/well If the various VOC emission sources are totaled: Dehydration unit = 9.6 tpy Process fugitives = 0.24 tpy Condensate flashing = 0.32 tpy Total = 10.16 tpy This total does not equal the 18.6 tpy per well that is indicated in Table 2.2. Also, the assumptions regarding the application of emission controls on dehydration units and condensate flashing losses are very unclear. For example, uncontrolled dehydration unit emissions are assumed to be 12.8 tpy and for these units emissions would be

Indirect Heater: Sep. Heater: Dehy Heater: Fugitives: Cond. Tanks: (.5(Total: 18.59 tpy 

130
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

controlled by an enforceable pump limit. It was further assumed that 25 percent of the dehydration units would have emission controls of 90 percent removal based on uncontrolled emissions of 12.8 tpy. These assumptions are physically inconsistent. It is recommended that BLM revise the AQTSD for production emissions in detail so that the reader can reproduce the calculations. Also, additional information is needed regarding the assumptions used in making such calculations. 

15 29 A4 Emissions, Project Page 14 

“2.1.3 Total Field Emissions Annual emissions in the JIDPA under the Proposed Action and each alternative at WDRs of 75, 150, and 250 are shown in Table 2.3. Emissions assume construction and production occurring simultaneously in the field and include one year of maximum construction emissions plus one year of production at maximum emission rates. Construction emissions were based on well construction, drilling, drilling traffic, completion traffic, and completion flaring. Well construction emissions were based on the number of wells constructed per year and the type of well constructed. Drilling, drilling traffic, completion traffic, and completion flaring were based on the number of wells developed per year. Completion flaring operations were assumed to occur at 20% of the wells under construction. For alternatives with both directional and straight wells, a proportional split between straight and directional wells was used to determine the number of straight and directional drilling rigs. Production emissions were calculated based on the total number of producing wells in the field. Total producing wells were equal to the difference in number of wells proposed and the number of wells constructed per year.” There are a number of assumptions associated with Table 2.3 that need to be identified. First, emissions portrayed represent emissions at the time of the last year of development and assume that there are no new 

air quality regulations that would require additional 

This statement is See comment 15-

131
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

controls. Given the current regulatory environment, this is very unlikely. Second, Table 2.3 emission estimates also assume that the current level of air pollution control technology remains unchanged. Again, since BACT for minor sources is a technology forcing regulation, it is unlikely that this assumption is true. While it is impossible to quantify how these first two assumptions will change over time, it is important to state in the AQTSD these assumptions are not likely to be valid over the lifetime of the project. In reality, at the end of development, actual emissions will be less than what is listed in Table 2.3. Third, it is assumed that there is no retirement of existing sources. The AQTSD needs to provide a schedule on installation and retirement of wells as they are depleted. This needs to be done on an annual basis and the retirement and production decline from existing wells needs to be factored into the cumulative emissions. Table 2.3 presents estimates of total wells and producing wells. For the case of the proposed alternative, total wells drilled is listed at 3,100 and producing wells at 2,850. It is not stated if the difference is due to depletion, dry holes or other factors. Fourth, it is assumed that all production emissions are emitting simultaneously. All of these assumptions are quite conservative (representing an unrealistic upper bound of emissions) and in all likelihood actual emissions will be less. These emission estimates represent an unrealistic estimate of growth in emissions. The impression that one is left with regarding these emissions is that once the ROD is issued, emissions will reach these projected levels within a short period of time. In reality, this projected growth represents an upper bound that will be reached at the end of development assuming that the assumptions outlined above are met. 

15 30 A4 Emissions, Project The emission totals presented in Table 2.3 are 

confusing. Table 2.3 for the Proposed Action Annual Development Rate of 250 wells per year results in construction VOC emissions of 3,154 tpy. It is unclear how this number was derived and BLM needs to provide detailed calculations on this value. This 

calculation should present emission source, the number 

The 3,154 tpy numincorrect. The cor2,956 tpy. Emissifootnotes explainibeen revised in thbetween AQTSD T

132
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

of hours per year of operation and how annual emissions were calculated. This should be presented for a single well and then expanded to annual development. It is important to note that VOC emissions in Table 2.1 do not appear to be consistent with VOC emissions in Table 2.3. 

15 31 A4 Emissions, Project Other concerns are that in Table B.1.11 venting of new 

wells equates to 1,957 pounds of VOCs per hour and persists for 4 hours and flaring results equates to 978 pounds of VOCs per hour and persists for 80 hours. These two events cannot occur simultaneously and it is difficult from the documentation to determine how the annual value was arrived at. What is important from an air quality perspective is the short-term emission rate, not necessarily the annual rate. 

In Table B.1.12, eon 40 hours of preapproximately 10% this period, it is aswill occur per wellplace simultaneou

15 32 A4 Emissions, Project It is recommended that the AQTSD clearly specify the 

assumptions that have been made in making projected emissions. Also, it is recommended that emission estimates be made for intermediate years as well as the estimates for final development. Estimates of phased development will provide a more realistic indicator for actual development as well as providing a reference against which projected impacts from development can be evaluated. 

Every attempt was calculation assumcalculation tables omissions have beassumptions have A discussion is noemissions section would vary with esdevelopment. Altedevelopment rate providing and assreduced/phased d

15 33 A4 Emissions, Regional Page 14 

“2.2 REGIONAL EMISSIONS INVENTORY The developed portions of these projects were assumed to be either included in monitored ambient background or included in the state-permitted source inventory. The undeveloped portions of projects proposed under NEPA were classified as RFD. In accordance with definitions agreed upon by BLM, EPA, WDEQ-AQD and USDA Forest Service for use in ElS projects, RFD was defined as 1) the NEPA-authorized but not yet developed portions of Wyoming NEPA projects and 2) not yet authorized NEPA projects for which air quality analyses were in progress and for which emissions had been quantified.” 

The IMPROVE daindicate no significdata can be reviewhttp://vista.cira.coThe AQTSD presenitrate concentraticoncentration is ovisibility, they are analysis. The monitoring daand so represent all emissions sour

133
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

The assumptions relating to the development of the emission inventory in relationship to the IMPROVE monitoring data are not clearly stated. The basis for this approach should be that there has not been a significant change in measured air quality in the Class I Area over time. This point is not discussed in the AQTSD. The IMPROVE data should be analyzed in terms of trends for total visual range as well as nitrate concentrations. As part of the trend data, uncertainty bounds should be placed on the data. For any trend to be significant, the change in the monitoring data must be greater than the uncertainty in the monitoring data. While this modeling approach could still be used in situations where there has been a significant change in measured visual range, it would require additiona1 justification. Also, as part of the emission inventory analysis, a table should be created regarding what emission sources were operational and included in the impacts measured by the monitoring data. This list should include operational wells, minor sources, major sources, and temporary sources (drilling rigs). There appears to be some confusion regarding what types of source impacts are included in the monitoring data versus modeling potential impacts of sources that were not operational during the monitoring record. A table of sources that were operati6nal during the monitoring record would assist the public and the decision maker in evaluating the adequacy of the analysis and the level of conservatism in the results. It would also be useful to compare the emission totals reflected in the IMPROVE monitoring data relative to visibility to the emission totals used in the CALPUFF model and the predicted changes in visibility. This comparison would qualitatively indicate the level of conservatism in the modeling. 

It is not appropriatthe monitoring datThere are many pand their inclusion The BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

15 34 A4 Emissions, Regional Page 22 

“Map 2.1 shows the regional inventory area with NEPA project areas, and a summary of the regional inventory is shown in Table 2.4. Values presented in Table 2.4 

The BLM consulteteam including the to develop the air It was the intent odouble counting o

134
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

represent the change in emissions between the inventory start-date (January 1, 2001) and the inventory end-date (June 30, 2003). The regional inventory including methodologies used to compile the regional source emissions are provided in Appendix C and include a description of the data collected, the period of record for the data collected, inclusion and exclusion methodology, stack parameter processing methods, and the state-specific methodologies required due to significant differences in the content and completeness of data obtained from each state.” There is potential double counting of emissions in Table 2.4 between and previous NEPA RFD sources. BLM needs to provide documentation that this has not occurred. 

AQTSD Appendix provide specific defor including/excluensure an accuratwhile avoiding douThe BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

15 35 A4 Emissions, Regional Page C-2 

“Appendix C C.1 STATE AGENCY-PERMITTED INDUSTRIAL SOURCE INVENTORY C.1.1 State Air Quality Regulatory Authority· Select stack parameters using the following hierarchy: - Select stack with greatest “M” value using SCREEN method outlined in “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources, Revised”, EPA-454/R-92-019. - Review “M” values and, if they are not representative 

of the overall facility, use stack parameters from the single point exhibiting the highest emission rate. 

- If stack parameters are still not representative, select worst-case parameters based on the potential for maximum long-range impacts (i.e., high temperature, stack height, exit velocity). - If no stack parameters are available, determine the SIC code for the facility and substitute the stack parameters given for that SIC code in the EPA SIC 

code source parameter guidance. If a single stack 

Stack parameters were obtained from dispersion modelipermitting agenciefollowed the procestack data was avparameters were 

135
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

parameter value is missing and the SIC code is known, the single value is substituted from SIC code stack parameter guidance when reasonable. - If the SIC code is not known, or if no representative SIC code values are found, use generic stack parameters of 15-m height, 422Kelvin temperature, 0.31-m exit diameter, and 10.0-m per second (m/s) exit velocity. If a single parameter is missing from any source for which no SIC code is known or available, the single generic parameter is substituted.” In performing the modeling, a hierarchy for addressing missing stack parameters in the state inventories was created. This was necessary to perform the air quality modeling. It would be desirable for BLM to indicate in the emission inventory tables how the stack parameters were derived for individual sources in the modeling. 

15 36 A4 Emissions, Regional Page C-3 

“C.1.2 Natural Gas and Oil Well Agency-permitted Sources Natural gas and oil well data were gathered by obtaining from state oil and gas permitting agencies total production by county for the years 2000 and 2002. Production rates for the first two quarters of 2003 were requested but not yet available for any state at the time the inventory was completed. Production rates for 2000 were subtracted from production rates from the most recent available annual period (2002). An average emission rate per unit natural gas well of 0.045 tpy NOX

was used based on Jonah Field well equipment emissions monitoring performed by EnCana in July 2003. An average emission rate for oil wells of 0.3 tpy NOX was obtained from WDEQ-AQD. These 

representative emission rates were applied to calculate total NOX emissions per county. PM10, PM2.5, and SO2

emissions were assumed to be negligible. All states inventoried, with the exception of Idaho, had operational oil and gas wells. Colorado had no change in the number of operational oil and gas wells within the inventory period. 

Total number of ware now included C.9. Magnitude awells by county cathe total emissions Figure 4.6 which sidealization of oil a

136
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

All Utah and Wyoming oil and gas agency-permitted well data are included in Table C.9. No table is shown for Idaho or Colorado because the net change is zero.” Table C.9 should present the data on the number of operational gas and oil wells for the years considered. This information would provide data so that one can place these emissions in perspective. The emission rates may vary between oil and gas wells. It would also be very useful to plot these emission estimates on a map to indicate the magnitude and location of emissions in relationship to Class I Areas. 

15 37 A4 Emissions, Regional Page C-3 

C.1.3 Jonah Field Well Permitted Post-inventory StartDate “Emissions from 198 wells permitted following inventory baseline date are summarized in Table C.10.” The purpose of Table C. 10 is not clear. It is assumed that the 198 wells were installed during the period of January 1, 2001 through June 30, 2003 and that these emissions are not reflected in the WDEQ permit files (because individual well emissions are below permit thresholds). The document should clarify how Table C. 10 was developed and how it was used in the air quality analysis. It is important to document how many Jonah Field wells and drilling rigs were operational during the period of the baseline monitoring data. 

The WOGCC invethrough 2002, and determine the amoprojects that was oof 2002. An additperformed in early wells were comple2002. These wellmodeling since thebaseline date.

15 38 A4 Emissions, Regional Page C-3 

C.1.4 State-specific Methodologies “Colorado A list of permitted facilities within the inventory area was requested. Permitted and actual emissions for the most recent reporting year were provided in electronic format by Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). A manual file search was performed to determine the change in emissions for each modification. If a facility had both an initial and a final permit and there were differences between the initial and final permit limits, the differences were documented as a permitted emissions 

change. Permits with “.

CN” suffixes are cancelled, “.XP” 

A list of all permit area, regardless oCDPHE. Permits period were requeobtained from CDsearch was also pemissions changeHayden were foun

emissions from metc. All but one mexcluded. No moreductions in SO2 

were a result of ennot known why the

137
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

indicates permit exempt, “.XA” indicates both Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN) and permit exempt, “.GF” indicates grandfathered and all permits with theses extensions were excluded from inventory. “F” indicates fugitive source. Because no start-up dates were included in the files, and because of Colorado's procedures for initial and final permit issuance, all permits issued through June 30, 2003 were conservatively assumed to be operational as of June 30, 2003. Colorado included state-permitted sources are shown in Table C.1 and Colorado excluded statepermitted sources are shown in Table C.2.” For Colorado sources, it is appropriate to include the emission reductions for SO2 and NOX that have 

occurred at the Craig and Hayden Power Plants during the time period January 1, 2001 through June 30, 2003. The SO2 and NOX emission reductions are substantial 

at both facilities and are a result of new control equipment that has been installed as a result of a court settlement and consequently these reductions are enforceable by both the State of Colorado and EPA. Therefore, these reductions should be included in the Jonah modeling. As indicated in Table C. 1, the Craig facility resulted in a slight increase in PM emissions during this time period of concern. 

In Table C.2 any source that had a permit canceled during the time period of the modeling inventory should be accounted in the modeling as a negative emission rate and a credit given in the impact analysis provided it was shut down during the period January 1, 2001 through June 30, 2003. Again, since these permits have been canceled, the emission reductions are federally enforceable. It appears that there are 25 Colorado sources that are in the “canceled permit” category. 

database query reIt was found that scommonly had nemethodology to exproposed and app

15 39 A4 Emissions, Regional Page C-4 

Idaho “A list of permitted facilities within the inventory area was requested, and Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) provided facility

Several table titles conversion of docReader format. Tthe AQTSD. In accordance wit

138
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

numbers, names, and locations. Permit files for all facilities listed were reviewed on-site at the IDEQ offices in Boise to obtain necessary data. No actual emissions were available in the files. All permitted facilities were assumed operational and stack exit parameters were obtained from files when available. Idaho included state-permitted sources are shown in Table C.3 and Idaho excluded state-permitted sources are shown in Table C.4.” Table C.3 needs to have a title. In Table C.4 any facilities that have been closed or facilities that have undergone a reduction at a PSD minor source that have occurred during the time period of January 1, 2001 through June 30, 2003 should be included in the modeling as a reduction. Again, these reductions appear to be permanent and are federally enforceable. It appears that four facilities are in this category. 

approved by agensource emission rIt was found that scommonly had nemethodology to exproposed and app

15 40 A4 Emissions, Regional Page C-4 

Utah “Actual emissions were provided by UDAQ for 2000 and 2002, and change in actual emissions for the inventory period was assumed to be the difference between these values. No actuals reported in either 2000 or 2002 were assumed to indicate no emissions change. Because UDAQ does not track start-up dates electronically, and no physical file search was required for any other reason, all permitted sources were assumed operational. Utah included state-permitted sources are shown in Table C.5 and Utah excluded state-permitted sources are shown in Table C.6.” In Table C.6 any facilities that have undergone a reduction at a PSD minor source that occurred during the time period of January 1, 2001 through June 30, 2003 should be included in the modeling as a reduction. Again, these reductions appear to be permanent and are federally enforceable. It appears that there are 14 facilities in this category. Also, the increase in N

OX emissions in Utah for the

In accordance witapproved by agensource emission rIt was found that scommonly had nemethodology to exproposed and appThe Holcim Plant cement plant whic

The reported NOx in inventory record

139
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

period January 1, 2001 through June 30, 2003 is considerably higher than for other states. A large fraction of this increase is attributable to several sources. For example, the Holoim Plant had an emission increase of 825 tpy for NOX. This source 

does not have any increase listed for other pollutants and the conclusion can be drawn that this must be a natural gas fired source. It is difficult to believe that this level of emissions represents BACT under PSD. There are several other sources that have similar large projected emission increases. It is recommended that BLM confirm the large outliers from the Utah inventory that were used in the modeling. 

