Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-1 

APPENDIX A — BLM STANDARD STIPULATION/ 

MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS 

A.1 WYOMING BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM) 

MITIGATION GUIDELINES FOR SURFACE-DISTURBING AND 

DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITIES 

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. 

There are two ways the mitigation guidelines are used in the resource management plan (RMP) 

and environmental impact statement (EIS) process: (1) as part of the planning criteria in 

developing the RMP alternatives, and (2) in the analytical processes of both developing the 

alternatives and analyzing the impacts of the alternatives. In the first case, an assumption is made 

that any one or more of the mitigations will be appropriately included as conditions of relevant 

actions being proposed or considered in each alternative. In the second case, the mitigations are 

used (1) to develop a baseline for measuring and comparing impacts among the alternatives; (2) 

to identify other actions and alternatives that should be considered, and (3) to help determine 

whether more stringent or less stringent mitigations should be considered. 

The EIS for the RMP does not decide or dictate the exact wording or inclusion of these 

guidelines. Rather, the guidelines are 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 RMP 

decisions. These guidelines will be used in the same manner in analyzing activity plans and other 

site-specific proposals. These guidelines and their wording are matters of policy. As such, 

specific wording is subject to change primarily through administrative review, not through the 

RMP EIS process. Any further changes that may be made in the continuing refinement of these 

guidelines and any development of program-specific standard stipulations will be handled in 

another forum, including appropriate public involvement and input. 

Purpose 

The purposes of the "Wyoming BLM Mitigation Guidelines" are (1) to reserve, for the BLM, the 

right to modify the operations of all surface and other human presence disturbance activities as 

part of the statutory requirements for environmental protection, and (2) to inform a potential 

lessee, permittee, or operator of the requirements that must be met when using BLM-administered 

public lands. These guidelines have been written in a format that will allow for (1) their direct 

use as stipulations, and (2) the addition of specific or specialized mitigation following the 
A-2 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

submission of a detailed plan of development or other project proposal, and an environmental 

analysis. 

Those resource activities or programs currently without a standardized set of permit or operation 

stipulations can use the mitigation guidelines as stipulations or as conditions of approval, or as a 

baseline for developing specific stipulations for a given activity or program. 

Because use of the mitigation guidelines was integrated into the RMP EIS process and will be 

integrated into the site-specific environmental analysis process, the application of stipulations or 

mitigation requirements derived through the guidelines will provide more consistency with 

planning decisions and plan implementation than has occurred in the past. Application of the 

mitigation guidelines to all surface and other human presence disturbance activities concerning 

BLM-administered public lands and resources will provide more uniformity in mitigation than 

has occurred in the past. 

Mitigation Guidelines 

1. Surface Disturbance Mitigation Guideline 

Surface disturbance will be prohibited in any of the following areas or conditions. Exception, 

waiver, or modification of this limitation may be approved in writing, including documented 

supporting analysis, by the Authorized Officer. 

• Slopes in excess of 25 percent. 

• Within important scenic areas (Class I and II Visual Resource Management 

Areas). 

• Within 500 feet of surface water and/or riparian areas. 

• Within either one-quarter mile or the visual horizon (whichever is closer) of 

historic trails. 

• Construction with frozen material or during periods when the soil material is 

saturated or when watershed damage is likely to occur. 

Guidance 

The intent of the SURFACE DISTURBANCE MITIGATION GUIDELINE is to inform 

interested parties (potential lessees, permittees, or operators) that when one or more of the five 

(1a through 1e) conditions exist, surface-disturbing activities will be prohibited unless or until a 

permittee or his designated representative and the surface management agency (SMA) arrive at an 

acceptable plan for mitigation of anticipated impacts. This negotiation will occur prior to 

development. 

Specific criteria (e.g., 500 feet from water) have been established based upon the best information 

available. However, such items as geographical areas and seasons must be delineated at the field 

level. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-3 

Exception, waiver, or modification of requirements developed from this guideline must be based 

upon environmental analysis of proposals (e.g., activity plans, plans of development, plans of 

operation, applications for permit to drill) and, if necessary, must allow for other mitigation to be 

applied on a site-specific basis. 

2. Wildlife Mitigation Guideline 

To protect important big game winter habitat, activities or surface use will not be allowed from 

November 15 to April 30 within certain areas encompassed by the authorization. The same 

criteria apply to defined big game birthing areas from May 1 to June 30. 

• Application of this limitation to operation and maintenance of a developed 

project must be based on environmental analysis of the operational or production 

aspects. 

• Exception, waiver, or modification of this limitation in any year may be approved 

in writing, including documented supporting analysis, by the Authorized Officer. 

To protect important raptor and/or greater sage-grouse and sharp-tailed grouse nesting habitat, 

activities or surface use will not be allowed from February 1 to July 31 within certain areas 

encompassed by the authorization. The same criteria apply to defined raptor and game bird 

winter concentration areas from November 15 to March 14. 

• Application of this limitation to operation and maintenance of a developed 

project must be based on environmental analysis of the operational or production 

aspects. 

• Exception, waiver, or modification of this limitation in any year may be approved 

in writing, including documented supporting analysis, by the Authorized Officer. 

No activities or surface use will be allowed on that portion of the authorization area identified 

within (legal description) for the purpose of protecting (e.g., greater sage-grouse/sharp-tailed 

grouse breeding grounds, and/or other species/activities) habitat. 

• Exception, waiver, or modification of this limitation in any year may be approved 

in writing, including documented supporting analysis, by the Authorized Officer. 

Portions of the authorized use area legally described as (legal description), are known or 

suspected to be essential habitat for (name) which is a threatened or endangered species. Prior to 

conducting any onsite activities, the lessee/permittee will be required to conduct inventories or 

studies in accordance with BLM and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines to verify the 

presence or absence of this species. In the event that (name) occurrence is identified, the 

lessee/permittee will be required to modify operational plans to include the protection 

requirements of this species and its habitat (e.g., seasonal use restrictions, occupancy limitations, 

facility design modifications). 

Guidance 

The WILDLIFE MITIGATION GUIDELINE is intended to provide two basic types of 

protection: seasonal restriction (2a and 2b) and prohibition of activities or surface use (2c). Item 
A-4 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

2d is specific to situations involving threatened or endangered species. Legal descriptions will 

ultimately be required and should be measurable and legally definable. There are no minimum 

subdivision requirements at this time. The area delineated can and should be defined as 

necessary, based upon current biological data, prior to the time of processing an application and 

issuing the use authorization. The legal description must eventually become a part of the 

condition for approval of the permit, plan of development, and/or other use authorization. 

The seasonal restriction section identifies three example groups of species and delineates three 

similar time frame restrictions. The big game species including elk, moose, deer, antelope, and 

bighorn sheep, all require protection of crucial winter range between November 15 and April 30. 

Elk and bighorn sheep also require protection from disturbance from May 1 to June 30, when 

they typically occupy distinct calving and lambing areas. Raptors include eagles, accipiters, 

falcons (peregrine, prairie, and merlin), buteos (ferruginous and Swainson's hawks), osprey, and 

burrowing owls. The raptors and greater sage-grouse and sharp-tailed grouse require nesting 

protection between February 1 and July 31. The same birds often require protection from 

disturbance from November 15 through April 30 while they occupy winter concentration areas. 

Item 2c, the prohibition of activity or surface use, is intended for protection of specific wildlife 

habitat areas or values within the use area that cannot be protected by using seasonal restrictions. 

These areas or values must be factors that limit life-cycle activities (e.g., greater sage-grouse 

strutting grounds, known threatened and endangered species habitat). 

Exception, waiver, or modification of requirements developed from this guideline must be based 

upon environmental analysis of proposals (e.g., activity plans, plans of development, plans of 

operation, applications for permit to drill) and, if necessary, must allow for other mitigation to be 

applied on a site-specific basis. 

3. Cultural Resource Mitigation Guideline 

When a proposed discretionary land use has potential for affecting the characteristics which 

qualify a cultural property for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), 

mitigation will be considered. In accordance with Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act, 

procedures specified in 36 CFR 800 will be used in consultation with the Wyoming State Historic 

Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in arriving at 

determinations regarding the need and type of mitigation to be required. 

Guidance 

The preferred strategy for treating potential adverse effects on cultural properties is "avoidance." 

If avoidance involves project relocation, the new project area may also require cultural resource 

inventory. If avoidance is imprudent or unfeasible, appropriate mitigation may include 

excavation (data recovery), stabilization, monitoring, protection barriers and signs, or other 

physical and administrative measures. 

Reports documenting results of cultural resource inventory, evaluation, and the establishment of 

mitigation alternatives (if necessary) shall be written according to standards contained in BLM 

Manuals, the cultural resource permit stipulations, and in other policy issued by the BLM. These 

reports must provide sufficient information for Section 106 consultation. Reports shall be 

reviewed for adequacy by the appropriate BLM cultural resource specialist. If cultural properties 

on, or eligible for, the National Register are located within these areas of potential impact and 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-5 

cannot be avoided, the Authorized Officer shall begin the Section 106 consultation process in 

accordance with the procedures contained in 36 CFR 800. 

Mitigation measures shall be implemented according to the mitigation plan approved by the BLM 

Authorized Officer. Such plans are usually prepared by the land use applicant according to BLM 

specifications. Mitigation plans will be reviewed as part of Section 106 consultation for National 

Register eligible or listed properties. The extent and nature of recommended mitigation shall be 

commensurate with the significance of the cultural resource involved and the anticipated extent of 

damage. Reasonable costs for mitigation will be borne by the land use applicant. Mitigation 

must be cost effective and realistic. It must consider project requirements and limitations, input 

from concerned parties, and be BLM approved or BLM formulated. 

Mitigation of paleontological and natural history sites will be treated on a case-by-case basis. 

Factors such as site significance, economics, safety, and project urgency must be taken into 

account when making a decision to mitigate. Authority to protect (through mitigation) such 

values is provided for in FLPMA, Section 102(a)(8). When avoidance is not possible, 

appropriate mitigation may include excavation (data recovery), stabilization, monitoring, 

protection barriers and signs, or other physical and administrative protection measures. 

4. Special Resource Mitigation Guideline 

To protect (resource value), activities or surface use will not be allowed (i.e., within a specific 

distance of the resource value or between date to date) in (legal description). 

Application of this limitation to operation and maintenance of a developed project must be based 

on environmental analysis of the operational or production aspects. 

Exception, waiver, or modification of this limitation in any year may be approved in writing, 

including documented supporting analysis, by the Authorized Officer. 

Example Resource Categories (Select or identify category and specific resource value): 

• Recreation areas. 

• Special natural history or paleontological features. 

• Special management areas. 

• Sections of major rivers. 

• Prior existing rights-of-way. 

• Occupied dwellings. 

• Other (specify). 

Guidance 

The SPECIAL RESOURCE MITIGATION GUIDELINE is intended for use only in site-specific 

situations where one of the first three general mitigation guidelines will not adequately address 
A-6 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

the concern. The resource value, location, and specific restrictions must be clearly identified. A 

detailed plan addressing specific mitigation and special restrictions will be required prior to 

disturbance or development and will become a condition for approval of the permit, plan of 

development, or other use authorization. 

Exception, waiver, or modification of requirements developed from this guideline must be based 

upon environmental analysis of proposals (e.g., activity plans, plans of development, plans of 

operation, applications for permit to drill) and, if necessary, must allow for other mitigation to be 

applied on a site-specific basis. 

5. No Surface Occupancy Guideline 

No Surface Occupancy will be allowed on the following described lands (legal description) 

because of (resource value). 

Example Resource Categories (Select or identify category and specific resource value): 

• Recreation Areas (e.g., campgrounds, historic trails, national monuments). 

• Major reservoirs/dams. 

• Special management area (e.g., known threatened or endangered species habitat, 

areas suitable for consideration for wild and scenic rivers designation). 

• Other (specify). 

Guidance 

The NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY (NSO) MITIGATION GUIDELINE is intended for use only 

when other mitigation is determined insufficient to adequately protect the public interest and is 

the only alternative to "no development" or "no leasing." The legal description and resource 

value of concern must be identified and be tied to an NSO land use planning decision. 

Waiver of, or exception(s) to, the NSO requirement will be subject to the same test used to 

initially justify its imposition. If, upon evaluation of a site-specific proposal, it is found that less 

restrictive mitigation would adequately protect the public interest or value of concern, then a 

waiver or exception to the NSO requirement is possible. The record must show that because 

conditions or uses have changed, less restrictive requirements will protect the public interest. An 

environmental analysis must be conducted and documented (e.g., environmental assessment, 

environmental impact statement, etc., as necessary) in order to provide the basis for a waiver or 

exception to an NSO planning decision. Modification of the NSO requirement will pertain only 

to refinement or correction of the location(s) to which it applied. If the waiver, exception, or 

modification is found to be consistent with the intent of the planning decision, it may be granted. 

If found inconsistent with the intent of the planning decision, a plan amendment would be 

required before the waiver, exception, or modification could be granted. 

When considering the "no development" or "no leasing" option, a rigorous test must be met and 

fully documented in the record. This test must be based upon stringent standards described in the 

land use planning document. Since rejection of all development rights is more severe than the 

most restrictive mitigation requirement, the record must show that consideration was given to 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-7 

development subject to reasonable mitigation, including "no surface occupancy." The record 

must also show that other mitigation was determined to be insufficient to adequately protect the 

public interest. A "no development" or "no leasing" decision should not be made solely because 

it appears that conventional methods of development would be unfeasible, especially where an 

NSO restriction may be acceptable to a potential permittee. In such cases, the potential permittee 

should have the opportunity to decide whether or not to go ahead with the proposal (or accept the 

use authorization), recognizing that an NSO restriction is involved. 
A-8 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-9 

A.2 LEASE NOTICE NO. 1 (This notice applies to all parcels) 

Under Regulation 43 CFR 3101.1-2 and terms of the lease (BLM Form 3100-11), the authorized 

officer may require reasonable measures to minimize adverse impacts to other resource values, 

land uses, and users not addressed in lease stipulations at the time operations are proposed. Such 

reasonable measures may include, but are not limited to, modification of siting or design of 

facilities, timing of operations, and specification of interim and final reclamation measures, which 

may require relocating proposed operations up to 200 meters, but not off the leasehold, and 

prohibiting surface disturbance activities for up to 60 days. 

The lands within this lease may include areas not specifically addressed by lease stipulations that 

may contain special values, may be needed for special purposes, or may require special attention 

to prevent damage to surface and/or other resources. Possible special areas are identified below. 

Any surface use or occupancy within such special areas will be strictly controlled or, if absolutely 

necessary, prohibited. Appropriate modifications to imposed restrictions will be made for the 

maintenance and operation of producing wells. 

1. Slopes in excess of 25 percent 

2. Within 500 feet of surface water and/or riparian areas. 

3. Construction with frozen material or during periods when the soil material is 

saturated or when watershed damage is likely to occur. 

4. Within 500 feet of Interstate highways and 200 feet of other existing rights-orway (i.e., U.S. and State highways, roads, railroads, pipelines, powerlines). 

5. Within 1⁄4 mile of occupied dwellings. 

6. Material sites. 

Guidance 

The intent of this notice is to inform interested parties (potential lessees, permittees, operators) 

that when one or more of the above conditions exist, surface disturbing activities will be 

prohibited unless or until the permittee or the designated representative and the surface 

management agency (SMA) arrive at an acceptable plan for mitigation of anticipated impacts. 

This negotiation will occur prior to development and become a condition for approval when 

authorizing the action. 

Specific threshold criteria (e.g., 500 feet from water) have been established based upon the best 

information available. However, geographical areas and time periods of concern must be 

delineated at the field level (i.e., “surface water and/or riparian areas” may include both 

intermittent and ephemeral water sources or may be limited to perennial surface water). 

The referenced oil and gas leases on these lands are hereby made subject to the stipulation that 

the exploration or drilling activities will not interfere materially with the use of the area as a 

materials site/free use permit. At the time operations on the above lands are commenced, 

notification will be made to the appropriate agency. The name of the appropriate agency may be 

obtained from the proper BLM Field Office. 
A-10 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-11 

A.3 SUMMARY TABLE BY SPECIES OF STANDARD STIPULATIONS 

FOR ALL SURFACE-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES THAT APPLY 

IN THE JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT AREA 

Affected Areas/Species Restriction Restricted Dates Restricted Area 

Greater Sage-grouse No surface occupancy Year-round Within 1⁄4 mile of occupied 

Leks lek boundary 

Greater Sage-grouse No surface-disturbing activity March 1-May 15 Within 1⁄4 mile of occupied 

Leks lek boundary 

Greater Sage-grouse No surface-disturbing activity March 15-July 15 Up to 2-mile radius of 

Nesting Habitat active lek OR within 

suitable nesting habitat 

Winter Greater Sage- No surface-disturbing activity Nov. 15-March 14 Within identified winter 

grouse Habitat habitat 

Greater Sage-grouse Surface occupancy or use March 1-May 15 Within 0.25 mile of 

Leks/Strutting Grounds restricted or prohibited between 8pm and lek/strutting ground 

8am boundary 

Mountain Plover No surface-disturbing activity April 10-July 10 Within potential mountain 

(including reclamation plover habitat 

activities) until 2 surveys (done 

no earlier than 4/20 and 5/4) 

show no nesting activity; 

activity must begin within 72 

hours after surveys completed 

Bald Eagle Nest No surface occupancy Year-round Within 0.5 mile of active 

nest 

Bald Eagle Nest No surface-disturbing activity February 1-August Within 1-mile radius 

15 

Bald Eagle Winter Use No surface disturbing activity; November 15-April Within 1-mile radius 

Areas disruptive activities restricted 30 

Ferruginous Hawk Nest No surface occupancy Year-round Within 1000 feet of active 

nest 

Ferruginous Hawk Nest No surface-disturbing activity February 1-July 31 Within 1.0-mile radius 

Other Raptors No surface occupancy Year-round Within 825 feet of active 

nest 

Other Raptors No surface-disturbing activity February 1-July 31 Within 0.5-mile radius 

National Register of No surface occupancy Year-round Within site boundaries 

Historic Places Cultural 

Resource Sites 

Riparian Areas No surface occupancy Year-round Within 500 feet 

HUD-designated Zone Surface occupancy or use Year-round Within Zone A boundaries 

A (100-yr flood hazard restricted or prohibited 

area) on intermittent 

watercourses 
A-12 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-13 

A.4 INSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM NO. WY-2004-057, STATEMENT 

OF POLICY REGARDING SAGE-GROUSE DEFINITIONS AND 

USE OF PROTECTIVE STIPULATIONS AND CONDITIONS OF 

APPROVAL 
A-14 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-15 
A-16 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-17 
A-18 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-19 
A-20 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project B-1 

APPENDIX B — OPERATOR-COMMITTED PRACTICES 

Existing Jonah project National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) documents (Bureau of 

Land Management [BLM] 1998b, 2000b) provide various programs and policies that would be 

implemented to protect the environment during the development and operation of the proposed 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project (the Project), and Operators have committed to the implementation of 

these programs and policies under the Proposed Action and various alternatives (see 

environmental impact statement [EIS] Section 2.15). Additionally, Operators would implement 

the environmental protection measures identified in the Wyoming BLM Standard Mitigation 

Guidelines for Surface-Disturbing Activities (BLM 1988b; [EIS Appendix A-1]), Lease Notice 

No. 1 (EIS Appendix A-2), and Standard Practices Applied to Surface-Disturbing Activities 

(BLM 1988b; [EIS Appendix A-3]), as applicable. Some, of the practices identified below are 

repeated or summarized from these documents with appropriate modifications for this Project, 

and additional measures have been included. 

Many of these environmental protection measures would be included as Conditions of Approval 

(COAs) in the Record of Decision (ROD) for this project. However, by additionally including 

them as Operator-committed practices, the Operators have made a commitment to implement 

them throughout the life-of-project (LOP), and the impact analyses provided in the EIS take into 

consideration after the implementation of these measures based on this commitment. 

Additionally, Operators have committed to implementing various practices across all the 

alternatives analyzed in the EIS as shown in Exhibit B-1. 

Where Operator-committed practices differ from and are less rigorous than those provided in 

previous NEPA documents, the reason for the change is identified. 

Some of the Operator-committed practices are outside the jurisdiction of BLM. These practices 

are identified as italicized text. 

In addition to Operator-committed environmental protection practices, the various Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project Area (JIDPA) leases often contain one or more stipulations that obligate the 

leaseholder. These lease stipulations are mandatory and address a number of issues, including but 

not limited to seasonal and area restrictions for raptor nests, greater sage-grouse leks and nesting 

habitat, unstable soils, steep slopes, and controlled surface occupancy (see EIS Appendix A). 

These lease-specific stipulations may be duplicated by the more general measures listed below. 

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). Further site-specific mitigation measures may be 

identified during Application for Permit to Drill (APD) and right-of-way (ROW) application 

review processes. 

To assure compliance with the Operator-committed practices stipulated in this EIS, the project 

ROD, and in site-specific APDs and ROWs, each Operator would provide qualified individuals to 
B-2 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

oversee construction and drilling operations and to consult with the BLM on a case-by-case basis, 

as necessary, during field development. 

All of the proposed Operator-committed practices identified in this section would be implemented 

on all federal lands and minerals within the JIDPA. Development activities on all lands would be 

conducted in accordance with all appropriate federal, state, and county laws, rules, and 

regulations. 

PRECONSTRUCTION PLANNING AND DESIGN MEASURES 

1. Operators would implement the environmental protection measures identified in 

the Wyoming BLM Standard Mitigation Guidelines for Surface-Disturbing 

Activities (BLM 1988b, [Appendix A-1]), Lease Notice No. 1 (Appendix A-2), 

and Standard Practices Applied to Surface-Disturbing Activities (BLM 1988b 

[Appendix A-3]), as applicable. 

2. Implementation of site-specific projects would be contingent on BLM receiving, 

for approval/acceptance, the following plans: APD and ROW Surface Use Plans, 

Plans of Development, and other site-specific plans/reports (e.g., road and well 

pad design plans, cultural clearances, special status species clearances, etc.); 

Transportation Plan, Reclamation Plan, and Hazardous Material Summary (BLM 

2004a), Wildlife Monitoring/Protection Plan (see BLM 1998b: Appendix D); 

annual wildlife reports (TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 2004). The above plans 

may be prepared by Operators for the JIDPA or may be submitted incrementally 

with each APD, ROW application, or Sundry Notice. 

3. Approval of individual project components (i.e., wells, roads, pipelines, and 

ancillary facilities) would be contingent on completion and acceptance of a 

site-specific cultural resource literature search, Class III inventory report, and, as 

necessary, paleontological inventory; threatened, endangered, proposed, and 

candidate (TEP&C) and BLM Wyoming sensitive (BWS) species surveys; 

greater sage-grouse lek and nesting clearance; raptor nest clearance; and any 

other clearance specified by BLM. 

4. Operators would include in APD, ROW, or other appropriate permit applications 

a discussion of site-specific mitigation and environmental protection measures 

and a map showing specific locations where these measures would be 

implemented. Final locations for these measures would be confirmed by BLM 

and the Operators following on-site inspections of project locations. 

5. Operators would obtain all necessary federal, state, and county permits, including 

necessary Spill Prevention and Control Countermeasure Plans (SPCCPs) 

(EnCana 2002b) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) 

(McMurry Oil Company 2003), to ensure that project development occurs in an 

environmentally responsible manner. 

6. EnCana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc., BP America Production Company, and 

potentially other Operators would voluntarily implement an off-site mitigation 

program in part to offset potential impacts resulting from the project. The offsite mitigation program would involve the funding of projects by an advisory 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project B-3 

board made up of environmental scientists from state agencies (e.g., Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department (WGFD), local community groups, and members of 

the environmental and agricultural communities. As currently identified, these 

projects may entail pronghorn migration corridor protection; greater sagegrouse habitat preservation, protection, and enhancement projects; raptor 

protection; recreational resource augmentation; conservation easement 

development; air quality improvement and Air Quality Related Valves (AQRV) 

projects; on-the-ground reclamation research with an emphasis on sagebrush; 

and cultural resource projects. The mitigation fund would be established as a 

trust or similar instrument administered by a non-profit organization to ensure 

monies are committed to appropriate advisory board-identified on-the-ground 

mitigation actions. Potential program projects may be proposed by the public, 

BLM, state agencies, grazing permittees, or other entities. Final approval for 

projects on BLM-administered lands would rest solely with the BLM. 

AIR QUALITY 

7. Regular equipment maintenance, including emissions checks, and regular 

maintenance of roads would be conducted as necessary throughout the LOF. 

8. Operators would treat primary access roads (e.g., Luman Road) with dust 

suppressants (e.g., magnesium chloride) and would water construction sites and 

well pad access roads as necessary to control fugitive dust during the summer. 

9. No open burning of garbage or refuse would be allowed at the well sites or other 

facilities. Any open burning would be conducted under the permitting provisions 

of Chapter 10, Section 2 of the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations. 

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. 

11. Operators would comply with all applicable local, state, tribal, and federal air 

quality laws, statutes, regulations, standards, and implementation plans, 

including Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards (WAAQS) and National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 

12. Operators would cooperate with BLM and WDEQ in determining regional oxides 

of nitrogen (NOx) emission levels. Adherence to the levels of NOx emissions 

analyzed in past NEPA documents is no longer applicable since new emission 

level estimates are provided for this Project. 

13. Roads, well pads, and other disturbed areas susceptible to wind erosion would be 

appropriately surfaced or have dust inhibitors (e.g., magnesium chloride, water) 

applied to reduce fugitive dust. 

14. Operators would continue to enforce speed limits (i.e., 35 miles per hour [mph]) 

to reduce fugitive dust concerns, as well as for human health and safety reasons. 
B-4 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

15. Operators would cooperate with the implementation of any WDEQ-mandated air 

quality monitoring program or emissions control program. 

TOPOGRAPHY 

16. Operators would incorporate in their Surface Use Plans and Plans of 

Development the procedures contained in Standard Practices, Best Management 

Practices, and Guidelines for Surface Disturbing Activities (BLM 1992a: 

Appendix 5-1), guidelines for road construction contained in BLM Manual, 

Section 9113 (BLM 1985, 1991a) and project-specific requirements in the 

Transportation and Reclamation Plans for this project (BLM 2004a). 

17. Unnecessary topographic alterations would be mitigated by avoiding, where 

practical, steep slopes, rugged topography, and ephemeral/intermittent drainages 

and by minimizing the size of disturbed areas. 

18. Upon completion of construction and/or production activities, Operators would 

restore the topography to near pre-existing contours at well pads, roads, 

pipelines, and other facility sites. Water retention structures and other erosion 

control facilities may be retained if it is determined they are required for 

maintaining soil stability. 

19. No well pads, roads, pipelines, or other facilities would be built within 300 ft of 

the edge of Sand Draw or within the tall sagebrush areas associated with this 

drainage, except for crossings that would be done at right angles to the channel, 

where practical. The number of crossings would also be minimized. The 300-ft 

buffer is no longer applied to Granite Wash since the resources this measure is 

designed to protect (i.e., basin big sagebrush habitat, soils with a high potential to 

contain buried cultural deposits) are not present along the wash in the JIDPA. 

Alkali Draw is no longer included because it does not occur in the JIDPA. 

GEOLOGICAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

20. Wells, pipelines, and ancillary facilities would be designed and constructed such 

that they would not be damaged by moderate earthquakes. Any facilities defined 

as critical, according to the Uniform Building Code, would be constructed in 

accordance with applicable Uniform Building Code Standards for Seismic Risk 

Zone 2B. 

21. 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. In some cases, construction monitoring, project relocation, data 

recovery, or other mitigation may be required to ensure that significant 

paleontological resources are avoided or recovered during construction. 

22. If paleontological resources are uncovered during surface-disturbing activities, 

Operators would suspend all operations that would further disturb such materials 

and would immediately contact the BLM, who would arrange for a determination 

of significance and, if necessary, recommend a recovery or avoidance plan. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project B-5 

Mitigation of impacts to paleontological resources would be on a case-by-case 

basis, and Operators would either avoid or protect paleontological resources. 

23. Contractors and their workers would be instructed about the potential of 

encountering fossils and the steps to take if fossils are discovered during 

project-related activities. The illegality of removing vertebrate fossil materials 

from federal lands without an appropriate permit would be explained. 

SOILS 

24. Operators would adhere to the reclamation guidelines presented in (BLM 2004a). 

Adverse impacts to soils would be mitigated by minimizing disturbance; 

avoiding construction with frozen soil materials; avoiding areas with high erosion 

potential (e.g., unstable soils, dunal areas, slopes greater than 25%, floodplains), 

where practical; salvaging and selectively handling topsoil from disturbed areas; 

adequately protecting stockpiled topsoil and replacing it on the surface during 

reclamation; leaving the soil intact (scalping only) during pipeline construction, 

where practical; using appropriate erosion and sedimentation control techniques 

including, but not limited to, diversion terraces, riprap, and matting; and 

promptly revegetating disturbed areas using native species. Temporary erosion 

control measures such as temporary vegetation cover; application of mulch, 

netting, or soil stabilizers; and/or construction of barriers may be used in some 

areas to minimize wind and water erosion and sedimentation prior to vegetation 

establishment. Specific measures and locations would be identified in Surface 

Use Plans, Plans of Development, or Erosion Prevention Plans prepared during 

APD and/or ROW application processes, and if these plans identify the need for 

further field investigations, Operators would work with the BLM on the 

implementation of these studies. 

25. Pipeline ROWs would be located to minimize soil disturbance. Where practical, 

mitigation would include locating ROWs adjacent to access roads to minimize 

ROW disturbance widths or routing pipeline ROWs directly to minimize 

disturbance lengths; direct-line routes may be preferable in areas with high 

wellpad densities. 