15 41 A4 Emissions, Regional Page C-4 

“Wyoming “A list of permitted facilities within the state of Wyoming was requested from WDEQ-AQD. Permit files for all facilities listed were reviewed on-site at the WDEQ-AQD offices in Cheyenne to obtain necessary data. For any facilities classified as natural gas/coal bed methane (CBM) production sites with emissions increases greater than 3 tpy, the files were reviewed for any combustion equipment and were included if any single piece of combustion equipment emitted more than 2 tpy. All other production sites were assumed to be included in Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC) production estimates. Actual emissions were provided by WDEQAQD in electronic format and were limited to only large facilities for which actual emissions are tracked for fee payment purposes. Years 2000 and 2001 were available, and the change in actual emissions for the inventory period was assumed to be the difference between 2000 and 2001 values. Start-up dates were provided by WDEQ-AQD to determine the operating status of a facility. If a facility had no reported start-up date but the facility permit was issued more than 2 years previous, the facility was assumed operational. A list of facilities permitted less than 2 years prior to the inventory period and reporting no start-up date was 

provided to WDE

Q-A

QD to verify start-up date, and

Several table titles conversion of docReader format. Tthe AQTSD. In accordance witapproved by agensource emission rIt was found that scommonly had nemethodology to exproposed and app

140
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

based on data received from WDEQ-AQD were assumed operational or RFFA. Five permit files were unable to be located by WDEQAQD staff after an extensive search, and therefore were excluded. Stack exit parameters were obtained from files if available. Wyoming included state-permitted sources are shown in Table C.7 and Wyoming excluded state-permitted sources are shown in Table C.8.” Table C.8 needs to have a title. Also, in Table C.8 any facilities that have been closed or facilities that have undergone a reduction at a PSD minor source that have occurred during the time period of January 1, 2001 through June 30, 2003 should be included in the modeling as a reduction. Again, these reductions appear to be permanent and are federally enforceable. There are 110 facilities in this category. 

15 42 A4 Emissions, Regional Page C-5 

“C.3 RFD INVENTORYWyoming RFD within the modeling domain was compiled. In accordance with definitions agreed upon by BLM, EPA, WDEQ-AQD, and USDA Forest Service for use in ElS projects, RFD was defined as 1) the NEPA-authorized but not yet developed portions of Wyoming NEPA projects and 2) not yet authorized NEPA projects for which air quality analyses were in progress and for which emissions had been quantified. A list of known NEPA projects was submitted to each Wyoming BLM Field Office, along with a request for feedback regarding the inclusion of listed projects or presence of any additional unlisted projects. The air quality technical documentation for projects to be inventoried and any available information on development status within each project area were requested, if not already in possession. This information, along with project status data received from the Wyoming State BLM office, provided a basis for the RFD inventory; however, no information on the development status within each field was available from BLM. Therefore, the WOGCC and WDEQ-AQD were consulted to determine permitted wells and permitted compressor engines, respectively. 

Compression appdeveloped within a approved levels. The BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

141
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

WOGCC had available well development by BLM project area for the Pinedale and Rawlins Field Offices only. Well development by project area in other field offices was determined by geographically plotting well locations, counting the wells permitted after the project authorization date located within each project area, and using those well counts to determine remaining authorized wells. No compressor development or ancillary facility development data was available for any BLM field office. As a result, compressors and ancillary facilities permitted through WDEQ-AQD were geographically plotted and those associated with a specific project area that were permitted after the project authorization date were subtracted from total authorized compression to determine RFD. Emissions of all available pollutants were summarized by project. Any excluded projects and exclusion reason were documented. A summary of NEPA RFD project emissions are shown in Table C.12.” Additional analyses are required for the RFD emission sources. Table C.12 presents a listing of the EIS sources that were included in the modeling for the RFD source category. Part of what is presented in Table C.12 is the amount of NOX emissions remaining under 

the proposed development and approved under the ROD. It would be very helpful in reviewing Table C.12 to have the date the ROD was issued, the proposed development time for the project, total proposed emissions, and remaining emissions listed under the ROD. From this information it would be possible to estimate what portion of the development has been installed. It has been approximately 10-years since cumulative air quality impact analyses have been conducted in Wyoming and many of these previous EISs were based on a 20-year development. It would be instructive to review the growth assumptions that have been made in these previous EISs. One major concern with cumulative impact analyses is that the public and decision makers assume that the development scenarios are correct and that 

develop

ment is occurring. If these previous R

O

Ds are

142
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

reviewed, they can provide insight on the actual rate of oil and gas development. Also, the projects should be reviewed to determine the assumptions that were made regarding emissions. The assumptions should be reviewed and compared to current WDEQ BACT levels. If emission assumptions regarding the level of control have changed, the cumulative emission inventory should be revised. For example, the Moxa Arch EIS assumed that the level of control on compressors was 2 g/hp-hr. Current WDEQ BACT levels for such engines reflect 0.7 g/hp-hr. Because of current WDEQ permit requirements; it would not be possible to install the remaining Moxa Arch compressors at an emission level of 2 g/hp-hr. This would equate to a 65 percent reduction in emissions. Maximum remaining emissions for Moxa Arch listed in Table C.12 are 235 tpy under current WQDEQ BACT requirements and this would be reduced to 82 tons per year. Consequently, maintaining the previous emission level in the current modeling adds unrealistic conservatism to the air quality analysis. 

15 43 A4 Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments - Air Quality Standards 

Page 28 [Re Table 3.2] It is correct that the 8-hour O3 standard 

is not enforceable by the State of Wyoming. However, EPA is currently responsible for enforcing this standard and the document should be changed to reflect this. 

The footnote regathe PM2.5 WAAQS enforceability of o

15 44 A4 Near-Field Modeling Page 29 

“3.4.1 PM10/PM2.5

Maximum localized PM10/PM2.5 impacts would result 

from well pad and road construction activities and from wind erosion. Three different approximate well pad sizes are proposed within the range of Project alternatives; 3.8 acres, 7.0 acres, and 10.0 acres. Modeling scenarios were developed for each of these well pad sizes, with each scenario consisting of a well pad and a 2.5-mi resource road using the emissions estimates provided in Section 2.1. Model receptors were placed at 100-m intervals beginning 200 m from the edge of the well pad and road. Flat terrain was assumed for each modeling scenario. Figure 3.2 

presents the configurations used to model each well 

The parameters cscenarios were reconstruction, layobelieves that the dthe EIS and AQTSassessment. 

143
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

pad and resource road scenario. Volume sources were used to represent emissions from well pads and roads. Hourly emission rate adjustment factors were applied to limit construction emissions to daytime hours. AERMOD was used to model each scenario 36 times, once at each of 36 10° rotations, to ensure that impacts from all directional layout configurations and meteorological conditions were assessed. Wind erosion emissions were modeled for all hours where the wind speed exceeded a threshold velocity defined by emissions calculations performed using AP-42 Section 13.2.5, Industrial Wind Erosion (EPA 2004).” The above paragraph should be clarified to state that this is a generic representation of typical well site configurations. 

15 45 A4 Near-Field Modeling Page 31 

“Table 3.3 presents the maximum modeled PM10/PM2.5

concentrations, for each well pad scenario. When the maximum modeled concentration was added to representative background concentrations, it was demonstrated that PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations for 

all scenarios comply with the WAAQS and NAAQS for PM10 and proposed standards for PM2.5. Emissions 

associated with temporary construction activities do not consume PSD Increment; therefore, temporary PM10

emissions from well pad and road construction are excluded from increment consumption analyses.” In addition to presenting information on the maximum predicted concentrations, it is recommended that BLM provide the distance from the edge of the well pad to the location of the maximum predicted concentrations as well as an isopleth plot of predicted concentrations. It is important for the public and decision makers to understand how predicted concentrations change with distance from the source. Also, Table 3.3 should reference the statistical nature to the short-term standards and how this is applicable to temporary sources. 

Information is provregarding particulathat particulate maimmediately adjacParticulate matter increased distance particles settle out 

144
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

15 46 A4 Near-Field Modeling Page 40 

“Four modeling scenarios were developed for modeling short-term (1-hour) HAPs (BTEX, and n-hexane) from well-site fugitive emissions. These scenarios were developed to represent the complete range of well densities proposed for the Proposed Action and alternatives. The scenarios include one-section areas (1 mi2), with wells at 5-, 10-, 20-, and 40-acre surface spacing. These modeling scenarios represent well densities of 128, 64, 32, and 16 wells per section, respectively. The purpose of modeling this range of well density was to determine the maximum HAP short-term (1-hour) impacts that could occur within and near the JIDPA. Volume sources were used for modeling the well-site fugitive HAP emissions. The HAP emissions for wells with uncontrolled VOC emissions were used. Flat terrain receptors were spaced evenly and at a maximum distance of 100 m from a well, throughout each section. The source and receptor layouts utilized for the short-term HAP modeling are presented in Figure 3.5.” Because of the previous stated concerns regarding flare efficiency, this modeling needs to be reviewed after finalized emission estimates are developed. In addition to providing the maximum predicted concentration, it is recommended that the AQTSD present an isopleth plot of predicted concentrations. By providing such a plot, the public and the decision makers can understand the spatial nature of these predicted impacts. 

All modeled short-predicted to be weand concerns. The BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

145
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

15 47 A4 Near-Field Modeling Page 42 

“For modeling formaldehyde emissions from compressor station sources, an analysis similar to that performed for NO2 and CO (see Sections 3.4.3 and 

3.4.4) was used. Formaldehyde emissions from anticipated future compression expansions at the Bird Canyon, Falcon, Gobblers Knob, Jonah, Luman, and Paradise compressor stations were modeled in combination with emissions from the WDEQ-AQD inventory of existing regional compressor stations. These emissions are provided in Appendix D. Modeled Scenarios 1 and 2 were analyzed as described in Section 3.4. The modeling parameters and receptor grids developed for the NOX and CO impacts analyses and the receptor grids at the nearest residential locations along the New Fork River were utilized for modeling formaldehyde impacts. Long-term impacts are reported for the residential receptor locations. The source and receptor layout for modeling formaldehyde impacts is presented in Figure 3.4.” 

The AQTSD does not provide any information on how formaldehyde emissions were calculated from the increase in the capacity of the compressor engines. It is also not known to what extent Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) or WDEQ BACT regulations were used as a basis for these calculations. The AQTSD needs to provide this information. 

Formaldehyde emcapacity of the coAQTSD Appendix factors were taken for these stations.

15 48 A4 Near-Field Modeling Page 42 

“Reference Exposure Levels (RELs) are defined as concentrations at or below which no adverse health effects are expected. Since no RELs are available for ethylbenzene and n-hexane, the available Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH) values were used. 

Footnotes have beindicating whether IDLH. The BLM believes provided in the EIthis analysis. 

146
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

These REL and IDLH values are determined by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and were obtained from EPA's Air Toxics Database (EPA 20.02). Modeled short-term HAP concentrations are compared to REL and IDLH values in Table 3.8. As shown in Table 3.8 the maximum predicted short-term HAP impacts within and near the JIDPA would be below the REL or IDLH values under all Project alternatives.” Table 3.8 should indicate if the IDLH or the REL was used in evaluating impacts. It is recommended that an isopleth plot be provided for benzene to show how concentration changes with distance from the source. 

15 49 A4 Near-Field Modeling Page 45 

“The modeled long-term risk from benzene and formaldehyde are shown in Table 3.10 for both the 3,100-well and 1,250-well scenarios. For each scenario, the maximum predicted formaldehyde concentration representative of cumulative impacts was used. Under the most likely exposure (MLE) scenario, the estimated cancer risk associated with long-term exposure to benzene and formaldehyde is below 1 x 10-6 for both 3,100-well and 1,250-well cases, under the maximum exposed individual (MEI) analyses, for each modeling scenario, the incremental risk for formaldehyde is less than 1 x 10-6, and both the incremental risk for benzene and the combined incremental risk fall on the lower end of the cancer risk range of 1 x 10-6 to 1 x 10-4.” It is recommended that BLM provide an isopleth plot indicating the long-term incremental risk for benzene and formaldehyde for the MEI. It is important for the public and the decision makers to understand the aerial extent of the risk contours. 

Modeled long-term residencies are pracceptable risk radata and analyses AQTSD are adequ

15 50 A4 Near-Field Modeling Review of Near Field Modeling Files 

The AERMOD modeling files were reviewed and the following comments have been prepared regarding criteria pollutants and HAP modeling. 

Because a full yeaavailable within thconcentrations fromore industrializeapplicability of the from NOx to NO2 i

147
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

NO2 Modeling 

First, the conversion of NO into NO2 was assumed by 

the EPA default NO to NO2 conversion factor of 0.75. This factor states there is always enough ozone present in the atmosphere for 75 percent of the emitted NO to be converted into NO2. In reality, in a rural 

setting like southwestern Wyoming where ambient ozone is relatively low, the amount of NO2 would be 

less than estimated using this default factor. The AQTSD document should identify that this assumption is conservative. 

Second, Chapter 2 of the AQTSD does not contain any information on increases in compression as a result of new development. Based on a review of the modeling files and information in Chapter 3, it is clear that additional compression would be added. It is recommended that BLM provide information on assumptions related to additional compression. Third, NOX emissions related to well operations were 

modeled as area sources having a grid size of 1 kilometer on a side. It was also assumed that the release height was 5 meters. This type of modeling approach may not be appropriate for receptors that are located within or adjacent to the emission grid square. It is recommended that BLM perform a modeling sensitivity analysis that compares predicted concentrations at distances close to the emission source using both the area and point source algorithms contained in AERMOD. If this sensitivity testing indicates that the well representation in the model using the area source algorithm results in higher predicted concentrations over what the point source algorithm would, it is recommended that BLM state that the model may be overstating impacts close to the point of release. For the NOX sources 1448 NOX.out AEROMOD listing 

there are 8 sources that have exit velocities less than 2 meters per second. This seems to be a very low exit velocity and it is recommended that BLM review these source parameters to ensure that they are correct. This review should entail co

mbustion calculations based on 

Additional compreAppendix D) not ppart of the near-fienot included in AQseparation of projeemissions that did Impact AssessmeA). The area sources emissions sourcesemissions. The cthe maximum pred

negligible. 

The stack parame

1448 model run wThe sources with emissions sources contributions from 

impacts have beesources do not comodeled maximum have been made w

The BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

148
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

the source heat capacity. 

15 51 A4 Near-Field Modeling Benzene Venting 

Comments pertaining to potential benzene impacts from well venting are also applicable to other BTEX species and N-Hexane. There are two release scenarios that could be developed for well venting. The first is the well is allowed to vent from the wellhead. The second release scenario is that the well would be released into a liquid knockout drum. Under the first scenario, the release would be a threephase release (gas, water, and condensate). The release would also be a high momentum jet where the thermodynamics of the released material are very important. Also, entrainment into a high velocity jet is an important near field dilution mechanism. Simulation of this type of release using AERMOD as a volume source is inappropriate and will likely overstate actual impacts. A model such as AEROPLUME, which is part of the HGSYSTEM suite of models, would be a more appropriate model for simulating this type of release. For the second release scenario where a separator would be used as a point of release, alternative emissions calculations would be required. For this case, the liquid knockout drum would contain the majority of the liquid (condensate and water) and venting emissions would be negligible. In conclusion, for either release case for venting of wells the modeling results are likely to be very conservative because of modeling that is not representative of actual release conditions. 