26. Appropriate erosion control and revegetation measures would be employed 

(BLM 2004a). Grading and landscaping would be used to minimize slopes, and 

water bars would be installed on disturbed slopes in areas with unstable soils 

where seeding alone may not adequately control erosion. Erosion control and 

revegetation efforts would be monitored by the BLM and Operators and 

augmented, as necessary, to control erosion and ensure successful establishment 

of native vegetation. 

27. Sufficient topsoil or other suitable material to facilitate revegetation would be 

segregated from subsoils during all construction operations requiring excavation 

and would be returned to the surface upon completion of operations. Soils 

compacted during construction would be ripped and tilled as necessary prior to 

reseeding. Cut-and-fill sections on all roads and along pipelines would be 

revegetated with native species. 
B-6 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

28. Operators would plan new ground-disturbing activities for periods when soils are 

not frozen and would work with the BLM on appropriate construction actions in 

the event that they are proposed for periods when soil frost depths exceed 6.0 

inches. 

29. Operators would revegetate all disturbed sites as soon as practical following 

disturbance (BLM 2004a). 

30. Operators would restrict off-highway vehicle (OHV) activity by employees and 

contract workers. 

31. Project-related travel would be limited to only that necessary for efficient project 

operation during periods when soils are saturated and excessive rutting could 

occur. 

32. To prevent reactivation of stabilized dunes, these areas would be avoided where 

practical, and areas necessarily disturbed would be seeded in the first appropriate 

season after disturbance. If deemed appropriate by the BLM, disturbed areas 

would be mulched or otherwise protected to prevent wind erosion and to 

facilitate plant establishment. Avoidance of development on specific JIDPA soil 

types is no longer practical due to the anticipated level of development 

throughout the JIDPA. 

33. Reviews of erosion control structures, culverts, reclamation, etc., would be made 

by Operator personnel and BLM to assure compliance with requirements and 

goals. 

WATER RESOURCES 

34. Operators would avoid disturbance within 500 ft of wetlands or riparian areas 

and open water areas and within 100 ft of ephemeral or intermittent drainages, 

where practical (exceptions would require BLM approval). Where ephemeral or 

intermittent channels would be crossed by roads, culverts or low-water crossings 

would be installed at all appropriate locations as specified in the BLM Manual 

9112-Bridges and Major Culverts (BLM 1990a) and Manual 9113-Roads (BLM 

1985). Channels would be crossed perpendicular (at right angles) to flow, where 

practical, and all stream crossing structures would be designed to carry the 25­

year discharge event or other capacities as directed by BLM. 

35. All non-recycled water used in association with this project would be obtained 

from Wyoming State Engineer’s Office-(WSEO) approved ground water wells, 

and Project-water use would no result in any reduction to surface water flows. 

36. Operators would adhere to guidelines specified in SPCCPs (EnCana 2002b). 

Any spill or accidental discharge of hazardous material would be remediated. An 

orientation would be conducted by Operators to ensure that project personnel are 

aware of the potential impacts that can result from accidental spills and that they 

know the appropriate recourse if a spill occurs. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project B-7 

37. Erosion-prone areas (e.g., drainages) or high-salinity areas would be avoided 

where practical, and necessary construction in these areas would be done in the 

late summer, fall, and winter (prior to soil freezing) to avoid runoff periods. 

Proper containment of oil and produced water in tanks, drilling and fracturing 

fluids in tanks or reserve pits, and the location of staging areas for equipment 

storage away from drainages would prevent potential contaminants from entering 

surface waters. 

38. Prudent use of erosion control measures, including diversion terraces, riprap, 

matting, temporary sediment traps, and water bars, would be employed as 

necessary. Interceptor dikes would be used to control surface runoff generated at 

well pads. Erosion control and construction methods would be described in APD 

and ROW plans. If necessary to reduce suspended sediment loads and to remove 

potential contaminants, Operators would treat diverted water in detention ponds 

prior to release to meet applicable state or federal standards. 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. 

39. Operators would construct reserve pits with 2 ft of freeboard in cut areas or in 

compacted and stabilized fill. The subsoil material at proposed pit locations 

would be inspected to assess soil stability and permeability and whether 

reinforcement and/or lining are required. Prior to installation of reserve pit liners 

and/or fluids, reserve pits would be inspected by BLM personnel. Unlined 

earthen reserve pits would be used only after BLM evaluation of the pit location 

for distance to surface waters, depth to useable ground water, soil type and 

permeability, and containment fluid content indicate no potential adverse effects 

to water resources. 

40. If reserve pit leakage is detected, operations at the site would be curtailed until 

the leakage is corrected. 

41. All wells would be cased and cemented to protect subsurface mineral and 

freshwater zones. Unproductive wells and wells that have completed their 

intended purpose would be properly abandoned and plugged using procedures 

identified by the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC) 

and the BLM. 

42. Channel crossings by pipelines would be constructed so that the pipe is buried at 

least 4 ft below the channel bottom. 

43. Channel crossings by roads and pipelines would be constructed perpendicular to 

flow. 

44. Disturbed channel beds would be reshaped to their approximate original 

configuration. 
B-8 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

45. Disposal of all water (hydrostatic test water, stormwater, produced water) would 

be done in conformance with WDEQ/Water Quality Division (WQD) (1993), 

BLM Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 7, and WOGCC rules and regulations. 

46. Operators would prepare SWPPPs for all disturbances greater than 5 acres in 

size as required by WDEQ National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit requirements (EnCana 2003). 

47. Operators would implement SPCCPs if liquid petroleum products or other 

hazardous materials are stored on-site in sufficient quantities, in accordance 

with 40 C.F.R. 112 (EnCana 2002b). 

48. Any disturbances to wetlands and/or waters of the U.S. would be coordinated 

with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and Section 404 permits would be 

secured as necessary prior to disturbance. 

49. To mitigate potential impacts caused by flooding during the LOF, construction in 

flood-prone areas would be limited to late summer, fall, or winter when 

conditions are generally dry and flows are low or nonexistent. Additional 

mitigation to lessen any impacts from flooding or high flows during and after 

construction would include the avoidance of areas with high erosion potential 

(i.e., steep slopes, floodplains, unstable soils); reestablishment of existing 

contours where practical; avoidance of areas within 500 ft of wetland edges, 

riparian areas, and open water, where practical; avoidance of areas within 100 ft 

of ephemeral drainages, where practical; and implementation of appropriate 

erosion and sediment control and revegetation procedures. 

50. Increased sedimentation impacts to surface waters would be avoided or 

minimized through construction and erosion control practices approved with each 

authorization and through the prompt reclamation of disturbances. 

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. 

NOISE 

52. Noise mitigation would be applied at specific well pads, as determined necessary 

on a case-by-case basis by the BLM. 

53. All engines and compressor exhaust stacks would be muffled and maintained 

according to manufacturers' specifications. Specific requirements for compressor 

housing and exhaust stack silencers are no longer identified as 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project B-9 

Operator-committed; these requirements, if deemed necessary, would be 

identified in compressor station-specific permit documents. 

54. Construction, drilling, completion, testing, and production facility installation 

activities would be seasonally restricted proximal to active raptor nests during the 

nesting period and in greater sage-grouse breeding and nesting areas. 

55. Road use and travel pattern specifications would be designed, in part, to keep 

traffic to a minimum and to reduce noise impacts as identified in the 

Transportation Plan (BLM 2004a). 

VEGETATION 

56. As required by BLM, Operators would conduct site-specific surveys for TEP&C 

and BWS plant species (e.g., Ute ladies'-tresses, Cedar Rim thistle) prior to any 

surface disturbance in areas determined by the BLM to contain potential habitat 

for such species (BLM Directive U.S. Department of Interior [USDI] BLM 

6840). TEP&C and BWS species and their habitat would be avoided, where 

practical. Surveyors would be subject to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) and/or BLM survey policy requirements. Data from these surveys 

would be provided to the BLM, and if any TEP&C or BWS plant species or their 

habitats are found, USFWS and/or BLM recommendations for avoidance or 

mitigation would be implemented (BWS species) and/or BLM and USFWS 

would be consulted to determine appropriate avoidance and/or protection 

measures (TEP&C species). 

57. Herbicide applications would be kept at least 500 ft from known BWS plant 

species populations or other distance deemed safe by the BLM. 

58. Removal and disturbance of vegetation would be kept to a minimum through 

construction site management (e.g., using previously disturbed areas and existing 

easements, limiting equipment/materials storage yard and staging area sizes, 

etc.). Well pads and associated roads and pipelines would be located to avoid or 

minimize impacts in areas of high value (e.g., TEP&C or BWS species habitats, 

wetland/riparian areas). 

59. Proper erosion and sediment control structures and techniques would be 

incorporated by Operators into the design of well pads, roads, pipelines, and 

other facilities. Revegetation using a BLM-approved, locally adapted seed 

mixture containing native grasses, forbs, and shrubs would begin in the first 

appropriate season following disturbance. Vegetation removed would be 

replaced with plants of similar forage value and growth form using the following 

procedures: 

• fall reseeding (September 15 to freeze-up), where feasible; 

• spring reseeding (post-thaw and prior to May 15) if fall seeding is not 

feasible; 

• deep ripping of compacted soils prior to reseeding; 
B-10 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

• surface pitting/roughening prior to reseeding; 

• utilization of native cool-season grasses, forbs, and shrubs in the seed 

mix; 

• interseeding of shrubs into an established stand of grasses and forbs at 

least 1 year after seeding the grasses and forbs; 

• appropriate, approved weed control techniques; 

• broadcast or drill seeding, depending on site conditions; and 

• fencing of certain sensitive reclamation sites (e.g., riparian areas, steep 

slopes, and areas within 0.5 mi of livestock watering facilities) as 

determined necessary through monitoring. 

60. Operators would implement the resource, mitigation, and monitoring measures 

found in the Transportation and Reclamation Plans (BLM 2004a). 

61. Recontouring and seedbed preparation would occur immediately prior to 

reseeding on the unused portion of well pads and road ROWs and entire pipeline 

ROWs outside of road ROWs. In the event of uneconomic wells, Operators 

would initiate reclamation of the entire well pad, access road, and adjacent 

disturbed habitat as soon as practical. Reclamation would be monitored by the 

Operators and the BLM, as specified in the Reclamation Plan (BLM 2004a), to 

determine and ensure successful and timely establishment of vegetation. 

62. Traffic would be confined to the running surface of roads and well pads as 

approved in APDs and ROWs. Operators have and will continue to cooperate 

with the BLM to identify and prohibit use of two-tracks where ROWs have not 

been obtained. 

63. Operators would monitor noxious weed and invasive non-native species 

occurrence on the JIDPA and implement a noxious weed/non-native species 

control program in cooperation with the BLM and Sublette County to ensure 

noxious weed and non-native species invasion does not become a problem. 

Weed-free certification by county extension agents would be required for grain 

or straw used for mulching revegetated areas. Gravel and other surfacing 

materials used for the project would be free of noxious weeds. 

64. Operators would evaluate all project facility sites for occurrence of waters of the 

U.S., special aquatic sites, and wetlands, per COE requirements. All project 

activities would be located outside of these areas, where practical. 

65. Where wetlands, riparian areas, and ephemeral or intermittent stream channels 

must be disturbed, COE Section 404 permits would be obtained as necessary, and 

the following measures would be employed. 

• Wetland areas would be crossed during dry conditions (i.e., late summer, 

fall, or dry winters); winter construction activities would occur only 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project B-11 

when topsoil can be segregated and stockpiled separately from the 

subsoil. 

• Channels would be crossed perpendicular to flow. 

• Channels, wetlands, and riparian areas disturbed during project 

construction would be restored to as near pre-project conditions as 

practical, and if impermeable soils contributed to wetland formation, 

soils would be compacted to reestablish impermeability. 

• Wetland topsoil would be selectively handled. 

• Areas would be recontoured and BLM-approved species would be used 

for reclamation. 

• Reclamation activities would begin on disturbed wetland areas 

immediately after completion of project activities. 

WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

The following practices would be applied for general wildlife protection. 

66. Well pads, access roads, pipelines, and ancillary facilities would be located and 

designed to minimize disturbances to areas of high wildlife habitat value, 

including wetlands and riparian areas. 

67. Areas with high erosion potential and/or rugged topography (i.e., steep slopes, 

dunes, floodplains, unstable soils) would be avoided, where practical. 

68. Removal or disturbance of vegetation would be minimized through construction 

site management (e.g., by utilizing previously disturbed areas, and existing 

ROWs where practical, designating limited equipment/materials storage yards 

and staging areas, vegetation scalping), and Operators would adhere to all 

reclamation guidelines presented in the Reclamation Plan (BLM 2004a). 

69. Operators, in consultation with representatives from BLM, WGFD, USFWS, and 

other interested groups such as area livestock operators, would adhere to the 

Wildlife Monitoring/Protection Plan for this project (BLM 1998b: Appendix D) 

as annually updated (TRC Mariah 2004a). The plan would be incorporated into 

the Operator field operations manual or handbook, a copy of which would be 

kept on-site in the JIDPA. 

70. To minimize wildlife mortality due to vehicle collisions, Operators would 

continue to advise project personnel regarding appropriate speed limits (i.e., 

35 mph) in the JIDPA, and roads would be reclaimed as soon as possible after 

they are no longer required. Some existing roads in the area may be closed and 

reclaimed by Operators as authorized by BLM. Potential increases in poaching 

would be minimized through employee and contractor education regarding 

wildlife laws. If violations are discovered, the offending employee or contractor 
B-12 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

would be disciplined and may be dismissed by Operators and/or prosecuted by 

WGFD. 

71. Reserve, workover, and evaporation pits and other areas potentially hazardous to 

wildlife would be adequately protected (e.g., netted, fenced) as directed by BLM 

to prevent access by migratory birds and other wildlife. 

72. Firearms and dogs would not be allowed on-site during working hours. 

Operators would enforce existing drug, alcohol, and firearms policies (EnCana 

2002a; Amoco Production Company 1993, 1995). 

73. To protect plant populations and wildlife habitat, project-related travel would be 

restricted to established project roads; no off-road/ROW travel would be allowed, 

except in emergencies. 

74. Wildlife-proof fencing would be utilized on reclaimed areas if it is determined 

that wildlife species and/or livestock are impeding successful vegetation 

establishment. 

75. ROW fencing associated with this project would be kept to a minimum, and 

fences, where necessary, would meet BLM and WGFD specifications for 

facilitating wildlife movement. 

76. Potential impacts to fisheries and wetland or riparian areas would be minimized 

by using proper erosion control techniques (e.g., water bars, jute netting, rip-rap, 

mulch). Construction within 500 ft of open water, 300 ft of Sand Draw, and 

100 ft of other intermittent or ephemeral channels would be avoided, where 

practical. Channel crossings for roads and pipelines would be constructed during 

periods of low or no flow (i.e., late summer or fall). All necessary crossings 

would be constructed perpendicular to flow. No surface water or shallow ground 

water in connection with surface water would be utilized for the project. 

77. As required by BLM, Operators would conduct specific surveys for TEP&C and 

BWS animal species prior to surface disturbance in areas determined by the BLM 

to contain potential habitat for such species (BLM Directive USDI-BLM 6840). 

TEP&C and BWS species and their habitat would be avoided, where practical. 

Surveyors would be subject to USFWS and/or BLM survey policy requirements. 

Data from these surveys would be provided to the BLM, and if any TEP&C or 

BWS animal species or their habitats are found, USFWS and/or BLM 

recommendation for avoidance or mitigation would be implemented (BWS 

species) and/or BLM and USFWS would be consulted to determine appropriate 

avoidance and/or protection measures (TEP&C species). 

78. Operators would implement policies designed to control poaching and littering 

and would notify all employees (contract and company) that conviction of a 

major game violation could result in disciplinary action. Contractors would be 

informed that any intentional poaching or littering within the JIDPA may result 

in dismissal. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project B-13 

79. Operators would adhere to all survey, mitigation, and monitoring requirements 

identified in the Biological Assessment (BA) for this Project. 

The following practices would be applied for raptors. 

80. Operator consultation and coordination with BLM, USFWS, and WGFD would 

be conducted for all mitigation activities related to raptor, TEP&C, and BWS 

species (and their habitats), and all permits required for relocation, removal, 

and/or establishment of raptor nests would be obtained. 

81. Well pads, pipelines, and associated roads would be selected and designed to 

avoid disturbance to known raptor nest sites. 

82. Raptor nest surveys would be conducted within a 1.0-mile radius of proposed 

surface use or activity areas if such activities are proposed to be conducted 

between February 1 and July 31. 

83. All surface-disturbing activity (e.g., road, pipeline, well pad construction, 

drilling, completion, workover operations) would be seasonally restricted from 

February 1 through July 31 within a 0.5-mile radius of all active raptor nests, 

except ferruginous hawk nests, for which the seasonal buffer would be 1.0 mile. 

(An active raptor nest is defined as a nest that has been occupied within the past 3 

years.) The seasonal buffer distance and applicable exclusion dates may vary, 

depending on such factors as the activity status of the nest, species involved, prey 

availability, natural topographic barriers, line-of-site distance(s), and other 

conflicting issues such as cultural values, steep slopes, etc. Routine maintenance 

or emergency health and safety activities would be allowed on existing well pads. 

84. Well pads, roads, ancillary facilities, and other surface structures requiring 

repeated human presence would not be constructed within 825 ft of active raptor 

nests (2,000 ft for bald eagles) where practical. Facility construction in these 

areas would require specific approval from the BLM. 

85. Operators would notify BLM before implementing refracturing, workovers, 

and/or other routine well site operations requiring more than one day of work 

during the period of February 1 to July 31 to allow BLM the opportunity to 

monitor potential impacts from these activities on nesting raptors. 

86. Additional mitigation measures for nesting raptors would be designed on a sitespecific basis, as necessary, in consultation with the BLM, USFWS, and WGFD. 

Operators would notify the BLM immediately if raptors are found nesting on 

project facilities and would assist the BLM as necessary to erect artificial nesting 

structures. 

The following practices would be applied for mountain plover. 

87. As directed by BLM and during the period of May 1 through June 15, mountain 

plover surveys would be conducted by an Operator-financed, BLM-approved 

biologist in accordance with USFWS guidelines (USFWS 2002) on occupied 

mountain plover habitat (i.e., areas where plover have been previously recorded) 
B-14 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

within the JIDPA and a 0.5-mile buffer and on any potential mountain plover 

habitat. Currently, one area of occupied plover habitat is known within the 

JIDPA and a 0.5-mile buffer. Survey procedures would be as follows: 

• surveys would be conducted during early courtship and territory 

establishment; 

• surveys would be conducted from sunrise to 10:00 a.m. and/or from 

5:30 p.m. to sunset; 

• surveys would be conducted from four-wheel-drive vehicles or, where 

access is a problem and/or no visual observations are made from 

vehicles, All terrain vehicles (ATVs) would be used; 

• surveyors would remain in or close to vehicles when scanning with 

binoculars; 

• sites would be surveyed three times during the survey window (May 1­

June 15), with each survey separated by at least 14 days; 

• surveys would not be conducted in inclement weather (e.g., poor 

visibility); 

• surveys would focus on locating displaying or calling males; 

• global positioning system (GPS) locations of nests (post-nesting) and 

individuals, if present, would be obtained; and 

• all data collected during surveys, including location, surveyor, weather 

conditions, habitat characteristics, and results, would be recorded on 

mountain plover survey forms. 

88. If breeding birds are observed within 0.25 mile of proposed surface disturbance, 

additional surveys would be implemented immediately prior to construction to 

search for active nest sites. If an active nest is located, a 0.25-mile buffer zone 

would be established around the nest to prevent direct and indirect nest 

disturbance and planned activities would be delayed 37 days, or 1 week 

post-hatching (USFWS 2002). If a brood of flightless chicks is observed, 

activities would be delayed at least 7 days. In areas where no plover are 

observed, surface-disturbing activities would occur post-survey completion and 

as near to completion of surveys as possible. Specific avoidance of mountain 

plover concentration areas and USFWS conferencing regarding development in 

these areas is no longer identified since the bird is no longer proposed for listing 

under the Endangered Species Act and nest avoidance procedures remain in 

place. Mountain plover surveys would not be conducted for construction 

activities planned for the period of July 11 through April 9. 

89. Where access roads and/or well locations have been constructed prior to the 

mountain plover nesting season (April 10-July 10) and development activities 

have not been initiated prior to April 10, a BLM-approved biologist would 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project B-15 

conduct a site investigation of the disturbed area prior to proposed activities to 

determine whether mountain plover are present. If plover are nesting in the area, 

Operators would delay development activities until nesting is complete. 

90. The nest success and productivity of all mountain plover nests found within the 

JIDPA would be monitored and reported to the BLM and USFWS Wyoming 

Field Office annually. Survey results would be compared with annual 

development plans to determine if any proposed surface-disturbing activities 

would affect occupied mountain plover nesting habitat. Where feasible, 

development plans would be modified to avoid nesting habitat (e.g., through road 

re-alignment). 

91. If removal of mountain plover nesting habitat is unavoidable, loss would be 

minimized by creation of additional nesting habitat; many of the existing and 

proposed pipeline reclamation areas on the JIDPA likely provide suitable plover 

breeding habitat. If nesting habitat is disturbed, the area would be reclaimed to 

approximate original conditions (topography, vegetation, hydrology, etc.) after 

completion of activities, such that disturbed potential mountain plover breeding 

habitat is reclaimed to conditions suitable for mountain plover breeding. 

Operators would minimize road construction and maintenance activities (i.e., 

grading) in suitable plover habitat from April 10 to July 10. 

The following practices would be applied for black-footed ferret. 

92. Updates to white-tailed prairie dog town maps within the JIDPA and a 0.5-mile 

buffer would continue to be annually provided to BLM as identified in annual 

wildlife study reports (TRC Mariah 2004a). 

93. Where practical, surface disturbance in all prairie dog towns would be avoided. 

94. Specific requirements for black-footed ferret surveys are no longer specified 

since the entire JIDPA is included within an area identified by the USFWS as no 

longer requiring surveys. However, if black-footed ferrets are observed, no 

further project-specific surface disturbance would occur to the prairie dog 

complex in which the ferret(s) were observed. 

The following measures would be applied for greater sage-grouse, and these measures may be 

modified, with Operator approval, to facilitate participation in ongoing greater sage-grouse 

studies. 

95. Operators would avoid all surface disturbance (including pipelines) within 

0.25 mile of active greater sage-grouse leks. 

96. Permanent high-profile structures such as buildings and storage tanks would not 

be constructed within 0.25 mile of a lek. 

97. Greater sage-grouse nest surveys would be implemented during the nesting 

season (April 1-July 31) by a qualified biologist prior to the start of construction 

activities in potential greater sage-grouse nesting habitat within 2.0 mile of active 
B-16 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

leks, and if an active greater sage-grouse nest is identified, surface-disturbing 

activities would be delayed until nesting is completed. 

98. Operators would avoid optimal greater sage-grouse nesting habitats, where 

practical. Optimal nesting habitat is defined as areas with sagebrush heights of 

20-31 inches and cover of 15-25% and an understory (grasses and forbs) cover of 

>15%. 

99. Operators would avoid all drilling and construction activities during the greater 

sage-grouse strutting period (March 1-May 15) on areas within 1.0 mile of active 

leks. 

100. Operators would utilize directional drilling to access resources beneath the 

0.25-mile active greater sage-grouse lek buffers if reserves beneath these 

locations are deemed economic. 

101. Operators would 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. 

102. Operators would cooperate in ongoing greater sage-grouse studies in the area. 

103. Operators would cooperate with the WGFD on existing/new greater sage-grouse 

habitat improvement efforts within Upland Game Bird Management Area 7 (e.g., 

water developments). 

104. To further mitigate potential adverse effects to breeding and nesting greater 

sage-grouse on the JIDPA, 0.5-mile facility-free buffers would be applied to 

greater sage-grouse leks 7 and 8 south of the JIDPA for as long as Operators 

continue to hold the leases for these areas. No features requiring repeated human 

presence would be built within these areas. 

LIVESTOCK/GRAZING MANAGEMENT 

105. Reclamation of nonessential areas disturbed during construction activities would 

be accomplished in the first appropriate season after well completion. 

Nonessential areas include portions of the well pads not needed for production 

operations, the borrow ditch and outslope portions of new road ROWs, entire 

pipeline ROWs outside of road ROWs, and all roads and associated disturbed 

areas at nonproductive well pads. Operators would repair or replace fences, 

cattleguards, gates, drift fences, and natural barriers that are damaged by 

development actions to maintain current BLM standards. Cattleguards would be 

used instead of gates for livestock control on most road ROWs. Livestock would 

be protected from pipeline trenches, and livestock access to existing water 

sources would be maintained. 

106. Operators, in coordination with BLM and livestock permittees, would monitor 

livestock movements, especially regarding any impacts to livestock from roads or 

disturbance from construction and drilling activities. Appropriate measures 

would be taken to correct any adverse impacts, if they occur. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project B-17 

107. All pits containing fluids would be fenced to exclude livestock. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

108. Operators would follow the procedures established by the BLM National 

Programmatic Agreement/Wyoming State Protocol Agreement (ratified April 

1998) for cultural resource management and regulation contained within 36 

C.F.R. 800 and would either avoid, protect, or mitigate cultural resource 

properties. 

109. Operators would halt construction activities if previously undetected cultural 

resource properties are discovered during construction. The BLM would be 

notified immediately, and consultation with the Wyoming State Historic 

Preservation Office (SHPO) and/or the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP) would be initiated to determine proper mitigation measures 

pursuant to 36 C.F.R. 800.13 or other Treatment Plans, Programmatic 

Agreements, or Discovery Plans that may direct such efforts. Construction 

would not resume until a Notice to Proceed is issued by the BLM. 

110. If areas of religious importance, traditional cultural properties, or other sensitive 

Native American areas are identified in affected areas, BLM would consult with 

affected tribes and, in further consultation with Operators, would identify 

potential impacts and determine appropriate mitigative treatments on a 

case-by-case basis. 

111. Operators in cooperation with the BLM would conduct an educational program 

to inform employees and visitors about the regulations concerning cultural 

resource management and artifact collection. 

112. All recognized eligible sites, areas of Native American concern, and other 

recognized sensitive areas would be avoided as much as practical during 

development permitting. Impacts that cannot be eliminated by avoidance would 

be mitigated on a case-by-case basis through BLM-approved and 

SHPO-approved methods. Mitigation may include data recovery (including 

excavation) and/or Native American consultation/coordination for development 

in sensitive cultural resource areas, and cost for these efforts would be borne by 

Operators. 

113. Construction in archaeologically sensitive areas during frozen ground conditions 

would not normally be implemented. 

114. Operators would work with the BLM, SHPO, and ACHP in developing and 

implementing appropriate Programmatic Agreements, Research Designs/ 

Unanticipated Discovery Plans, Treatment Plans, and/or Cultural Resource 

Management Plans for the protection of cultural resources in the JIDPA. 

SOCIOECONOMICS 

115. Operators would encourage the use of local or regional workers. 
B-18 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

116. Where feasible, Operators would schedule concentrations of project traffic, such 

as truck convoys or heavy traffic flows, to avoid periods of expected heavy traffic 

flows associated with recreation. 

117. Travel and parking would be restricted to access roads and on-site parking areas. 

118. Where feasible, Operators would plan proposed development operations so that 

seasonal restrictions do not create a significant reduction in the level of 

development causing seasonal workforce layoffs (i.e., work continues at a 

consistent rate year-round). 

LAND STATUS/USE/PRIOR RIGHTS 

Mitigation to prior rights would include the following: 

119. limiting drilling operations to lands leased or owned by the Operators; 

120. locating wells away from known underground cables; 

121. regrading and repairing roads, as necessary, in areas damaged by project 

activities; 

122. reestablishing a level compacted surface where pipelines cross existing roads; 

123. advance identification and flagging of all existing ROWs that would be crossed 

by proposed pipelines and roads; 

124. backhoe and hand excavating at pipeline crossings until the exact locations of 

existing underground lines have been determined; and 

125. restoring native vegetation as soon as practical. 

126. Roads and pipelines would be located adjacent to existing linear facilities 

wherever practical; direct-line routes may be preferable in areas with high well 

pad densities. 

127. Portions of existing roads not included in the new road ROW and not needed by 

other users would be reclaimed and revegetated by Operators, following Class III 

cultural resource surveys. 

128. Adequate turnouts on new crowned-and-ditched roads would be built to provide 

access to existing two-tracks and other undeveloped roads. 

RECREATION 

129. Operators would post appropriate warning signs and would require project 

vehicles to adhere to appropriate speed limits on project-required roads. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project B-19 

130. Operators would inform their employees, contractors, and subcontractors that 

long-term camping (greater than 14 days) on federal lands or at federal 

recreation sites is prohibited. 

131. Operators would direct their employees, contractors, and subcontractors to 

abide by all state and federal laws and regulations regarding hunting. 

VISUAL RESOURCES 

132. Operators would utilize existing topography to screen roads, pipeline corridors, 

drill rigs, wells, and production facilities from view, where practical. 

133. Operators would paint all aboveground production facilities with appropriate 

colors (e.g., Carlsbad Canyon or other environmental color required by BLM) to 

blend with adjacent terrain, except for structures that require safety coloration in 

accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 

requirements. 

TRANSPORTATION 

134. Operators would implement the resource, mitigation, and monitoring measures 

found in the Transportation Plan (BLM 2004a). Annual transportation planning 

would occur in coordination with efforts required for the Pinedale Anticline 

Project (BLM 2000c) to identify the minimum road network necessary to support 

annually proposed project activities; Operator construction and maintenance 

responsibilities; and road-specific dust abatement, construction, and surfacing 

requirements. 

135. Existing roads would be used to the maximum extent possible and upgraded as 

necessary. 

136. All new and improved roads not required for routine operation and maintenance 

of producing wells or ancillary facilities would be reclaimed as directed by the 

BLM, State Land Board, or private landowner. These roads would be 

permanently blocked, recontoured, reclaimed, and revegetated by Operators, as 

would disturbed areas associated with permanently plugged and abandoned 

wells. Reclamation of existing two-track roads would be considered on a caseby-case basis. 

137. Site-specific centerline survey and construction designs would be submitted to 

and approved by the BLM prior to road construction. 

138. Operators would comply with existing federal, state, and county requirements 

and restrictions to protect road networks and the traveling public. 

139. Special arrangements would be made with the Wyoming Department of 

Transportation to transport oversize loads to the project area. Otherwise, load 

limits would be observed at all times to prevent damage to existing road surfaces. 
B-20 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

140. All development activities along approved ROWs would be restricted to areas 

authorized in the approved ROW. 

141. Available topsoil would be stripped from all road corridors prior to 

commencement of construction activities and would be redistributed and 

reseeded on backslope areas of the borrow ditch after completion of road 

construction activities. Borrow ditches would be reseeded in the first appropriate 

season after initial disturbance. 

142. Operators would maximize the use of temporary fresh water pipelines during late 

spring, summer, and early fall from water wells to active drill sites to decrease 

water hauling needs. 

HEALTH AND SAFETY/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

143. Operators would utilize WDEQ-approved portable sanitation facilities at drill 

sites. 

144. Operators would place warning signs near hazardous area and along roadways. 

145. Operators would place dumpsters at each construction site to collect and store 

garbage and refuse. 

146. Operators would ensure that all refuse and garbage is transported to a 

state-approved sanitary landfill for disposal. 

147. Operators would institute a Hazard Communication Program for its employees 

and would require subcontractor programs in accordance with OSHA (29 C.F.R. 

1910.1200). 

148. In accordance with 29 C.F.R. 1910.1200, a Material Safety Data Sheet for every 

chemical or hazardous material brought on-site would be kept on file at the 

Operator’s field office. 

149. SPCCPs would be written and implemented in accordance with 40 C.F.R. 112. 

150. Chemical and hazardous materials would be inventoried and reported in 

accordance with 40 C.F.R. 335. If quantities exceeding 10,000 pounds or the 

threshold planning quality are to be produced or stored, the appropriate Section 

311 and 312 forms would be submitted at the required times to the State and 

County Emergency Management Coordinators and the local fire departments. 

151. Any hazardous wastes, as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended, would be transported and/or disposed of in 

accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations. 

152. Operators would adhere to existing internal health and safety policies and 

procedures. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project B-21 

153. Operators would not release fracturing fluids and condensates into flare pits or 

surrounding areas; they would be confined in the reserve pit or tanks. All 

reserve pits would be lined unless an exception is granted by the BLM. 

REFERENCES 

Amoco Production Company. 1993. Environmental, Occupational Health and Safety Policy. 

Mimeo. 2 pp. 

. 1995. Safety Manual, U.S. Operations, 1995 edition. Mimeo. 

Bureau of Land Management. 1985. Manual 9113-Roads. Engineering Rel. 9-247. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 

. 1990a. Bureau of Land Management Manual Section 9112. 

. 1991a. Wyoming Supplement to the Bureau 9113 Manual. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, 

Wyoming. 16 pp. 

______. 1992a. Green River Resource Area Resource Management Plan and Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Rock Springs District, Rock Springs, Wyoming. BLM-WY-ES-92-019­

4410. 910 pp. 

. 1998b. Record of Decision for Jonah Field II Natural Gas Project, Environmental 

Impact Statement, Sublette County, Wyoming. Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale 

and Green River Resource Areas, Rock Springs District, Rock Springs, Wyoming. 

. 2000b. Decision Record and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Modified Jonah 

Field II Natural Gas Project, Sublette County, Wyoming. Bureau of Land Management. 

Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming, and Rock Springs Field Office, Rock Springs, 

Wyoming. 

______. 2000c. Record of Decision, Environmental Impact Statement for the Pinedale 

Anticline Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Project, Sublette County, Wyoming. 

Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Pinedale 

Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming. BLM/WY/PL-00/026+1310. RODEIS-00-018. 53 

pp. + append. 

. 2004a. Jonah Infill Drilling Project Development Procedures Technical Support 

Document. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale and 

Rock Springs Field Offices. Pinedale and Rock Springs, Wyoming. 

EnCana Oil & Gas (U.S.A.), Inc. 2002a. Contractor Expectations for Environment, Health and 

Safety. U.S. Rockies Region Booklet. 

. 2002b. Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan for Yellow Point Area, 

Jonah Field, Sublette County, Wyoming. Prepared for EnCana Oil & Gas (U.S.A.), Inc., 

Denver, Colorado, by LESAIR Environmental, Inc., Littleton, Colorado. 22 pp. 
B-22 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

. 2003. An Application for a Bio Remediation Cell Pad Facility to be Located in the 

Jonah Field Adjacent and Contiguous to McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte #7-36 

Production Battery Which is Located in the SWNE/4, Section 36, T29N, R108W Sublette 

County, Wyoming. Submitted by EnCana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc., Denver, Colorado, to 

the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Committee, Casper. Prepared by L.C. Roberts, 

ASCE #320326. 8 pp. + append. 

McMurry Oil Company. 2003. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, Jonah Field. Prepared 

for McMurry Oil Company, an affiliate of EnCana Oil & Gas (U.S.A.), Inc., Denver, 

Colorado, by Lesair Environmental, Inc., Littleton, Colorado. 7 pp. + append. 

TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 2004a. 2003 Wildlife Studies, Jonah Field II Natural Gas 

Development Project. Prepared for U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field 

Office, Pinedale, Wyoming, Rock Springs Field Office, Rock Springs, Wyoming, and 

Jonah II Area Operators, by TRC Mariah Associates Inc., Laramie, Wyoming. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Mountain Plover Survey Guidelines. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, March 2002. 7 pp. 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division. 1993. Water Quality 

Rules and Regulations. Chapter I. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, 

Water Quality Division. 87 pp. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project B-23 

EXHIBIT B-1: 

COMPARISON OF OPERATOR-COMMITTED 

PRACTICES ACROSS ALTERNATIVES 
B-24 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

This page intentionally left blank. 
B-1-1 

Exhibit B-1 Comparison of Operator-Committed Practices Across Alternatives, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Mitigation/Monitoring/Development Measures 

Proposed

Action A B C D E F G 

1. Operators would implement the environmental protection measures identified in the Wyoming BLM Standard

Mitigation Guidelines for Surface-Disturbing Activities (BLM 1988b, [Appendix A-1]), Lease Notice No. 1 (Appendix A-2), and Standard Practices Applied to Surface-Disturbing Activities (BLM 1988b [Appendix A3]), as applicable. X X X X X X X 

2. Implementation of site-specific projects would be contingent on BLM receiving, for approval/acceptance, the 

following plans: APD and ROW Surface Use Plans, Plans of Development, and other site-specific plans/reports (e.g., road and well pad design plans, cultural clearances, special status species clearances, etc.); Transportation Plan, Reclamation Plan, and Hazardous Material Summary (BLM 2004a); Wildlife Monitoring/Protection Plan (see BLM 1998b: Appendix D; annual wildlife reports [TRC Mariah 2004a]); and Biological Assessment. The above plans may be prepared by Operators for the JIDPA or may be submitted incrementally with each APD, ROW application, or Sundry Notice. 

X X X X X 

3. Approval of individual project components (i.e., wells, roads, pipelines, and ancillary facilities) would be 

contingent on completion and acceptance of a site-specific cultural resource literature search, Class III inventoryreport, and, as necessary, paleontological inventory; TEP&C and BWS species surveys; greater sage-grouse lek and nesting clearance; raptor nest clearance; and any other clearance specified by BLM. 

X X X X X X X X 

4. Operators would include in APD, ROW, or other appropriate permit applications a discussion of site-specific 

mitigation and environmental protection measures and a map showing specific locations where these measures would be implemented. Final locations for these measures would be confirmed by BLM and the Operators following on-site inspections of project locations. 

X X X X X 

5. Operators would obtain all necessary federal, state, and county permits, including necessary SPCCPs (EnCana 

2002b) and SWPPPs (McMurry Oil Company 2003), to ensure that project development occurs in an environmentally responsible manner. 

X X X X X X X X 

6. EnCana, BP America, and potentially other Operators would voluntarily implement an off-site mitigation 

program in part to offset potential impacts resulting from the project. The off-site mitigation program would involve the funding of projects by an advisory board made up of environmental scientists from state agencies (e.g., WGFD), local community groups, and members of the environmental and agricultural communities. As currently identified, these projects may entail pronghorn migration corridor protection; greater sage-grouse habitat preservation, protection, and enhancement projects; raptor protection; recreational resource augmentation; conservation easement development; air quality improvement and AQRV monitoring projects; on-the-ground reclamation research with an emphasis on sagebrush; and cultural resource projects. The mitigation fund would be established as a trust or similar instrument administered by a non-profit organization to ensure monies are committed to appropriate advisory board-identified on-the-ground mitigation actions. Potential program projects may be proposed by the public, BLM, state agencies, grazing permittees, or other entities. Final approval for projects on BLM-administered lands would rest solely with the BLM. 

X X X X X X 

7. Regular equipment maintenance, including emissions checks, and regular maintenance of roads would be 

conducted as necessary throughout the LOF. X X X X X 
B-1-2 

Exhibit B-1 (continued) 

Mitigation/Monitoring/Development Measures 

Proposed

Action A B C D E F G 

8. Operators would treat primary access roads (e.g., Luman Road) with dust suppressants (e.g., magnesium

chloride) and would water construction sites and well pad access roads as necessary to control fugitive dust during the summer. 

X X X X X X 

9. No open burning of garbage or refuse would be allowed at the well sites or other facilities. Any open burning 

would be conducted under the permitting provisions of Chapter 10 Section 12 of the Wyoming Air QualityStandards and Regulations. 

X X X X X 

10. Necessary air quality permits to construct, test, and operate facilities would be obtained from the WDEQ/AQD. 

All internal combustion equipment would be kept in good working order. X X X X X X X X 

11. Operators would comply with all applicable local, state, tribal, and federal air quality laws, statutes, regulations, 

standards, and implementation plans, including Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards (WAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 

X X X X X X X X 

12. Operators would cooperate with BLM and WDEQ in determining regional NOx emission levels. X X X X X X 13. Roads, well pads, and other disturbed areas susceptible to wind erosion would be appropriately surfaced or have 

dust inhibitors (e.g., magnesium chloride, water) applied to reduce fugitive dust. X X X X X 

14. Operators would continue to enforce speed limits (i.e., 35 miles per hour [mph]) to reduce fugitive dust concerns, 

as well as for human health and safety reasons. X X X X X X X X 

15. Operators would cooperate with the implementation of any WDEQ-mandated air quality monitoring program or 

emissions control program. X X X X X X X X 

16. Operators would incorporate in their Surface Use Plans and Plans of Development the procedures contained in 

Standard Practices, Best Management Practices, and Guidelines for Surface Disturbing Activities (BLM 1992a:

Appendix 5-1), guidelines for road construction contained in BLM Manual, Section 9113 (BLM 1985, 1991a), and project-specific requirements in the Transportation and Reclamation Plans for this project (BLM 2004a). 

X X X X X X X 

17. Unnecessary topographic alterations would be mitigated by avoiding, where practical, steep slopes, rugged 

topography, and ephemeral/ intermittent drainages and by minimizing the size of disturbed areas. X X X X X 

18. Upon completion of construction and/or production activities, Operators would restore the topography to near 

preexisting contours at well pads, roads, pipelines, and other facility sites. X X X X 

19. No well pads, roads, pipelines, or other facilities would be built within 300 ft of the edge of Sand Draw or within 

the tall sagebrush areas associated with this drainage, except for crossings which would be done at right angles to the channel, where practical. The number of crossings would also be minimized. 

X X X X 
B-1-3 

Exhibit B-1 (continued) 

Mitigation/Monitoring/Development Measures 

Proposed

Action A B C D E F G 

20. Wells, pipelines, and ancillary facilities would be designed and constructed such that they would not be damaged 

by moderate earthquakes. Any facilities defined as critical, according to the Uniform Building Code, would be constructed in accordance with applicable Uniform Building Code Standards for Seismic Risk Zone 2B. 

X X X X X X X X 

21. 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. In some cases, construction monitoring, project relocation, data recovery, or other mitigation may be required to ensure that significant paleontological resources are avoided or recovered during construction. 

X X X X X X X X 

22. If paleontological resources are uncovered during surface-disturbing activities, Operators would suspend all 

operations that would further disturb such materials and would immediately contact the BLM, who would arrange for a determination of significance and, if necessary, recommend a recovery or avoidance plan. Mitigation of impacts to paleontological resources would be on a case-by-case basis, and Operators would either avoid or protect paleontological resources. 

X X X X X X 

23. Contractors and their workers would be instructed about the potential of encountering fossils and the steps to 

take if fossils are discovered during project-related activities. The illegality of removing vertebrate fossil materials from federal lands without an appropriate permit would be explained. 

X X X X X X X X 

24. Operators would adhere to the reclamation guidelines presented in BLM (2004a). Adverse impacts to soils 

would be mitigated by minimizing disturbance; avoiding construction with frozen soil materials; avoiding areas with high erosion potential (e.g., unstable soils, dunal areas, slopes greater than 25%, floodplains), where practical; salvaging and selectively handling topsoil from disturbed areas; adequately protecting stockpiled topsoil and replacing it on the surface during reclamation; leaving the soil intact (scalping only) during pipeline construction, where practical; using appropriate erosion and sedimentation control techniques including, but not limited to, diversion terraces, riprap, and matting; and promptly revegetating disturbed areas using native species. Temporary erosion control measures such as temporary vegetation cover; application of mulch, netting, or soil stabilizers; and/or construction of barriers may be used in some areas to minimize wind and water erosion and sedimentation prior to vegetation establishment. Specific measures and locations would be identified in Surface Use Plans, Plans of Development, or Erosion Prevention Plans prepared during APD and/or ROWapplication processes, and if these plans identify the need for further field investigations, Operators would work with the BLM on the implementation of these studies. 

X X X X 

25. Pipeline ROWs would be located to minimize soil disturbance. Where practical, mitigation would include 

locating ROWs adjacent to access roads to minimize ROW disturbance widths or routing pipeline ROWsdirectly to minimize disturbance lengths; direct-line routes may be preferable in areas with high wellpad densities. 

X X 

X 

X 
B-1-4 

Exhibit B-1 (continued) 

Mitigation/Monitoring/Development Measures 

Proposed

Action A B C D E F G 

26. Appropriate erosion control and revegetation measures would be employed (BLM 2004a). Grading and 

landscaping would be used to minimize slopes, and water bars would be installed on disturbed slopes in areas with unstable soils where seeding alone may not adequately control erosion. Erosion control and revegetation efforts would be monitored by the BLM and Operators and augmented, as necessary, to control erosion and ensure successful establishment of native vegetation. 

X X X X X 

27. Sufficient topsoil or other suitable material to facilitate revegetation would be segregated from subsoils during 

all construction operations requiring excavation and would be returned to the surface upon completion of operations. Soils compacted during construction would be ripped and tilled as necessary prior to reseeding. Cut and fill sections on all roads and along pipelines would be revegetated with native species. 

X X X X 

28. Operators would plan new-ground disturbing activities for periods when soils are not frozen and would work 

with the BLM on appropriate construction actions in the event that they are proposed for periods when soil frost depths exceed 6.0 inches. 

X X X X X 

29. Operators would revegetate all disturbed sites as soon as practical following disturbance (BLM 2004a). X X X X 30. Operators would restrict off-highway vehicle (OHV) activity by employees and contract workers. X X X X X 31. Project-related travel would be limited to only that necessary for efficient project operation during periods when 

soils are saturated and excessive rutting could occur. X X X X X 

32. To prevent reactivation of stabilized dunes, these areas would be avoided where practical, and areas necessarily

disturbed would be seeded in the first appropriate season after disturbance. If deemed appropriate by the BLM, disturbed areas would be mulched or otherwise protected to prevent wind erosion and to facilitate plant establishment. 

X X X X 

33. Reviews of erosion control structures, culverts, reclamation, etc., would be made by Operator personnel and 

BLM to assure compliance with requirements and goals. X X X X X 

34. Operators would avoid disturbance within 500 ft of wetlands/riparian areas and open water areas and within 100 

ft of ephemeral/intermittent drainages, where practical. Where ephemeral/intermittent channels would be crossed by roads, culverts would be installed at all appropriate locations as specified in the BLM Manual 9112­Bridges and Major Culverts (BLM 1990a) and Manual 9113-Roads (BLM 1985). Channels would be crossed perpendicular (at right angles) to flow, where practical, and all stream crossing structures would be designed to carry the 25-year discharge event or other capacities as directed by BLM. 

X 

X 

X X X 

35. All non-recycled water used in association with this project would be obtained from WSEO-approved ground 

water wells. X X X X X X X X 
B-1-5 

Exhibit B-1 (continued) 

Mitigation/Monitoring/Development Measures 

Proposed

Action A B C D E F G 

36. Operators would adhere to guidelines specified in SPCCPs (EnCana 2002b). Any spill or accidental discharge of 

hazardous material would be remediated. An orientation would be conducted by Operators to ensure that project personnel are aware of the potential impacts that can result from accidental spills and that they know the appropriate recourse if a spill occurs. 

X X X X X X X X 

37. Erosion-prone (e.g., drainages) or high-salinity areas would be avoided where practical, and necessary

construction in these areas would be done in the late summer, fall, and winter (prior to soil freezing) to avoid runoff periods. Proper containment of oil and produced water in tanks, drilling and fracturing fluids in tanks or reserve pits, and the location of staging areas for equipment storage away from drainages would prevent potential contaminants from entering surface waters. 

X X X 

38. Prudent use of erosion control measures, including diversion terraces, riprap, matting, temporary sediment traps, 

and water bars, would be employed as necessary. Interceptor dikes would be used to control surface runoff generated at well pads, and dike location and construction methods would be described in APD and ROW plans. If necessary to reduce suspended sediment loads and to remove potential contaminants, Operators would treat diverted water in detention ponds prior to release to meet applicable state or federal standards. 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. Waters that do not meet applicable state or federal standards would be evaporated, treated, or disposed of at an approved disposal facility. 

X X X X X 

39. Operators would construct reserve pits with 2 ft of freeboard in cut areas or in compacted and stabilized fill. The 

subsoil material at proposed pit locations would be inspected to assess soil stability and permeability and whether reinforcement and/or lining are required. Prior to installation of reserve pit liners and/or fluids, reserve pits would be inspected by BLM personnel. Unlined earthen reserve pits would be used only after BLM evaluation of the pit location for distance to surface waters, depth to useable ground water, soil type and permeability, and containment fluid content indicate no potential adverse effects to water resources. 

X X X X X X X X 

40. If reserve pit leakage is detected, operations at the site would be curtailed until the leakage is corrected. X X X X X X X

 X 

41. All wells would be cased and cemented to protect subsurface mineral and freshwater zones. Unproductive wells

and wells that have completed their intended purpose would be properly abandoned and plugged using procedures identified by the WOGCC and the BLM. 

X X X X X X X X 

42. Channel crossings by pipelines would be constructed so that the pipe is buried at least 4 ft below the channel 

bottom. X X X X X X 

43. Channel crossings by roads and pipelines would be constructed perpendicular to flow. X X X X X X 44. Disturbed channel beds would be reshaped to their approximate original configuration. X X X X X X 45. Disposal of all water (hydrostatic test water, stormwater, produced water) would be done in conformance with 

WDEQ/WQD (1993), BLM Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 7, and WOGCC rules and regulations. X X X X X X X X 
B-1-6 

Exhibit B-1 (continued) 

Mitigation/Monitoring/Development Measures 

Proposed

Action A B C D E F G 

46. Operators would prepare SWPPPs for all disturbances greater than 5 acres in size as required by WDEQ 

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements (EnCana 2003). X X X X X X X X 

47. Operators would implement SPCCPs if liquid petroleum products or other hazardous materials are stored on-site 

in sufficient quantities, in accordance with 40 C.F.R. 112 (EnCana 2002b). X X X X X X X X 

48. Any disturbances to wetlands and/or waters of the U.S. would be coordinated with the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (COE), and Section 404 permits would be secured as necessary prior to disturbance. X X X X X X X X 

49. To mitigate potential impacts caused by flooding during the LOF, construction in flood-prone areas would be 

limited to late summer, fall, or winter when conditions are generally dry and flows are low or nonexistent. Additional mitigation to lessen any impacts from flooding or high flows during and after construction would include the avoidance of areas with high erosion potential (i.e., steep slopes, floodplains, unstable soils); reestablishment of existing contours where practical; avoidance of areas within 500 ft of wetland edges, riparian areas, and open water, where practical; avoidance of areas within 100 ft of ephemeral drainages, where practical; and implementation of appropriate erosion and sediment control and revegetation procedures. 

X X X X 

50. Increased sedimentation impacts to surface waters would be avoided or minimized through construction and 

erosion control practices approved with each authorization and through the prompt reclamation of disturbances. X X X X X 

51. Operators would conduct complete water quality analyses (e.g., pH, alkalinity, TDS, oil and grease, benzene, 

etc.) on all newly developed water wells. Additionally, annual water quality testing at new and existing projectrequired 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 PFO, SEO, and WDEQ-WQD for review. 

X X X X 

52. Noise mitigation would be applied at specific well pads, as determined necessary on a case-by-case basis by the 

BLM. X X X 

53. All engines and compressor exhaust stacks would be muffled and maintained according to manufacturers' 

specifications. X X X X X X 

54. Construction, drilling, completion, testing, and production facility installation activities would be seasonally

restricted proximal to active raptor nests during the nesting period and in greater sage-grouse breeding and nesting areas. 

X 

X 

X X X 

55. Road use and travel pattern specifications would be designed, in part, to keep traffic to a minimum and to reduce 

noise impacts as identified in the Transportation Plan (BLM 2004a). X X X X 
B-1-7 

Exhibit B-1 (continued) 

Mitigation/Monitoring/Development Measures 

Proposed

Action A B C D E F G 

56. As required by BLM, Operators would conduct site-specific surveys for TEP&C and BWS plant species (e.g., 

Ute ladies'-tresses, Cedar Rim thistle) prior to any surface disturbance in areas determined by the BLM to contain potential habitat for such species (BLM Directive USDI BLM 6840). TEP&C and BWS species and their habitat would be avoided, where practical. Surveyors would be subject to USFWS and/or BLM survey policy requirements. Data from these surveys would be provided to the BLM, and if any TEP&C or BWS plant species or their habitats are found, USFWS and/or BLM recommendations for avoidance or mitigation would be implemented (BWS species) and/or BLM and USFWS would be consulted to determine appropriate avoidance and/or protection measures (TEP&C species). 

X X X X X X X X 

57. Herbicide applications would be kept at least 500 ft from known BWS plant species populations or other 

distance deemed safe by the BLM. X X X X X X X X 

58. Removal and disturbance of vegetation would be kept to a minimum through construction site management (e.g., 

using previously disturbed areas and existing easements, limiting equipment/materials storage yard and staging area sizes, etc.). Well pads and associated roads and pipelines would be located to avoid or minimize impacts in areas of high value (e.g., TEP&C or BWS species habitats, wetland/riparian areas). 

X 

X 

X X X 

59. Proper erosion and sediment control structures and techniques would be incorporated by Operators into the 

design of well pads, roads, pipelines, and other facilities. Revegetation using a BLM-approved, locally adapted seed mixture containing native grasses, forbs, and shrubs would begin in the first appropriate season following disturbance. Vegetation removed would be replaced with plants of similar forage value and growth form using procedures that include: 

• fall reseeding (September 15 to freeze-up), where feasible; • spring reseeding (post-thaw and prior to May 15) if fall seeding is not feasible; • deep ripping of compacted soils prior to reseeding; • surface pitting/roughening prior to reseeding; • utilization of native cool-season grasses, forbs, and shrubs in the seed mix; • interseeding of shrubs into an established stand of grasses and forbs at least 1 year after seeding the grasses 

and forbs; 

• appropriate, approved weed control techniques; • broadcast or drill seeding, depending on site conditions; and 

• fencing of certain sensitive reclamation sites (e.g., riparian areas, steep slopes, and areas within 0.5 mile of 

livestock watering facilities) as determined necessary through monitoring. 

X X X X X X 
B-1-8 

Exhibit B-1 (continued) 

Mitigation/Monitoring/Development Measures 

Proposed

Action A B C D E F G 

60. Operators would implement the resource, mitigation, and monitoring measures found in the Transportation and 

Reclamation Plans (BLM 2004a). X X X X X 

61. Recontouring and seedbed preparation would occur immediately prior to reseeding on the unused portion of well 

pads and road ROWs and entire pipeline ROWs outside of road ROWs. In the event of uneconomic wells, Operators would initiate reclamation of the entire well pad, access road, and adjacent disturbed habitat as soon as practical. Reclamation would be monitored by the Operators and the BLM, as specified in the Reclamation Plan (BLM 2004a), to determine and ensure successful and timely establishment of vegetation. 

X X X X X 

62. Traffic would be confined to the running surface of roads and well pads as approved in APDs and ROWs. 

Operators have and will continue to cooperate with the BLM to identify and prohibit use of two-tracks where ROWs have not been obtained. 

X X X X X X X X 

63. Operators would monitor noxious weed and invasive non-native species occurrence on the JIDPA and 

implement a noxious weed/non-native species control program in cooperation with the BLM and Sublette County to ensure noxious weed and non-native species invasion does not become a problem. Weed-free certification by county extension agents would be required for grain or straw used for mulching revegetated areas. Gravel and other surfacing materials used for the project would be free of noxious weeds. 

X X X X X X 

64. Operators would evaluate all project facility sites for occurrence of waters of the U.S., special aquatic sites, and 

wetlands, per COE requirements. All project activities would be located outside of these areas, where practical. X X X X X X X X 

65. Where wetlands, riparian areas, and ephemeral/intermittent stream channels must be disturbed, COE Section 404 

permits would be obtained as necessary, and the following measures would be employed. • Wetland areas would be crossed during dry conditions (i.e., late summer, fall, or dry winters); winter 

construction activities would occur only when topsoil can be segregated and stockpiled separately from the subsoil. 

• Channels would be crossed perpendicular to flow. • Channels, wetlands, and riparian areas disturbed during project construction would be restored to as near 

pre-project conditions as practical, and if impermeable soils contributed to wetland formation, soils would be compacted to reestablish impermeability. 

• Wetland topsoil would be selectively handled. • Areas would be recontoured and BLM-approved species would be used for reclamation. • Reclamation activities would begin on disturbed wetland areas immediately after completion of project 

activities. 

X X X X X X X X 
B-1-9 

Exhibit B-1 (continued) 

Mitigation/Monitoring/Development Measures 

Proposed

Action A B C D E F G 

66. Well pads, access roads, pipelines, and ancillary facilities would be located and designed to minimize 

disturbances to areas of high wildlife habitat value, including wetlands and riparian areas. X 

X 

X X X 

67. Areas with high erosion potential and/or rugged topography (i.e., steep slopes, dunes, floodplains, unstable soils) 

would be avoided, where practical. X 

X 

X X X 

68. Removal or disturbance of vegetation would be minimized through construction site management (e.g., by

utilizing previously disturbed areas and existing ROWs where practical, designating limited equipment/materials storage yards and staging areas, vegetation scalping), and Operators would adhere to all reclamation guidelines presented in the Reclamation Plan (BLM 2004a). 

X 

X 

X X X 

69. Operators, in consultation with representatives from BLM, WGFD, USFWS, and other interested groups such as 

area livestock operators, would adhere to the Wildlife Monitoring/Protection Plan for this project (BLM 1998b: Appendix D) as annually updated (TRC Mariah 2004a). The plan would be incorporated into the Operator fieldoperations manual or handbook, a copy of which would be kept on-site in the JIDPA. 

X X X 

70. To minimize wildlife mortality due to vehicle collisions, Operators would continue to advise project personnel 

regarding appropriate speed limits (i.e., 35 mph) in the JIDPA, and roads would be reclaimed as soon as possible after they are no longer required. Some existing roads in the area may be closed and reclaimed by Operators as authorized by BLM. Potential increases in poaching would be minimized through employee and contractor education regarding wildlife laws. If violations are discovered, the offending employee or contractor would be disciplined and may be dismissed by Operators and/or prosecuted by WGFD. 

X X X X X X 

71. Reserve, workover, and evaporation pits and other areas potentially hazardous to wildlife would be adequately

protected (e.g., netted, fenced) as directed by BLM to prevent access by migratory birds and other wildlife. X X X X X X X X 

72. Firearms and dogs would not be allowed on-site during working hours. Operators would enforce existing drug,

alcohol, and firearms policies (EnCana 2002a; Amoco Production Company 1993, 1995). X X X X X X X X 

73. To protect plant populations and wildlife habitat, project-related travel would be restricted to established project 

roads; no off-road/ROW travel would be allowed, except in emergencies. X X X X X X 

74. Wildlife-proof fencing would be utilized on reclaimed areas if it is determined that wildlife species and/or 

livestock are impeding successful vegetation establishment. X X X X X X 

75. ROW fencing associated with this project would be kept to a minimum, and fences, where necessary, would 

meet BLM and WGFD specifications for facilitating wildlife movement. X X X X X X 
B-1-10 

Exhibit B-1 (continued) 

Mitigation/Monitoring/Development Measures 

Proposed

Action A B C D E F G 

76. Potential impacts to fisheries and wetland/riparian areas would be minimized by using proper erosion control 

techniques (e.g., water bars, jute netting, rip-rap, mulch). Construction within 500 ft of open water, 300 ft of Sand Draw, and 100 ft of other intermittent or ephemeral channels would be avoided, where practical. Channel crossings for roads and pipelines would be constructed during periods of low or no flow (i.e., late summer or fall). All necessary crossings would be constructed perpendicular to flow. No surface water or shallow ground water in connection with surface water would be utilized for the project. 