Thank you for youas analyzed in the determined to cauimpacts. The BLM analyses provided adequate for this i

15 52 A4 Near-Field Modeling Benzene Flaring 

As discussed in the comments regarding emission inventory development, there is confusion regarding what type of device would be used to flare gas during completion and, as a result, there is uncertainty in the estimated flare emissions. Once the flare efficiency calculations are resolved, this modeling needs to be reviewed. 

Pit flares were assFlare parameters 5m height, 20 m/s 1,273K temperatuThe BLM believes 

provided in the EI

149
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

In addition to the emission calculations, the pseudo stack parameters used to describe a flare are not documented to determine how much net sensible heat is released from a flare. This is an important parameter since it governs the amount of plume rise the flare would experience. BLM needs to document the amount of sensible heat that would result in plume rise. 

this impact assess

15 53 A4 Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling 

Page 48 4.0 MID-FIELD AND FAR-FIELD ANALYSES “The mid-field analysis assessed direct project and regional source impacts at infield locations within the JIDPA and other mid-field locations defined as Class II areas (regional communities) (see Map 1.2), which include the Wyoming communities of ...” It is recommended that this paragraph be changed to indicate that these towns are PSD Class II Areas and air quality related values protection is not mandated by any Wyoming or Federal requirements. 

This statement is It should be noted Class II. PSD ClaNational Visibility impairment within areas. 

15 54 A4 Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Meteorological Data 

Page 49 “The CALMET wind fields developed for this analysis follow the CALMET methodologies established as part of the Southwest Wyoming Technical Air Forum (SWWYTAF) for southwest Wyoming, and were further enhanced through the use of additional meteorological datasets and revised CALMET model code.” Determining the accuracy of MM5/CALMET generated wind fields can be very difficult because such simulations utilize all available meteorological data. The accuracy of these simulations is typically judged using data withholding techniques. However, such simulations may have large regions where there is very limited or non-existing meteorological data. An analysis conducted by Blewitt et al. evaluated the accuracy of MM5/CALMET for the Jonah meteorological data. Wind speed, wind direction, and stability class data were extracted from a previous MM5/CALMET analysis for an area of southwest Wyoming where there had 

been no meteorological data but where a new 

Thank you for youAs a result the refon the SWWYTAF in this analysis to calculations in CAadditional surface revised model codeffects option was indicated better mthe surface layer w

150
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

meteorological tower had been recently installed. The analysis techniques involved comparison of annual frequency distributions. The results of the analysis indicated substantial differences in the frequency distributions between modeled results and actual monitoring data. One of the largest differences was that the MM5/CALMET wind speeds were significantly lower than measured wind speeds. Also, the distribution of stability classes between the model and actual measurements was substantially different. This paper presented this information as well as an analysis indicating the affect of the uncertainty in projected wind speeds and stability classes on predicted concentrations. Accounting for such uncertainty is extremely important in dealing with the overall NOXchemistry (i.e., NO3 formation) because of the change 

in concentrations as well as transport times. 

15 55 A4 Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Meteorological Data 

The following presents an annual wind rose measured for the Jonah meteorological tower and the extracted CALMET wind rose. There are substantial differences in the actual wind direction measured at Jonah versus what is predicted by CALMET. The observed data indicates a much higher percentage of time when winds were from the W through and NNW than were predicted by the model. Also, the wind speeds measured were much higher than those predicted by CALMET. For example, the measured data indicates that calms were reported less than 1 percent of the time. By contrast, the model indicated that approximately 13 percent of the time calms were reported. As part of the Jonah analysis, a modeling sensitivity analysis was conducted to estimate the effect of the under predicted wind speed by CALMET on various species of oxide of nitrogen. The modeling results were analyzed by examining the ratio of predicted concentration for the revised meteorological data to the CALMET meteorological data. This sensitivity analysis was done for the month of April. As indicated by these results, the local increase in wind speed has an effect

Thank you for youcomment 15-54, aThe BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

151
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

on predicted concentrations. Very close to the source predicted NO2 levels were about the same for the two 

sets of meteorological data. At the 50-kilometer arc (125 kilometers from the source), predicted NO2

concentrations using the new meteorology were about 20 percent higher than those predicted using the CALMET meteorology. At this furthest distance, average second highest predicted concentrations of NO3 were about 5 percent less than those predicted by 

the original CALMET meteorology and HNO3

concentrations were about 20 percent less than those predicted by the original CALMET meteorological data. 

It is important to note that estimated differences do not represent the maximum difference but are rather a representative sample to illustrate the importance on developing an accurate estimate of wind speed. It should be kept in mind that the Jonah tower is representative of wind speeds over a large area. However, in the modeling the increase in wind speed was very localized and increases in wind speed diminished at locations away from the tower. Thus, the modeling experiment under estimated the effect of wind speeds on predicted concentrations. In addition, the uncertainty in wind direction would likely change predicted impacts in the Class I Area. Based on this previous analysis, it can be concluded that there are very large uncertainties and inaccuracies in the MM5/CALMET data that was used in the Jonah analysis. The uncertainty in wind direction and wind speed have a tendency of over estimating impacts in Class I Areas and the AQTSD needs to reflect this uncertainty. 

15 56 A4 Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling 

Page 51 “The maximum emissions scenarios conservatively assume that both production emissions (producing well sites and operational ancillary equipment including compressor stations) and construction emissions (drilling rigs and pit flaring operations) occur simultaneously throughout the year. Anticipated future 

co

mpression expansions for the Bird Canyon, Falcon,

The document alsflaring” and “flaring discussion in AQTare various ways treader should be of the well complehere.

152
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

Jonah, and Luman compressor stations were included in the field-wide emissions scenarios. Future compression in the field was assumed to operate at 90% of fully permitted capacity, which Operators indicated was a reasonable assumption based on field operation expectations. The WDR250 case assumed 20 drilling rigs and 3 pit flares operating continuously throughout the year, WDR150 assumed 12 drilling rigs and 2 pit flares, and WDR75 assumed 6 drilling rigs and 1 pit flare.” This is the first reference to a flare pit. Previously, completion flares have been discussed as a flare stack.

15 57 A4 Background 

Concentrations 

Page 55 “4.4.1 Chemical Species Hourly O3 data from these stations was used in the 

CALPUFF modeling, with a default value of 44.7 parts per billion (ppb) (7 a.m.-7 p.m. mean) used for missing hours. A background NH3 concentration of 1.0 ppb was 

used as suggested in the IWAQM guidance for arid lands.” 

The use of the IWAQM NH3 concentration of 1 ppb is in 

direct conflict with the modeling analysis that was done for SWWYTAF. One major finding of the SWWYTAF modeling verification analysis was that CALPUFF would not replicate observed NO3 concentrations in the 

Bridger Class I Area using the IWAQM default NH3

concentrations. An extensive analysis of air quality measurements in the region concluded that NO3

formation was limited by NH3 concentrations. Once this 

finding was included in the modeling along with boundary conditions, CALPUFF replicated the observed NO3 concentrations. In the Jonah EIS 

analysis, ignoring this finding and using an arbitrary default value adds unnecessary conservatism to the analysis. 

Modeling sensitivity analysis illustrates the difference in predicted nitrate levels based on assumed background NH3 concentrations. There was approximately a 60 

percent difference in predicted N

O3 concentrations by

The use of 1 ppb selected for this streview, which incluBLM, WDEQ, EPAThe BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

153
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

changing the background concentration from 1 ppb to 0.5 ppb. The application of how NH3 concentrations 

are used in CALPUFF is very conservative because the model assumes that the NH3 concentration is uniform 

between the ground and plume height. In reality, this assumption is not likely to be true and NH3

concentrations at plume height will be less than those at ground level. 

The use of 1 ppb background NH3 is very conservative 

and the document should indicate that the modeling results are conservative (they over estimate actual impacts) as a result of this assumption. 

15 58 A4 Regulatory 

Compliance & Commitments - Air Quality Standards 

Page 69 “4.6.1 Concentration Far-field Results The modeling results indicate that neither direct Project impacts nor cumulative source impacts would exceed any ambient air quality standards (WAAQS and NAAQS) or PSD Increment (see Tables F.l.l-F.4.27). Direct Project NO2 impacts at the Bridger Class I 

Wilderness Area are above the proposed PSD Class I significance level of 0.1 μg/m3 for NO2. A direct Project maximum NO2 concentration of 0.15 μg/m3 is predicted under Alternative B (see Table F. 1.5). In addition, direct Project impacts of 24-hour PM10, concentrations 

are above the proposed Class I significance level of 0.3 μg/m3 under each alternative predicted under 

Alternative B WDR250 (see Table F.3.5).” 

The AQTSD should define what is meant by a “significant” concentration in this context. A concentration less than the EPA significance level has very little probability of exceeding an applicable air quality standard. Typically, in a situation where a modeled concentration is above a significance level, a more detailed analysis is conducted to demonstrate compliance with applicable standards. As part of the Jonah analysis, a more detailed cumulative analysis was conducted and demonstrated compliance. Therefore, there is no real issue of having predicted concentrations above the EPA significance level. 

Air quality impacts provided in the FEText has been moStakeholder group comparison of moClass I SILs.

154
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

15 59 A4 Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Visibility 

Page 72 4.6.4 Visibility “Background visibility data monitored at the Bridger Class I Wilderness Area IMPROVE site, an area more pristine than populated residential areas, were used to estimate potential visibility impairment at the regional community locations.” The AQTSD should indicate that this is a conservative approach. 

The following sentAQTSD: “Since anwood stove, furnalocations its likely in Bridger are morcould lead to an oregional towns.”

15 60 A4 Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Visibility 

Pages 74 and 76 “Change in atmospheric light extinction relative to background conditions is used to measure regional haze. Analysis thresholds for atmospheric light extinction are set forth in FLAG (2000), with the results reported in percent change in light extinction and change in deciview (dv). The thresholds are defined as 5% and 10% of the reference background visibility or 0.5 and 1.0 dv for Project sources alone and cumulative source impacts, respectively. The BLM considers a 1.0 dv change as a significant adverse impact; however, there are no applicable local, state, tribal, or federal regulatory visibility standards. It is the responsibility of the Federal Land Manager (FLM) or Tribal government responsible for that land to determine when adverse impacts are significant or not, and these may differ from BLM levels for significant adverse impacts (e.g., the USFS considers a 0.5-dv change as a threshold in order to protect visibility in sensitive areas).” While BLM and USFS have established a level of concern regarding source impacts and visibility, it is important for the public and the decision maker to understand the basis for estimating the just noticeable change in visual range as specified by EPA and used in the analysis. The following presents a discussion of those procedures. One basis of the just noticeable change is the NAPAP Report. A review of the information provided in the NAPAP Report indicates that the just noticeable change was based on the 

Quadratic Detection Model proposed by Carlson and

Thank you for youThe BLM believes provided in the EIpublic disclosure a

155
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

Cohen that was used to predict thresholds of perceived image sharpness in video type image displays. While the theory used for defining a just noticeable change threshold in a video monitor may be applicable to air quality visibility issues, neither EPA nor the NAPAP Report have provided any supporting evidence that the just noticeable change threshold in video monitors is in any way applicable to determining changes in visual ranges in the atmosphere over long sight paths. 

15 61 A4 Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Visibility 

Universal Applicability of Just Noticeable Change Over Long Sight Paths The NAPAP reference raises several important questions regarding the just noticeable change threshold over long sight paths. First, there is no clear definition of what the statement “a change in extinction coefficient of approximately 5% will evoke a just noticeable change in most landscapes” means. Second, it is also unclear how universally applicable this threshold could be over a large range of sight paths. The just noticeable change threshold is dependant on the sight path. This suggests that the establishment of a human perceivable just noticeable change threshold may be dependant on the longest sight path within a Class I Area and that the establishment of a single just noticeable change threshold might not be appropriate and therefore contrary to what EPA has proposed. 

Thank you for youThe BLM believes provided in the EIpublic disclosure a

15 62 A4 Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Visibility 

Deciview Visibility Unit of Measure An additional reference provided regarding a human just noticeable change threshold is an Atmospheric Environment paper written by Pitchford and Malm, which outlines the concept of the deciview visibility unit of measure and in which the authors conclude, based on what appears to be a sensitivity analysis, “From this it seems reasonable to presume that a fractional change in extinction coefficient between 5 and 20 % would produce a just noticeable change in a scene. The use of what appears to be a presumptive sensitivity analysis to develop a just noticeable change threshold is not appropriate. The authors also conclude “a 1 to 2 

dv change corresponds to a small, visibility perceptible

Thank you for youThe BLM believes provided in the EIpublic disclosure a

156
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

change in a scene appearance where the assumptions used in developing the deciview scale are met.”This would translate to a change of 10 to 20 percent in extinction. Because a 1 to 2 deciview change is perceivable only if the assumptions used to develop the deciview scale are met, it is important to review the assumptions that were made in the development of the deciview scale because they define the limitations on universal applicability of this visibility unit of measure. Other deciview assumptions are: 1) Contrast is a good indicator of visibility. The apparent contrast of an element of a scene can be used to estimate whether the element can be perceived and, when it can be perceived, the apparent contrast can also be used to evaluate the visual quality of its appearance. 2) The magnitude of the change in apparent contrast of a distant terrain feature against the horizontal sky required for a just noticeable change is proportional to the apparent contrast of the terrain feature. 3) The apparent contrast of a distant terrain feature against the horizontal sky is given by the following equation: C=Co exp (-r Bext) 

Where: C is the apparent contrast 

Co is the initial contrast Bext is the average extinction coefficient for the 

sight path 

r is the distance to a distant terrain feature 

The first assumption regarding contrast being an indicator of visibility is generally accepted. Inherent in the second assumption is that, for a change to be noticeable, the magnitude of the change is proportional to the change in contrast as stated in the following equation: delta CJNC =L C 

157
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

Where: L is a constant that depends on spatial frequency but not contrast The work of Carlson and Cohen has shown that this equation is not generally considered valid, but may provide a reasonable approximation in viewing environments such as a view of a terrain feature against the horizontal sky. As such, this assumption could be considered in development of a just noticeable change threshold. The third assumption is valid if the horizontal sky radiance has the same value at each end of the sight path. Further, it can be regarded as a restriction that the use of the deciview index or extinction applies to terrain features against the sky. In general, the use of the deciview index only applies to the special case where the sight path is equal to the visual range. This assumption is also applicable to the manner in which the 5 percent change in extinction was defined as a just noticeable change threshold. This is a significant over simplification of the proposed just noticeable change threshold. In a review of the aforementioned Pitchford and Malm deciview scale, Richards indicated, “For example, more than a 40 % change (more than 4-dv change) in regional haze is required for the change to be perceptible in sight paths shorter than 20 % of the visual range.” Richards also states that in some cases a 5 percent change in contrast can be perceivable but it is commonly assumed that features with only a 2 percent change in contrast can be perceived. Using this information, Richards shows that the Pitchford and Maim equations can be rewritten as follows: For a 2 percent case delta bJNC =0.4/r and a 5 percent case delta bJNC =0.32/r These equations apply to sight paths 

of any length less than or equal to the visual range and give the value for delta bJNC equal to those calculated 

by the Pitchford and Malm work when the sight path is equal to the visual range. 

Based on the importance of the inclusion of sight path 

158
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

in the determination of the just noticeable change, it seems imperative that EPA incorporates this approach into the just noticeable change threshold determination. This would require that the just noticeable change threshold be site specific for each Class I Area and that individual states would be required to develop their own just noticeable change threshold for each Class I Area. Incorporation of this approach would ensure that the just noticeable threshold would be based on the “best science”. 

15 63 A4 Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Visibility 

Practical Perspective of the Deciview Assumptions It is important to place the assumptions used by Pitchford and Maim into practical perspective. BP presents a comparison of the longest lines that can be drawn within 35 Class I Areas as well as the estimated lengths of the longest visual range sight paths within these areas. The visual ranges were calculated from the average light extinction coefficient for the 20 percent of the days that were the least impaired (clean) as well as the 20 percent of the days that were the most impaired (hazy). A point on a line indicates the percentage of the parks that have a ratio equal to or smaller than the value at that point. Most ratios are less than 1 and therefore sight paths are typically shorter than the visual range and contrary to the assumptions used in the development of the deciview index. This indicates that for a vast number of Class I Areas, the basic assumption of the deciview calculation has not been met. Thus, assuming that the sight path is equal to the visual range simply adds a layer of unnecessary additional conservatism to the calculation. Also, FLAG (a guideline, not a regulation) considers a 0.5 dv change in visibility significant for a single source and 1.0 dv significant for a cumulative analysis. Based on the above information, the public and the decision makers should not consider the USFS 0.5 dv as a decision point for this analysis. Further, based on the information presented in these comments, it is important to keep in mind the conservative nature of a 1.0 dv threshold. 

Thank you for youThe BLM believes provided in the EIpublic disclosure a

159
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

15 64 A4 Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Visibility 

Page 75 Far-Field Results “Direct visibility impacts from the Project sources were predicted to be above the 0.5-dv threshold at the Bridger, Fitzpatrick and Popo Agie Wilderness Areas, and at the Wind River Roadless Area (for proposed 3,100 well Alternatives only) using both the FLAG and IMPROVE background visibility data, and above the 1.0-dv threshold at the Bridger Wilderness area using both sets of background data. The highest frequency of predicted visibility impacts occurred at the Bridger Wilderness under Alternative B (WDR250) where there were 30 days per year (FLAG) and 33 days per year (IMPROVE) when visibility impacts were predicted to be above the 0.5-dv threshold, and 11 days per year (FLAG and IMPROVE) above the 1.0-dv threshold (see Table F.8.5). The maximum dv change was estimated as 3.3 dv (FLAG) and 3.7 dv (IMPROVE) (see Table F.8.5).” The visibility modeling results presented in the AQTSD are contradictory regarding the predicted change in visual range using FLAG compared to using the IMPROVE background monitoring data. It is more appropriate to use the IMPROVE best 20 percent visual range days as those measured concentrations are more representative of current “clean conditions” as opposed to generically defined “natural concentrations”. While the state of Wyoming must develop a SIP to restore its Class I Areas to natural conditions, the time frame for that is over the next 60-years and this process is just beginning. The problem with the visibility calculations is that the calculated visual range using natural background conditions produces less of a change than using the IMPROVE data. Given that the predicted concentrations are identical for both calculations and that the humidity correction factors should be identical, the lower concentration background data from FLAG should result in a larger change in visual range. The AQTSD needs to provide a more detailed discussion of how these calculations were made. Review of the

Thank you for youPlease note that fIMPROVE 20th pe

visibility data is cle1 and 4, than the the FLAG documeIMPROVE data arThe BLM believes provided in the EIpublic disclosure a

160
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

provided modeling files does not give any insight to this problem. It is also important for the AQTSD to provide the assumptions associated with the visual range calculations. One major assumption that is not stated is that it is assumed that the average 20 percent 

cleanest visual range days persist for all days of the year. This is a very conservative assumption and needs to be stated as such. 

15 65 A4 CALPUFF Review of CALPUFF Modeling Files 

NO to NO2 Conversion A review of the CALPUFF files indicates an inconsistency between the near and far field modeling regarding the conversion of NO into NO2. In the near 

field analysis it was assumed that 75 percent of the NO was converted to NO2. This was done using the EPA 

default conversion factor and was discussed in the AQTSD. But no discussion of the conversion of NO to NO2 was made in the AQTSD for far field modeling 

(CALPUFF). The CALPUFF modeling files were compared to the emission inventory tables in the AQTSD. It was found that the assumed far field conversion between NO and NO2 was not simply 75 

percent as was done in the near field analysis. The AQTSD needs to provide a discussion and justification of the NO to NO2 conversion that was used in 

CALPUFF. It is important to keep in mind that this conversion rate is very important in the air qua;ity related values analysis and as a result of the typically low ambient O3 concentrations in southwestern 

Wyoming; the use of such a large default value is very conservative. 

Modeling Negative Emission Rates The AQTSD does not provide any information on how sources that have reduced emissions (negative emission rates) or have been shut down were included in the CALPUFF modeling. Because of the chemistry mechanisms in CALPUFF, it is not possible to include a negative emission rate in the CALPUFF modeling. 

Such sources need to be modeled separately and then 

All CALPUFF modMESOPUFF chemozone concentrati

would be overly coconvert the predicfurther. Hourly ozincluding Pinedale Yellowstone NP, CHighland UT, and analyses. 

Negative emission CALPUFF modeliprocessor CALSUruns were performemissions and negconcentration and combined with CAscalar (-1) to the opollutant concentra positive scalar to results. The BLM believes provided in the EIthis impact assess

161
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

the result must be subtracted from the remaining modeling results. This information needs to be provided in the AQTSD. 

15 1 B Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Meteorological Data 

There is a large uncertainty in the modeled wind field within the modeling domain. Comparison of a modeled wind rose for the Jonah Field to a measured wind rose in the Jonah Field indicates substantial differences in both wind speed and direction. Inaccuracy in wind direction will effect how frequently emissions from the Jonah Field will be transported to adjacent Class I Areas. Inaccuracy in wind speed will effect the dilution of the emissions as well as changing the rate of reactions of various chemical species. 

Thank you for youcomments 14-1 an

15 2 B Background 

Concentrations 

Background ammonia concentrations are very important in the formation of SO4 and NO3. The results 

from the SWWYTAF evaluation of the CALMET/CALPUFF models for Southwest Wyoming indicated that NO3 formation in this region was limited 

by the amount of ammonia present in the atmosphere. One major finding of the SWWYTAF analysis was that unless background concentrations of ammonia were limited, CALPUFF over predicted measured NO3

concentrations by more than a factor of two. In the SWWYTAF study it was concluded that the majority of the secondary impacts (SO4 and NO3) were attributable 

to sources outside the modeling domain (background or boundary conditions) and that modeled sources were culpable for only about 10 percent of the total impacts. It is inappropriate for BLM to ignore this major finding of the SWWYTAF analysis and select an arbitrary ammonia concentration without justification. 

The use of 1 ppb selected for this stwhich included repWDEQ, EPA, NPS

15 3 B Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Inconsistencies with Monitoring Data 

Based on the monitoring data collected at the Bridger Class I Area over the period of 1988 through 2003, the data demonstrates that NO3 concentrations have not 

increased at the Bridger Wilderness Area. In addition, NO3 particulate matter does not contribute to the worst 

visibility days within the Class I Area although during the time period NOX emissions have increased within 

this region. These findings are consistent with the SWWYTAF analysis that indicated local NOX sources 

are not culpable for the majority of impacts within the Bridger Class I Area. In the current Jonah analysis it 

appears that local N

OX sources are greatly contributing

See comments 5-

162
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

to predicted visibility impacts. This finding is not consistent with the monitoring data or the previous SWWYTAF analysis. 

15 4 B Emissions, Project Review of the assumptions used in calculating drilling 

rig emissions indicated that the Jonah analysis overstated engine usage. Using more representative engine usage data for a single drilling rig, maximum hourly emissions decrease from 27.5 pounds per hour to 12.2 pounds per hour. Annualized emissions decrease from 120.5 tons per year (assuming continuous operation) to 48.3 tons per year (a decrease in emissions of approximately 80 tons per year). For cumulative emissions for a drilling scenario the change in assumptions of drilling engine operation changes cumulative annualized emissions from 640 tons per year to 285 tons per year. This is a decrease in calculated emissions of 72 percent. In terms of air quality impacts, using more representative emission data will reduce the peak visibility impacts from drilling engines as well as reducing the number of days when projected visibility impacts are in excess of 1 dv. 

A drilling engine oderived based on and was reviewed during the inventobetter information available.

15 7 B Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Meteorological Data 

Meteorological Data Review of the information provided in the air quality TSD raises concern regarding the accuracy of the CALMET and MM5 generated meteorological wind fields. For the CALPUFF modeling to accurately simulate projected impacts, meteorological data that describes the regional wind speed and wind direction as well as other meteorological parameters are needed. A published analysis using actual on-site meteorological data collected within the Jonah field raises questions regarding the accuracy of the CALMET generated wind field. [footnote 1 - Blewitt, D.N., Panek, J. A. and Patton, W.H., 2000, “Evaluation of the Accuracy of MM5/CALMET Generated Wind Fields in Southwestern Wyoming Using an Independent Data Set” AWMA] Since part of this analysis is concerned with the transport and dispersion of emissions from the Jonah Field to specific Class I Areas, this analysis is very germane. Determining the accuracy of MM5/CALMET generated wind fields can 

be very difficult because such simulations utilize all 

Thank you for youcomments 14-1 an

163
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

available meteorological data. The accuracy of these simulations is typically judged using data withholding techniques. However, such simulations may have large regions where there is very limited or non-existing meteorological data. Figure 1 (from the referenced paper) [see BP comments p. 7] presents the CALMET model predicted wind rose at the location of the Jonah meteorological tower, the wind rose using the data collected from the meteorological tower located in the Jonah field and the measured wind rose for Pinedale, Wyoming. As indicated by these figures, there is general agreement between the observations made at Jonah and Pinedale but there is little agreement between the measured data and the CALMET model predictions. The Jonah and Pinedale wind roses indicate predominate flow from the northwest sectors. By contrast, the CALMET extracted meteorological wind rose does not show this dominance and rather there is almost a uniform distribution of wind directions for all sectors. This comparison raises significant doubts regarding the accuracy of the CALMET predicted wind fields which in turn places the accuracy of the air quality predicted concentrations in doubt. The starting point of referenced analysis was the MM5 generated wind fields from the Southwest Wyoming Technical Air Forum (SWWYTAF). These MM5 wind fields were then incorporated into the CALMET meteorological model. Figure 2 [see BP comments p. 8] presents a comparison of MM5 predicted wind directions compared to CALMET predicted wind directions. As indicated in this figure, for this location CALMET uses the MM5 wind direction with very little modification. 

15 8 B Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Meteorological Data 

In the most recent analysis, the kinematic option (IKINE) in CALMET was changed. Based on the fact that CALMET is using the MM5 wind direction directly, it is unlikely that this change will effect the modeled wind direction. However, this change will possibly modify the modeled wind speed. It would be desirable to repeat this analysis using the revised option in CALMET and compare it to the measured wind rose. As part of the referenced analysis, a modeling

Thank you for youcomments 14-1 an

164
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

sensitivity analysis was conducted to estimate the effect of the under predicted wind speed by CALMET on various species of oxide of nitrogen. The modeling results were analyzed by examining the ratio of predicted concentration for the revised meteorological data to the CALMET meteorological data. This sensitivity analysis was done for the month of April 1995. BP presents the arc average receptor for the second highest predicted hourly concentrations for that month. As indicated by these results, the local increase in wind speed has an effect on predicted concentrations. Very close to the source predicted NO2 levels were about the 

same for the two sets of meteorological data. At the 50-kilometer arc (125 kilometers from the source), predicted NO2 concentrations using the new meteorology were about 20 percent higher than those predicted using the CALMET meteorology. At this distance, average second highest predicted concentrations of NO3 were about 5 percent less than those predicted by the original CALMET meteorology and HNO3 concentrations were about 20 percent less 

than those predicted by the original CALMET meteorological data. 

It is important to note that these estimated differences do not represent the maximum difference but are rather a representative sample to illustrate the importance of developing an accurate estimate of wind speed. It should be noted that the Jonah tower is representative of wind speeds over a large area. However, in the modeling the increase in wind speed was very localized and increases in wind speed diminished at locations away from the tower. Thus, the modeling experiment under estimated the effect of wind speeds on predicted concentrations. In addition, the uncertainty in wind direction would likely change predicted impacts in the Class I Area. 

15 9 B Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Meteorological Data 

It can be concluded that there are very large uncertainties and inaccuracies in the MM5/CALMET data that was used in the Jonah analysis. The 

uncertainty in wind direction would effect how 

While BLM agrees modeling can be sthat these uncertapotential impacts. 

165
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

frequently plumes would actually reach a given Class I Area. Based on the differences in modeled versus observed wind roses, the uncertainty in wind direction could have a pronounced effect on projected impacts. The uncertainty in wind speed will have a tendency of over estimating actual air quality impacts in the Class I Areas. The AQTSD needs to reflect these uncertainties.The most accurate way to generate the wind field for modeling would be to use available onsite data collected in Southwest Wyoming. Such data could include: 1) Jonah Tower Data; 2) Pinedale; 3) Whitney Canyon; 4) Green River visibility site and other industrial collected sites. The limitation of this approach is that it is unlikely that any of these sites collect upper air data. Since the emissions of concern are related to sources with short stacks and limited plume rise, this limitation is not a significant issue and the benefits of having accurate wind speed and direction data outweighs this shortcoming. 

In complex terrainglobal/mesoscale more appropriate monitoring locatioby local terrain. The availability of the modeling domof CALMET. How1995, all available 

15 10 B Background 

Concentrations 

Ammonia Background Concentration Background ammonia concentrations are very important in the formation of SO4 and NO3. IWAQM 

suggests a background concentration of 10 ppb be used for grasslands and 5 ppb for forest areas. The results from the SWWYTAF evaluation of the CALMET/CALPUFF models for Southwest Wyoming indicated that NO3 formation in this region was limited 

by the amount of ammonia present in the atmosphere. One of the major findings of this analysis was that unless background concentrations of ammonia were limited, CALPUFF over predicted measured NO3

concentrations by more than a factor of two. 

Specifically, in the SWWYTAF analysis it was found that the CALPUFF model could replicate observed SO4

and NO3 levels only with the inclusion of boundary 

concentrations of primary and secondary pollutants 

(material transported into the modeling domain). In this study it was concluded that the majority of the secondary impacts (SO4 and NO3) were attributable to 

sources outside the modeling do

main (background or 

Thank you for youThe use of 1 ppb selected for this streview which incluBLM, WDEQ, EPA

166
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

boundary conditions) and that modeled sources were culpable for only about 10 percent of the total impacts. In the SWWYTAF analysis, estimates of NH3

concentrations were based on CASTNet measurements and compared to IMPROVE SO4 and 

NO3 measurements. From this analysis, a seasonal 

ammonia concentration was developed for each season for the entire modeling domain as presented below: 

Winter NH3 = 0.16 μg/m3 = 0.23 ppb 

Spring NH3 = 0.24 μg/m3 = 0.34 ppb 

Summer NH3 = 0.32 μg/m3 = 0.46 ppb 

Fall NH3 = 0.24 μg/m3 = 0.34 ppb 

These values are substantially lower than the value used in the Jonah analysis of 1.0 ppb and would likely result in overstating the actual increase of NO3 in the 

adjacent Class I Areas. 

15 11 B Background 

Concentrations 

BP presents a CALPUFF sensitivity analysis that indicates how CALPUFF NO3 concentrations change in 

relationship to different background concentrations of ammonia. 

CALPUFF was run for a selected time period using an assumed NOX source that was located in the Jonah 

Field and therefore presents an indication of how sensitive modeled impacts are to the assumed background concentration of ammonia. 

The SWWYTAF analysis was conducted over a 3-year period at a cost of over $300,000 and was directed by the WDEQ-AQD. Other government agencies, environmental groups and industry participated and assisted in funding this study. A technical peer review subcommittee was formed from these entities to critique the technical content of this work. The following is one of the conclusions from the Technical Subcommittee: “In areas with relatively clean background levels of ammonia the predicted concentrations of SO4 and NO3 can be relatively 

sensitive to the input value of NH3. An incorrect

Thank you for youSee comment 15-Source apportionmapplies to 1995, mconditions, and cepotential future im

167
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

ammonia value can result in either an overestimate or underestimate of SO4 and NO3 concentrations.” 