X 

X 

X X X 

77. As required by BLM, Operators would conduct specific surveys for TEP&C and BWS animal species prior to 

surface disturbance in areas determined by the BLM to contain potential habitat for such species (BLM Directive USDI BLM 6840). TEP&C and BWS species and their habitat would be avoided, where practical. Surveyors would be subject to USFWS and/or BLM survey policy requirements. Data from these surveys would be provided to the BLM, and if any TEP&C or BWS animal species or their habitats are found, USFWS and/or BLM recommendation for avoidance or mitigation would be implemented (BWS species) and/or BLM and USFWS would be consulted to determine appropriate avoidance and/or protection measures (TEP&C species). 

X X X X X X X X 

78. Operators would implement policies designed to control poaching and littering and would notify all employees 

(contract and company) that conviction of a major game violation could result in disciplinary action. Contractors would be informed that any intentional poaching or littering within the JIDPA may result in dismissal. 

X X X X X X X X 

79. Operators would adhere to all survey, mitigation, and monitoring requirements identified in the BA for this 

project. X X X 

80. Operator consultation and coordination with BLM, USFWS and WGFD would be conducted for all mitigation 

activities related to raptor, TEP&C, and BWS species (and their habitats), and all permits required for relocation, removal, and/or establishment of raptor nests would be obtained. 

X X X X X X X X 

81. Well pads, pipelines, and associated roads would be selected and designed to avoid disturbance to known raptor 

nest sites. X X X X X X X 

82. Raptor nest surveys would be conducted within a 1.0-mi radius of proposed surface use or activity areas if such 

activities are proposed to be conducted between February 1 and July 31. X X X X X X X X 

83. All surface-disturbing activity (e.g., road, pipeline, well pad construction, drilling, completion, workover 

operations) would be seasonally restricted from February 1 through July 31 within a 0.5-mi radius of all active raptor nests, except ferruginous hawk nests, for which the seasonal buffer would be 1.0 mi. (An active raptornest is defined as a nest that has been occupied within the past 3 years.) The seasonal buffer distance and applicable exclusion dates may vary, depending on such factors as the activity status of the nest, species involved, prey availability, natural topographic barriers, line-of-site distance(s), and other conflicting issues such as cultural values, steep slopes, etc. Routine maintenance or emergency health and safety activities would be allowed on existing well pads. 

X X X X X X X 
B-1-11 

Exhibit B-1 (continued) 

Mitigation/Monitoring/Development Measures 

Proposed

Action A B C D E F G 

84. Well pads, roads, ancillary facilities, and other surface structures requiring repeated human presence would not 

be constructed within 825 ft of active raptor nests (2,000 ft for bald eagles). Facility construction in these areas would require specific approval from the BLM. 

X X X X X X X 

85. Operators would notify BLM before implementing refracturing, workovers, and/or other routine well site 

operations requiring more than one day of work during the period of February 1 to July 31 to allow BLM the opportunity to monitor potential impacts from these activities on nesting raptors. 

X 

X 

X X X 

86. Additional mitigation measures for nesting raptors would be designed on a site-specific basis, as necessary, in 

consultation with the BLM, USFWS, and WGFD. Operators would notify the BLM immediately if raptors are found nesting on project facilities and would assist the BLM as necessary to erect artificial nesting structures. 

X X X 

87. As directed by BLM, during the period of May 1-June 15, mountain plover surveys would be conducted by an 

Operator-financed, BLM-approved biologist in accordance with USFWS guidelines (USFWS 2002) on occupied mountain plover habitat (i.e., areas where plover have been previously recorded) within the JIDPA and a 0.5-mi buffer and on any potential mountain plover habitat. Currently, one area of occupied plover habitat is known within the JIDPA and a 0.5-mi buffer. 

X X X X 

88. If breeding birds are observed within 0.25 mile of proposed surface disturbance, additional surveys would be 

implemented immediately prior to construction to search for active nest sites. If an active nest is located, a 0.25­mi buffer zone would be established around the nest to prevent direct and indirect nest disturbance and planned activities would be delayed 37 days, or 1 week post-hatching (USFWS 2002). If a brood of flightless chicks isobserved, activities would be delayed at least 7 days. In areas where no plover are observed, surface-disturbing

activities would occur post-survey completion and as near to completion of surveys as possible. Mountain plover surveys would not be conducted for construction activities planned for the period of July 11 through April 9. 

X X X 

89. Where access roads and/or well locations have been constructed prior to the mountain plover nesting season 

(April 10-July 10) and development activities have not been initiated prior to April 10, a BLM-approved biologist would conduct a site investigation of the disturbed area prior to proposed activities to determine whether mountain plover are present. If plover are nesting in the area, Operators would delay development activities until nesting is complete. 

X X X 

90. The nest success and productivity of all mountain plover nests found within the JIDPA would be monitored and 

reported to the BLM and USFWS Wyoming Field Office annually. Survey results would be compared with annual development plans to determine if any proposed surface-disturbing activities would affect occupied mountain plover nesting habitat. Where feasible, development plans would be modified to avoid nesting habitat (e.g., through road re-alignment). 

X X X 
B-1-12 

Exhibit B-1 (continued) 

Mitigation/Monitoring/Development Measures 

Proposed

Action A B C D E F G 

91. If removal of mountain plover nesting habitat is unavoidable, loss would be minimized by creation of additional 

nesting habitat; many of the existing and proposed pipeline reclamation areas on the JIDPA likely provide suitable plover breeding habitat. If nesting habitat is disturbed, the area would be reclaimed to approximate original conditions (topography, vegetation, hydrology, etc.) after completion of activities, such that disturbed potential mountain plover breeding habitat is reclaimed to conditions suitable for mountain plover breeding. Operators would minimize road construction and maintenance activities (i.e., grading) in suitable plover habitat from April 10 to July 10. 

X X X X 

92. Updates to white-tailed prairie dog town maps within the JIDPA and a 0.5-mi buffer would continue to be 

annually provided to BLM as identified in annual wildlife study reports (TRC Mariah 2004a). X X X X 

93. Where practical, surface disturbance in all prairie dog towns would be avoided. X X X 94. If black-footed ferrets are found, no further project-specific surface disturbance would occur to the prairie dog 

complex in which the ferret(s) were observed. X X X 

95. Operators would avoid all surface disturbance (including pipelines) within 0.25 mile of active greater 

sage-grouse leks. X X X 

96. Permanent high-profile structures such as buildings and storage tanks would not be constructed within 0.25 mile 

of a lek. X X X 

97. Greater sage-grouse nest surveys would be implemented during the nesting season (April 1-July 31) by a 

qualified biologist prior to the start of construction activities in potential greater sage-grouse nesting habitat within 2.0 miles of active leks, and if an active greater sage-grouse nest is identified, surface-disturbing activities would be delayed until nesting is completed. 

X X X 

98. Operators would avoid optimal greater sage-grouse nesting habitats, where practical. Optimal nesting habitat is 

defined as areas with sagebrush heights of 20-31 inches and cover of 15-25% and an understory (grasses and forbs) cover of >15%. 

X X X 

99. Operators would avoid all drilling and construction activities during the greater sage-grouse strutting period 

(March 1-May 15) on areas within 1.0 mile of active leks. X X X 

100. Operators would utilize directional drilling to access resources beneath the 0.25-mi active greater sage-grouse 

lek buffers if reserves beneath these locations are deemed economic. X X X 

101. Operators would utilize directional drilling to access resources beneath the 600-ft wide (or tall sagebrushdominated) buffer associated with the Sand Draw protection areas if deemed economic. X X X 102. Operators would cooperate in ongoing greater sage-grouse studies in the area. X X X X X X 
B-1-13 

Exhibit B-1 (continued) 

Mitigation/Monitoring/Development Measures 

Proposed

Action A B C D E F G 

103. Operators would cooperate with the WGFD on existing/new greater sage-grouse habitat improvement efforts 

within Upland Game Bird Management Area 7 (e.g., water developments). X X X X 

104. To further mitigate potential adverse effects to breeding and nesting greater sage-grouse on the JIDPA, 0.5-mi 

facility-free buffers would be applied to greater sage-grouse leks 7 and 8 south of the JIDPA for as long as Operators continue to hold the leases for these areas. No features requiring repeated human presence would be built within these areas. 

X X X X 

105. Reclamation of nonessential areas disturbed during construction activities would be accomplished in the first 

appropriate season after well completion. Nonessential areas include portions of the well pads not needed for production operations, the borrow ditch and outslope portions of new road ROWs, entire pipeline ROWs outside of road ROWs, and all roads and associated disturbed areas at nonproductive well pads. Operators would repairor replace fences, cattleguards, gates, drift fences, and natural barriers that are damaged by development actions to maintain current BLM standards. Cattleguards would be used instead of gates for livestock control on most road ROWs. Livestock would be protected from pipeline trenches, and livestock access to existing water sources would be maintained. 

X X X X X 

106. Operators, in coordination with BLM and livestock permittees would monitor livestock movements, especially

regarding any impacts to livestock from roads or disturbance from construction and drilling activities. Appropriate measures would be taken to correct any adverse impacts, if they occur. 

X X X X 

107. All pits containing fluids would be fenced to exclude livestock. X X X X X X X X 108. Operators would follow the procedures established by the BLM National Programmatic Agreement/Wyoming 

State Protocol Agreement (ratified April 1998) for cultural resource management and regulation contained within 36 C.F.R. 800 and would either avoid, protect, or mitigate cultural resource properties. 

X X X X X X X X 

109. Operators would halt construction activities if previously undetected cultural resource properties are discovered 

during construction. The BLM would be notified immediately, and consultation with the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) would be initiated to determine proper mitigation measures pursuant to 36 C.F.R. 800.13 or other Treatment Plans, Programmatic Agreements, or Discovery Plans that may direct such efforts. Construction would not resume until a Notice to Proceed is issued by the BLM. 

X X X X X X X X 

110. If areas of religious importance, traditional cultural properties, or other sensitive Native American areas are 

identified in affected areas, BLM would consult with affected tribes and, in further consultation with Operators, would identify potential impacts and determine appropriate mitigative treatments on a case-by-case basis. 

X X X X X X X X 

111. Operators in cooperation with the BLM would conduct an educational program to inform employees and visitors 

about the regulations concerning cultural resource management and artifact collection. X X X X X X X X 
B-1-14 

Exhibit B-1 (continued) 

Mitigation/Monitoring/Development Measures 

Proposed

Action A B C D E F G 

112. All recognized eligible sites, areas of Native American concern, and other recognized sensitive areas would be 

avoided as much as practical during development permitting. Impacts that cannot be eliminated by avoidance would be mitigated on a case-by-case basis through BLM- and SHPO-approved methods. Mitigation mayinclude data recovery (including excavation) and/or Native American consultation/coordination for development in sensitive cultural resource areas, and cost for these efforts would be borne by Operators. 

X X X X X X X X 

113. Construction in archaeologically sensitive areas during frozen ground conditions would not normally be 

implemented; exceptions would be considered by the BLM on a case-by-case basis and granted if appropriate. X 

X 

X X X 

114. Operators would work with the BLM, SHPO, and ACHP in developing and implementing appropriate 

Programmatic Agreements, Research Designs/Unanticipated Discovery Plans, Treatment Plans, and/or Cultural Resource Management Plans for the protection of cultural resources in the JIDPA. 

X X X X X 

115. Operators would encourage the use of local or regional workers. X X X X X X 116. Where feasible, Operators would schedule concentrations of project traffic, such as truck convoys or heavy

traffic flows, to avoid periods of expected heavy traffic flows associated with recreation. X X X X 

117. Travel and parking would be restricted to access roads and on-site parking areas. X X X X X X 118. Where feasible, Operators would plan proposed development operations so that seasonal restrictions do not 

create a significant reduction in the level of development causing seasonal workforce layoffs (i.e., work continues at a consistent rate year-round). 

X X X X 

119. Limit drilling operations to lands leased or owned by the Operators. X X X X X X X X 120. Locate wells away from known underground cables. X X X X X X X X 121. Regrade and repair roads, as necessary, in areas damaged by project activities. X X X X X X 122. Reestablish a level compacted surface where pipelines cross existing roads. X X X X X X 123. Identify and flag in advance all existing ROWs that would be crossed by proposed pipelines and roads. X X X X X X X X 124. Backhoe and hand excavate at pipeline crossings until the exact locations of existing underground lines have 

been determined. X X X X X X X X 

125. Restore native vegetation as soon as practical. X X X X X 126. Roads and pipelines would be located adjacent to existing linear facilities wherever practical; direct-line routes 

may be preferable in areas with high well pad densities. X X X X X X 

127. Portions of existing roads not included in the new road ROW and not needed by other users would be reclaimed 

and revegetated by Operators, following Class III cultural resource surveys. X X X X 
B-1-15 

Exhibit B-1 (continued) 

Mitigation/Monitoring/Development Measures 

Proposed

Action A B C D E F G 

128. Adequate turnouts on new crowned-and-ditched roads would be built to provide access to existing two-tracks 

and other undeveloped roads. X X X X 

129. Operators would post appropriate warning signs and would require project vehicles to adhere to appropriate 

speed limits on project-required roads. X X X X X X 

130. Operators would inform their employees, contractors, and subcontractors that long-term camping (greater than 

14 days) on federal lands or at federal recreation sites is prohibited. X X X X X X 

131. Operators would direct their employees, contractors, and subcontractors to abide by all state and federal laws and 

regulations regarding hunting. X X X X X X X X 

132. Operators would utilize existing topography to screen roads, pipeline corridors, drill rigs, wells, and production 

facilities from view, where practical. X X X X X X 

133. Operators would paint all aboveground production facilities with appropriate colors (e.g., Carlsbad Canyon or 

other environmental color required by BLM) to blend with adjacent terrain, except for structures that require safety coloration in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements. 

X X X X X X X X 

134. Operators would implement the resource, mitigation, and monitoring measures found in the Transportation Plan 

(BLM 2004a). Annual transportation planning would occur in coordination with efforts required for the Pinedale Anticline Project (BLM 2000c) to identify the minimum road network necessary to support annuallyproposed project activities; Operator construction and maintenance responsibilities; and road-specific dust abatement, construction, and surfacing requirements. 

X 

X 

X X X 

135. Existing roads would be used to the maximum extent possible and upgraded as necessary. X X X X 136. All new and improved roads not required for routine operation and maintenance of producing wells or ancillary

facilities would be reclaimed as directed by the BLM, State Land Board, or private landowner. These roads would be permanently blocked, recontoured, reclaimed, and revegetated by Operators, as would disturbed areas associated with permanently plugged and abandoned wells. Reclamation of existing two-track roads would be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

X X X X X X 

137. Site-specific centerline survey and construction designs would be submitted to and approved by the BLM prior 

to road construction. X X X X X X 

138. Operators would comply with existing federal, state, and county requirements and restrictions to protect road 

networks and the traveling public. X X X X X X X X 

139. Special arrangements would be made with the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WDOT) to transport 

oversize loads to the project area. Otherwise, load limits would be observed at all times to prevent damage to existing road surfaces. 

X X X X X X X X 
B-1-16 

Exhibit B-1 (continued) 

Mitigation/Monitoring/Development Measures 

Proposed

Action A B C D E F G 

140. All development activities along approved ROWs would be restricted to areas authorized in the approved ROW. X X X X X X X X 141. Available topsoil would be stripped from all road corridors prior to commencement of construction activities and 

would be redistributed and reseeded on backslope areas of the borrow ditch after completion of road construction activities. Borrow ditches would be reseeded in the first appropriate season after initial disturbance. 

X X X X X X X X 

142. Operators would maximize the use of temporary fresh water pipelines during late spring, summer, and early fall 

from water wells to active drill sites to decrease water hauling needs. X X X X X X 

143 . Operators would utilize WDEQ-approved portable sanitation facilities at drill sites. X X X X X X X 144. Operators would place warning signs near hazardous areas and along roadways. X X X X 145. Operators would place dumpsters at each construction site to collect and store garbage and refuse. X X X X 146. Operators would ensure that all refuse and garbage is transported to a state-approved sanitary landfill for 

disposal. X X X X X X X X 

147. Operators would institute a Hazard Communication Program for its employees and would require subcontractor 

programs in accordance with OSHA (29 C.F.R. 1910.1200). X X X X X X X X 

148. In accordance with 29 C.F.R. 1910.1200, a Material Safety Data Sheet for every chemical or hazardous material 

brought on-site would be kept on file at the Operator's field office. X X X X X X X X 

149. SPCCPs would be written and implemented in accordance with 40 C.F.R. 112. X X X X X X X X 150. Chemical and hazardous materials would be inventoried and reported in accordance with 40 C.F.R. 335. If 

quantities exceeding 10,000 pounds or the threshold planning quality are to be produced or stored, the appropriate Section 311 and 312 forms would be submitted at the required times to the State and CountyEmergency Management Coordinators and the local fire departments. 

X X X X X X X X 

151. Any hazardous wastes, as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as

amended, would be transported and/or disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations. 

X X X X X X X X 

152. Operators would adhere to existing internal health and safety policies and procedures. X X X X X X X X 153. Operators would not release fracturing fluids and condensates into flare pits or surrounding areas; they would be 

confined in the reserve pit or tanks. All reserve pits would be lined unless an exception is granted by the BLM. X X X X X 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project C-1 

APPENDIX C — SCOPING ISSUES AND CONCERNS 

GENERAL ISSUES 

• Consider Greater Yellowstone Coalition for guidance on future development. 

• Oil and gas companies do not pay fair market value for leases: government should not 

subsidize this industry. 

• Increase local awareness of the role of local government in the federal planning process. 

• Directionally drilled wells should not be addressed in the NEPA analysis. 

• Adhere to FLPMA. 

• Ensure adherence with international principals and law using current ecological data. 

• BLM will be open to lawsuits if the project proceeds. 

• No pressing need for the development at this time. 

• The project undercuts wildlife protection measures in the original EIS. 

• Do not renew expired leases. 

• Existing oil and gas leases in the area should be bought out and/or traded for leases in 

areas of less-sensitive natural resources. 

• Do not waste taxpayer dollars on an EIS for this detrimental project. 

• Do not permit drilling on private lands without surface landowner approval. 

• BLM is taking a pro-oil-and-gas stance, as evidenced in the Heritage Brief of 2003. 

• Include environmental protection as a purpose and need. 

• BLM is not considering the Jonah Field for multiple use. 

• BLM must abide by requirements to manage public lands for multiple use and sustained 

yield. 

• The current average of 90 days to process and approve an APD is unacceptable and must 

be addressed to avoid interruption of development. 
C-2 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

• Improve communication and include proponents in the NEPA process (including range of 

alternatives development) whenever possible, and facilitate and improve information 

exchange as recommended by the Green River Basin Advisory Council to reduce time 

frames and ensure analyses are objective, factual, and complete. 

• BLM must remain on the sideline with respect to down-hole spacing issues, and take the 

forefront in encouraging efficient and rapid development of the resource to prevent 

waste. 

• BLM must recognize their role as lead agency, must not be swayed by public pressure 

from "conflict industries," and must base their decisions on sound science and fact. 

• Consider the April 3, 2003, Instruction Memorandum issued by the BLM regarding the 

need to protect surface owners on split estate properties. 

• If the BLM has insufficient resources to engage in inspection and enforcement, the 

backlog of inspection, enforcement, and other related issues must be dealt with 

satisfactorily prior to allowing further development. 

• BLM must inspect operations and enforce policy. 

• Violations by oil and gas companies should be addressed and may be resolved by 

canceling the lease, as well as imposing civil and/or criminal penalties. 

• The EIS should identify which stipulations cannot be relaxed and the specific conditions 

that must be met before a request to exempt, except, or relax a stipulation is allowed. 

Exemptions and exceptions should never be granted as a matter of convenience. 

• The differences in stipulations between environmental documents in the same region 

should be justified considering the input by experts; any variability in stipulations should 

be recognized as legitimate by both BLM and WGFD before being implemented. 

• Provide the public the opportunity to receive notice of individual APDs and participate in 

site-specific actions. The notice should be sent to groups/individuals requesting such 

notice within 3 business days of the day the application is received. 

• Sufficient bonds must be provided as a part of each complete APD. 

• BLM retains the authority to condition oil and gas development despite issuance of a 

lease, and they should exercise this mandate to avoid unnecessary and undue degradation 

of public lands. 

• The EIS and ROD must ensure that the policies and goals set forth in the NEPA are met. 

• The EIS and ROD should consider, analyze, and, where appropriate, facilitate 

international efforts to prevent environmental decline, as stated in 42 U.S.C. Section 

4332, 40 C.F.R. Section 1507.2, and BLM Handbook H-1790-1.V.B.2.a(3). 

• BLM must disclose how it has, since 1988, inventoried its lands and monitored natural 

resources and must reveal the data gathered. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project C-3 

• Address the adequacy of the NEPA process, in consideration of authorizations for the 

Jonah II Project without securing adequate information on environmental impacts of 

Jonah I. 

• In accordance with Memorandum No. 99-149, issued to relevant BLM officials on July 1, 

1999, assess whether existing NEPA documents can be relied upon for a current 

Proposed Action and, if so, assist personnel in recording the rationale for that conclusion. 

• NEPA and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibit drilling of additional wells in the 

JIDPA while this EIS is being prepared. 

• The aggregate nature of BLM development reviews could adversely affect the State of 

Wyoming's ability to develop its mineral interests to avoid drainage. 

• Interested parties should have available to them any data collected on air quality, habitat 

impacts, water quality, etc. 

• The USFS should be a cooperator on the Jonah Infill project. 

• BLM has the responsibility to ensure that local media report the issues from all 

perspectives. If media reporting is biased toward one or the other point of view, the BLM 

should write a letter to the editor to ensure the other side is heard. 

• Incorporate EnCana advertisements in the public record and hold them responsible for the 

promises made in these ads. 

• Follow EO 13212 in development of project-level NEPA analyses; current programs, 

policies, and rules must be evaluated to reduce barriers to America's energy selfsufficiency. 

• Communicate with cooperating agencies to prevent unforeseen delays, acknowledge the 

responsibilities of the various agencies, and work with them during preparation of the 

NEPA document. 

• Allow continued development of the Jonah Field under the existing NEPA analysis 

during the preparation of the new EIS at the same pace as has been realized for the past 3­

5 years. 

RMP ISSUES 

• Postpone the environmental analysis of the Jonah Project until the PFO RMP has been 

revised and an ROD signed. 

• Disclose to the public that this analysis will go forward independent from the PFO RMP. 

• The existing RMP predates the latest technological advances in natural gas recovery. 

• The existing RMP does not address the impacts from coalbed methane development, 

accelerated gas drilling, the increase in disturbance due to subdivisions, etc., over the past 

10+ years and the concomitant decrease in wildlife habitat. 
C-4 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

• Preparation of the PFO RMP must not take precedence or hinder the progress of the 

Jonah EIS. 

• The PFO RMP should set forth strict inspection and enforcement guidelines, should 

require quarterly inspection of well sites, and should require at least one unannounced 

wellsite visit annually. 

• Evaluating additional major oil and gas development projects while revising the RMP 

will limit the choice of the reasonable alternatives the agency might otherwise have 

available in the RMP, thus violating 40 C.F.R. Section 1506.1(a)(1)-(2) and 40 C.F.R. 

Section 1502.2(f). 

• The existing RMP and Jonah NEPA documents are outdated and analyses are, for the 

most part, inadequate to allow tiering by the new Jonah EIS (e.g., the RMP-projected 

RFD has been exceeded to the point of nullifying its cumulative impacts analysis). 

• Writing the EIS prior to completing the RMP predetermines the final outcome of the 

RMP, undermining the RMP process. 

• The inadequacy of BLM's outdated and aging RMPs has opened the BLM up for 

litigation and has left the BLM ill-prepared to address areas with vulnerable, sensitive, or 

at-risk resources. 

SCOPING ISSUES 

• The scoping notice does not define time frames (e.g., initial disturbance, life of project). 

• Explain and define the rules for public comment and the extent of the public's ability to 

affect the decision-making process. 

• There is erroneous information in the scoping statement regarding the time span for 

exploring and developing the Jonah Field and the number of wells approved. 

• A sufficient number of scoping meetings should be held at times and places that facilitate 

and encourage public participation and information. The meeting place and time should 

not be changed at the last minute, nor should the scoping meetings ever be held at an 

industry-sponsored location or event. 

• Hold more public meetings before implementing the project. 

• Some public concerns were not expressed at the scoping meeting because of intimidation 

due to the rally environment. 

• Form letters and post card scoping comments should carry equal weight with other more 

detailed comments. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project C-5 

FIELD DEVELOPMENT ISSUES 

• Directional drill from existing pads. 

• Upgrade existing non-producing or low-quantity producing wells rather than drill new 

wells. 

• Consider the use of alternative and innovative technologies. 

• Wait until existing leases are finished, and return pads and roads to wilderness habitat 

before allowing new drilling. 

• Restrict the pace of energy development and keep reserves for future use. 

• Leave gas reserves in place if they cannot be accessed by directional drilling from 

existing pads. 

• Maximize natural gas recovery. 

• Maintain a lower density of wells and extend the expected 25-year life of the field. 

• Use renewable energy sources whenever possible. 

• Provide full NEPA disclosure and review of all industry practices in the EIS, designating 

a list of best practices for oil and gas development. 

• Increased well productivity and the decreased need for roads, pipelines, etc., often 

compensates for increased directional drilling costs, resulting in more profitable 

operations. 

• Well pad construction areas should be adequate for safe operations but be as small as 

possible. 

• Incorporate suggested practices taken from Drilling Smarter. 

• Consider removing the limit of 400 multiple well locations. 

• Centralized condensate stabilization, storage/treatment, and produced water storage 

facilities should be promoted to help minimize disturbance acreage, traffic, and well site 

visits. 

• Directional drilling should not be required as a primary reducer of disturbance. 

• Require underground flaring. 

• The complex area geology requires the denser well spacing pattern to ensure recovery of 

available gas reserves. 

• The pipeline system should be located in road ROWs. 
C-6 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

• The use of pit liners during the drilling of the wells may be unnecessary. The liner 

material may exist in a buried pit for 50 years or more. 

ALTERNATIVES ISSUES 

• Analyze the following alternatives: 1) no action; 2) no additional development until full 

reclamation of existing structures is achieved; 3) no new road construction (wells could 

be built along existing improved roads); and 4) directionally drill all new wells from 

existing well pads. If these alternatives are not considered, provide scientifically sound 

reasons why not. 

• Evaluate a full development alternative and disclose how that will facilitate future 

Proposed Actions or necessary deviations from the approved alternative. 

• A full development alternative should be developed to avoid re-analysis and project 

analysis piecemealing. 

• A full development alternative should be included (i.e., nearly 3,000 additional wells on 

as little as 5-acre surface spacing). 

• The EIS should contain objective analyses of feasible alternatives, not just mitigation 

techniques proposed on the presumption of significant impacts. 

• Provide a broader range of alternatives to cover all possible levels of development. 

• Include a resource protection alternative that includes mitigation measures (with clear 

and concise BLM and public enforcement capabilities) similar to but more stringent than 

the alternative adopted in the ROD for the Pinedale Anticline Natural Gas Project. 

• Incorporate an alternative that withdraws any split estate lands from leasing if they have 

not yet been leased. 

• BLM must not foreclose certain alternatives at the outset of the analysis; all reasonable 

alternatives must be rigorously explored and objectively evaluated. 

• Use the scoping process to develop alternatives that emphasize the need for 

environmental protection (even if they limit or strongly regulate oil and gas 

development), rather than just accepting the highest level of industrialization as proposed 

by industry. 

• Evaluate an alternative that requires use of best available technologies (e.g., recapturing 

gases rather than flaring) and directional drilling. 

• Evaluate alternatives that propose development at several different total well numbers 

(i.e., include alternatives with lower levels of industrialization). 

• Consider a conservation/community alternative with fewer wells (<1,250), a slower 

development pace (<75 wells/year), and no new well pads. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project C-7 

• Evaluate alternatives that propose several different configurations and well spacing 

scenarios; BLM has the discretion to depart from the industry-preferred configurations 

and well spacing. 

• Consider alternatives that require off-site mitigation and require such mitigation in the 

ROD. 

• Do not treat non-preferred alternatives as "straw men" whose only function is to provide 

"extremes" against which to contrast "moderate" alternatives. 

IMPACT/CUMULATIVE IMPACT ISSUES 

• There is not enough current information on the long-term and cumulative impacts of 

existing wells in the Jonah Field and throughout the Green River Valley. 

• The Jonah Field has already been negatively impacted to an unreasonable degree by 

existing and ongoing development. 

• The Proposed Action constitutes unnecessary and undue degradation under FLPMA. 

• BLM lacks knowledge on the level of existing development (i.e., number of wells 

existing in the PFO and their impacts); thus, they are unable to provide this information 

to concerned citizens. 