It is inappropriate for BLM to ignore one of the major findings of the SWWYTAF analysis, which was necessary for accurate model performance, and select an arbitrary ammonia concentration without additional justification. 

15 12 B Monitoring Data Analysis of Air Quality Related Values Monitoring Data 

As part of the review of the Jonah EIS, an analysis of monitoring visibility and atmospheric deposition was conducted. These data demonstrate the true “existing conditions” at the Bridger Wilderness Area, which has relevance to actual air quality conditions as opposed to predicted impacts related to the CALPUFF model. A number of different analytical techniques were conducted and are presented in the following. Visibility Data NO3 Frequency Distribution 

The analysis was initiated by examining the cumulative frequency distribution of measured NO3 concentrations 

over the period of record, as well as the visibility measurements at the Bridger Wilderness Area. This analysis is important because it analyzes the range of measured concentrations in terms of the frequency of occurrence. The frequency of occurrence can then be compared between different years to examine if changes have occurred. This technique examines both the lowest concentrations of NO3 as well as the largest concentrations. 

BP presents this distribution graphically and demonstrates that there is no substantial difference in magnitude of measured NO3 concentrations over this 

time period. 

BP presents data that indicate the number of observations as well as the percentage of observations within a specified concentration range. The data also shows there has not been a substantial difference in 

the number of observations nor the percentages within 

Thank you for youBLM recognizes thhave not resulted increases in Bridgthe atmosphere hthat capacity is no

168
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

each concentration range. This is a very important finding since over this time period (1988 through 2003) there has been substantial growth in NOX emissions 

and such increases in emissions have not been observed in the monitoring data. 

BP presents the maximum measured NO3

concentration at the Bridger Class I Area and the percentage of time that measured concentrations were in excess of 500 ng/m3 (500 ng/m3 is an arbitrary value 

that was used for comparison purposes). The maximum measured concentration was 820 ng/m3 in the year 2002. In 1991, the maximum measured concentration was 783 ng/m3. At these concentrations 

the precision (difference between replicate samples) in the measurement is approximately 5 percent. Thus, using a very simplistic approach, the 783 ng/m3

concentration could range from 822 to 745 ng/m3 and the 820 ng/m3 could range from 861 to 781 ng/m3. This suggests that based on sampling and analytical precision that these concentrations are not statistically different. Further indicated by the data is that measured concentrations greater than 500 ng/m3 occurred in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1996, 2001, 2002 and 2003. The frequency of occurrence of this concentration level was less than 1 percent of the time. Again, this analysis suggests that there is not a longterm trend in NO3 measured concentrations. 

Thus, the frequency of occurrence of the highest measured NO3 concentrations has not changed over 

the period of record. 

15 13 B Monitoring Data Composition of Fine PM on Worst Visibility Days 

An analysis was also conducted to determine what role NO3 plays in the measured worst visibility days. This 

analysis focused on the 100 worst visibility days as recorded at the Bridger monitor for the period of 1988 through 2003. This was done by sorting the IMPROVE database independent of year and identifying the days with the worst visual range. The percentage contribution to extinction was then analyzed for each of 

the various chemical species. This analysis is different

Thank you for you

169
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

from the constituent analysis that is done by IMPROVE which examines the various species impact on an average basis. This approach examines, on an episodic basis, which species are most representative of poor visibility days. As indicated by the analysis, NO3 is not playing a 

dominant role in the measured worst visibility days. The monitoring data were further analyzed to determine the relationship between NO3 and SO4 concentrations. As indicated in this analysis, SO4 concentrations are 

much higher than NO3 concentrations. 

Two patternsare indicated. The first is that NO3

concentrations are constant over the range of SO4

concentrations (0.2 μg/m3 to 1.6 μg/m3). The second 

indicates that higher concentrations of NO3, (0.2 μg/m3

to 0.8 μg/m3) tend to occur coincidently with elevated 

SO4 concentrations. For example, 0.8 μg/m3 NO3

corresponds to 1.6 μg/m3 of SO4. This suggests that 

the origin of these the higher NO3 concentrations may 

be related to emissions from coal fired sources that emit both NOX and SO2. 

15 14 B Monitoring Data Natural Conditions 

BP presents a plot of the percentage of time for measured NO3 concentrations that are less than or 

equal to “natural conditions” as defined by NAPA (100 ng/m3). As indicated by the plot, on average, “natural 

conditions” occur approximately 24 percent of the time. Also, there is a great deal of variability in percentage of time over any given year that such conditions exist. However, simply examining the monitoring data in such a perspective is an incomplete picture. Error bars were added based on the reported IMPROVE precision. This uncertainty was then factored into the frequency distribution to provide an estimate of uncertainty in the amount of time that “natural conditions” exist. When this was done, there is clearly no trend in these data. 

Thank you for you

15 15 B Monitoring Data NO3 Dry Scattering Coefficients 

A recent air quality analysis for Big Bend National Park 

examined the dry scattering extinction efficiencies that

Thank you for you

170
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

were derived from the BRAVO study. These dry scattering coefficients are used to convert ambient mass concentration measurements into visual extinction budgets. The EPA value for the dry scattering coefficient for sulfate and nitrates is 3 m2/g. Unfortunately, EPA nor other agencies have not provided any technical justification for these coefficients, how they were derived, how universally applicable they are and the uncertainty associated with them. Since these coefficients directly effect any projected changes in visual range, resolution of this uncertainty is paramount. There are large differences between the IMPROVE and BRAVO derived dry scattering coefficients for sulfates and nitrates. Based on these data, the calculated change in visual range as a result of NOX emissions 

would be approximately half of what would be calculated using the IMPROVE dry scattering coefficient. This is a very large uncertainty in evaluating the role of NOX in visibility impairment. In 

conclusion, based on the monitoring data collected at the Bridger Class I Area over the period of 1988 through 2003, the data demonstrates that NO3

concentrations have not increased at the Bridger Wilderness Area. In addition, NO3 particulate matter 

does not contribute to the worst visibility days within the Class I Area. During the time period NOX emissions have increased within this region. These findings are consistent with the SWWYTAF analysis that indicated local NOX sources are not culpable for the majority of 

the impacts within the Bridger Class I Area. In the current Jonah analysis it appears that local NOX

sources are greatly contributing to NO3 visibility 

impacts. This finding is not consistent with the monitoring data or the previous SWWYTAF analysis. 

15 16 B Monitoring Data Deposition Data Overview of Monitoring Data 

In order to examine trends in deposition it is necessary to understand the sampling methodology and analytical approach used in measuring deposition. Wet deposition (the removal of air pollutants by

Thank you for you

171
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

precipitation) is measured by analyzing the chemical constituents contained in precipitation. National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) reports that the accuracy of these measurements is +/- 10 percent. The measured concentration is then converted into a deposition flux in units of kg/ha/yr. The determination of wet deposition flux is quite straightforward and not subject to large uncertainties. Dry deposition is the removal of air pollutants by gravitational settling. Measurement of this flux is considerably more difficult than wet deposition and subject to larger uncertainties, which complicate the determination of trends. Dry deposition is determined using an ambient air particulate sampler. A sample is collected on a filter medium at a sample flow rate of 1.5 liters per minute. In this analysis it was assumed that the flow rate samples a uniform particle size distribution and that no bias in size is created. The filter media are analyzed for chemical constituents and the concentration of various particulates in ambient air is determined. CASTNET estimates that the accuracy of the chemical analysis is approximately +/- 10 percent. In order to obtain a deposition rate, the concentration measurement must be coupled to a gravitational settling velocity. The issue is that measurement of such a velocity is very difficult. Therefore, instead of using measurements, the deposition velocity is estimated using a mathematical model (MLM). BP presents a summary of the Bridger Wilderness Area information regarding deposition measurements. What is interesting regarding this summary is that the site does not totally conform to the assumptions of the MLM model. Thus, CASTNET is suggesting that there may be some large uncertainty in the deposition velocity calculations for this site. This analysis did not review the accuracy of the MLM model, the universal applicability of the model, or the basic assumptions for the application of the model. These are significant long-term issues that ultimately need to be addressed. 

172
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

15 17 B Monitoring Data Data Analysis 

Wet and dry deposition data were reviewed for the period of record at the NADP and CASTNET monitoring sites. The first step in this analysis was to review data provided by the agencies that collect the deposition data. The predominant deposition mechanism for sulfur species is wet removal of SO4 particles (54 

percent). Wet removal of NO3 and NH4 particles 

accounts for approximately 60 percent of the deposition. Dry deposition of HNO3 is responsible for 

approximately 31 percent of the total deposition. 

BP presents the wet deposition data for the various chemical species over the period of record. As indicated, NO3 deposition is responsible for the highest 

fraction of wet deposition. While there is considerable variability in the deposition estimates, there is not an apparent trend with respect to the amount of nitrogenwet deposition. 

BP presents the average dry particle concentration for the Bridger Wilderness Area for the period of record. Examination of the concentration data can help identify changes in air quality and removes the uncertainty in the modeled deposition velocity. While there is year-toyear variability in the particulate matter concentration data, there is no clear trend in the data. 

Thank you for you

15 18 B Emissions, Project Drilling Rig Emissions and Assumptions 

Engines on natural gas drilling rigs serve two purposes. First, on modern drilling rigs engines are used to generate electricity, which is used to power electric motors used to drill the well. These engines operate continuously. The second type of engine is used to “trip pipe” in and out of the well bore. In general, these engines are used on an intermittent basis. During the time when these engines are not being used to “trip pipe” they are operating in an idle mode and this is estimated to be 92 percent of the time. 

See comment 15-

173
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

Based on current operational data it is estimated that the engines used to generate electricity have a typical load factor of 40 percent and a throttle setting of 47 percent. This equates to an overall load factor of 0.19. This value is considerably less than the 0.42 used in the emission calculations in the Jonah EIS. These assumptions have an important impact on the drilling rig emission calculations. BP presents changes in emissions for one of the Jonah drilling scenarios. Specifically, these calculations change the assumptions on engine utilization to more accurately reflect throttle setting and load as well as the engine used for “tripping pipe” idling 92 percent of the time. As indicated by these calculations, for a single drilling rig, maximum hourly emissions decrease from 27.5 pounds per hour to 12.2 pounds per hour. Annualized emissions decrease from 120.5 tpy (assuming continuous operation) to 48.3 tpy (a decrease in emissions of approximately 80 tons per year). For cumulative emissions for a drilling scenario the change in assumptions of drilling engine operation changes cumulative annualized emissions from 640 tpy to 285 tpy. This is a decrease in calculated emissions of 72 percent. In terms of air quality impacts, using more representative emission data will reduce the peak visibility impacts from drilling engines as well as reducing the number of days when projected visibility impacts are in excess of 1 dv. Based on these calculations, it is believed that the Jonah analysis is significantly overstating visibility impacts from these sources. 

15 67 B Emissions, Project AQTSD Supplement Page 4 

“Modeling results presented in the DEIS for Alternative F with a WDR of 250 wells per year are assumed to represent the maximum impacts from the Preferred Alternative at peak year emissions. Peak year project emissions were assumed to occur in year 2017, and included emissions from 2,850 wells in production and 250 wells under construction, consistent with the field 

configuration anticipated for year 2017 (the field at

AQTSD Table 2.4 requirements.

174
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

nearly full production and the last year of construction in the field). The modeling also assumed a 50/50 split between straight and directional wells (consistent with the Preferred Alternative) and a 50/50 split between EPA Tier 1 and Tier 2 emissions levels for drilling rig engines. The modeling included 80 percent flareless completions (20 percent of completions flared) and JIDPA compression emissions at maximum levels projected at the time of the DEIS.” The AQTSD needs to provide information on the applicability of EPA emission standards for non-road engines (i.e., Tier 1, 2, and 4) to drilling rig engines. These regulations provide mandated emission standards by EPA. The AQTSD needs to provide additional information regarding the applicability of these standards to drill rig engines between 2005 and 2017. 

15 69 B Ozone & VOCs AQTSD Supplement Page 5 

“Only JIDP emissions differ from those previously modeled for the DEIS; non-project emissions remain unchanged. (Note that volatile organic compound [VOC] emissions were not modeled for this interim report, and revised VOC emissions and corresponding ozone impacts will be included in the final environmental impact statement [FEIS].)” Revised VOC calculations and ozone impacts should have been included in the current AQTSD so that data used in the analysis is available for verification. This is important because in projecting estimates of VOC emissions it is important to consider the depletion of wells over time and emission control equipment required by WDEQ. In the supplemental AQTSD or the original AQTSD there is no discussion on how depletion of condensate production would be simulated in VOC emission calculations. 

Revised VOC estiand AQTSD in cocurves. The ozone calculaFEIS and AQTSD appropriate/realistthat considers botcurves that result over the life of werepresentation of and emissions. In recognition of thconcentrations, mthe Jonah Field arBoulder. 

15 70 B Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Acid Deposition/Sensitive Lakes 

AQTSD Supplement Page 13 Sensitive Lakes 

Great care should be given regarding interpretation of 

The comment is nAQTSD should taThe BLM used the of the analysis. Asa

mpling these la

175
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

modeling impacts for sensitive lakes within the Bridger Wilderness Area that are considered extremely acid sensitive. As indicated in Table 2.4, Lazy Boy Lake has a reported acid-neutraling capacity (ANC) of 18.8 ueq/l, however, this conclusion is only based on one water sample that was collected in 1997. At Upper Frozen Lake the reported ANC is 5.0 ueq/1. This value is based on only six samples over the time period of 1997 through 2003 (one sample per year). If these lakes are truly acid sensitive, it is imperative the FLMs conduct sufficient sampling to clearly document the condition of these lakes. 

amount of data avresults are not surand, pending contto consider these 

15 71 B Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Visibility 

AQTSD Supplement Page 15 “The IMPROVE method used the measured background conditions at the Bridger Wilderness Area and at the Yellowstone National Park site, and the monthly relative humidity factors as provided in EPA (2003). Visibility data from the Bridger Wilderness Area IMPROVE site were used for the Bridger, Fitzpatrick, and Popo Agie Wilderness Areas and for the Wind River Roadless Area, and visibility data from the Yellowstone National Park IMPROVE site were used for the Teton and Washakie Wilderness Areas and for Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks. Background visibility data measured at the Bridger Wilderness Area IMPROVE site are cleaner (more pristine) than the FLAG data during quarters 1 and 4. Therefore since visibility impacts are calculated as percent increases of modeled light extinction above background values, the use of these more pristine background data will result in higher estimated visibility impacts than with the use of the FLAG natural background data during these quarters.” The use of reported IMPROVE concentrations less than the “natural conditions” defined by FLAG serves no practical purpose. The use of these lower concentrations ignores the uncertainty associated with the IMPROVE concentration measurements. In reality, it is very likely that there is no significant difference between the IMPROVE and FLAG concentrations. The 

use of these values simply exaggerates the projected

Thank you for youThe use of quartefrom up to 15 yeamonitoring networActual measured controlled program always preferred odata. In the AQTSD, the potential visibility IMPROVE and FLrequested the use for their regional h

176
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

impacts. 

15 72 B Early Project 

Development Stage Modeling 

AQTSD Supplement Page 19 “The goal of this analysis was to quantify a maximum PM10, PM2.5, NOX and SO2 emissions scenario that 

could potentially occur within the next few years in the air basin located southwest of the Bridger Wilderness Area, as a result of 1) increased well drilling and flaring activities among several active natural gas field developments, and 2) expanded compression requirements, beyond what was analyzed for the DEIS. To accomplish this goal a study baseline year, determined based on available background pollutant data, was selected. Emissions estimates of well drilling and flaring were quantified for this baseline year for the JIDP, PAP, SPP, RRP and JMHP. Emission estimates of well drilling, flaring, and expanded compression for these projects, and other companies operating within these project areas, which are representative of current year or early-project-development stage conditions, were then determined. Emission estimates for the baseline year were subtracted from the early-projectdevelopment stage emissions. This emissions “netting” determined the emissions changes from background to current conditions, and avoided “double-counting” existing background conditions in future air quality conditions.” The AQTSD provides insufficient documentation on how double counting of emissions was avoided. Information should be provided so that the reader can reproduce the netting calculations. In addition, it would be very helpful for the AQTSD to provide data on the number of drill rigs that were operational so that impacts could be correlated with the IMPROVE monitoring data. Such information could provide confirmation of the CALPUFF modeling. 

The supplemental number of drill rigs to be operating in AQTSD Appendix 

15 73 B Early Project 

Development Stage Modeling 

AQTSD Supplement Page 22 “Drill rig emissions were calculated using the emissions 

data for the 6 year-round drilling rigs from Questar's

“Questar data” reftotal horsepower pas reported by Quother data from Q

177
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

year-round drilling project, assuming an additional 6 5,000 horsepower (hp) drill rigs to account for other Operator's year-round drilling projects, and basing the remainder of the drill rig assumptions off Questar's data for a 3,216 hp drill rig. Since actual drill rig data was available there were no additional assumptions made for straight/directional drill rig percentages.” The basis for emission calculations used for drill rigs in the AQTSD is unclear. The above paragraph suggests that emission data for Questar's year-round drilling project was used. However, Appendix D suggests that AP-42 was used as an emission factor. If the Questar data is to be used to calculate emissions, it should be included in the AQTSD. 

project were used 

15 74 B Early Project 

Development Stage Modeling 

AQTSD Supplement Page 26 “Modeled emissions included JIDP, PAP, SPP, RRP, and JMHP well drilling and flaring emissions differences calculated on a monthly basis (2006 minus the baseline study year 2002), well drilling and flaring estimates for other expanded Jonah Field Operators and “wildcat” drill rigs; other JIDPA emissions, expanded compression, emissions, sources permitted by state agencies through March 31, 2004, and the RFD and RFFA emissions that were determined for the DEIS.” Additional documentation is necessary on how net emissions were modeled in CALPUFF. Because of the chemical transformation calculations that are performed in the model, it is important to understand how the net emissions were modeled. 

Negative emission CALPUFF modeliprocessor CALSUruns were performemissions and negconcentration and combined with CAscalar (-1) to the opollutant concentra positive scalar to results. 

15 75 B Early Project 

Development Stage Modeling 

AQTSD Supplement Page 27 “The CALMET wind fields used for early-projectdevelopment stage analysis differ from the wind fields used for the DEIS and Preferred Alternative modeling. The CALMET wind fields used for this modeling were developed without the use of the “kinematic effects” CALMET switch setting option, which was used for all DEIS analyses and Preferred Alternative modeling. The change in wind field development was made to correct 

a potential CALMET model anomaly, which could

See comments 14

178
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

produce unrealistically high wind speeds in the wind field layers above the surface layer. Model tests for the DEIS cases indicated that the use of IKINE produced more conservative (slightly higher) model predictions at the Bridger Wilderness Area.” This use of the IKINE option in CALMET was previously discussed. 

15 5 C Mitigation Based on this review of the Jonah Air Quality Analysis 

and the conservative nature of the modeling results, it is not appropriate for BLM to impose additional mitigation strategies at this time. It would be prudent for BLM to provide a regulatory discussion of recently promulgated standards for non-road engines including source applicability to drilling rigs in operation in the Jonah Field. If It is believed that additional mitigation is imperative, such action should be undertaken not by BLM as part of a ROD but rather by WDEQ-AQD. Such action must provide a level playing field for all drilling rigs in Southwest Wyoming, be based on cost effective analysis of potential control options, and must follow the appropriate regulatory rule development process. By contrast, having BLM mandate a mitigation strategy as part of the ROD for this project, suggests that BLM is the air quality control agency responsible for permitting and enforcement of sources. This is not the responsibility of BLM but rather the WDEQ-AQD. 

The BLM recognizquality regulation authority and fall wHowever, some asconcerns are the rthis reason the FEincorporate approaddress these conmitigations does nIn addition, these retroactively appliedocuments. Lessbe applied to futurplaying field” for fu

15 6 C Conservative 

Analysis 

It is important for BLM to place these air quality analyses in proper perspective regarding the overall conservative nature of them (i.e., over estimating likely actual impacts). It is important for BLM decision makers to understand the magnitude of the conservatism presented in these modeling results and that these be clearly demonstrated in the FEIS and the ROD. Based on this review of the analyses, as well as other environmental monitoring data from Southwest Wyoming, it is very unlikely that the magnitude of actual 

environmental effects will approach what is projected in this analysis. Provided these perspectives are clearly stated in the FEIS and ROD, we believe the FEIS and ROD can be issued be in a timely manner. 

As with all NEPA aapproaching the missues in a conserunderstood by the involved parties adiscussion in the Fapproach to the mHowever, in an effwell informed, the reviewed and ameThe BLM has madand the ROD in a 

179
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

15 19 C Mitigation Mitigation 

Based on this review of the Jonah Air Quality Analysis and the conservative nature of the modeling results, it is not appropriate for BLM to impose additional mitigation strategies at this time. EPA has promulgated emission standards for non-road engines. The most recent was adopted in 2004. These federal regulations are designed to reduce emissions from sources such as diesel fired drilling engines. As existing drilling rig engines are replaced, newer cleaner engines will replace them. It would be prudent for BLM to provide a regulatory discussion of these regulations including source applicability. In addition, BLM should estimate how these regulations will be phased in over the life of the project. It is impossible for the public, industry, and government agencies to analyze mitigation strategies without having been provided this information. If it is believed that additional mitigation is imperative, such action should be undertaken not by BLM as part of a ROD but rather by WDEQ-AQD. Such action must provide a level playing field for all drilling rigs in Southwest Wyoming, be based on cost effective analysis of potential control options and must follow appropriate regulatory due process. By contrast, having BLM mandate a mitigation strategy as part of the ROD for this project, establishes BLM as an air quality control agency responsible for permitting and enforcement of sources. This is not the responsibility of BLM but rather the WDEQ-AQD. 

The BLM has conthe EPA's promulghas determined thstandards would asignificant impact near the Jonah Fibased on the coopquality stakeholdeand the EPA.

15 66 C Mitigation AQTSD Supplement Page 1 

“The additional analyses were deemed necessary by the BLM to evaluate alternative potential mitigation strategies for the Preferred Alternative in an effort to identify possible project development requirements to reduce adverse air quality impacts, and to identify maximum early-project-development stage regional emissions (i.e., drilling) which could reveal that regional impacts are more severe at this stage due to impacts from the develop

ment of other regional projects, which 

Although the modconservative, the certain concerns. this project is appSection 2.4.5 and adaptive managemThe BLM recognizquality regulation authority and fall wHowever, so

me as

180
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

at present have not been adequately evaluated.” Given the previously discussed technical issues that result in very conservative projections of air quality impacts, it is not necessary to implement mitigation on proposed action sources. Further, the WDEQ should be the agency for the implementation if necessary. 

concerns are the rthis reason the FEand 5.1) and the Rmitigation strategi

15 68 C Mitigation AQTSD Supplement Page 5 

“Four mitigation scenarios were analyzed, The mitigation scenarios were based on emission reduction percentages of 20, 40, 60, and 80 percent from the JIDP high emissions configuration at a 250WDR. A total of 10 additional configurations of the Preferred Alternative were modeled to determine direct project impacts of. PM10, PM2.5, NOX and SO2 emissions.” 

See previous comments regarding mitigation. 

Please see Commabove.

16 8 A3 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Section 2.1 impacts Summary-Page 6. The document states in paragraph 1, “...and a high emissions mitigation case with an 80 percent emission reduction at a WDR [well development rate] 250, are representative of the full range of impacts for those 10 configurations.” While the emission reductions assumed in the mitigation runs were decreases from the high emissions case with a development rate of 250 wells per year, the actual examples of mitigation shown in table 3 show well development rates of 50 and 75 wells per year. The DEIS does not demonstrate how emissions could be reduced by 80 percent if development remained at 250 wells per year; consequently it would be more accurate to refer to “an 80 percent emission reduction from the high emissions case.” We recommend revising this sentence and similar references in the FEIS. 

The Operators womeasures to redu(see FEIS Section

16 10 A3 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Appendices B and D show that the emissions modeled for the early project development stage were greater than the emissions modeled in several of the scenarios projected for 2017. However, the modeled impacts of the early project development stage were substantially lower than the impacts of some future scenarios with lower emissions. For example, while the N

OX, SO2,

Comparisons betwversus the early-pscenario cannot bdevelopment stagdifferences determactivity (drill rigs a

estimates of drillin

181
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

and PM2.5 emissions for the early project development 

stage were 19 to 26 percent higher than those for the scenario with 40 percent reduction from the high emissions case in 2017, the corresponding visibility impacts had a reverse relationship; the modeling for the early project development stage showed eight days with a visibility impact greater than 1.0 dv at the Bridger Class I area whereas the modeling for the scenario with 40 percent emissions reduction showed 14 days (both using FLAG background data) of impact greater than 1.0 dv. As stated above, we acknowledge that the two cases are not directly comparable. The FEIS should reconcile and explain this situation. 

differences vary m(200 in 2003 and 2The 2017 scenario2, and 1 flares, anproducing wells, reJonah field. There due to differences analysis. The winanalyses have beeconservative than development stag

16 1 C Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

We [EPA] have assigned a rating of “1” which acknowledges that the supplemental air quality analysis has adequately disclosed the most significant impacts associated with the development of the Jonah gas field and identified a range of mitigation options which, if implemented, will significantly reduce or eliminate all adverse air quality impacts. 

Thank you for you

16 2 C Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

We [EPA] look forward to reviewing the additional information as requested in our earlier comments, but we consider the DEIS and supplemental information to have provided adequate disclosure and analysis under the requirements of NEPA and its implanting guidelines. We believe that BLM may be in a position when developing the FEIS to include additional detailed information on the specific means to mitigate emissions from drilling operations to achieve or exceed the 80 percent reduction, including the implementation of the mitigation in the “early project development stage” to minimize or prevent air quality impacts to Class I airsheds. We recommend that such information be included in the FEIS. 

Thank you for youincluded some adthe FEIS and AQTdeemed appropria

16 3 C Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

EPA understands that our previous comments on the Jonah Infill project will be incorporated with these additional comments to the air quality portion of the DEIS. This letter also communicates our rating of the entire compilation of DEIS documents. As our previous comments provided background on the project alternatives, that discussion will not be repeated within this comment letter and we refer you to our comments to Carol Kruse dated May 25, 2005. 

Thank you for you

182
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

16 4 C Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

When the supplemental air quality information was first submitted, no single Preferred Alternative had been identified. During the process of this review, we received from BLM a written notification dated October, 

5, 2005, from Deputy State Director Donald A. Simpson that the 80 percent emission reduction alternative was now the BLM’s Preferred alternative. Accordingly, we have not rated the other alternatives. Our work on those alternatives, before the Preferred Alternative was chosen, had indicated that those other alternatives would have been rated environmentally unsatisfactory because of extensive impact on nearby Class I Wilderness areas; therefore, we commend the BLM for their support of the 80 percent reduction alternative. 

It is important to note that, even with the Preferred alternative, there will be some visibility impacts directly related to the project. We believe those impacts merit a rating of Environmental Concerns (EC) but that phased development, Tier I (or better) engines, and other technological changes—some of which are already in use—can reduce or eliminate all exceedances of the visibility thresholds. Therefore, the rating of the entire DEIS, reflecting both our previous and current comments, is EC-1. 

Thank you for youmitigations will be 

16 5 C Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Preferred Alternative (80 Percent Emission Reduction Case) - EPA understands that mitigation strategies under this alternative would apply from the outset of the project and include the period known as the “early project development stage” in the supplemental material (see our attached specific comments). It is only with this understanding that EPA rates the 80 Percent Emission Reduction Case as EC-1 (Environmental Concerns) in that this proposed alternative includes mitigation or phased well development rates which would allow field development and also provide better protection of air quality, in general, and in the Bridger/Fitzpatrick Wilderness areas, specifically. The large and numerous diesel engines used for drilling wells in the geologic formation of the Jonah Field are the largest source of air pollution 

emissions from the proposed project. EPA supports

Thank you for youmitigations have b

183
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

this alternative which provides a slower pace of development for the Jonah Field (fewer wells allowed per year) unless the Operator secures new and clean diesel engine technology for well drilling Operations. If emissions are reduced, the Operators would be allowed to drill more natural gas wells and energy development could proceed with assurance that air resources within Wyoming, are being protected.  EPA believes that the 80 percent reduction scenario is a reasonable and attainable approach given recent developments. EPA Tier II diesel engines standards go into effect on January 1, 2006. These cleaner engines will reduce NOX emissions by approximately 75 percent 

from uncontrolled diesel engines. While the immediate availability of these new engines will be uncertain, there are other developments in southwestern Wyoming which demonstrate the potential for reducing drilling rig emissions in the short term. Some gas operators have successfully demonstrated the retrofit of existing engines to perform at or below emission rates of the Tier II (or Tier III) standards. The use of dual fuels (combination of natural gas and diesel fuel) shows promise, as well as selective catalytic reduction applied to new or existing engines. In addition, EnCana has acquired a natural gas fired drilling rig and is currently using this low emitting unit in the Jonah field. We further understand that EnCana is evaluating the feasibility of providing electrical service to the Jonah field to power drilling rigs with direct electrical power. This option could reduce emissions for the Jonah field to negligible amounts. In addition to technological solutions there are many options for either BLM or the WDEQ to control the rate of well development. to correspond with the availability and use of cleaner drilling rigs beginning with the early project development phase. 

16 6 C Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

While EPA supports this alternative as a viable way of proceeding with gas development in theJonah Field, EPA remains concerned about the phase-in of the mitigation and the three days of visibility impairment above one deciview at the Class I Bridger Wilderness Area. Although not included as an alternative, the early

Thank you for youappreciates the Ecooperation in impforward to working 

184
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

project development stage and its eight days of direct project visibility impact (nine days when calculated using IMPROVE background data) are considered equivalent to the “High Emissions Case” alternative which EPA is not rating, as discussed above. However, mitigation strategies for the early phase of the project should apply from the outset of the project, not as a future consideration. Accordingly, EPA pledges to continue to work with BLM to determine a schedule for mitigation implementation which protects air quality while proceeding with the Jonah Infill Drilling Project. 

16 7 C Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

The DEIS Air Quality Impact Analysis Supplement presents the results of modeling of regional impacts at a stage when the Jonah Infill Development Project would be early in its development (nominally the year 2006). Table 5 of the supplement shows cumulative visibility impacts greater than 1.0 deciview (dv) at several Class I and sensitive Class II areas in the region. The table also shows direct project impacts of nine days with impact greater than 1.0 dv at the Class I Bridger Wilderness Area, two days at the Class II Popo Agie Wilderness Area, and one day at the Class II Wind River Recreational Area. The supplement explains that BLM intended to apply this portion of the analysis to cumulative, regional impacts early in the life of the project and stipulates that results for the early project development stage are not directly comparable to the other results. However, the results show the potential for significant, direct project impacts on visibility in the early project development stage. The supplemental document is unclear as to the mitigation that would apply to the early project development stage for air quality. We understand that the Preferred Alternative was modeled for the project and cumulative impacts based on assumptions that would exist in the year 2017 when the project would incur maximum air emissions born from both production and drilling. Although BLM has identified the mitigation necessary to reduce impacts to Class I air sheds for the maximum project emissions in the year 2017 for the Preferred Alternative, BLM does not identify mitigation necessary to reduce the potential for impacts prior to

The AQTSD Suppoutline mitigation sstage – for the JIDwith the necessary those mitigations smeasures will be dair quality stakehoin the FEIS and wThis includes all nphases of the proj

185
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

the maximum project emission date. The results of modeling for the early stage of the project show a need for mitigation beginning in 2006 (or 2007 if the project were to be delayed until that year and BLM still considered the results to be applicable). EPA assumes that the mitigation strategies used to achieve the 80 percent emissions reduction scenario selected by BLM as the Preferred Alternative also will apply to the early project emissions. The FEIS and ROD should explain the association between the results for the early project development stage and those modeled for project alternatives that could exist in 2017, and means of mitigating undesirable visibility impacts early in the project. 