• Address only the germane concerns and identify and eliminate from further 

analysis/discussion issues that are not significant and/or that have been covered by prior 

environmental review. 

• In the context of oil and gas development, "incremental step" consultation is of concern, 

and the EIS must address this issue. BLM must assist the USFWS in developing a fully 

informed understanding of the effects of the entire action, even if incremental step 

consultation is used. 

• An ecosystem-wide impacts study should be completed before allowing any further 

development to proceed. 

• Provide maps and/or tables depicting the extent of oil and gas leases, seismic exploration 

projects, etc., in the PFO and on adjacent lands as part of the evaluation of RFD. 

• Disclose baseline data and conditions for important resources (e.g., air and water quality; 

wildlife populations, migrations, and habitat assessments) present in the area prior to 

development, and disclose the current ecological conditions of all resources to evaluate 

environmental conditions and impacts in an informed manner. 

• Given the rate of development in the area, 1.2 million acres of the public lands that link 

the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem could be converted to a single, continuous industrial 

sacrifice zone. 

• Consider information in the report Fragmenting Our Lands, the Ecological Footprint 

from Oil and Gas Development (Weller et al. 2002). 
C-8 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

• The cumulative effects analysis in the Jonah II documents are outdated (e.g., the Pinedale 

Anticline and numerous other oil and gas projects have occurred in the area since the 

analysis was conducted). 

• Explicitly address unquantifiable environmental values (e.g., open space, quiet 

landscapes), defining the impacts of the various alternatives, as well as ways to mitigate 

for impacts on those values. 

• Ground-truth and/or analyze with satellite imagery the true amount of surface disturbance 

associated with existing well pads, roads, compressor stations, pipelines, and other 

facilities and use those data (rather than the commonly used acreage assumptions) to 

estimate surface disturbance associated with the project. 

• Gather information and disclose where information is lacking, and use credible, scientific 

evidence to present reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts (including low-likelihood but 

catastrophic events) so that impacts can be assessed based on approaches that are 

generally accepted in the scientific community. 

• Disclose how actions on private lands (e.g., subdivisions, urban sprawl, roads, fences, 

and grazing), in combination with the project, would impact natural resources such as air, 

water, and wildlife. 

• Consider connected actions, cumulative actions, and similar actions (40 C.F.R. Section 

1508.25). 

• Clarify how significant adverse impacts could be identified for the Pinedale Anticline 

Project, yet a FONSI could be reached in the adjacent Jonah II area in 2000. 

MITIGATION/MONITORING ISSUES 

• Exempt surrounding wilderness from any future drilling. 

• Withdraw other areas from oil and gas leasing. 

• Set aside or construct a mitigation project of equivalent benefit to resources other than oil 

and gas. 

• Require strong monitoring programs for air and water quality, wildlife, etc. 

• Industry should be compensated for mitigation costs above and beyond those required by 

current law (e.g., directional drilling); provide a cost/benefit analysis of all required 

mitigation measures. 

• NEPA does not require mitigation for a FONSI. 

• Take actions to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of lands as required by 

FLPMA. 

• Consider incorporating principles of adaptive management into the project, including 

1) accurate delineation of critical habitats and corridors; 2) development of a relatively 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project C-9 

low number of wells, followed by an assessment of their effects through monitoring and 

research; and 3) based on these assessments, modify development and implement new 

mitigation measures. 

• Mitigation discussions must have a prominent place and be a major part of the impact 

assessment process. BLM must consider a wide array of mitigation measures, including 

off-site measures, that lessen, and potentially eliminate, the adverse impacts of 

development on natural resources (e.g., water and air quality, wildlife). 

• Provide a follow-up procedure to allow for the adoption of new best management 

practices, as they become available. 

• BLM and Operators are legally mandated to monitor a number of species, but current 

monitoring has been inadequate to nonexistent, particularly for pronghorn antelope 

populations, distribution, and response to oil and gas development on the Pinedale 

Anticline project. 

• Currently, the extent of the "reduced levels of development" outside the down-spacing 

area is not well defined, nor have the Operators relinquished the rights to explore/develop 

the area outside this area at a later date. The EIS should define a firmer commitment of 

what will occur outside of the proposed down-spacing area, so that more appropriate 

mitigation can be planned. At present, no further development is proposed for areas 

outside the JIDPA but within the formerly defined Jonah Field. In the event new 

development is proposed in this area, additional NEPA analysis would be conducted. 

• The management problem of extending mitigation/protection measures to lands adjacent 

to the Jonah Project area that are within the Anticline Project area must be addressed. 

• Off-site mitigation should not be analyzed since the JIDPA is within an Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act (EPCA) focus area. 

LAND MANAGEMENT/USE ISSUES 

• Density of disturbance may negatively impact recreation. 

• The lands are more valuable for nonconsumptive (scenery, hunting, photography, 

camping, hiking, tourism) use than for the ultimately limited oil and gas reserves. 

• The area of the project is remote, with a low population, little to no recreational value, 

and little to no agricultural value; thus, it is a desirable area to develop oil and gas 

reserves. 

• Density of disturbance may negatively impact livestock grazing. 

• The BLM is right in including disruption of livestock operations, loss of forage 

availability (short-term) and increased forage availability (long-term), and potential 

increased livestock productivity from increased water availability in scoping issues. 

• Take a proactive approach to managing travel, roads, and off-road vehicle use within the 

project area. 
C-10 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

• The approach at the Burma Road and Highway 351 junction is substandard and requires 

rebuilding to include widening, paving, and a new culvert and cattleguard. 

• Limit habitat fragmentation, protect current roadless areas, provide for aggressively 

closing unnecessary or ecologically destructive roads, and provide for maintaining 

needed roads to reduce negative environmental impacts. 

• The transportation plan must require adequate design considerations to minimize impacts 

(number and miles of roads) and provide orderly and safe traffic movement. The plan 

should include dust mitigation measures and siltation barriers, and the county should use 

tax revenues obtained from gas production to pave primary field access roads, similar to 

the policy of paving roads for energy development in Campbell County. 

• If the project is approved, BLM should withdraw the South Piney Front from oil and gas 

leasing, present leases should be allowed to expire, and mitigation projects of equivalent 

benefit to other resources (e.g., wildlife habitat) should be constructed and implemented. 

• Desired future conditions of the landscape must be addressed. 

RECLAMATION/VEGETATION ISSUES 

• Publicize locations that have been "successfully reclaimed" so that the public can see 

what the restored lands may look like. 

• Reclaimed lands are often not blended into existing landscapes and, as a result, they are 

often used by all terrain vehicles (ATVs), resulting in lands that are not truly reclaimed 

back to an undisturbed state. 

• It is a difficult and long-term prospect to reclaim desert lands after disturbance. 

• The spread of non-native species as a result of the project must be addressed. 

• The potential to remove 20% of the vegetation for the life-of-project (LOP) is a very 

significant vegetation impact, and noxious weed control, among other issues, must be 

addressed. 

• Land may be damaged beyond its ability to be reclaimed. 

• Provide for compliance and enforcement of Executive Order 13112, which establishes 

federal agency requirements and procedures relative to invasive species and requires 

agencies to not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or 

promote the introduction or spread of invasive species, unless it is determined that the 

benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species. 

• To protect native vegetation: 1) prohibit surface disturbance and ROWs in threatened, 

endangered, or sensitive plant species habitat; 2) ensure no cross-country vehicular travel 

is allowed in known habitat for sensitive plant species; 3) address how Operators will be 

trained with respect to noxious weed identification; 4) augment law enforcement 

personnel and field staff to curb noncompliance activities and to protect sensitive species 

from irreversible impacts; 5) survey the project area to document all relict or undisturbed 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project C-11 

plant communities and ensure that those areas are protected; 6) protect and reestablish, 

where degraded, riparian plant communities; 7) address how all equipment will be 

properly cleaned prior to arrival in the area; and 8) make every APD contingent on the 

prevention of weed infestation and include plans to monitor weed infestation over the 

LOP. 

• Ensure that ecosystems are fully protected so as to enhance biological diversity. 

• Sufficient bonds (as opposed to the unreasonably low bond amounts currently used) 

should be required to ensure adequate monies for cleanup/reclamation; this will protect 

the federal government, as well as landowners on split estates. 

• Each APD should fully describe and detail reclamation requirements. 

• Develop and implement practices to replace the grass resources lost to field development. 

• Reclamation should proceed, as applicable, throughout the LOF so that final reclamation 

is more easily and quickly accomplished (e.g., controlling noxious weeds from the outset, 

rather than allowing them to propagate). 

• Invite all interested parties to participate in final bond release inspections, and on split 

estate properties the landowners should be notified of the opportunity to participate at 

least 15 days prior to final inspection. 

GENERAL WILDLIFE ISSUES 

• Obtain better baseline wildlife data and monitoring (animals and habitat). 

• The Jonah area is critical winter habitat for wildlife in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. 

• Long-term impacts to pronghorn, greater sage-grouse, mountain plover, pygmy rabbit, 

and other high-profile or sensitive species are unknown and may be unacceptable. 

• Prohibit development in environmentally sensitive areas such as big game migration 

corridors and winter and transitional ranges, greater sage-grouse strutting and nesting 

habitats, the Green and New Fork River corridors, and the scenic Wind River Front. 

• Assess the impact on wildlife that are displaced and may move to less desirable or 

marginal habitat. 

• The project will contribute to increased wildlife habitat fragmentation. 

• Address impacts on wildlife deaths due to increased traffic and animal/vehicle collisions. 

• Identify negative impacts of the road network on wildlife habitat, increased poaching, 

diminished enjoyment for hunters, visual impacts, and undue stress on wildlife during 

critical times of the year. 

• Study and disclose the increase in poaching from increased human population size, 

access, and presence. 
C-12 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

• Provide a list of species within and outside the PFO that will be impacted; disclose 

monitoring, population, and habitat data in regard to each species; and adopt mitigation 

measures to protect each species from negative impacts caused by the project. 

• Discuss the impacts of the human population growth that accompanies oil and gas 

development on the wildlife species in and near the project area. 

• The WGFD Strategic Habitat Plan should be closely followed and included within the 

project EIS and subsequent ROD. 

• Indirect impacts of energy development on wildlife should be more extensively studied 

and incorporated into a long-term cumulative effects analysis, which also takes into 

account the subdivision of private lands in the Upper Green River Valley. 

• Address the impact of power lines on birds and bats (e.g., strike hazard, electrocution, 

alteration of the structure of the habitat such as the provision of perches for raptors to the 

detriment of other species). 

• Royalty revenues from natural gas and oil development underwrite the conservation of 

wildlife and habitat, national parks, refuges, and recreation areas and often fund research 

and monitoring efforts that assist land managers with managing the many resources found 

on public lands. 

• Carefully analyze the potential impacts to migratory birds and require mitigations or 

avoidance accordingly. 

• WGFD requests an opportunity to review existing wildlife monitoring data and to provide 

mitigation measures in coordination with BLM personnel. 

• Water developments that provide year-round water sources for antelope and other 

wildlife species should be considered as mitigation--WGFD would provide on-theground consultation with Operators and BLM personnel to help implement this 

mitigation measure. 

• Consider as mitigation the rejuvenation of the "wildlife wells" program in the 

Yellowpoint area. 

• The disturbance of an additional 11,000 acres could pose a serious threat to wildlife 

habitat, causing habitat fragmentation and disruption of migration routes and breeding 

activity. Give serious thought and attention to cumulative impacts of this and other 

projects in the Green River Valley, with the importance of this area to many wildlife 

species, as well as tourism and recreation, weighing in heavily on the ultimate decision. 

• Impacts to migratory birds must be addressed, actions that may result in a take of a bird 

or nest must be coordinated with USFWS, and the appropriate permits must be obtained 

prior to the actions. 

• The field provides wildlife habitat, with facilities providing cover for small mammals, 

tanks and elevated structures providing nesting areas for birds, and new grass on 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project C-13 

reclaimed areas providing forage for ungulates. The short-term impact on wildlife should 

be weighed against the long-term improvement in their habitat. 

BIG GAME ISSUES 

• Assess wildlife impacts of winter drilling exceptions. 

• Assess the impacts of the project on migration corridors of elk, deer, moose, and 

pronghorn. 

• Impacts to deer and pronghorn may be subtle and not easily quantified but may include 

negative and incremental physiological responses, resulting in cumulative stress and less 

resistance to natural stressors (e.g., poor forage, climatic extremes). 

• Consider the findings presented in Potential Effects of Oil and Gas Development on Mule 

Deer and Pronghorn Populations in Western Wyoming (Sawyer et al. 2001). 

• The project may result in impacts on habitat use by deer and pronghorn, as well as the 

potential for alteration of use patterns resulting in degradation of winter, crucial, or 

transition ranges and use of marginal habitat. 

• To protect migratory mammals: 1) no surface occupancy should be allowed in severe 

winter relief ranges for mule deer and pronghorn; 2) a minimum buffer zone of 200 

meters should be used for wells and roads until ongoing studies are completed and 

recommendations based on study results can be made; 3) where possible, directional 

drilling should be required; and 4) pads should be placed to minimize disturbance to big 

game. 

• Sufficient data should be collected so as to define the ecological and landscape conditions 

necessary for maintaining big game populations at WGFD target levels. 

• Ensure that migration corridors and other ecological linkages are maintained and that 

management actions protect the ecological integrity of these corridors. 

• Require no net loss of big game transitional and winter ranges. 

• The Modified Jonah EA states that approximately 49% of the original Jonah II area 

would have reduced levels of development, and some areas may have no development. 

However, there were no assurances that these areas would not be further developed in the 

future. Desirable exploration and development areas may be identified as development 

proceeds in the area. If this is still true, the upper limit for impacts to migrating wildlife 

is unknown and cannot be adequately addressed. Impact levels should be identified that 

would trigger a re-analysis of impacts/alternatives in the future if further development 

occurs. 

• The area provides wintering habitat for pronghorn, and the area west of the proposed 

down-spacing serves as a migration corridor for the Jackson Hole (and, presumably, 

other) antelope. Studies show that pronghorn appear to be wintering in areas not 

classified as winter range. Note that results of research to refine seasonal range 

boundaries will be provided as it becomes available. 
C-14 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

• The reason for the mule deer population decline in the area may be that the deer are in a 

"down cycle," as has been described for deer in northwestern Wyoming. 

• Consider the Western EcoSystems Technology Inc. (WEST) Evaluation of the PFO RMP 

and the Anticline Final EIS, including all materials referenced within (WEST 2003). 

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE ISSUES 

• Potential impacts to greater sage-grouse include 1) male and/or female lek attendance and 

the potential decrease in reproductive success; 2) disturbance of nesting and brooding 

greater sage-grouse and the resulting potential for decreased reproductive success; and 3) 

disturbance of wintering greater sage-grouse and the potential of forcing grouse onto less 

desirable wintering grounds, resulting in the potential for decreased survival and/or 

spring fitness. 

• Thoroughly evaluate project impacts on greater sage-grouse and commit to the following: 

1) adopt a policy of no surface disturbance within 3 miles of occupied leks; 2) locate and 

give special designation as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) to all areas 

used by greater sage-grouse during both average and severe winters; 3) require standard 

surveys as soon as possible to estimate changes in numbers of greater sage-grouse in 

identified winter use areas, to locate active leks, and to map mid- to late-summer broodrearing areas based on moisture and green forage availability; 4) immediately initiate 

replicated, long-term studies to understand the effects of habitat fragmentation on 

predator numbers and greater sage-grouse predation rates; 5) incorporate the habitat 

guidelines/desired future conditions published by Connelly et al. (2000) into the project 

EIS/ROD so that greater sage-grouse nest success and chick survival improve; and 6) 

require road closures (permanent or seasonal), the burial of power lines, modifications of 

fences and other structures, and elimination of livestock grazing in areas where oil and 

gas production is permitted. 

• The Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the Wyoming BLM 

Statewide Greater Sage-grouse Team management guidelines should be utilized. 

• Determine whether the grouse in the JIDPA are migratory. 

• The distinction between active and historic greater sage-grouse leks should be addressed, 

and scientifically based rationale should be provided and other agency personnel (i.e., 

WGFD) input sought if protective stipulations are removed from historic leks. 

• Avoidance of greater sage-grouse wintering areas should be addressed with specific 

details provided so that a disclosure of the benefits can be identified. 

• Allowing down-spacing within the area and creating lower-density areas in the remainder 

of the Jonah Project Area would not benefit greater sage-grouse leks, as there are no 

longer any active leks outside of the proposed down-spacing area. To assure adequate 

protection for at least the nesting and brood-rearing habitat near project area lek sites, a 

0.5-mi buffer around the 4-2, 4-6, and Sand Draw Reservoir leks should be provided for 

any new drilling sites. Additionally, a 0.5-mi buffer from new drilling should be afforded 

the Rocks, Buckhorn #1, Alkali Draw, and Shelter Cabin leks outside but adjacent to the 

JIDPA. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project C-15 

• The Jonah and Anticline areas provide fall and wintering range for greater sage-grouse 

that breed as far as 20-30 miles away. Alkali Draw and Granite Wash areas could be 

used as mitigation locations for potential impacts to winter range. Suggested 

mitigation/protection measures could be lower well densities, larger buffer zones for no 

surface disturbance, or both. 

• No project activities that may exacerbate habitat loss or degradation for greater 

sage-grouse should be permitted in important habitats. 

• Long-term monitoring efforts (20-30 years) and research studies to determine and 

separately quantify impacts of energy development and other multiple use activities are 

needed. It would also be desirable to establish concurrent long-term monitoring within 

the Wind River Front area, which is currently prohibited from new leasing. 

• Unless site-specific information is available, greater sage-grouse habitat should be 

managed following the guidelines of Connelly et al. (2000), including 1) before initiating 

vegetative treatments, quantitatively evaluate the area proposed for treatment to ensure 

that it is not suitable breeding habitat (Generally, fire should not be used in greater sagegrouse breeding habitats dominated by Wyoming big sagebrush. Fire should also be 

avoided in areas prone to invasion by cheatgrass or other invasive weedy species.); 

2) include sagebrush, native forbs (especially legumes), and native grasses in reseeding 

efforts; 3) when restoring habitats dominated by Wyoming big sagebrush, do not treat 

>20% of the breeding habitat within a 30-year period (Similarly, in areas dominated by 

mountain big sage, no more than 20% of the breeding habitat should be treated in a 20­

year period.); 4) avoid land use practices that reduce soil moisture effectiveness, increase 

erosion, cause invasion of exotic plants, and reduce abundance and diversity of forbs; 5) 

avoid removing sagebrush within 300 m of greater sage-grouse foraging areas along 

riparian zones, meadow, lakebeds, and farmland, unless such removal is necessary to 

achieve management objectives; 6) avoid use of organophosphorus and carbamate 

insecticides in greater sage-grouse brood-rearing habitats; 7) avoid developing springs for 

livestock water, but if water from a spring will be used in a pipeline or trough, design the 

project to maintain free water and wet meadows in the spring; 8) maintain sagebrush 

communities on a landscape scale, allowing greater sage-grouse access to sagebrush 

stands with canopy cover or 10-30% and heights of 25-35 cm regardless of snow cover; 

9) re-seed former winter ranges with the appropriate subspecies of sagebrush and 

herbaceous species unless the species are recolonizing the area in a density that would 

allow recovery within 15 years; 10) identify breeding and winter ranges in Wyoming big 

sagebrush habitats and establish these areas as high priority for wildfire suppression; and 

11) greater sage-grouse populations that have thus far survived extensive habitat loss may 

still face extinction because of a time lag between habitat loss and population collapse. 

• Incorporate recommendations in the report A Review of Sage-Grouse Habitat Needs and 

Sage-Grouse Management Issues for the Revision of the BLM's Pinedale District 

Resource Management Plan (Braun 2002) including 1) adopt a policy of no surface 

disturbance within 3 miles of occupied leks, as data clearly show negative impacts to 

greater sage-grouse at the present distance of 0.25 mile or 0.50 mile; 2) all areas used by 

greater sage-grouse during both average or "normal" and severe winters should be 

located, mapped, and given special protection from wildfire, manipulation of sagebrush, 

and human-induced disturbance (At least 90% of the newly mapped areas should be 

designated as a network of ACECs as part of the RMP revision process.); 3) adherence to 
C-16 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

time of use restrictions for project activities from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. during the 

breeding and nesting periods should be strictly monitored and enforced; 4) management 

of mid- to late-summer brood-rearing areas should encourage forb regrowth while 

maintaining at least a 6-inch residual grass height with taller live sagebrush of >15% 

canopy cover in close proximity (<200 yards) for use as escape cover; and 5) mitigation 

should be emphasized for all activities known to negatively impact greater sage-grouse, 

including but not limited to a) burial or modification of power lines; b) offset drilling; c) 

road closures and time restrictions; d) removal of livestock grazing; e) nitrogen 

fertilization of winter and nesting areas; and f) removal or modification of existing 

fences. Full mitigation would be to replace the exact number of project-impacted grouse 

by increasing the number of grouse per area that unaffected areas can support. 

RAPTOR ISSUES 

• Examine existing stipulations and protections to determine their effectiveness and 

whether they should be modified to protect raptors. 

• Evaluate whether habitat that could potentially be occupied by raptors (e.g., previously 

utilized nests) should receive protection to ensure the continued viability of raptors in the 

JIDPA. 

• Consider all biological needs of raptors and develop suitable protections for all 

significant life stages of the birds. 

• Address BLM means of compliance and enforcement with the Bald Eagle Protection Act 

and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, PROPOSED, CANDIDATE AND BLM 

WYOMING SENSITIVE SPECIES 

• Address threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate (TEP&C) and BLM Wyoming 

sensitive (BWS) species. 

• Work toward prairie dog conservation and recovery, and disclose whether any prairie dog 

towns are found in the JIDPA. 

• Require and ensure full compliance with BLM Manual MS-6840, including the 

following: 1) ensure candidate and BWS species are appropriately considered; 2) develop 

and implement range-wide or site-specific management plans, conservation strategies, 

and assessments for TEP&C and BWS species that include specific habitat and 

population management strategies and objectives; 3) ensure activities affecting the habitat 

of TEP&C and BWS species are carried out in a manner consistent with management 

objectives; and 4) monitor populations and habitats of TEP&C and BWS species to 

determine whether management objectives are being met. 

• Ensure full compliance with requirements to engage in early consultation with the 

USFWS relative to the effects of this action on listed species. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project C-17 

• Identify and provide for the protection of keystone species (e.g., prairie dogs), and 

recognize and protect keystone resources (e.g., springs, deep pools in streams, salt or 

mineral licks). 

• Comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and proactively implement programs 

for the conservation of listed species. 

• Prepare a Biological Assessment (BA) and involve only credible and reputable scientists 

to conduct BA and other ESA-related analyses. 

• It is inappropriate to merge BAs with EISs, mixing ESA compliance with NEPA 

compliance. 

• Information on the existence of pygmy rabbits in the project area must be collected prior 

to activity associated with this proposed project, and pygmy rabbit habitat should be 

considered in APD decisions. BLM should immediately begin collecting pygmy rabbit 

data for the project, as well as assessing if Jonah Field management requires adjustment. 

• Protection of potential TEP&C species habitat should not be given the same protection as 

that for TEP&C species. 

• If the project is approved, BLM and their non-federal representatives must work with the 

USFWS to develop survey, impact minimization, and conservation measures for all listed 

species. Consultation with USFWS pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA must be 

undertaken if the proposed project may affect a listed species. 

• Species listed by USFWS that may be present in the project area or affected by the 

project include bald eagle, black-footed ferret, Ute ladies'-tresses, mountain plover, and 

Colorado River fish. 

• Implement a 1.0-mi disturbance-free buffer around bald eagle nests and winter roosts, or, 

if not practical, activity must be conducted outside of February 15-August 15 to protect 

nesting birds and November 1-April 15 to protect roosting birds. 

• If white-tailed prairie dog towns or complexes of greater than 200 acres will be disturbed, 

surveys for ferrets are recommended. These surveys should be conducted even if only a 

portion of the town or complex will be disturbed. 

• Surveys for Ute ladies'-tresses should be conducted by a knowledgeable botanist trained 

in conducting rare plant surveys. 

• Surveys for mountain plover should be conducted in all suitable nesting habitat, and 

nesting areas should be avoided from April 10 through July 10. The Mountain Plover 

Survey Guidelines provide the necessary information regarding surveys and protection 

measures. Changes in habitat suitability and/or direct habitat loss should also be 

addressed. 

• Develop protective measures, with an assurance of implementation should mountain 

plover be found in the JIDPA. 
C-18 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

• Formal consultation is required for any project that may lead to depletions of water to the 

Colorado River System. Depletions include evaporative losses and/or consumptive use 

of surface water or ground water within the affected basin. Should depletions be 

anticipated as a result of the project, include an estimate of the amount and timing (by 

month) of average annual water depletion (both existing and new depletions) and 

describe the methods of arriving at such estimates. 

• The impacts to TEP&C species on non-federal lands must be considered an interrelated 

and interdependent effect and must be evaluated and addressed. Notify all lessees of 

their responsibilities to comply with federal and other applicable regulations, regardless 

of land or mineral ownership. 

AIR QUALITY ISSUES 

• Obtain better baseline air quality monitoring data before developing new wells. 

• Air quality impacts may result in acidification of lakes, soil damage, and negative 

impacts to wildlife and human safety. 

• The project is likely to result in significant air quality impacts not only in the JIDPA but 

also in the Class I Bridger and Fitzpatrick Wilderness Areas. 

• The project is likely to result in the production and deposition of considerable volumes of 

oxides of sulfur (SOx), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and other toxic aerosols; however, this 

deposition is extremely difficult to monitor due to the narrowness and shifting direction 

of the plumes. 

• Address all reasonably foreseeable direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on air quality, 

including global warming as a result of burning the produced gas. 

• Air quality analysis for far-field effects should not be necessary, given the analysis 

completed for the Pinedale Anticline EIS. 

• The air quality discussion should include a thorough analysis of the adverse impacts to air 

quality associated with burning substitute fuel sources, if development is limited, made 

more costly, or delayed. 

• Include a complete increment consumption analysis to identify areas where Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) increments have previously been fully consumed by prior 

development and/or will be fully consumed by the additional emissions from proposed oil 

and gas developments. 

• Analyze control strategies to identify mitigation measures sufficient to prevent expected 

exceedances of air quality standards. 

• Modeling should include emissions from drilling of 250 wells per year with emissions 

from the maximum number of producing wells. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project C-19 

• Analyze the recent evidence of adverse health effects associated with exposure to 

particulate matter less than 10 microns in size (PM10) and less than 2.5 microns in size 

(PM2.5). 

• Address releases of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) during produced water disposal 

operations. 

• Implement cumulative impacts analysis including all completed, ongoing, and proposed 

oil and gas projects and other existing activities in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. 

• Quantify impacts state-wide. 

• Consider mitigation measures sufficient to provide for compliance with state and federal 

standards and to prevent adverse effects: 1) on public health resulting from large 

increases in exposure to daily concentrations of fine particles and 2) on acid-sensitive 

watersheds as a result of emissions. 

• Conduct a regulatory analysis to identify the minor source baseline dates for pollutants. 

If the EIS fails to include a comprehensive increment consumption analysis, the EIS will 

be rendered inadequate because without such analysis, it is impossible to determine 

whether increments have been consumed by prior development or whether the project 

will cause the increments to be exceeded. 

• Before proceeding with the project, the RMP EIS must describe the full magnitude of the 

exceedances of increments that will result from adding emissions from the completed, 

ongoing, and proposed projects and then identify mitigation measures that will prevent 

the adverse impacts. 

• Expressly address how the BLM will carry out responsibilities to protect visibility in the 

Class I areas. 

• Include provisions to implement EPA's "No Degradations" policy under the Clean Air 

Act. The information needed to identify the least-impaired days and to provide a 

meaningful assessment of the extent to which visibility will be degraded on the leastimpaired days should be developed and submitted to the public in the EIS. The results of 

the analysis should be considered for the purpose of identifying the kinds of mitigation 

measures necessary to achieve the No Degradation standard. 

• Identify and mitigate acid rain impacts. 

• Identify and mitigate the impacts on public health from fine particle exposures. 

• Address the problem of global warming and the steps BLM can take in considering this 

project to reduce the problem. 

• It is contended that 1) the Upper Green River Region has suffered measurable 

degradation from human-caused visual haze and nonvisible greenhouse gases (air 

transparency and possible regional microclimate/heating effects) from the trona plants 

west of Green River and drilling activities in the Jonah field; 2) distinct decreases in 
C-20 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

average peak ultraviolet radiation have resulted from the Jonah field; 3) haze events now 

occur in the region; and 4) there is increased traffic dust and engine emissions. 

• Conduct investigations to assess microclimate heating prior to further development. 

• Development and utilization of natural gas reserves assists in attainment of clean air 

objectives in conformance with presidential and congressional directives. 

• Utilize NOx emissions data collected in recent years to determine whether visibility 

impacts are occurring or predicted to occur and use this information to make 

recommendations to EPA regarding air quality and to WDEQ regarding permitting for 

existing leases and in making decisions regarding future leases on BLM-administered 

lands. 

• In light of the April 24, 2000, letter agreement between BLM, EPA, WDEQ, and the 

USFS to discontinue the Jonah II ROD levels of concern, the BLM should review the 

agreement, along with new monitoring information; should review emission sources that 

WDEQ has been tracking; and should assess current impacts and mitigation for future 

projects. 

• Do not make the assumption that mitigation measures used in 40-, 80-, or 160-acre 

spacing are appropriate for the project. The proposed spacing will require additional 

analysis and mitigation practices that have not previously been required. 