16 9 C Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Ozone Through the period of developing, conducting, and documenting the air quality analysis for the JIDP, there have been discussions among BLM, EPA, and other stakeholders regarding the method of calculating potential ozone impacts. BLM used a variant of EPA's VOC/NOX Point Source Screening Tables, September 

1998 (the Scheffe method). By using average monitored ozone values instead of peak concentrations as background in this calculation, BLM showed project impacts less than the one-hour and eight-hour ozone standards. The estimated ozone concentrations would have exceeded the standards if peak monitored concentrations had been used as background instead. 

BLM conducted the ozone analysis for a grouping of sources in the JIDP; the method is not conducive to realistically analyzing each development alternative. We acknowledge that the method is not entirely satisfactory regardless of whether one uses peak or average concentrations as background. The question and answer document that BLM posted on the Internet with the supplemental materials for the DEIS included the following statement: In February 2005 ozone levels monitored in the Jonah Field may have exceeded national health-based 

standards. Resolution and verification of exceeding

The Preferred Altedevelopment of thand Appendix E). monitoring of air qincluding ozone. Aozone has becomdevelopment. If thozone exceedancthe JIDP, then the WDEQ, EPA, USFwhether adaptive to mitigate impactIn recognition of thconcentrations, mthe Jonah Field arBoulder. 

186
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

ozone thresholds has not been completed. The statement refers to data that were unavailable at the time of the air quality impact analysis. We are concerned that the NEPA process for the Jonah Infill project might culminate while a question of regional ozone impacts is unresolved. Consequently, we recommend that BLM address in the FEIS the potential need for adaptive management to mitigate ozone impacts in the future. 

17 1 A3 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

In Volume 1 on page 2-27, the following is identified as a general COA or BMP to be imposed by BLM on all project authorizations. “Operators would utilize flareless completions for all wells within the JIDPA unless proven on a case-bycase basis that flareless completions would be unsafe.” As written, this COA or BMP is inconsistent with the air quality permits issued by the WDEQ to Operators in the Jonah field and therefore should be revised as follows: “Operators would comply with permits issued by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality for all well completions and re-completions within the JIDPA.” 

New language has Section 2.4.5.2).

18 1 A3 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Volume 1, Chapter # Abstract, Page #i, Paragraph 1. LOP is estimated to be 110 years here, and on page iii, paragraph 3 of the executive summary it states the LOP will vary from 63 to 105 years. Please check these numbers for consistency. 

The numbers havnecessary to reflethe FEIS.

18 2 A3 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Volume 1, Chapter # Executive Summary, Page #v, Line 2. An interagency adaptive management working group to direct BLM management of the project is proposed. Please describe how this group would be staffed, funded, its level of authority, and how it would interact with or overlap with other groups. 

This concept has Interagency Office funding for that offSections 2.4.5 and 

18 3 A3 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Volume 1, Chapter #2, Page #24, 7th bullet. Adaptive management working group....see comment (above) for page v, line 2. 

This concept has Operations of and discussed in FEIS 

18 4 A3 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Volume 1, Chapter #2, Page #30, Section 2.14.2.1. No air quality monitoring is listed in this section. A monitoring discussion could be included here. Such 

it i ld i l d bi t i it d

The JIO would moand its mitigation of the JIO would p

t f th 

187
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

monitoring could include ambient air monitors and effectiveness of road dust mitigation. 

management of th

18 5 A3 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Volume 1, Chapter #2, Page #33, Table 2.12. The air quality section shows the “Additional Days of Impairment at the Bridger Wilderness”. This infers that there is currently visibility impairment at the Bridger Wilderness. If so, please provide an explanation for this impairment and also provide the total days of impairment at the Bridger Wilderness. 

DEIS Table 2.12 (upon air quality mthat effort. The usconveys the idea tpotential impacts. establish any asseFurther informatiothe BLM Preferred AQTSD.

18 6 A3 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Volume 1, Chapter #3, Page #5, Figure 3.1. The windrose shown uses data from 1999 to 2002, yet on page 3-4 it is stated there is data from 1999 through 2003. Was 2003 data excluded? Please clarify. 

The figure was deyears of data. At intitiated a comple2003 was unavailayears 1999 througrepresentative for contained in Sectifound in Tables 3.

18 7 A3 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Volume 1, Chapter #3, Page #6, Tables 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6. Labels on these tables infer they are from 2005, when the data from BP was received in 2004, and the data actually presented is an average from 1999 to 2002. 

The reference to tfrom Tables 3.4 – 

18 8 A3 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Volume 1, Chapter #3, Pages #11, 12 and 13, Figures 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4. Please consider using the same unit of measurement for standard visual range in these 3 figures, either miles or km. 

Since these figureCooperative InstitAtmosphere, they BLM apologizes fo

18 9 A3 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Volume 1, Chapter #4, Page #2, 8th paragraph. This says the impacts from this past development will continue for approximately 63 years without further development authorizations. The ROD for the Jonah II from 1998 (on page 34) states that development will continue for 30 to 50 years starting in 1993. Was NEPA analysis conducted to allow for this extended timeline of 25 to 45 additional years of impact in the Jonah II field? Please clarify. Also, in volume 2, Technical Support Document, page 4, Table 2.1 states the LOP is 53 years. Which is the correct number that was used in the analysis? 

The estimations inwere based on avand best professioimplementation of exactly as expecterevisit these projeof the actions. Hoare incorporated iacquisition of backmodeling efforts. Table 2.1 in the A

(see A

Q

T

SD Appe

188
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

used in the variouthese, the various analyses can be cAppendices B and 

18 10 A3 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Volume 1, Chapter #4, Page #2, 8th paragraph. This paragraph states that there are significant adverse impacts that have already occurred with existing development and mitigation requirements from current development. What additional mitigation is proposed to remedy this? 

Please note that tnot referring to air resource impacts indicates that the surface disturbancthereafter, the BLM site mitigation effocompensatory mit

18 11 A3 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Volume 1, Chapter #4, Page #8, 2nd paragraph. In this paragraph, there is an assumption of 20 drill rigs operating simultaneously to drill 250 wells per year. This equates to 29 days per well per rig. The AQTSD states that 23 days per well is the timeline used in the analysis. Which assumption is correct? Also, in volume 2 Appendix G technical support document page 4 table 2.1, it states 22 days for drilling, which is the correct number that was used? 

The key issue hersimultaneously op(i.e., 20 operating clear that 23 days analysis; however18 to 36 days. Thscenario should noperation days to advised that some rig-up, take down, new location. The Appendix G (see Festimating traffic r

18 12 A3 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Volume 1, Chapter #4, Page #9, Last paragraph. This paragraph makes the statement that visibility measured for the Bridger Wilderness is more pristine than for residential areas that were modeled. Is there data or analyses to support this assumption? 

No visibility monitoareas are availablrecently started. Texisting air quality Table 5.1.

18 13 A3 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Volume 1, Chapter #4, Page #11, Paragraph 5. Check the statement that the near field impacts are equal to those analyzed in the Jonah II EIS because: 1. The pace of development exceeded the 30 wells/yr as outlined in the FEIS. 2. The drill rig engine size has increased from 1,000 hp as originally analyzed in the FEIS to 3,000 hp. 3. This does not include additional impacts from the Modified Jonah II EA, which allowed for 40 acre spacing as well as the concentration of the development on the east side of the project area. 

This text has been 

189
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

18 14 A3 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Volume 1, Chapter #4, Page #11, Paragraph 6, Far field impacts. See Above. [Volume 1, Chapter # 4, Page # 11, Paragraph 5, Check the statement that the near field impacts are equal to those analyzed in the Jonah II EIS because: 1. The pace of development exceeded the 30 wells/yr as outlined in the FEIS. 2. The drill rig engine size has increased from 1,000 hp as originally analyzed in the FEIS to 3,000 hp. 3. This does not include additional impacts from the Modified Jonah II EA, which allowed for 40 acre spacing as well as the concentration of the development on the east side of the project area.] 

This text has been 

18 15 A3 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Volume 1, Chapter #4, Page #22, 4th paragraph. The citation here should be for the Questar Winter Drilling EA and ROD. 

Page 4-22 of the Dcitation. Paragrapassociated with thclear what the inte

18 16 A3 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Volume 1, Chapter #4, Page #154, Section 4.10. The abstract indicates that the LOP will be 110 years (about 3 generations) and is also stated as “Short-term use.” 

Compared to the tbeen used and wiappropriate to conThis is in compariarea for other acti

18 17 A3 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Volume 1, Chapter #5, Page #1, Section 5.1.1. This is a good list of possible mitigation opportunities; however, the BLM does not have the authority to require most of these opportunities. Other mitigation might include: -Pacing development and controlling drill rig numbers (and hence emissions) at a level that would not significantly impact wilderness areas for visibility, PM10

or NOX. (The federal court decision in the Montana 

Powder River Basin case indicates that phased development should be considered as an alternative) -Reinstate the NOX cap for the Upper Green River Basin 

at a level where no significant impacts to wilderness areas would occur. 

As noted in the intmitigation suggestonly. The BLM cothese opportunitieyet been determinrevised in the FEIThe suggestions pappreciated. The EPA, WDEQ, and measures to meet 

18 18 A3 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Volume 1, Chapter #5, Page #7, Section 5.2, Paragraph 2. Off-site mitigation measures: The USFS agrees with the need for funding of ongoing air quality monitoring in the Upper Green River basin, but the BLM, USFS, and WDEQ need to develop a coordinated monitoring plan which is protective of public health as well as air quality related values in the adjacent wilderness areas, adding additional monitors where needed. Funding for this monitoring should be for the

The ideas in FEIS at this time. Shoumonitoring be inclwould work with athe plan is develoThe JIO would moand its mitigation 2.4.5 and Append

190
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

life of the project. JIO would provide 

the project.

18 19 A3 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Volume 2, Chapter #B, Page #3, Item 12. It is stated that new emission estimates are provided for this project. Where are these emission level estimates listed? 

Please remember the FEIS) is OperaOperators have wmeasures. The Bsubmittal. New emin the AQTSD.

18 20 A3 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Volume 2, Chapter #B, Page #1-2, Exhibit B. Some alternatives are not committed to do items 8, 9, 12, and 13. For example, for item 9 are alternatives B, C and D allowed to burn openly and not follow Chapter 10 Section 12 of the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations? 

Please keep in miin the FEIS) outlinvoluntarily proposwould not sanction law.

18 21 A3 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Volume 2, Chapter #C, Page #20, 4th and 6th bullets. Did the BLM ever follow up on these two comments? Please include some discussion. 

Bullet 4: The BLM emission sources means of modelinconsultation with sBullet 6: The BLM quality stakeholdemitigation issues i

18 22 A3 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Volume 2, Chapter #D, Page #1. General comment, The BLM should consider one group chartered under the RMP to oversee the activities within the Pinedale Area Office. There are limited agency personnel and public citizens available to participate and conduct this work. 

This comment is noversight group, th(see FEIS Section

18 23 A3 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Volume 2, Chapter #D, Page #4, Item VII. Why are the operating procedures here different than those applied to the PAWG? (Especially the criteria for announcing meetings.) 

This comment is noversight group, th(see FEIS Section

18 24 A3 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Volume 2, Chapter #F, Page #12-15, Tables F-12 and 13. Please look at the data presented in these tables. It appears that modeled PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are 

the same, is this correct? 

The values presenAt far field location

from direct project emissions are all a

fraction of PM em

less than or equal 

sources was assureaching the far fieAQTSD).

191
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

18 25 A3 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Volume 2, Chapter #F, Page #13 and 14, Table F-13. Is footnote 3 correct? Should it be PM2.5 instead? 

Footnote 3 is corr

18 26 A3 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Volume 2, Chapter #F, Page #44, Table F-34. Counting of days of impairment is not consistent here. For example the max visibility change at the Popo Agie Wilderness of 1.0 is counted while the same level at the Wind River Roadless Area is not counted. Is this due to rounding the numbers or something else? 

This is due to rounabove 0.5 and 1.0 values in Tables Fplaces. This discr

18 27 A3 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Volume 2, Chapter #F, Page #48, Table F-38. The same problem cited above occurs here at the Merna site. [Volume 2, Chapter # F, Page # 44. Table F-34, Counting of days of impairment is not consistent here. For example the max visibility change at the Popo Agie Wilderness of 1.0 is counted while the Same level at the Wind River Roadless Area is not counted. Is this due to rounding the numbers or something else?] 

See comment 18-

18 28 A4 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

AQTSD Page #10, 3rd paragraph. Please consider putting all of the modeling assumptions in one place rather than spreading them throughout the document as footnotes on tables. 

This comment is ainformation is mosthe resulting data. parameters are pr

18 29 A4 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

AQTSD Page #15, Table 2.3. High levels of VOC emissions are predicted from the project (56,224 tpy). Ozone will form as a result of these primary emissions, and have potential to impact the nearby wilderness areas. The VOC emissions could be mitigated. Please indicate potential VOC mitigation measures. 

VOC emissions lewith NOx emissionemissions are from tanks and dehydraconstruction relatewould reduce NOx technologies on thNOx and VOC emand AQTSD now curves which provproduction well VO

18 30 A4 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

AQTSD Page #31, Table 3.3. Does this table take into account impacts of other well pads that may be developed in the same grid area? 

This table takes inone 2.5 mile resoupads that may be not taken into accmodeled impacts adjacent to the coconcentrations are distance. Pollutanwells under constr

activities were est

192
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

model and are rep

18 31 A4 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

AQTSD Page #42, Paragraph 1. Please discuss how the assumptions regarding percentages of control devices on storage tanks and dehydrators relate to what is actually happening in the field? 

The assumptions devices on storagprovided by Operadeveloped from exfield.

18 32 A4 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

AQTSD Page #50, Table 4.1. This table contains some contradictions: 1. Footnote 1 shows that even though the proposed alternative included directional wells, that modeling was done assuming all straight holes. 2. The proposed action alternative also shows that it was modeled, yet the comment indicates this was approximated by Alternative A. 3. Footnote 2 indicates that the alternative was not modeled, but assumptions were that 50% of the holes drilled were straight and 50% were directional while the alternative is described as 91% directional and 9% straight. 

Modeling scenarioestimate” each proconsideration giveemissions from anextremely time-coevery specific detaenormous variabillocations, and devWell drilling activitdrilling and 23 dayflaring activities lathe assumption is would require flariin 1 year, with a 5drilling, it would reyear (21 days x 25(0.2 x 250 x 3.3 daof 14.4 drill rigs peThe modeling scedrill rigs and 3 flarthe year. This assof annual emissiowas an estimate ospecific day during conducted provide the possible range 

18 33 A4 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Air Quality Assessment Protocol, Page #4, 1st paragraph. In the last sentence, the LOP is 30 to 50 years. This is not consistent throughout the documents. LOP now appears to range from 30 to 110 years (see very first comment on Vol. 1) in the documents. Also, the estimate for drilling time of 4 years seems low. 

The FEIS reports please note that pconsiderably acroChanges to projecsubsequent to propresented in the mAQTSD. 