• EPA requests a meeting be set up as soon as possible, involving WDEQ, USFS, National 

Park Service (NPS), EPA, and BLM, to determine what has been accomplished (in the 

area of air and water quality) per past agreements for southwestern Wyoming and what 

future impact analysis and mitigation might be needed. 

• Consider potential increased gas processing emissions associated with increased gas 

production from the field. 

• Investigate options for off-site mitigation that may improve the overall air quality in 

southwest Wyoming while allowing development to continue (e.g., as when Ultra 

Petroleum and the Naughton Power Plant added emission reduction equipment to the 

Naughton Power Plant, reducing levels of NOx emissions). 

• Cumulative impacts on air quality from the project combined with ongoing development 

and RFD, including the Powder River Basin Coalbed Methane Project, should be 

analyzed. Analysis should include potential impacts to visibility and deposition in the 

Bridger, Fitzpatrick, Teton, Washakie, and North Absaroka Wilderness Areas (Class I), 

as well as impacts to the Gros Ventre and Popo Agie Wilderness Areas (Class II). 

• Air quality modeling domains should be expanded to incorporate the Powder River Basin 

study to determine cumulative impacts. 

• The installation of vapor-burning stacks and other emissions control equipment in the 

field has increased the clarity of the air, which previously created a haze at the base of the 

Wind River Mountains east of the field. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project C-21 

WATER ISSUES 

• Obtain better baseline water quality monitoring data before developing new wells. 

• Assess present and future water quality, quantity, direction, and flow conditions. 

• Pumping water from the Green and New Fork Rivers and their tributaries would magnify 

drought effects on these waters. 

• Comply with WDEQ water quality permits/permitting requirements. 

• The project will increase pollution and draining of water resources. 

• Assess downstream effects on the Colorado River system. 

• Two stock ponds have dried up and six cattle have been poisoned from drinking 

contaminated water as a result of oil and gas activities in the area. 

• Concern over negative effects of aquifer depletion on stock ponds. 

• Ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act and 1) manage natural resources on a 

watershed basis; 2) emphasize assessment of the function and condition of watersheds, 

incorporating watershed goals in planning, enhancing pollution prevention, monitoring 

and restoring watersheds, recognizing waters of exceptional value, and expanding 

collaboration with other agencies, states, tribes, and communities; 3) increase 

maintenance of roads and trails and aggressively relocate problem roads and trails; and 4) 

enhance the quality of streams and riparian zones and accelerate restoration. 

• The proposed well density may cause problems with sediment in runoff from storm 

events, thus impacting water quality in the Green River. 

• Water quality data should be logged and continually registered at the Sublette County 

Courthouse Register of Deeds and Documents prior to and during oil and gas 

development. 

• Riparian or streamside habitats should be avoided whenever possible. Plans for 

mitigating unavoidable impacts to wetland and riparian areas should include mitigation 

goals and objectives, methodologies, time frames for implementation, success criteria, 

and monitoring to determine if the mitigation is successful. The plan should also include 

a contingency plan to be implemented should the mitigation be unsuccessful. 

• It may be advantageous for all parties to find a use for the produced water before it is 

evaporated or injected. 

• Water handling equipment is currently being tested to investigate the viability of reusing 

produced water for base fluid in fracture simulations. 
C-22 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

CULTURAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORIC RESOURCE ISSUES 

• Assess impacts to Native American issues and cultural/religious sites. 

• Assess impacts to National Historical Trails in light of recent legislation protecting those 

sites. 

• Density of disturbance may negatively impact archaeological resources. 

• Consider more intensive data collection on archaeological sites of high value in exchange 

for disturbance of areas with less unique archaeological value. 

• Address the implication of the recent Instruction Memorandum authorizing the BLM to 

do away with the traditional linear approach to surveying for cultural resources on the 

Jonah area. 

• Identify areas where cultural sites are at risk, and employ available administrative 

measures to protect those resources. 

• Provide specific management intent and practices for cultural resources. 

• Consult with Native American tribes during the planning process. 

• Ensure that cultural resource inventories are prepared and maintained and that historic 

properties are identified, evaluated, and protected, and if appropriate nominated to the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 

• The effects of the project on the Lander Trail should be addressed. 

• Address the cumulative effects of the proposed development on cultural resources. 

• BLM has not honored an agreement (Programmatic Agreement between the BLM and 

SHPO regarding the Jonah II and Pinedale Anticline) to develop a historic context 

planning document that would synthesize previous ethnohistorical, historical, 

geophysical, soils, biological, and cultural-historical studies conducted within the fields. 

This synthesis was to have been used to form the basis for development of a cultural 

resource research design/management plan, which was to have been completed within 

one year of ratification of the agreement. 

• Given past failures to consult in good faith and to fulfill previous obligations, the BLM 

has not met its commitment to managing and protecting the important and nationally 

significant historic properties under their charge. BLM must provide specific 

management intent and practices with regard to cultural resource considerations and 

concerns identified by SHPO. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project C-23 

OTHER NATURAL RESOURCE ISSUES 

• Soil surveys are needed in the area. 

• Given the past several years of drought, recognize and address the potential for soil 

erosion from all proposed surface disturbance. 

• The use of soils analysis is potentially beneficial, but the costs should not be born by 

Operators alone--tax revenues in the county should be used to finance the expenditure. 

• Concern over effects on livestock and wildlife food sources. 

• Address impacts to visual resources; density of disturbance may negatively impact visual 

resources. 

• Address impacts from noise, including requirements to minimize noise and plans for 

monitoring. 

HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES 

• The oil and gas industry leaves behind equipment and contaminated soil and water. 

• Address public health issues. 

• Require the containment of litter and industrial waste. 

• Include provisions to notify the public of health and safety threats. 

• Address the use of hydraulic fracturing and the impacts of drilling fluids and chemicals 

on the environment. 

• Drilling operations must be required to comply with any applicable stormwater discharge 

requirements, including acquiring National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permits, as required. 

• Work with the EPA relative to regulation of hazardous and toxic wastes generated from 

gas development activities. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ISSUES 

• Continue drilling at the present or accelerated rate to prevent expensive start up and shut 

down costs and continue current economic momentum. 

• Retain current Operators who have experience in the Jonah Field. 

• Provide a thorough socioeconomic analysis for each alternative considered. 

• Avoid boom-bust cycles, which create pricing instability. 
C-24 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

• The project would generate a large amount of taxes and royalties, much of which would 

be returned to state and county governments for use in education and other tax-funded 

programs. 

• Consider not only Sublette County but also neighboring counties and communities. 

• The amount of tax and royalty revenue generated from the project should be made public 

and consider distributions to schools, hospitals, roads, convalescent homes, and other 

infrastructures. 

• Present the negative impacts associated with not developing the natural gas resources 

(e.g., loss of jobs, royalties, taxes, etc.). 

• Natural and physical resources should not be given more credence and analysis than 

human (social and economic) factors. 

• Models historically used for socioeconomic analysis do not adequately account for longterm trends associated with community stability. 

• The project would help mitigate long-term trends of decreasing school enrollment and 

aging demographics. 

• Development of the project would increase Wyoming's share of new and existing natural 

gas markets. 

• The input-output models historically used in determining socioeconomics must take into 

account long-term trends associated with education. 

• In considering economic factors, include loss of revenue to the WGFD and local 

outfitters because of declines in wildlife. 

• Private industries should not profit from public lands. 

• Concerns regarding a foreign (Canadian) company coming in and profiting from our 

mineral wealth and then leaving after destroying public lands. 

• Consider the economic impacts (e.g., loss of tourism, hunting, fishing income) to the state 

as public lands of high recreational value are developed. 

• Consider school enrollment declines/school closures (consolidations) in Sweetwater 

County. 

• Consider long-term trends. 

• Implementing the project as described would contribute to boom and bust economic 

conditions, rather than economic stability, as opposed to a phased approach requiring 

closure and reclamation prior to granting new permits, which would allow production on 

a sustainable level. 

• In the long run, tourism dollars are more sustainable than oil and gas industry dollars. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project C-25 

• The oil and gas industry has caused skyrocketing property values and property taxes in 

the area. 

• The high pay of transient oil and gas workers has raised the per capita and median 

income levels to the point where government grants previously available to fund 

community projects are no longer available. 

• Natural gas prices have skyrocketed since local production of the resource was initiated. 

MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES 

• Work harder to develop alternative energy sources. 

• Include provisions that ensure that industry is held accountable for the full liability of 

conducting business in the Upper Green River Valley. 

• Cut demand and use less natural gas. 

• Pursue alternate energy sources (e.g., wind power) instead of implementing the project. 

• The project is necessary for National Security to develop the gas and keep Operators 

from moving to foreign countries. 

• The project sets the precedent for similar high levels of energy development throughout 

the Green River Valley. 

• Rapid destruction of wild places throughout Wyoming is undesirable 

• Use previously generated data to expedite document preparation. 

• Establish a time line and a project deadline if so requested by the Operator. 

• The BLM should recognize its increased demand for manpower, and must act 

accordingly to adequately staff the PFO. 

• The ROD should be issued by March of 2005. 

• The BLM is already 5 months behind the schedule contained in the Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) and must strive to issue the ROD as soon as possible. 

• An increase in demand is anticipated for natural gas as a clean, low-cost fuel. 

• The BLM Reservoir Management Group (RMG) must provide analysis of the waste of 

reserves that will occur if all wells are required to be directionally drilled. 

• The BLM must not use pace of development assumptions in its NEPA analysis as 

absolute ceilings on development. 

• The WOGCC must be involved as a cooperating agent in the preparation of the EIS. 
C-26 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

• Allow the development, but with more input from conservation groups and other federal 

agencies. 

• The project provides a clean, environmentally desirable energy source. 

• Regarding areas where the BLM lacks baseline data, describe how BLM intends to deal 

with this lack of data and how such data will be collected in the future. 

• Further exploration prior to preparation of the EIS, as proposed by BLM in the Scoping 

Notice, would violate NEPA, further exceed the RFD scenario, and potentially violate the 

ESA; this exploration must not be allowed. 

• BLM must not define the purpose and need solely as to allow natural gas production and 

cater to the oil and gas industry's desire to develop and produce resources; it must also 

include strong environmental protections as at least a co-equal purpose and need. 

• Existing NEPA documents are outdated and must be supplemented before they can be 

used for tiering purposes and before any further drilling can occur. 

• The Pinedale Anticline NEPA documents are outdated and must be supplemented before 

they can be used for tiering. 

• Information should be presented in a manner that the public can easily understand. 

• Consider oil and gas projects as long-term that pay over years (not boom and bust). 

• The EIS should be based on new and current resource data. 

• Provide a map showing the location of the JIDPA relative to other ongoing and proposed 

oil, gas, and coalbed methane projects. The status and extent of each development should 

be identified. 

• Natural gas is the cleanest, most efficient fossil fuel and is used in many alternative 

energy sources such as fuel cells. 

• Development over such a short time frame has very little environmental consequence in 

the greater scheme. 

• The denser well spacing provides new jobs and creates less impact on the environment 

than development outside an existing gas field. 

• The scope of the EIS should be limited and simple. 

• Approximately 90% of the PFO is currently under lease and, including the Jonah Field, 

six major natural gas fields are in operation in the area. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project D-1 

APPENDIX D — A FRAMEWORK FOR 

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT IN THE JONAH 

INFILL DRILLING PROJECT AREA (JIDPA) 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes to implement an adaptive management 

process in the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area (JIDPA) which will generally follow the 

framework contained in this appendix. An interagency Jonah Infill Working Group (JIWG) 

would be established in the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area (the Project) Record of Decision 

(ROD) to implement the process. 

The potential value of adaptive management to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

process is discussed by Carpenter (1997)1

 and is strongly supported by a number of agencies at 

the national level, including BLM, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS). Carpenter summarized as follows: “It is 

increasingly recognized that human interventions into natural systems seldom proceed as 

originally planned. Scientific uncertainties prevent environmental impacts from being reliably or 

precisely predicted. Thus, the style of management must provide for monitoring to guide midcourse corrections in adapting to inevitable surprises.” Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) NEPA regulations require continual monitoring.2 

II. PURPOSE AND NEED 

In addition to the uncertainties about how natural systems will react to human interventions, it has 

become apparent that current development guidelines and Conditions of Approval, and the 

restriction of 1 well pad/40 acres (16 well pads/640-ac section) authorized in the Modified Jonah 

Field II Project Area are not adequate protection for some JIDPA resources. However, national 

demand makes it imperative that as much natural gas as possible be recovered from the JIDPA. 

Project proponents are continually striving to develop drilling and production mitigation 

technologies to lessen the impacts of natural gas recovery, but those technologies are largely 

untested. There is uncertainty regarding the short- and long-term effectiveness of these new 

technologies, as well as uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of the mitigations and 

management restrictions BLM may place on infill development. These uncertainties require that 

a number of assumptions be used to predict the impacts associated with infill development; those 

assumptions may or may not be partially or wholly correct, which means the impact analysis may 

or may not be partially or wholly correct. 

Uncertainty regarding the accuracy of the predictive assumptions and models used in the impact 

analysis, and uncertainty regarding how the environment will react to future development in the 

JIDPA using current and future un-tested development and mitigation technologies and un-tried 

restrictions, creates a need for a mechanism through which the BLM can make incremental 

adjustments to field management over time, as information is gained about how area resources 

are reacting to new technologies and/or restrictions. That mechanism is adaptive management. 
D-2 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

The adaptive management process allows for changes in management without further NEPA 

analysis, unless designated thresholds are reached. The process increases the speed at which 

managers learn how resources react to their decisions and development activities, and thereby 

increases the speed at which managers can adjust mitigation and management restrictions for 

unanticipated impacts, or lack thereof. The adaptive management framework has several 

continuous steps: Decision is implemented; impacts are monitored; monitoring data is evaluated; 

modifications to mitigations or management restrictions are recommended, based on monitoring 

data; adaptive management decision is made and implemented; impacts are monitored; etc. 

The purpose of this adaptive management process is to ensure that the impacts of development 

and production are monitored, and that the information from that monitoring is evaluated and fed 

back on a regular basis into the mitigation and management decisions that will be made following 

the Project decision. The purpose of the JIWG is to implement this adaptive management process 

in the JIDPA. 

III. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 

PROCESS 

• Determine the effects of JIDPA development on area resources; 

• Determine the effectiveness of the mitigation measures contained in the Project 

ROD; 

• Modify the mitigation measures as deemed appropriate to achieve the stated 

goal/objective; 

• Assure that oil and gas-related BLM decisions regarding the JIDPA are 

coordinated with non-oil-and-gas-related decisions (such as grazing, recreation, 

etc.); 

• Provide a rapid response to unnecessary and undue environmental degradation; 

• Validate predictive models used in the Project Environmental Impact Statement 

and revise the models/projections as necessary based on field observations and 

monitoring; 

• Accurately monitor and predict cumulative impacts through BLM maintenance 

of a Geographic Information System (GIS) for the JIDPA including all activities 

(natural gas, agricultural, recreational, etc.) on federal and non-federal lands and 

how they are affecting area resources; 

• Provide guidance for monitoring upon which the need to initiate Section 7 

consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will be 

determined. 

IV. IMPLEMENTATION MODEL 

The BLM will implement and coordinate the adaptive management process. The BLM Pinedale 

Field Manager will accomplish that by establishing the interagency JIWG in the Project ROD. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project D-3 

The JIWG will function as an oversight working group consisting of one member each from 

BLM, USFWS, USFS, BLM, State of Wyoming, Sublette County, and the Sublette County 

Conservation District. 

The JIWG will appoint subcommittees or Task Groups for key resources or as otherwise needed. 

Task Group membership will consist of agency technical experts for that resource. 

The structure of the JIWG will be as shown in Figure D.1. 

Jonah Infill 

Working Group 

Resource-specific 

Task Group 

Resource-specific 

Task Group 

Resource-specific 

Task Group 

Resource-specific 

Task Group 

Figure D.1 Jonah Infill Working Group Structure 

V. JIWG FUNCTIONS 

The JIWG will meet in Pinedale within two months of the issuance of the Project ROD. The 

primary function of the JIWG will be to: 

• Oversee the development and implementation of monitoring plans for resources 

within the JIDPA, for the life of the field, in part through appointment of 

resource-specific Task Groups as needed; 

• Conduct at least an annual field inspection to review the implementation of 

construction, production, and reclamation operations; 

• Review existing field conditions and learn about any new technologies or 

management restrictions; 

• Review recommendations from the Task Groups and submit a synthesized 

recommendation to the BLM regarding monitoring, mitigations, and management 

prescriptions for the upcoming management period, and recommendations on 

who should do the monitoring and how the monitoring will be funded; 

• Oversee implementation of monitoring; 

• Meet at least once a year or more often as needed; 
D-4 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

• Keep written record of meetings and disseminate to members. 

VI. TASK GROUP FUNCTIONS 

• Prepare and implement monitoring plans for resource(s) within the JIDPA for 

which the Task Group is responsible; 

• Conduct at least an annual field inspection to review the implementation of 

construction, production, and/or reclamation operations as is appropriate for the 

resource for which the Task Group has responsibility; 

• Review existing field and resource condition(s) and learn about any new 

technologies or management restrictions; 

• Review and evaluate monitoring data; 

• Synthesize monitoring information and upcoming development plans provided 

annually by the operators; 

• Using that synthesis, make recommendations to the JIWG for the upcoming 

management period regarding monitoring, mitigation, management restrictions, 

who should implement the recommended monitoring, and identification of 

funding resources for the monitoring; 

• Implement monitoring as directed by BLM; 

• Meet as often as needed to fulfill responsibilities; 

• Keep written record of meetings and disseminate to members and to the JIWG. 

VII. JIWG AND TASK GROUP OPERATING PROCEDURES 

• All JIWG and Task Group meetings will be open and available to the public and 

announced at least one week prior to the meetings via State-wide press releases. 

• JIWG and Task Group leadership will develop meeting agendas to address the 

necessary items to fulfill the functions outlined above. 

• All JIWG and Task Group decisions will be made by consensus.3 If consensus 

on any point cannot be reached, the JIWG and/or BLM will be so notified. Such 

notification will include a brief description of the differing points of view and 

rationale. 

• The JIWG and Task Groups will select their own leadership and scribes for 

whatever period of time each group deems appropriate. 

• JIWG and Task Group meetings will be facilitated by the membership-selected 

leader unless the group chooses to request a qualified facilitator from BLM. 
____________________________ 

Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project D-5 

• The JIWG and Task Groups will make every effort to incorporate local and 

industry knowledge in their deliberations. 

• The JIWG and Task Groups will make every effort to develop innovative funding 

sources for monitoring activities; such resources could include (but are not 

limited to) use of volunteers, seed money/matching funds, grants, etc. The JIWG 

and Task Groups will not depend solely on the JIDPA oil and gas Operators for 

funding. 

• Other operating procedures may be developed as needed (such as media 

contacts), with JIWG and BLM concurrence. 

1 Carpenter, R.A. 1997. The Case for Continuous Monitoring and Adaptive Management Under NEPA. In 

Environmental Policy and NEPA. R. Clark and L. Canter, eds. St. Lucie Press. 

2 CEQ regulations require appropriate application of continual monitoring and assessment. Section 

102(2)(B) of NEPA calls for “methods...which will insure that presently unquantified environmental 

amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration.” CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1505.2(c) 

and 1505.3(c) state, “a monitoring and enforcement program shall be adopted and summarized where 

applicable for any mitigation” and that agencies “may provide for monitoring to assure that their 

decisions are carried out and should do so in important cases.” The lead agency must “upon request, 

inform cooperating or commenting agencies on progress in carrying out mitigation measures which they 

have proposed and which were adopted by the agency making the decision,” and, “upon request, make 

available to the public the results of relevant monitoring.” 

3 Consensus is defined as: all members (and their constituencies) “can live with” the decision; while a 

member or their constituency may not be 100% satisfied with the entire decision, the member and their 

constituency can and will support the group’s decision. 
D-6 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project E-1 

APPENDIX E — SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 
E-2 

Table E-1 Summary of Impacts Across Alternatives, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.1 

IMPACT BY ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE NO ACTION 

PROPOSED ACTION (3,100 Wells/16,200 Acres Disturbance) 

ALTERNATIVE A (3,100 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE B (3,100 Wells And No New Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE C (1,250 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE D (2,220 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE E 2 

(266 New Pads; 16 Total Pads/Section) 

ALTERNATIVE F 2 

(1,028 New Pads; 32 Total Pads/Section) 

ALTERNATIVE G 2 

(2,553 New Pads; 64 Total Pads/Section) 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 2 

(Specific Maximum Disturbance Allowances, Mitigation/Monitoring) 

AIR QUALITY Increased concentrations of No impact above existing Potential near-field Potential near-field Potential near-field Potential near-field Potential near-field Potential near-field Potential near-field Potential near-field Potential near-field concentrations criteria pollutants and levels; no new developments concentrations would be concentrations would be in concentrations would be concentrations would be in concentrations would be concentrations would be concentrations would be in concentrations would be would be in compliance with Hazardous Air Pollutants in compliance with compliance with applicable in compliance with compliance with applicable in compliance with in compliance with compliance with applicable in compliance with applicable NAAQS and WAAQS; (HAPs) applicable National NAAQS and WAAQS; applicable NAAQS and NAAQS and WAAQS; applicable NAAQS and applicable NAAQS and NAAQS and WAAQS; applicable NAAQS and potential far-field concentrations 

Ambient Air Quality potential far-field WAAQS; potential far- potential far-field WAAQS; potential far- WAAQS; potential far- potential far-field WAAQS; potential far- would be in compliance with Standards (NAAQS) and concentrations would be in field concentrations would concentrations would be in field concentrations would field concentrations would concentrations would be in field concentrations would applicable NAAQS and WAAQS; Wyoming Ambient Air compliance with applicable be in compliance with compliance with applicable be in compliance with be in compliance with compliance with applicable be in compliance with potential far-field concentrations Quality Standards NAAQS and WAAQS; applicable NAAQS and NAAQS and WAAQS; applicable NAAQS and applicable NAAQS and NAAQS and WAAQS; applicable NAAQS and would be below applicable PSD (WAAQS); potential far- potential far-field WAAQS; potential far- potential far-field WAAQS; potential far- WAAQS; potential far- potential far-field WAAQS; potential far- increments field concentrations would concentrations would be field concentrations would concentrations would be field concentrations would field concentrations would concentrations would be field concentrations would be in compliance with below applicable PSD be below applicable PSD below applicable PSD be below applicable PSD be below applicable PSD below applicable PSD be below applicable PSD applicable NAAQS and increments increments increments increments increments increments increments WAAQS; potential farfield concentrations would be below applicable Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) increments 

Visibility (regional haze) at No impact above existing Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts would be Class I and Sensitive Class II levels; no new developments would be greater than would be greater than 1.0 dv would be greater than would be greater than 1.0 dv would be greater than for would be similar to would be greater than 1.0 dv would be greater than for similar to Alternative G areas (far-field) 1.0 deciview (dv) for a for a maximum of 10 days 1.0 dv for a maximum of for a maximum of 8 days per Alternative C and less Alternative B for a maximum of 11 days Alternative A and less 

maximum of 10 days per per year; impairment at 11 days per year; year; impairment at Bridger than for Alternative A per year; impairment at than for Alternative F year; impairment at Bridger Wilderness only impairment at Bridger Wilderness only Bridger Wilderness only Bridger Wilderness only Wilderness only 

Visibility (regional haze) No impact above existing Maximum of 23 days per Maximum of 23 days per Maximum of 26 days per Maximum of 17 days per Impacts greater than Impacts similar to Maximum of 24 days per Impacts greater than Impacts similar to Alternative G (mid-field communities) levels; no new developments year >1.0 dv year >1.0 dv year >1.0 dv year >1.0 dv Alternative C but less than Alternative B year >1.0 dv Alternative A but less than 

Alternative A Alternative F 

Atmospheric/terrestrial No impact above existing Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts would be deposition levels; no new developments from sulfur deposition from sulfur deposition would from sulfur deposition from sulfur deposition would from sulfur deposition would be similar to from sulfur deposition would from sulfur deposition similar to Alternative G 

would be less than be less than DAT at all would be less than DAT at be less than DAT at all would be less than DAT Alternative B be less than DAT (i.e., 0.005 would be less than DAT Deposition Analysis analyzed areas; potential all analyzed areas; analyzed areas; potential (i.e., 0.005 kg/ha/yr) at all kg/ha/yr) at all analyzed (i.e., 0.005 kg/ha/yr) at all Threshold (DAT) at all project impacts from nitrogen potential project impacts project impacts from nitrogen analyzed areas; potential areas; potential project analyzed areas; potential analyzed areas; potential deposition would be greater from nitrogen deposition deposition would be greater project impacts from impacts from nitrogen project impacts from project impacts from than DAT (i.e., 0.005 would be greater than than DAT (i.e., 0.005 nitrogen deposition would deposition would be greater nitrogen deposition would nitrogen deposition would kg/ha/yr) at Bridger DAT kg/ha/yr) at Bridger be greater than for than DAT at Bridger be greater than for be greater than DAT (i.e., Wilderness (i.e., 0.005 kg/ha/yr) at Wilderness Alternative C but less than Wilderness Alternative A but less than 0.005 kg/ha/yr) at Bridger (0.035 kg/ha/yr), Popo Agie Bridger Wilderness (0.032 kg/ha/yr), Popo Agie for Alternative A (0.036 kg/ha/yr), Popo Agie for Alternative F Wilderness Wilderness (0.065 kg/ha/yr), (0.040 kg/ha/yr), Popo Wilderness Wilderness (0.035 kg/ha/yr), Popo and Wind River Roadless Agie Wilderness (0.015 kg/ha/yr), and Wind (0.017 kg/ha/yr), and Wind Agie Wilderness Area (0.010 kg/ha/yr), and (0.019 kg/ha/yr), and River Roadless Area River Roadless Area (0.065 kg/ha/yr), and less than DAT at all other Wind River Roadless Area (0.009 kg/ha/yr), and less (0.010 kg/ha/yr), and less Wind River Roadless Area analyzed areas (0.011 kg/ha/yr), and less than DAT at all other than DAT at all other (0.010 kg/ha/yr), and less than DAT at all other analyzed areas analyzed areas than DAT at all other analyzed areas analyzed areas 

Sensitive lake acid No impact above existing Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts Potential project impacts would be neutralization capacity (ANC) levels; no new developments would be less than Limit would be less than LAC; would be less than LAC; would be less than LAC; would be less than LAC; would be less than LAC; would be less than LAC; would be less than LAC; less than LAC; potential cumulative 

of Acceptable Change potential cumulative impacts potential cumulative potential cumulative impacts potential cumulative potential cumulative potential cumulative impacts potential cumulative impacts were less than LAC (LAC); potential would be less than LAC impacts would be less than would be less than LAC impacts would be less than impacts would be less than would be less than LAC impacts would be less than cumulative impacts would LAC LAC LAC LAC be less than LAC 

TOPOGRAPHY 

Landscape feature alteration Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of 

4,209 acres (1,409 acres Life- of 16,200 acres 16,200 acres (4,631 acres of 3,297 acres (1,213 acres 6,705 acres (1,990 acres of 11,581 acres of 6,386 acres (2,188 acres 10,446 acres (2,588 acres of 13,989 acres 7,804 acres (2,295 acres LOP) of of-project [LOP]); duration (4,631acres LOP) of LOP) of additional surface LOP) of additional surface LOP) of additional surface (3,346 acres LOP) of LOP) of additional LOP) of additional surface (3,999 acres LOP) of additional surface disturbance; of impact would be 63 years; additional surface disturbance; duration of disturbance; duration of disturbance; duration of additional surface disturbance; duration of disturbance; duration of additional surface duration of impacts increased to no major landscape feature disturbance; duration of impacts increased to impacts increased to 76- impacts increased to 68- disturbance; duration of impacts increased to impacts increased to disturbance; duration of 76-years alterations impacts increased to 76-105 years 105 years 80 years impacts increased to 76-105 years 76-105 years impacts increased to 

76 years 72-93 years 76-105 years 

MINERAL RESOURCES Natural gas 3.37 trillion cubic ft (TCF) of 7.95 TCF of gas recovered 8.19 TCF of gas recovered 6.12 TCF gas recovered 6.66 TCF of gas recovered 7.55 TCF of gas recovered 6.30 TCF of gas recovered 7.19 TCF of gas recovered 7.88 TCF of gas recovered 7.88 TCF of gas recovered 

gas recovered 

Oil (condensate) 32.0 million barrels of oil 75.5 MBO recovered 77.8 MBO recovered 58.2 MBO recovered 63.2 MBO recovered 71.8 MBO recovered 59.9 MBO recovered 68.3 MBO recovered 74.8 MBO recovered 74.8 MBO recovered 

(MBO) recovered 
E-3 

Table E-1 (continued) 

IMPACT BY ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE NO ACTION 

PROPOSED ACTION (3,100 Wells/16,200 Acres Disturbance) 

ALTERNATIVE A (3,100 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE B (3,100 Wells And No New Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE C (1,250 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE D (2,220 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE E 2 

(266 New Pads; 16 Total Pads/Section) 

ALTERNATIVE F 2 

(1,028 New Pads; 32 Total Pads/Section) 

ALTERNATIVE G 2 

(2,553 New Pads; 64 Total Pads/Section) 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 2 

(Specific Maximum Disturbance Allowances, Mitigation/Monitoring) 