193
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

18 34 A4 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Air Quality Assessment Protocol, Page #18, Table 3.1. O3 background concentrations shown in this table are 

different than background used in the AQSD page 40, table 3.7. 

A revision to O3 ba

proposed for use was made pursuaThe revised backgcalculation of O3 c

AQTSD Section 3

In recognition of thconcentrations, mthe Jonah Field arBoulder.

18 35 A4 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Air Quality Assessment Protocol, Appendix B, Page #B12 and 13, Tables B.1.8 and B.1.9. In these tables, there is a drilling time of 19 days for the emission analysis. In this document Page 5) states that 23 days is assumed. This will result in about a 20% underestimation of emissions. 

Please note that ATables B.1.8 and AQTSD, not an apAssessment ProtoAppendix A of the The AQTSD text hAverage drilling timOperators are 19 days for directionaestimates are bas

18 36 A4 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Air Quality Assessment Protocol, Appendix B, Page #B20, Table B.1.15. The table is missing a footnote 7. Please note that A

20 is Appendix B tto the Air Quality Aincluded as AppenThere is no foornocorrected.

18 37 A4 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Air Quality Assessment Protocol, Appendix F, Page #F77, Table F.3.1. Should that be 24-hour instead of 2-hour? 

Please note that tnot to the Air Quais included as AppThe PM10 averagi

18 38 A4 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Air Quality Assessment Protocol, Appendix F, Page #F164, Table F.6.4. What do negative numbers mean in this table? 

Please note that tnot to the Air Quais included as AppCumulative modeincreases as positemissions decreasdifference in these 

S deposition value

194
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

the estimated projregional sources wthese sensitive arvalues are added values and presen

18 39 A4 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Air Quality Assessment Protocol, Appendix F, Page #F220, Table F.8.28. This table only shows 30 days of impairment, while pg F-208 shows there are 40 days where the visibility is impaired at >0.5 dv level. Are days missing? Also, the lines for the summation of > 0.5 and > 1.0 are not adding up correctly. 

Please note that tnot to the Air Quais included as AppThis is an incorrecpresents direct propresents cumulatiprovided in the repThe daily summarnumber of days abimpacts and 1.0 dAQTSD now clarif

18 40 A4 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Air Quality Assessment Protocol, Appendix F, Page #F221, Table F.8.29. There is a similar problem with this table as noted above. Pg F-208 shows 46 days with >0.5 dv change yet the table only shows 34 days. Also in this table the number of days summed at the bottom appears incorrect. 

Please note that tnot to the Air Quais included as AppSee comment res

18 41 A4 Agency 

Recommendations, etc. 

Air Quality Assessment Protocol, Appendix F, Page #F224 to F-228, Table F.8.32 to F.8.35. The problem cited above seems to be repeated on these tables as well where the number of days shown on the tables does not agree with the information provided on page F-208 for each of the areas. It appears the tables for the communities modeled are correct. 

Please note that tnot to the Air Quais included as AppSee comment res

37 2 B Conservative 

Analysis 

The series of project assessments performed by the BLM for oil and gas development projects in the Upper Green River area have, in our opinion, generally tended to assume in their analytical basis ever more complex, worst case scenarios. These then lead to, in the ROD, equally complex mitigation strategies because worst case scenarios inappropriately gain the stature of a most likely scenario. This report seems to follow that same pattern. In our opinion, the report does not adequately address or predict in the short term (2006) or in the long term the realities of actual development practices such as ever improving technology, 

acceleration up a learning curve, cooperation bet

ween 

Although the BLM Operators to incorenvironmentally frOperators are able commitments, theOperators will consuch reasons it is conservative in its better to overestimthey are less in thunderestimate theThe JIO (describe

195
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

stakeholders, etc. We suggest that time and time again the energy development industry has utilized practices that quickly perform much better than the scenarios detailed in early assessments. In some fashion, that likelihood should be included in this analysis. 

Appendix E) will pBLM would use adimplementation of 

37 4 B Conservative 

Analysis 

Parameters chosen to be included in various calculations seem to be universally conservative. (Specific parameters are addressed in our specific comments below.) The utilization of only conservative factors has a mathematically cumulative impact when they are used in sequential computations. This creates, at best, inaccurate calculations and, at worst, exaggerated calculated outcomes. Both are inappropriate outcomes for a document that will be used to not only make fact-based decisions but which will be used to supercharge emotional arguments. It is incumbent on the calculation process to demonstrate the range of possible outcomes based on a complete description of the range of possible input parameters. This can only be done through disciplined statistical methods or approximations of statistical methods. We find the statistical discipline in the report to be weak and therefore the description of the potential outcomes to be equally weak. 

BLM maintains thaare reasonable bubut conservative” Guidance for cond

37 5 B Conservative 

Analysis 

The analysis is entirely deterministic rather than statistical in nature. That is, absolute numbers are calculated and ranges of variation from those numbers are further determined. This deterministic methodology fails to acknowledge or analyze the statistical probability (likelihood) that alternative, improved outcomes (mitigation, change of conditions, etc.) are possible or probable both in the short term (2006) and long term. Time and time again, economic and technological forces have driven oil and gas development toward outcomes that could not be determined in advance but which, given the long history of such outcomes, could have been statistically forecasted with high reliability. We therefore submit that a disciplined statistical analysis of the data would likely lead to other, possibly improved, lower impact outcomes which would be significantly different than the deterministic outcomes used in the report. This would 

be especially true in the analysis of worst case

Thank you for youBLM maintains thaare reasonable bubut conservative” Guidance for cond

196
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

scenarios. The “mitigation runs” in the Preferred Alternative scenario which demonstrate reductions to 80%, 60%, 40%, and 20% of the worst case, high emission scenario, while not statistically disciplined methods, are an approximation of valid statistical methods and should be given much more credibility in the report. 

37 7 B Conservative 

Analysis 

Tables C.1.4 and C.1.14 demonstrate that for the worst emissions case in the Preferred Alternative, a) the maximum per year well development rate (250 wells/year), b) with minimal drilling rig engine emission controls (80% Tier 0, 20% Tier 1), c) very high drilling rig engine loading, d) very frequent high drilling rig engine loading intervals, e) maximum, uncontrolled flared volumes, f) controlled but maximum wellsite emissions, and g) maximum compression emissions, modeled NO2 concentration impacts and modeled 

cumulative NO2 concentration impacts are 

approximately 10% of existing background concentrations. We know these tables overestimate worst case NO2 concentrations and cumulative 

concentrations. 

Thank you for youBLM maintains thaare reasonable bubut conservative” Guidance for cond

37 8 B Emissions, Project The wrong AP 42 emission factor was chosen to be 

applied against drilling rig engines The analysis uses the AP 42 Table 3.3-1 emission factor (0.031 lb/hp-hr) rather than AP 42 Table 3.4-1 emission factor (0.024 lb/hp-hr). Rig emissions are therefore overestimated by 29% through this error. 

One 500-hp enginspecified for straigengines and two 8for directional drillapplicable to enginot all engines sphp, and because a desired for use in factor from AP-42 used.

37 9 B Conservative 

Analysis 

AP 42 is known to be a conservative (upper limit) method of calculating emissions. Hence, emission factors from actual manufacturer's tests are commonly applied in normal emission calculations to get more realistic estimates. That methodology was not utilized or addressed in the current analysis for drilling rig engines. 

Engine horsepoweprovided for drillinrange of possible horsepower, it wamake/model to obmanufacturer’s da

37 10 B Emissions, Project The report uses an overall “load factor” for drilling rig 

engines of 0.42 (See Tables beginning with Table D. 1.2). This factor is computed by assuming that 65% of 

the days that the rig is operating, the “throttle setting is

The load factor of Operator input for Continental Divide reviewed and app

197
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

65%” of maximum. The analysis oftentimes refers to, and uses as a basis, data submitted by Questar to the WDEQ (in October 2004). While there are a number of ways to estimate the complexities of rig engine loading, we would like to point out some of the weaknesses in the report's analysis: i. The rigs listed in the Questar data from 2004 operations had older engines and lower efficiency power arrangements. This is because we were forced to use available rigs, not optimized rigs. To suggest that an operator entering into a long term development project would use anything but optimally powered and therefore lower emission rigs is very misleading and leads to overestimates of emissions. ii. While loading factors are subject to many variables, we are unable to rationalize reasonable operating scenarios that would lead to overall rig engine loading factors as high as 0.42. Therefore, we believe that the analysis overestimates emissions by using too high an overall loading factor. iii. There are a number of places where 5,000 horsepower Tier 0 was assumed as the power arrangement on “other” drilling rigs in the area. While we did have a 5,284 hp drilling rig on our very deep well in 2004, this was not a rig of choice. Furthermore, the depth drilled, over 19,000 ft, hardly seems pertinent to the Jonah Infill Drilling Project. To the extent this size and type of rig was utilized in the report for emission calculations, we submit that the emissions calculated would be extremely overestimated. iv. Extended durations of flaring events, high frequency rates for flaring and high volumes of gas flared were assumed in completion flare emission calculations. This approach appears to have completely ignored the new restrictions placed by the WDEQ on flaring operations. Hence, flaring emissions appear to be greatly overstated. v. WDEQ regulations in force since July 2004 instituted restrictions to well site operations and emissions that

well as other Jonathe emissions inveFlaring restrictions imposed by WDEQtime the inventory modeling was perPermitted compretaken from permit those units. Declines in flashinwells lis now conscalculations. Please also see c

198
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

do not appear to be included in the analysis. Therefore, the emissions appear to be over-stated for well site activities for that reason. vi. Long standing WDEQ regulations on well site operations and emissions use emission calculation methods which assume nearly full well production capacity and do not fully recognize the steep decline in actual gas production, and therefore emissions, which is typical of tight gas reservoirs not only in the Jonah and Pinedale areas but worldwide. A failure to adequately estimate production decline leads to overstatement of related emissions. vii. AP 42 emission factors were applied to all “permitted” compressor engines for nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter. There are several reasons why this approach leads to an overestimate of those types of emissions (e.g., at least in the Pinedale operations, estimated permitted horsepower exceeds actual permitted horsepower). AP 42 leads to very conservative (upper limit) estimates for the above listed types of emissions. In fact, manufacturer's specifications are much lower and actual stack tests at existing compressor stations are much, much lower than those calculated by AP 42. 

37 11 B Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Visibility 

As a result of the errors in methodology, calculation, and estimation of NO2 concentrations and calculation of 

cumulative concentrations, we suggest that visibility impacts from the Jonah Infill Drilling Project for the Class I and Class II areas listed in the report are greatly over-stated. 

Thank you for youBLM maintains thaare reasonable bubut conservative” Guidance for cond

37 12 B Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Visibility 

We agree that, since the report used visibility data from “...the Class I Bridger Teton: Wilderness Area, an area more pristine than populated residential areas...to estimate potential visibility impairment at Wyoming regional community locations”, the result is an overestimation of the visibility impacts at those locations. 

See comment 15-

37 13 B Mid-/Far-Field 

Modeling - Visibility 

While the analysis purports to address local visibility impacts from local sources, the extensive inclusion in the analysis of regional source data as well as frequent 

f t i l h t b

The air quality anaimpacts from both from cumulative ref t i t

199
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

references to regional haze seems to be a demonstration that the “regional” problem is indeed regional. We believe the analysis and report fails to highlight the regional problem created by a multitude of local, national, and international sources and tends to highlight the relatively small contribution of one project. No assumptions for emission reduction at any nearby or regional source are included in the analysis. In fact, it appears that some sources are included in the analysis that are not, to our knowledge, yet permitted. This, of course, impacts calculated short term (2006) and long term outcomes. The analysis also fails to emphasize the likelihood or statistical chance of success of the low emission case in the Preferred Alternative. The cumulative effect of the above listed methodology is delivery of a visibility impact statement that establishes the worst case scenario as the most likely scenario. That methodology may not appropriately address regional sources nor does it deliver an appropriate assessment of the lower emission cases for the Jonah Infill Drilling Project. 

future sources in tto estimate potentSee comment 5-1

37 1 C Conservative 

Analysis 

We believe we have demonstrated and are executing our standard of care for air and environmental quality in the Pinedale Anticline Project Area (PAPA). We believe that the results we are attaining in the PAPA are far better than those cases forecasted by the JIDP Air Quality Impact Analysis. Furthermore, we believe that the PAPA results are more representative of what the JIDP operators will be attaining even without factoring in to the analysis a number of other, future, favorable technological and economic factors that typically become drivers in such matters. We believe the improvements in actual versus estimated outcomes deserve more recognition in this public process so that all stakeholders can make better informed and appropriate assessments and decisions. 

The BLM appreciaOperators to mitigJonah Field and aefforts in this regaimplementation of However, the BLM modeling is approunderstandings of information. Estadiscussed in FEIS allows for the adaissues in the Jona

37 3 C Conservative 

Analysis 

Assessments of this type are the only documents most stakeholders see and use to make their judgments of existing or near term scenarios and longer term impacts. While we appreciate the predictive nature of the NEPA environmental impact analysis process, we suggest that scenarios that anticipate lower impact 

outco

mes from the project need to be more fully

The August 2005 AQTSD Appendix scenarios for the Plow and high emis60%, and 80% emBLM believes this reductions was ap

200
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

addressed in the Jonah Infill Drill Project analysis. considered by dec

37 6 C Mitigation Given the above uncertainties in actual concentrations 

of pollutants as well as impacts, it seems untenable that fixed final and restrictive mitigation strategies, both short term (2006) and longer term, are based on those uncertain impacts and then proposed or implied in the report. We believe there are performance standards that can be established in cooperation with Operators that will lead to more effective, more meaningful and more realistic emission control. We further believe that jointly developed performance standards will lead to better project planning and reduced project impacts and more gas will be recovered from the reservoir resulting in better and more balanced economic outcomes for all stakeholders. 

The Preferred Altestandards for the (see FEIS Section the standards, the certain mitigation JIO allows for the project as the BLM Operators. Pleassocioeconomic imresources conside

37 14 C Mitigation The mitigation strategies suggested in the report do not 

suggest any local (residential, commercial, vehicle) impacts or strategies. Are these not significant locally and should they not be included in a comprehensive analysis of this type? If they are summarily included in “background” concentrations, which is by far the largest concentration in all analyzes, should not specific mitigation strategies be suggested for those sources as well? 

Thank you for this 

37 15 C Mitigation The Pinedale Anticline Work Group Air Quality Task 

Group report published in February 2005 presents in great detail air quality monitoring taking place in the area. Also, the WDEQ has in place an extensive emission inventory process as well as an active, functioning air quality model. Data from these monitoring sites as well as the inventory system are used in the WDEQ modeling process. These efforts should be included as primary components of mitigation strategies and should be utilized before other arbitrary mitigation steps are proposed. 

All relevant air quaincorporated into tavailable at the timNonetheless, the additional mitigatiooversee air monitoallow for the adapmitigation strategi

38 1 B Conservative 

Analysis 

The current EIS portrays a worst-case scenario and essentially assumes that the area's Class I Air shed is at risk. In reality - - and contrary to claims that Pinedale's views of the Wind River Mountains will be 

obscured for about a third of the year - - data suggest

Some of the data quality parameters few years. Howevdeliberately conseare made based u

201
Table III-B. Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues (cont’d)

Submittal ID 

Comment Number 

Comment Category Keyword Comment Text Response 

air quality is improving. The reason for that rests with technological improvements and good natural gas development practices in the area. 

impacts. If the resimpact to the enviof the Operators, 

38 2 B Emissions, Regional If air quality issues continue to persist, the BLM and 

other federal agencies should be looking hard at the lingering and ongoing air quality issues associated with unfettered railroad diesel emissions and increased tractor trailer traffic on the I-80 corridor. 

The utilization of bthe JIDP modeling for these other infno authority to reg

202