Other minerals Localized LOP loss of access Increased loss of access Increased loss of access above Increased loss of access Increased loss of access above Increased loss of access Increased loss of access Increased loss of access above Increased loss of access Increased loss of access above No 

but no known minerals above No Action and no No Action and no violation of above No Action and no No Action and no violation of above No Action and no above No Action and no No Action and no violation of above No Action and no Action and no violation of contractual available in minable violation of contractual contractual agreements; violation of contractual contractual agreements; violation of contractual violation of contractual contractual agreements; violation of contractual agreements; duration of impacts quantities; violation of agreements; duration of duration of impacts increased agreements; duration of duration of impacts increased agreements; duration of agreements; duration of duration of impacts increased agreements; duration of increased to 76 years contractual agreements impacts increased to 76 to 76-105 years impacts increased to 76- to 68-80 years impacts increased to 72- impacts increased to 76- to 76-105 years impacts increased to 76­

years 105 years 93 years 105 years 105 years 

GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Earthquake damage No impacts likely; low Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action 

earthquake potential 

Landslides and slumping No impacts likely; no known Increased above No Increased above No Action in Increased above No Increased above No Action in Increased above No Increased above No Increased above No Action in Increased above No Increased above No Action in some 

landslide areas or Action in some areas; some areas; duration of Action at project feature some areas; duration of Action in some areas; Action in some areas; some areas; duration of Action in some areas; areas;increased mitigative actions; underground mines; no new duration of impacts impacts increased to 76-105 sites; duration of impacts impacts increased to 68-80 duration of impacts duration of impacts impacts increased to 76-105 duration of impacts duration of impacts increased to 76 facilities developed increased to 76 years years increased to 76-105 years years increased to 72-93 years increased to 76-105 years years increased to 76-105 years years 

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Disturbance/loss of important Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of fossils during construction 4,209 acres (1,409 acres of 16,200 acres 16,200 acres (4,631 acres of 3,297 acres (1,213 acres 6,705 acres (1,990 acres of 11,581 acres (3,346 of 6,386 acres (2,188 acres 10,446 acres (2,588 acres of 13,989 acres (3,999 7,804 acres (2,295 acres LOP) of 

LOP); duration of impact (4,631 acres LOP) of LOP) of additional surface LOP) of additional surface LOP) of additional surface acres LOP) of additional LOP) of additional LOP) of additional surface acres LOP) of additional additional surface disturbance; would be 63 years; no major additional surface disturbance; duration of disturbance; duration of disturbance; duration of surface disturbance; disturbance; duration of disturbance; duration of surface disturbance; duration of impacts increased to landscape feature alterations disturbance; duration of impacts increased to 76-105 impacts increased to 76- impacts increased to 68-80 duration of impacts impacts increased to 76- impacts increased to 76-105 duration of impacts 76 years 

impacts increased to years 105 years years increased to 72-93 years 105 years years increased to 76-105 years 76 years 

Fossil collection/vandalism for Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of LOP 4,209 acres (1,409 acres of 16,200 acres (4,631 16,200 acres (4,631 acres of 3,297 acres (1,213 acres 6,705 acres (1,990 acres of 11,581 acres (3,346 of 6,386 acres (2,188 acres 10,446 acres (2,588 acres of 13,989 acres (3,999 7,804 acres (2,295 acres LOP) of 

LOP); duration of impact acres LOP) of additional LOP) of additional surface LOP) of additional surface LOP) of additional surface acres LOP) of additional LOP) of additional LOP) of additional surface acres LOP) of additional additional surface disturbance; would be 63 years; no major surface disturbance; disturbance; duration of disturbance; duration of disturbance; duration of surface disturbance; disturbance; duration of disturbance; duration of surface disturbance; duration of impacts increased to landscape feature alterations duration of impacts impacts increased to 76- impacts increased to 76- impacts increased to 68- duration of impacts impacts increased to 76- impacts increased to 76- duration of impacts 76 years 

increased to 76 years 105 years 105 years 80 years increased to 72-93 years 105 years 105 years increased to 76-105 years 

SOILS 

Disturbance and erosional loss Surface disturbance of Increase of 16,200 acres Same as Proposed Action but Increase of 3,297 acres of Increase of 6,705 acres of Increase of 11,581 acres Increase of 6,386 acres of Increase of 10,446 acres of Increase of 13,989 acres Increase of 7,804 acres of new initial of soils; soil compaction and 4,209 acres is currently of new initial surface possibly increased in areas new initial surface new initial surface of new initial surface new initial surface new initial surface of new initial surface surface disturbance above No Action; mixing of soil horizons; authorized; no further surface disturbance above No that would have been avoided disturbance above No disturbance above No Action; disturbance above No disturbance above No disturbance above No disturbance above No duration of impacts increased to 76 decreased topsoil productivity disturbance would be Action; duration of by Proposed Action; duration Action; duration of duration of impacts increased Action; duration of Action; duration of Action; duration of impacts Action; duration of years; adherence to Reclamation Plan 

authorized impacts increased to 76 of impacts increased to 76- impacts increased to 76- to 68-80 years; adherence to impacts increased to 72- impacts increased to 76- increased to 76-105 years; impacts increased to 76- would mitigate, to some degree, 

years; adherence to 105 years; adherence to 105 years; adherence to Reclamation Plan would 93 years; adherence to 105 years; adherence to adherence to Reclamation 105 years; adherence to potential severity of adverse impacts Reclamation Plan would Reclamation Plan would Reclamation Plan would mitigate, to some degree, Reclamation Plan would Reclamation Plan would Plan would mitigate, to some Reclamation Plan would due to vegetation loss; potential for mitigate, to some degree, mitigate, to some degree, mitigate, to some degree, potential severity of adverse mitigate, to some degree, mitigate, to some degree, degree, potential severity of mitigate, to some degree, impacts generally would be lower potential severity of potential severity of adverse potential severity of impacts due to vegetation potential severity of potential severity of adverse impacts due to potential severity of than as described for other action adverse impacts due to impacts due to vegetation adverse impacts due to loss adverse impacts due to adverse impacts due to vegetation loss adverse impacts due to alternatives because of the vegetation loss loss vegetation loss vegetation loss vegetation loss vegetation loss implementation of management 

requirements and monitoring designed to ensure that the project meets field development and production objectives 

Contamination due to accidental No new facilities developed; Adherence to Spill Same as Proposed Action but Increase of 3,297 acres of Increase of 6,705 acres of Increase of 11,581 acres Increase of 6,386 acres of Increase of 10,446 acres of Increase of 13,989 acres Increase of 7,804 acres of new initial hazardous material discharge decreased probability of Prevention, Control, and possibly increased in areas new initial surface new initial surface of new initial surface new initial surface new initial surface of new initial surface surface disturbance above No Action; 

impact Countermeasures Plans that would have been avoided disturbance above No disturbance above No Action; disturbance above No disturbance above No disturbance above No disturbance above No duration of impacts increased to 76 

(SPCCPs), Storm Water by Proposed Action; duration Action; duration of duration of impacts increased Action; duration of Action; duration of Action; duration of impacts Action; duration of years; prompt soil remediation to Pollution Prevention Plans of impacts increased to 76- impacts increased to 76- to 68-80 years; prompt soil impacts increased to 72- impacts increased to 76- increased to 76-105 years; impacts increased to 76- minimize potential impact severity; (SWPPPs,) and other 105 years; prompt soil 105 years; prompt soil remediation to minimize 93 years; prompt soil 105 years; prompt soil prompt soil remediation to 105 years; prompt soil potential for impacts generally would applicable local, state, and remediation to minimize remediation to minimize potential impact severity remediation to minimize remediation to minimize minimize potential impact remediation to minimize be lower than as described for other federal rules and potential impact severity potential impact severity potential impact severity potential impact severity severity potential impact severity action alternatives because of the regulations; duration of implementation of management impacts increased to 76 requirements and monitoring designed years; prompt soil to ensure that the project meets field remediation to minimize development and production potential impact severity objectives 
E-4 

Table E-1 (continued) 

IMPACT BY ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE NO ACTION 

PROPOSED ACTION (3,100 Wells/16,200 Acres Disturbance) 

ALTERNATIVE A (3,100 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE B (3,100 Wells And No New Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE C (1,250 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE D (2,220 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE E 2 

(266 New Pads; 16 Total Pads/Section) 

ALTERNATIVE F 2 

(1,028 New Pads; 32 Total Pads/Section) 

ALTERNATIVE G 2 

(2,553 New Pads; 64 Total Pads/Section) 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 2 

(Specific Maximum Disturbance Allowances, Mitigation/Monitoring) 

Reactivation of stabilized dunes No new surface disturbance LOP potential until Same as Proposed Action but Increase of 3,297 acres of Increase of 6,705 acres of Increase of 11,581 acres Increase of 6,386 acres of Increase of 10,446 acres of Increase of 13,989 acres Increase of 7,804 acres of new initial 

of stabilized dunes disturbed areas are possibly increased in areas new initial surface new initial surface of new initial surface new initial surface new initial surface of new initial surface surface disturbance above No Action; 

reclaimed; 38 acres of that would have been avoided disturbance above No disturbance above No Action; disturbance above No disturbance above No disturbance above No disturbance above No duration of impacts increased to 76 known stabilized dunes by Proposed Action; duration Action; duration of duration of impacts increased Action; duration of Action; duration of Action; duration of impacts Action; duration of years; adherence to Reclamation Plan occur within JIDPA of impacts increased to 76- impacts increased to 76- to 68-80 years; adherence to impacts increased to 72- impacts increased to 76- increased to 76-105 years; impacts increased to 76- would mitigate, to some degree, 

105 years; adherence to 105 years; adherence to Reclamation Plan would 93 years; adherence to 105 years; adherence to adherence to Reclamation 105 years; adherence to potential severity of adverse impacts Reclamation Plan would Reclamation Plan would mitigate, to some degree, Reclamation Plan would Reclamation Plan would Plan would mitigate, to some Reclamation Plan would due to vegetation loss; potential for mitigate, to some degree, mitigate, to some degree, potential severity of adverse mitigate, to some degree, mitigate, to some degree, degree, potential severity of mitigate, to some degree, impacts generally would be lower potential severity of adverse potential severity of impacts due to vegetation potential severity of potential severity of adverse impacts due to potential severity of than as described for other action impacts due to vegetation adverse impacts due to loss adverse impacts due to adverse impacts due to vegetation loss adverse impacts due to alternatives because of the loss vegetation loss vegetation loss vegetation loss vegetation loss implementation of management 

requirements and monitoring designed to ensure that the project meets field development and production objectives 

SURFACE WATER RESOURCES Increased turbidity, salinity, and Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of sedimentation of surface waters 4,209 acres (1,409 acres of 20,409 acres (6,040 20,409 acres (6,040 acres of 7,506 acres (2,622 acres 10,914 acres (3,399 acres of 15,790 acres (4,755 of 10,595 acres 14,655 acres (3,997 acres of 18,198 acres 12,013 acres (3,704 acres LOP) vs. due to runoff from disturbed LOP) currently authorized; acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres (1,409 LOP) vs. 4,209 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres (3,597 acres LOP) vs. LOP) vs. 4,209 acres (1,409 (5,408 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres (1,409 acres LOP) under areas LOP 63 years (1,409 acres LOP) under acres LOP) under No Action; (1,409 acres LOP) under (1,409 acres LOP) under No (1,409 acres LOP) under 4,209 acres (1,409 acres acres LOP) under No Action; 4,209 acres (1,409 acres No Action; LOP extended 

No Action; LOP extended LOP extended approximately No Action; LOP extended Action; LOP extended No Action; LOP extended LOP) under No Action; LOP extended approximately LOP) under No Action; approximately 13 years; potential for approximately 13 years; 13-42 years approximately 13-42 years approximately 5-17 years approximately 9-30 years LOP extended 13-42 years LOP extended impacts generally would be lower no natural perennial approximately 13-42 years approximately 13-42 years than as described for other action surface waters in the alternatives because of the JIDPA implementation of management 

requirements and monitoring designed to ensure that the project meets field development and production objectives 

Contamination of surface waters Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of from accidental hazardous 4,209 acres (1,409 acres of 20,409 acres (6,040 20,409 acres (6,040 acres of 7,506 acres (2,622 acres 10,914 acres (3,399 acres of 15,790 acres (4,755 of 10,595 acres (3,597 14,655 acres (3,997 acres of 18,198 acres (5,408 12,013 acres (3,704 acres LOP) vs. material discharge LOP) currently authorized; acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres (1,409 LOP) vs. 4,209 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres (1,409 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres (1,409 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres 4,209 acres (1,409 acres LOP) under 

LOP 63 years; no new (1,409 acres LOP) under acres LOP) under No Action; (1,409 acres LOP) under acres LOP) under No Action; (1,409 acres LOP) under (1,409 acres LOP) under acres LOP) under No Action; (1,409 acres LOP) under No Action; LOP extended facilities developed; No Action; LOP extended LOP extended approximately No Action; LOP extended LOP extended approximately No Action; LOP extended No Action; LOP extended LOP extended approximately No Action; LOP extended approximately 13 years; potential for adherence to SPCCPs, approximately 13 years 13-42 years approximately 13-42 years 5-17 years approximately 9-30 years approximately 13-42 years 13-42 years approximately 13-42 years impacts generally would be lower SWPPPs, and other than as described for other action applicable local, state, and alternatives because of the federal rules and regulations; implementation of management prompt remediation to requirements and monitoring designed minimize potential impact to ensure that the project meets field severity development and production 

objectives 

Contamination of surface waters Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of from discharge of unsuitable 4,209 acres (1,409 acres of 20,409 acres (6,040 20,409 acres (6,040 acres of 7,506 acres (2,622 acres 10,914 acres (3,399 acres of 15,790 acres (4,755 of 10,595 acres (3,597 14,655 acres (3,997 acres of 18,198 acres (5,408 12,013 acres (3,704 acres LOP) vs. quality produced water and/or LOP) currently authorized; acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres (1,409 LOP) vs. 4,209 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres (1,409 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres (1,409 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres 4,209 acres (1,409 acres LOP) under pipeline test water LOP 63 years; no new (1,409 acres LOP) under acres LOP) under No Action; (1,409 acres LOP) under acres LOP) under No Action; (1,409 acres LOP) under (1,409 acres LOP) under acres LOP) under No Action; (1,409 acres LOP) under No Action; LOP extended 

pipelines developed; No Action; LOP extended LOP extended approximately No Action; LOP extended LOP extended approximately No Action; LOP extended No Action; LOP extended LOP extended approximately No Action; LOP extended approximately 13 years; potential for adherence to SPCCPs, approximately 13 years 13-42 years approximately 13-42 years 5-17 years approximately 9-30 years approximately 13-42 years 13-42 years approximately 13-42 years impacts generally would be lower SWPPPs, and other than as described for other action applicable local, state, and alternatives because of the federal rules and regulations; implementation of management prompt remediation to requirements and monitoring designed minimize potential impact to ensure that the project meets field severity development and production 

objectives 

Alteration of surface drainages Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of for LOP 4,209 acres (1,409 acres of 20,409 acres (6,040 20,409 acres (6,040 acres of 7,506 acres (2,622 acres 10,914 acres (3,399 acres of 15,790 acres of 10,595 acres 14,655 acres (3,997 acres of 18,198 acres 12,013 acres (3,704 acres LOP) vs. 

LOP) currently authorized; acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres (1,409 LOP) vs. 4,209 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres (1,409 (4,755 acres LOP) vs. (3,597 acres LOP) vs. LOP) vs. 4,209 acres (1,409 (5,408 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres (1,409 acres LOP) under LOP 63 years; no new (1,409 acres LOP) under acres LOP) under No Action; (1,409 acres LOP) under acres LOP) under No Action; 4,209 acres (1,409 acres 4,209 acres (1,409 acres acres LOP) under No Action; 4,209 acres (1,409 acres No Action; LOP extended drainage crossings; No Action; LOP extended LOP extended approximately No Action; LOP extended LOP extended approximately LOP) under No Action; LOP) under No Action; LOP extended approximately LOP) under No Action; approximately 13 years; potential for adherence to SPCCPs , approximately 13 years; 13-42 years approximately 13-42 years 5-17 years LOP extended LOP extended 13-42 years LOP extended impacts generally would be lower SWPPPs, and other no long-term modification approximately 9-30 years approximately 13-42 years approximately 13-42 years than as described for other action applicable local, state, and of drainages alternatives because of the federal rules; prompt implementation of management remediation to minimize requirements and monitoring designed potential impact severity to ensure that the project meets field 

development and production objectives 
E-5 

Table E-1 (continued) 

IMPACT BY ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE NO ACTION 

PROPOSED ACTION (3,100 Wells/16,200 Acres Disturbance) 

ALTERNATIVE A (3,100 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE B (3,100 Wells And No New Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE C (1,250 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE D (2,220 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE E 2 

(266 New Pads; 16 Total Pads/Section) 

ALTERNATIVE F 2 

(1,028 New Pads; 32 Total Pads/Section) 

ALTERNATIVE G 2 

(2,553 New Pads; 64 Total Pads/Section) 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 2 

(Specific Maximum Disturbance Allowances, Mitigation/Monitoring) 

Flood damage to pipelines and Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of facilities for LOP 4,209 acres (1,409 acres of 20,409 acres 20,409 acres (6,040 acres of 7,506 acres (2,622 acres 10,914 acres (3,399 acres of 15,790 acres of 10,595 acres 14,655 acres (3,997 acres of 18,198 acres 12,013 acres (3,704 acres LOP) vs. 

LOP) currently authorized; (6,040 acres LOP) vs. LOP) vs. 4,209 acres (1,409 LOP) vs. 4,209 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres (4,755 acres LOP) vs. (3,597 acres LOP) vs. LOP) vs. 4,209 acres (5,408 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres (1,409 acres LOP) under LOP 63 years; adherence to 4,209 acres (1,409 acres acres LOP) under No Action; (1,409 acres LOP) under (1,409 acres LOP) under No 4,209 acres (1,409 acres 4,209 acres (1,409 acres (1,409 acres LOP) under No 4,209 acres (1,409 acres No Action; LOP extended SPCCPs , SWPPPs, and other LOP) under No Action; LOP extended approximately No Action; LOP extended Action; LOP extended LOP) under No Action; LOP) under No Action; Action; LOP extended LOP) under No Action; approximately 13 years; potential for applicable local, state, and LOP extended 13-42 years approximately 13-42 years approximately 5-17 years LOP extended LOP extended approximately 13-42 years LOP extended impacts generally would be lower federal rules; prompt approximately 13 years; approximately 9-30 years approximately 13-42 years approximately 13-42 years than as described for other action remediation to minimize few flood-prone areas in alternatives because of the potential impact severity; no the JIDPA implementation of management new project facilities other requirements and monitoring designed than what are authorized to ensure that the project meets field under the Record of Decision development and production (ROD) objectives 

GROUND WATER RESOURCES Depletion during development No new consumption of Consumption of Consumption of ground Consumption of ground Consumption of ground Consumption of ground Consumption of ground Consumption of ground Consumption of ground Consumption of 1,225.0 acre-ft/year; 

ground water; full recovery 1,225.0 acre-ft/year; water at 367.5 to water at 367.5 to 1,225.0 water at 367.5 to 1,225.0 water at 367.5 to water at 367.5 to water at 367.5 to water at 367.5 to 6.0 years to full aquifer recovery; of aquifer within a few years 6.0 years to full recovery 1,225.0 acre-ft/year; 0.5 to acre-ft/year; 0.5 to 6.0 acre-ft/year; 0.5 to 6.0 years 1,225.0 acre-ft/year; 0.5 to 1,225.0 acre-ft/year; 0.5 to 1,225.0 acre-ft/year; 0.5 to 1,225.0 acre-ft/year; 0.5 to duration of impacts would be 12 years 

of aquifer; duration of 6.0 years to full recovery; years to full recovery; to full recovery; duration of 6.0 years to full recovery; 6.0 years to full recovery; 6.0 years to full recovery; 6.0 years to full recovery; and until aquifer recovery impact would be 12 years duration of impacts would be duration of impacts would impacts would be 5-17 years duration of impacts would duration of impacts would duration of impacts would be duration of impacts would and until aquifer recovery 12-42 years and until aquifer be 12-42 years and until and until aquifer recovery be 9-29 years and until be 12-42 years and until 12-42 years and until aquifer be 12-42 years and until 

recovery aquifer recovery aquifer recovery aquifer recovery recovery aquifer recovery 

Contamination of ground water Adherence to SPCCPs, Increased above No Same as Proposed Action but Increased above No Increased above No Action Increased above No Increased above No Increased above No Action Increased above No Increased above No Action because from accidental hazardous WOGCC, Bureau of Land Action because new wells increased in some areas that Action because new wells because new wells would be Action because new wells Action because new wells because new wells would be Action because new wells new wells would be drilled; duration material discharge and cross Management (BLM) well would be drilled; duration would have been avoided would be drilled; duration drilled; duration of impacts would be drilled; duration would be drilled; duration drilled; duration of impacts would be drilled; duration of impacts would be 76 years; impacts contamination in well bores casing and abandonment of impacts would be under the Proposed Action of impacts would be 76- would be 68-80 years of impacts would be 72- of impacts would be 76- would be 76-105 years of impacts would be 76- reduced due to application of specific 

procedures, and other 76 years would be drilled; duration of 105 years 93 years 105 years 105 years mitigation measures applicable local, state, and impacts would be 76­federal rules and regulations 105 years would minimize potential impact severity; no new development 

NOISE AND ODOR 

Increased noise levels near Noise levels would not be Noise levels higher than Noise levels similar to those Noise levels similar to Noise levels higher than Noise levels higher than Noise levels higher than Noise levels higher than Noise levels higher than Noise levels higher than as described wells, facilities, and roads for increased above existing described for No Action as described for Proposed those described for described for No Action but described for No Action described for No Action as described for No Action as a described for No Action as for No Action as a result of new well LOP authorized actions (i.e., a result of new well pads, Action as a result of new well Proposed Action as a lower than for Proposed but lower than for a result of 3,100 new result of 3,100 new wells, a result of 3,100 new pads, wells, and other project facilities 

533 wells on 497 well pads); wells, and other project pads, wells, and other project result of new well pads, Action (60% fewer proposed Proposed Action (29% wells, 266 new pads, and 1,028 new pads, and other wells, 2,553 new pads, proposed, but potential for impacts LOP for authorized actions facilities proposed; noise facilities proposed; impacts wells, and other project well pads and wells); noise fewer proposed well pads other project facilities project facilities proposed; and other project facilities generally would be lower than as would be 63 years; although associated with to wildlife would increase in facilities proposed, but associated with construction and wells); noise proposed; per well and per per well and per pad duration proposed; per well and per described for other action alternatives impacts were determined not construction and drilling areas that would have been noise would be and drilling activities would associated with pad duration of noise of noise associated with pad duration of noise because of the implementation of significant during analysis of activities would be short- avoided under the Proposed concentrated at existing be short-term, but that construction and drilling associated with construction and drilling associated with management requirements and currently authorized actions, term, but that associated Action; noise associated with pads; noise associated associated with field traffic activities would be short- construction and drilling activities would increase construction and drilling monitoring designed to ensure that the subsequent monitoring data with field traffic and well construction and drilling with construction and and well maintenance would term, but that associated activities would increase somewhat as a result of activities would increase project meets field development and indicate that existing noise maintenance would occur activities would be short- drilling activities would be occur for 5-17 years longer with field traffic and well as a result of directional directional drilling, and noise slightly as a result of production objectives; noise levels likely are causing for 13 years longer than term, but that associated with short-term, but that than under No Action; maintenance would occur drilling, and noise associated with field traffic directional drilling, and associated with field traffic and well significant impacts under No Action; impacts field traffic and well associated with field impacts significant for 9-30 years longer than associated with field and well maintenance would noise associated with field maintenance would occur for 13 years 

significant maintenance would occur for traffic and well under No Action; impacts traffic and well occur for 13-42 years longer traffic and well longer than under No Action; impacts 

13-42 years longer than maintenance would occur significant maintenance would occur than under No Action; maintenance would occur significant under No Action; impacts for 13-42 years longer for 13-42 years longer impacts significant for 13-42 years longer significant than under No Action; than under No Action; than under No Action; 

impacts significant impacts significant impacts significant 

Presence of offensive odors near Temporary, localized impacts Temporary, localized Temporary, localized impacts Temporary, localized Temporary, localized impacts Temporary, localized Temporary, localized Temporary, localized impacts Temporary, localized Temporary, localized impacts rapidly wells, facilities, and roads for rapidly dispersed by wind; impacts rapidly dispersed rapidly dispersed by wind; impacts rapidly dispersed rapidly dispersed by wind; impacts rapidly dispersed impacts rapidly dispersed rapidly dispersed by wind; impacts rapidly dispersed dispersed by wind; decreased after LOP decreased after development by wind; decreased after decreased after development by wind; decreased after decreased after development by wind; decreased after by wind; decreased after decreased after development by wind; decreased after development completed; intermediate 

completed; LOP would be 63 development completed; completed; increased impacts development completed; completed; intermediate level development completed; development completed; completed; intermediate level development completed; level of impacts between No Action years as authorized; no LOP extended by 13 years in areas that would have been development foci would of impacts between No intermediate level of intermediate level of of impacts between No intermediate level of and Proposed Action; LOP extended additional development over No Action avoided under Proposed be limited to existing well Action and Proposed Action; impacts between No impacts between No Action and Proposed Action; impacts between No by 13 years over No Action 

Action; LOP extended by 13- pads; LOP extended by LOP extended by 5-17 years Action and Proposed Action and Proposed LOP extended by 13-42 years Action and Proposed 42 years over No Action 13-42 years over No over No Action Action; LOP extended by Action; LOP extended by over No Action Action; LOP extended by 

Action 9-30 years over No Action 13-42 years over No 13-42 years over No 

Action Action 
E-6 

Table E-1 (continued) 

IMPACT BY ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE NO ACTION 

PROPOSED ACTION (3,100 Wells/16,200 Acres Disturbance) 

ALTERNATIVE A (3,100 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE B (3,100 Wells And No New Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE C (1,250 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE D (2,220 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE E 2 

(266 New Pads; 16 Total Pads/Section) 

ALTERNATIVE F 2 

(1,028 New Pads; 32 Total Pads/Section) 

ALTERNATIVE G 2 

(2,553 New Pads; 64 Total Pads/Section) 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 2 

(Specific Maximum Disturbance Allowances, Mitigation/Monitoring) 

VEGETATION INCLUDING BWS PLANT SPECIES Loss of vegetation; changes in Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Same as Proposed Action Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of diversity following reclamation 4,209 acres (1,409 acres of 20,409 acres (6,040 (total surface disturbance of of 7,506 acres (2,622 acres 10,914 acres (3,399 acres of 15,790 acres (4,755 of 10,595 acres (3,597 14,655 acres (3,997 acres of 18,198 acres (5,408 12,013 acres (3,704 acres LOP) vs. (i.e., shrubland to grassland); LOP) currently authorized; acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres 20,409 acres [6,040 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres (1,409 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres 4,209 acres (1,409 acres LOP) under and potential weed infestation LOP 63 years plus time (1,409 acres LOP) under LOP] vs. 4,209 acres [1,409 (1,409 acres LOP) under acres LOP) under No Action; (1,409 acres LOP) under (1,409 acres LOP) under (1,409 acres LOP) under No (1,409 acres LOP) under No Action; LOP extended for LOP and until areas needed for adequate No Action; LOP extended acres LOP] under No Action) No Action; LOP extended LOP extended approximately No Action; LOP extended No Action; LOP extended Action; LOP extended No Action; LOP extended approximately 13 years; adherence to adequately reclaimed reclamation; no new surface approximately 13 years; but possibly increased in approximately 13-42 5-17 years; adherence to approximately 9-30 years; approximately 13-42 approximately 13-42 years; approximately 13-42 Reclamation Plan would mitigate, to 

disturbance beyond that adherence to Reclamation areas that would have been years; adherence to Reclamation Plan would adherence to Reclamation years; adherence to adherence to Reclamation years; adherence to some degree, potential severity of currently authorized Plan would mitigate, to avoided by the Proposed Reclamation Plan would mitigate, to some degree, Plan would mitigate, to Reclamation Plan would Plan would mitigate, to some Reclamation Plan would adverse impacts due to vegetation 

some degree, potential Action; LOP extended mitigate, to some degree, potential severity of adverse some degree, potential mitigate, to some degree, degree, potential severity of mitigate, to some degree, loss; potential for impacts generally severity of adverse approximately 13-42 years potential severity of impacts due to vegetation severity of adverse potential severity of adverse impacts due to potential severity of would be lower than as described for impacts due to vegetation from No Action; adherence adverse impacts due to loss impacts due to vegetation adverse impacts due to vegetation loss adverse impacts due to other action alternatives because of loss to Reclamation Plan would vegetation loss loss vegetation loss vegetation loss the implementation of management 

mitigate, to some degree, requirements and monitoring designed potential severity of adverse to ensure that the project meets field impacts due to vegetation development and production loss objectives 

Disturbance of wetlands and No new wetland disturbance All wetlands would be Same as Proposed Action but All wetlands would be All wetlands would be All wetlands would be All wetlands would be All wetlands would be All wetlands would be All wetlands would be avoided riparian areas for LOP avoided; 47 acres of possibly increased in areas avoided avoided avoided avoided avoided avoided 

wetlands in JIDPA that would have been avoided 

by Proposed Action; LOP extended approximately 13­42 years over No Action 

Unsuccessful reclamation for Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Same as Proposed Action Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of LOP and beyond 4,209 acres (1,409 acres of 20,409 acres (6,040 (total surface disturbance of of 7,506 acres (2,622 acres 10,914 acres (3,399 acres of 15,790 acres (4,755 of 10,595 acres (3,597 14,655 acres (3,997 acres of 18,198 acres (5,408 12,013 acres (3,704 acres LOP) vs. 

LOP) currently authorized; acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres 20,409 acres [6,040 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres (1,409 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres 4,209 acres (1,409 acres LOP) under LOP 63 years plus time (1,409 acres LOP) under LOP] vs. 4,209 acres (1,409 acres LOP) under acres LOP) under No Action; (1,409 acres LOP) under (1,409 acres LOP) under (1,409 acres LOP) under No (1,409 acres LOP) under No Action; LOP extended needed for adequate No Action; LOP extended [1,409 acres LOP] under No No Action; LOP extended LOP extended approximately No Action; LOP extended No Action; LOP extended Action; LOP extended No Action; LOP extended approximately 13 years; adherence to reclamation; no new surface approximately 13 years; Action) but possibly approximately 13-42 5-17 years; adherence to approximately 9-30 years; approximately 13-42 approximately 13-42 years; approximately 13-42 Reclamation Plan would mitigate, to disturbance beyond that adherence to Reclamation increased in areas that would years; adherence to Reclamation Plan would adherence to Reclamation years; adherence to adherence to Reclamation years; adherence to some degree, potential severity of currently authorized Plan would mitigate, to have been avoided by the Reclamation Plan would mitigate, to some degree, Plan would mitigate, to Reclamation Plan would Plan would mitigate, to some Reclamation Plan would adverse impacts due to vegetation 

some degree, potential Proposed Action; LOP mitigate, to some degree, potential severity of adverse some degree, potential mitigate, to some degree, degree, potential severity of mitigate, to some degree, loss; potential for impacts generally severity of adverse extended approximately 13- potential severity of impacts due to vegetation severity of adverse potential severity of adverse impacts due to potential severity of would be lower than as described for impacts due to vegetation 42 years over No Action; adverse impacts due to loss impacts due to vegetation adverse impacts due to vegetation loss adverse impacts due to other action alternatives because of loss adherence to Reclamation vegetation loss loss vegetation loss vegetation loss the implementation of management 

Plan would mitigate, to some requirements and monitoring designed degree, potential severity of to ensure that the project meets field adverse impacts due to development and production vegetation loss objectives 

Direct BWS plant habitat loss Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Same as Proposed Action Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of 12,013 

4,209 acres (1,409 acres of 20,409 acres (6,040 (total surface disturbance of of 7,506 acres (2,622 acres 10,914 acres (3,399 acres of 15,790 acres (4,755 of 10,595 acres (3,597 14,655 acres (3,997 acres of 18,198 acres (5,408 acres (3,704 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 LOP) currently authorized; acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres 20,409 acres [6,040 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres (1,409 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres (1,409 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres acres (1,409 acres LOP) under No LOP 63 years plus time (1,409 acres LOP) under LOP] vs. 4,209 acres (1,409 acres LOP) under acres LOP) under No Action; (1,409 acres LOP) under (1,409 acres LOP) under acres LOP) under No Action; (1,409 acres LOP) under Action; LOP extended approximately needed for adequate No Action; LOP extended [1,409 acres LOP] under No No Action; LOP extended LOP extended approximately No Action; LOP extended No Action; LOP extended LOP extended approximately No Action; LOP extended 13 years; adherence to Reclamation reclamation; no new surface approximately 13 years; Action) but possibly approximately 13-42 5-17 years; adherence to approximately 9-30 years; approximately 13-42 13-42 years; adherence to approximately 13-42 Plan would mitigate, to some degree, disturbance beyond that adherence to site-specific increased in areas that would years; adherence to Reclamation Plan would adherence to Reclamation years; adherence to Reclamation Plan would years; adherence to potential severity of adverse impacts currently authorized surveys for BWS species have been avoided by the Reclamation Plan would mitigate, to some degree, Plan would mitigate, to Reclamation Plan would mitigate, to some degree, Reclamation Plan would due to vegetation loss; potential for 

would limit potential Proposed Action; LOP mitigate, to some degree, potential severity of adverse some degree, potential mitigate, to some degree, potential severity of adverse mitigate, to some degree, impacts generally would be lower impact severity extended approximately 13- potential severity of impacts due to vegetation severity of adverse potential severity of impacts due to vegetation potential severity of than as described for other action 

42 years; adherence to adverse impacts due to loss impacts due to vegetation adverse impacts due to loss adverse impacts due to alternatives because of the Reclamation Plan would vegetation loss loss vegetation loss vegetation loss implementation of management mitigate, to some degree, requirements and monitoring designed potential severity of adverse to ensure that the project meets field impacts due to vegetation development and production loss objectives 
E-7 

Table E-1 (continued) 

IMPACT BY ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE NO ACTION 

PROPOSED ACTION (3,100 Wells/16,200 Acres Disturbance) 

ALTERNATIVE A (3,100 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE B (3,100 Wells And No New Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE C (1,250 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE D (2,220 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE E 2 

(266 New Pads; 16 Total Pads/Section) 

ALTERNATIVE F 2 

(1,028 New Pads; 32 Total Pads/Section) 

ALTERNATIVE G 2 

(2,553 New Pads; 64 Total Pads/Section) 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 2 

(Specific Maximum Disturbance Allowances, Mitigation/Monitoring) 

WILDLIFE INCLUDING BWS ANIMAL SPECIES Direct habitat loss Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of 

4,209 acres (1,409 acres of 20,409 acres (6,040 20,409 acres (6,040 acres of 7,506 acres (2,622 acres 10,914 acres (3,399 acres of 15,790 acres (4,755 of 10,595 acres (3,597 14,655 acres (3,997 acres of 18,198 acres (5,408 12,013 acres (3,704 acres LOP) vs. LOP) currently authorized; acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres 4,209 acres (1,409 acres LOP) under LOP 63 years plus time (1,409 acres LOP) under (1,409 acres LOP) under No (1,409 acres LOP) under (1,409 acres LOP) under No (1,409 acres LOP) under (1,409 acres LOP) under (1,409 acres LOP) under No (1,409 acres LOP) under No Action; LOP extended needed for adequate No Action; LOP extended Action; LOP extended No Action; LOP extended Action; LOP extended No Action; LOP extended No Action; LOP extended Action; LOP extended No Action; LOP extended approximately 13 years; potential for reclamation; impacts to approximately 13 years; approximately 13-42 years; approximately 13-42 approximately 5-17 years; approximately 9-30 years; approximately 13-42 approximately 13-42 years; approximately 13-42 impacts generally would be lower wildlife and BWS species impacts to wildlife and selected Operator-committed years; impacts to wildlife impacts to wildlife and BWS impacts to wildlife and years; impacts to wildlife impacts to wildlife and BWS years; impacts to wildlife than as described for other action and their habitat would be BWS species and their and BLM-required practices and BWS species and their species and their habitat BWS species and their and BWS species and their species and their habitat and BWS species and their alternatives because of the locally significant habitat would be locally (e.g., protection of raptor habitat would be locally would be locally significant habitat would be locally habitat would be locally would be locally significant habitat would be locally implementation of management 

significant nests, sage grouse leks, and significant significant significant significant requirements and monitoring designed 

Sand Draw drainage corridor) to ensure that the project meets field would not occur; impacts to development and production wildlife and BWS species objectives; impacts to wildlife and and their habitat would be BWS species and their habitat would locally significant be locally significant 

Increased mortality Unquantified mortality Unquantified increase in Unquantified increase in Unquantified increase in Unquantified increase in Unquantified increase in Unquantified increase in Unquantified increase in Unquantified increase in Unquantified increase in mortality 

related to vehicle/animal mortality related to mortality related to mortality related to mortality related to mortality related to mortality related to mortality related to mortality related to related to vehicle/animal collisions, collisions, construction, and vehicle/animal collisions, vehicle/animal collisions, vehicle/animal collisions, vehicle/animal collisions, vehicle/animal collisions, vehicle/animal collisions, vehicle/animal collisions, vehicle/animal collisions, construction, and potential stresspotential stress-related construction, and potential construction, and potential construction, and potential construction, and potential construction, and potential construction, and potential construction, and potential construction, and potential related deaths, especially during deaths, especially during stress-related deaths, stress-related deaths, stress-related deaths, stress-related deaths, stress-related deaths, stress-related deaths, stress-related deaths, stress-related deaths, critical seasons; LOP extended critical seasons, as a result of especially during critical especially during critical especially during critical especially during critical especially during critical especially during critical especially during critical especially during critical approximately 13 years over No previously authorized seasons; LOP extended seasons; although disturbance seasons; level of impacts seasons; level of impacts seasons; level of impacts seasons; level of impacts seasons; level of impacts seasons; level of impacts Action; potential for impacts actions; no new actions approximately 13 years acreage would be the same as would be greater than would be greater than those would be greater than would be greater than would be greater than those would be greater than generally would be lower than as would be authorized under over No Action under the Proposed Action, those under the No Action under the No Action those under the No Action those under the No Action under the No Action those under the No Action described for other action alternatives this alternative impacts would be further Alternative, but less than Alternative, but less than Alternative, and may be Alternative, and may be Alternative, and may be Alternative, but probably because of the implementation of 

increased in some areas that those under the Preferred those under the Preferred similar to those under the similar to slightly less than similar to those under the more than those under the management requirements and would have been avoided Alternative because no Alternative because 1,850 Preferred Alternative; those under the Preferred Preferred Alternative; LOP Preferred Alternative; monitoring designed to ensure that the under the Proposed Action new pads would be fewer wells would be drilled; LOP extended Alternative because fewer extended approximately LOP extended project meets field development and (i.e., Sand Draw, raptor nest constructed; LOP LOP extended approximately approximately 9-30 years pads are likely to be 13-42 years over No Action approximately 13-42 years production objectives and sage grouse lek extended approximately 5-17 years over No Action over No Action constructed; LOP over No Action vicinities); LOP extended 13-42 years over No extended approximately approximately 13-42 years Action 13-42 years over No over No Action Action 

Displacement; indirect habitat Human activity would Same types of impacts as Degree greatly increased Degree somewhat Degree somewhat increased Degree greatly increased Degree greatly increased Degree greatly increased Degree greatly increased Degree greatly increased above No loss; habitat fragmentation displace some species from under No Action, but above No Action and LOP increased above No above No Action and LOP above No Action and LOP above No Action and LOP above No Action and LOP above No Action and LOP Action and LOP extended 

areas near project features, degree greatly increased extended approximately 13- Action and LOP extended extended approximately 5- extended approximately 9- extended approximately extended approximately 13- extended approximately approximately 13 years; potential for which, when coupled with and LOP extended 42 years; habitat approximately 13- 17 years; habitat 30 years; habitat 13-42 years; 99.8% of the 42 years; 99.96% of the 13-42 years; 99.98% of impacts generally would be lower direct habitat loss, would approximately 13- fragmentation probably most 42 years; habitat fragmentation would be fragmentation probably JIDPA would be within JIDPA would be within the JIDPA would be than as described for other action further fragment habitats; 42 years; habitat similar to Alternative G; fragmentation would be somewhat increased from the most similar to 0.25 mile and 97.3% of 0.25 mile and 99.0% of the within 0.25 mile and alternatives because of the displacement would cause fragmentation probably impacts would be further somewhat increased from No Action Alternative Alternative G the JIDPA would be JIDPA would be within 99.2% of the JIDPA implementation of management increased use of other most similar to increased in some areas that the No Action Alternative within 0.125 mile of 0.125 mile of project features would be within requirements and monitoring designed habitats in the region; LOP Alternative G would have been avoided project features 0.125 mile of project to ensure that the project meets field for currently authorized under the Proposed Action features development and production actions would be 63 years; (i.e., Sand Draw, raptor nest objectives; habitat fragmentation 87.4% of the JIDPA would and sage grouse lek would increase, with the degree be within 0.25 mile of project vicinities) dependent on the location and features; no new actions arrangement of project facilities would be authorized under within the field the proposed project 

Alteration of pronghorn Potential avoidance of the Potential avoidance of the Potential avoidance of the Potential avoidance of the Potential avoidance of the Potential avoidance of the Potential avoidance of the Potential avoidance of the Potential avoidance of the Potential avoidance of the JIDPA by migration routes JIDPA by migrating JIDPA by migrating JIDPA by migrating JIDPA by migrating JIDPA by migrating JIDPA by migrating JIDPA by migrating JIDPA by migrating JIDPA by migrating migrating pronghorn; relatively 

pronghorn; relatively pronghorn; relatively pronghorn; relatively pronghorn; relatively pronghorn; relatively pronghorn; relatively pronghorn; relatively pronghorn; relatively pronghorn; relatively undisturbed areas remain west of the undisturbed areas remain undisturbed areas remain undisturbed areas remain undisturbed areas remain undisturbed areas remain undisturbed areas remain undisturbed areas remain undisturbed areas remain undisturbed areas remain JIDPA; project disturbances unlikely west of the JIDPA; project west of the JIDPA; project west of the JIDPA; project west of the JIDPA; project west of the JIDPA; project west of the JIDPA; project west of the JIDPA; project west of the JIDPA; project west of the JIDPA; project to block or prohibit migration to and disturbances unlikely to disturbances unlikely to disturbances unlikely to disturbances unlikely to disturbances unlikely to disturbances unlikely to disturbances unlikely to disturbances unlikely to disturbances unlikely to from crucial ranges; LOP would be block or prohibit migration to block or prohibit block or prohibit migration to block or prohibit block or prohibit migration to block or prohibit block or prohibit block or prohibit migration to block or prohibit extended approximately 13 years from and from crucial ranges; LOP migration to and from and from crucial ranges; LOP migration to and from and from crucial ranges; LOP migration to and from migration to and from and from crucial ranges; LOP migration to and from the No Action Alternative would be 63 years for crucial ranges; LOP would would be extended crucial ranges; LOP would would be extended crucial ranges; LOP crucial ranges; LOP would would be extended crucial ranges; LOP would currently authorized actions be extended approximately 13-42 years be extended approximately 5-17 years would be extended be extended approximately approximately 13-42 years be extended 

approximately 13-42 years from the No Action approximately 13-42 years from the No Action approximately 9-30 years 13-42 years from the No from the No Action approximately 13-42 years from the No Action Alternative from the No Action Alternative from the No Action Action Alternative Alternative from the No Action Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative 
E-8 

Table E-1 (continued) 

IMPACT BY ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE NO ACTION 

PROPOSED ACTION (3,100 Wells/16,200 Acres Disturbance) 

ALTERNATIVE A (3,100 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE B (3,100 Wells And No New Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE C (1,250 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE D (2,220 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE E 2 

(266 New Pads; 16 Total Pads/Section) 

ALTERNATIVE F 2 

(1,028 New Pads; 32 Total Pads/Section) 

ALTERNATIVE G 2 

(2,553 New Pads; 64 Total Pads/Section) 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 2 

(Specific Maximum Disturbance Allowances, Mitigation/Monitoring) 

Loss of greater sage-grouse Loss of breeding, nesting, Types of impacts to Types of impacts to greater Types of impacts to Types of impacts to greater Types of impacts to Types of impacts to Types of impacts to greater Types of impacts to Types of impacts to greater sageproductivity for LOP and winter habitat due to greater sage-grouse sage-grouse similar to those greater sage-grouse sage-grouse similar to those greater sage-grouse greater sage-grouse similar sage-grouse similar to those greater sage-grouse grouse similar to those under the No 

surface disturbance, noise, similar to those under the under the No Action similar to those under the under the No Action similar to those under the to those under the No under the No Action similar to those under the Action Alternative, but total surface traffic, and human presence; No Action Alternative, but Alternative, but total surface No Action Alternative, but Alternative, but total surface No Action Alternative, but Action Alternative, but Alternative, but total surface No Action Alternative, but disturbance of 12,013 acres (3,704 total surface disturbance of total surface disturbance disturbance of 20,409 acres total surface disturbance disturbance of 10,914 acres total surface disturbance total surface disturbance disturbance of 14,655 acres total surface disturbance acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres (1,409 4,209 acres (1,409 acres of 20,409 acres (6,040 (6,040 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 of 7,506 acres (2,622 acres (3,399 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 of 15,790 acres (4,755 of 10,595 acres (3,597 (3,997 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 of 18,198 acres (5,408 acres LOP) under No Action; LOP LOP) currently authorized; acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres acres (1,409 acres LOP) LOP) vs. 4,209 acres acres (1,409 acres LOP) acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres acres (1,409 acres LOP) acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres extended approximately 13 years; LOP 63 years plus time (1,409 acres LOP) under under No Action; LOP (1,409 acres LOP) under under No Action; LOP (1,409 acres LOP) under (1,409 acres LOP) under under No Action; LOP (1,409 acres LOP) under potential for impacts generally would needed for adequate No Action; LOP extended extended approximately 13- No Action; LOP extended extended approximately 5-17 No Action; LOP extended No Action; LOP extended extended approximately 13- No Action; LOP extended be lower than as described for other reclamation; impacts to approximately 13 years; 42 years; selected Operator- approximately 13-42 years; impacts to greater sage approximately 9-30 years; approximately 13-42 42 years; impacts to greater approximately 13-42 action alternatives because of the greater sage-grouse and their impacts to greater sage- committed and BLM- years; impacts to greater grouse and their habitat impacts to greater sage- years; impacts to greater sage-grouse and their habitat years; impacts to greater implementation of management habitat would be significant grouse and their habitat required practices would not sage-grouse and their would be significant grouse and their habitat sage-grouse and their would be significant sage-grouse and their requirements and monitoring designed 

would be significant occur, thus further increasing habitat would be would be significant habitat would be habitat would be to ensure that the project meets field 

potential negative impacts to significant significant significant development and production sage-grouse; impacts to objectives; impacts to greater sagegreater sage-grouse and their grouse and their habitat would be habitat would be significant significant 

Loss of raptor productivity for Fewer nesting initiations, Types of impacts to Types of impacts to raptors Types of impacts to Types of impacts to raptors Types of impacts to Types of impacts to Types of impacts to raptors Types of impacts to Types of impacts to raptors similar to LOP nest site abandonment, and raptors similar to those similar to those under the No raptors similar to those similar to those under the No raptors similar to those raptors similar to those similar to those under the No raptors similar to those those under the No Action 

reproductive failure or under the No Action Action Alternative, but total under the No Action Action Alternative, but total under the No Action under the No Action Action Alternative, but total under the No Action Alternative, but total surface decreased productivity due to Alternative, but total surface disturbance of 20,409 Alternative, but total surface disturbance of 10,914 Alternative, but total Alternative, but total surface disturbance of 14,655 Alternative, but total disturbance of 12,013 acres (3,704 increased human activity, surface disturbance of acres (6,040 acres LOP) vs. surface disturbance of acres (3,399 acres LOP) vs. surface disturbance of surface disturbance of acres (3,997 acres LOP) vs. surface disturbance of acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres (1,409 habitat loss, and loss of prey 20,409 acres (6,040 acres 4,209 acres (1,409 acres 7,506 acres (2,622 acres 4,209 acres (1,409 acres 15,790 acres (4,755 acres 10,595 acres (3,597 acres 4,209 acres (1,409 acres 18,198 acres (5,408 acres acres LOP) under No Action; LOP base as a result of surface LOP) vs. 4,209 acres LOP) under No Action; LOP LOP) vs. 4,209 acres LOP) under No Action; LOP LOP) vs. 4,209 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres LOP) under No Action; LOP LOP) vs. 4,209 acres extended approximately 13 years; disturbance, noise, traffic, (1,409 acres LOP) under extended approximately 13- (1,409 acres LOP) under extended approximately 5-17 (1,409 acres LOP) under (1,409 acres LOP) under extended approximately 13- (1,409 acres LOP) under potential for impacts generally would and human presence; total No Action; LOP extended 42 years; selected Operator- No Action; LOP extended years; impacts to raptors and No Action; LOP extended No Action; LOP extended 42 years; impacts to raptors No Action; LOP extended be lower than as described for other surface disturbance of 4,209 approximately 13 years; committed and BLM- approximately 13-42 their habitat would be locally approximately 9-30 years; approximately 13-42 and their habitat would be approximately 13-42 action alternatives because of the acres (1,409 acres LOP) impacts to raptors and required practices would not years; impacts to raptors significant impacts to raptors and years; impacts to raptors locally significant years; impacts to raptors implementation of management currently authorized; LOP 63 their habitat would be occur, thus further increasing and their habitat would be their habitat would be and their habitat would be and their habitat would be requirements and monitoring designed years plus time needed for locally significant potential negative impacts to locally significant locally significant locally significant locally significant to ensure that the project meets field adequate reclamation; nesting raptors; impacts to development and production impacts to raptors and their raptors and their habitat objectives; impacts to raptors and habitat would be locally would be locally significant their habitat would be locally significant significant 

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, PROPOSED, AND CANDIDATE (TEP&C) SPECIES 

Direct habitat loss for LOP Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of 

4,209 acres (1,409 acres of 20,409 acres (6,040 20,409 acres (6,040 acres of 7,506 acres (2,622 acres 10,914 acres (3,399 acres of 15,790 acres (4,755 of 10,595 acres (3,597 14,655 acres (3,997 acres of 18,198 acres (5,408 12,013 acres (3,704 acres LOP) vs. LOP); LOP of 63 years as acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres acres LOP) vs. 4,209 acres 4,209 acres (1,409 LOP) under No authorized; no new (1,409 LOP) under No (1,409 LOP) under No (1,409 LOP) under No (1,409 LOP) under No (1,409 LOP) under No (1,409 LOP) under No (1,409 LOP) under No (1,409 LOP) under No Action; LOP extended approximately disturbance or facilities; Action; LOP extended Action; LOP extended Action; LOP extended Action; LOP extended Action; LOP extended Action; LOP extended Action; LOP extended Action; LOP extended 13 years; potential for impacts impacts to TEP&C species approximately 13 years; approximately 13-42 years; approximately 13-42 approximately 5-17 years; approximately 9-30 years; approximately 13-42 approximately 13-42 years; approximately 13-42 generally would be lower than as and their habitat would be impacts to TEP&C species selected Operator-committed years; impacts to TEP&C impacts to TEP&C species impacts to TEP&C years; impacts to TEP&C impacts to TEP&C species years; impacts to TEP&C described for other action alternatives minimal because of and their habitat would be and BLM-required practices species and their habitat and their habitat would be species and their habitat species and their habitat and their habitat would be species and their habitat because of the implementation of infrequent use of the area by minimal because of would not occur; impacts to would be minimal because minimal because of would be minimal because would be minimal because minimal because of would be minimal because management requirements and TEP&C species infrequent use of the area TEP&C species and their of infrequent use of the infrequent use of the area by of infrequent use of the of infrequent use of the infrequent use of the area by of infrequent use of the monitoring designed to ensure that the 

by TEP&C species habitat would be minimal area by TEP&C species TEP&C species area by TEP&C species area by TEP&C species TEP&C species area by TEP&C species project meets field development and 

because of infrequent use of production objectives; impacts to the area by TEP&C species TEP&C species and their habitat 

would be minimal because of infrequent use of the area by TEP&C species 

Displacement for LOP No adverse effects - no bald No adverse effects - no No adverse effects - no bald No adverse effects - no No adverse effects - no bald No adverse effects - no No adverse effects - no No adverse effects - no bald No adverse effects - no No adverse effects - no bald eagle 

eagle nests or roosts; no bald eagle nests or roosts; eagle nests or roosts; no bald eagle nests or roosts; eagle nests or roosts; no bald eagle nests or roosts; bald eagle nests or roosts; eagle nests or roosts; no bald eagle nests or roosts; nests or roosts; no confirmed blackconfirmed black-footed ferret no confirmed black-footed confirmed black-footed ferret no confirmed black-footed confirmed black-footed ferret no confirmed black-footed no confirmed black-footed confirmed black-footed ferret no confirmed black-footed footed ferret presence; no Ute ladies'­presence; no Ute ladies'- ferret presence; no Ute presence; no Ute ladies'- ferret presence; no Ute presence; no Ute ladies'- ferret presence; no Ute ferret presence; no Ute presence; no Ute ladies'- ferret presence; no Ute tresses habitat or known occurrence; tresses habitat or known ladies'-tresses habitat or tresses habitat or known ladies'-tresses habitat or tresses habitat or known ladies'-tresses habitat or ladies'-tresses habitat or tresses habitat or known ladies'-tresses habitat or no surface water withdrawal; some occurrence; no surface water known occurrence; no occurrence; no surface water known occurrence; no occurrence; no surface water known occurrence; no known occurrence; no occurrence; no surface water known occurrence; no decrease in available habitat and withdrawal; some decrease in surface water withdrawal; withdrawal; some decrease in surface water withdrawal; withdrawal; some decrease in surface water withdrawal; surface water withdrawal; withdrawal; some decrease in surface water withdrawal; habitat function for some species available habitat and habitat some decrease in available available habitat and habitat some decrease in available available habitat and habitat some decrease in available some decrease in available available habitat and habitat some decrease in available function for some species; no habitat and habitat function for some species habitat and habitat function for some species habitat and habitat habitat and habitat function for some species habitat and habitat new disturbance function for some species function for some species function for some species function for some species function for some species 
E-9 

Table E-1 (continued) 

IMPACT BY ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE NO ACTION 

PROPOSED ACTION (3,100 Wells/16,200 Acres Disturbance) 

ALTERNATIVE A (3,100 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE B (3,100 Wells And No New Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE C (1,250 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE D (2,220 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE E 2 

(266 New Pads; 16 Total Pads/Section) 

ALTERNATIVE F 2 

(1,028 New Pads; 32 Total Pads/Section) 

ALTERNATIVE G 2 

(2,553 New Pads; 64 Total Pads/Section) 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 2 

(Specific Maximum Disturbance Allowances, Mitigation/Monitoring) 

Increased mortality for LOP No adverse effects - no bald No adverse effects - no No adverse effects - no bald No adverse effects - no No adverse effects - no bald No adverse effects - no No adverse effects - no No adverse effects - no bald No adverse effects - no No adverse effects - no bald eagle 

eagle nests or roosts; no bald eagle nests or roosts; eagle nests or roosts; no bald eagle nests or roosts; eagle nests or roosts; no bald eagle nests or roosts; bald eagle nests or roosts; eagle nests or roosts; no bald eagle nests or roosts; nests or roosts; no confirmed blackconfirmed black-footed ferret no confirmed black-footed confirmed black-footed ferret no confirmed black-footed confirmed black-footed ferret no confirmed black-footed no confirmed black-footed confirmed black-footed ferret no confirmed black-footed footed ferret presence; no Ute ladies'­presence; no Ute ladies'- ferret presence; no Ute presence; no Ute ladies'- ferret presence; no Ute presence; no Ute ladies'- ferret presence; no Ute ferret presence; no Ute presence; no Ute ladies'- ferret presence; no Ute tresses habitat or known occurrence; tresses habitat or known ladies'-tresses habitat or tresses habitat or known ladies'-tresses habitat or tresses habitat or known ladies'-tresses habitat or ladies'-tresses habitat or tresses habitat or known ladies'-tresses habitat or no surface water withdrawal occurrence; no surface water known occurrence; no occurrence; no surface water known occurrence; no occurrence; no surface water known occurrence; no known occurrence; no occurrence; no surface water known occurrence; no withdrawal; no new facility surface water withdrawal withdrawal surface water withdrawal withdrawal surface water withdrawal surface water withdrawal withdrawal surface water withdrawal sites 

Disturbance of critical habitats No adverse effects - no bald No adverse effects - no No adverse effects - no bald No adverse effects - no No adverse effects - no bald No adverse effects - no No adverse effects - no No adverse effects - no bald No adverse effects - no No adverse effects - no bald eagle for LOP eagle nests or roosts; no bald eagle nests or roosts; eagle nests or roosts; no bald eagle nests or roosts; eagle nests or roosts; no bald eagle nests or roosts; bald eagle nests or roosts; eagle nests or roosts; no bald eagle nests or roosts; nests or roosts; no confirmed blackconfirmed black-footed ferret no confirmed black-footed confirmed black-footed ferret no confirmed black-footed confirmed black-footed ferret no confirmed black-footed no confirmed black-footed confirmed black-footed ferret no confirmed black-footed footed ferret presence; no Ute ladies'­

presence; no Ute ladies'- ferret presence; no Ute presence; no Ute ladies'- ferret presence; no Ute presence; no Ute ladies'- ferret presence; no Ute ferret presence; no Ute presence; no Ute ladies'- ferret presence; no Ute tresses habitat or known occurrence; tresses habitat or known ladies'-tresses habitat or tresses habitat or known ladies'-tresses habitat or tresses habitat or known ladies'-tresses habitat or ladies'-tresses habitat or tresses habitat or known ladies'-tresses habitat or no surface water withdrawal; no occurrence; no surface water known occurrence; no occurrence; no surface water known occurrence; no occurrence; no surface water known occurrence; no known occurrence; no occurrence; no surface water known occurrence; no critical habitat present withdrawal; no critical surface water withdrawal; withdrawal; no critical surface water withdrawal; withdrawal; no critical surface water withdrawal; surface water withdrawal; withdrawal; no critical surface water withdrawal; habitat present; no new no critical habitat present habitat present no critical habitat present habitat present no critical habitat present no critical habitat present habitat present no critical habitat present disturbance affected 

WILD HORSES 

Loss of habitat; displacement; No impacts above existing 2,415 acres new initial Same as Proposed Action but 867 acres new initial 1,276 acres new initial 1,861 acres new initial 1,237 acres new initial 1,725 acres new initial 2,150 acres new initial 1,408 new initial disturbance mortality levels; no new surface disturbance (715 acres possibly increased in areas disturbance (305 acres disturbance (398 acres LOP) disturbance (561 acres disturbance (422 acres disturbance (470 acres LOP) disturbance (639 acres (435 acres LOP) within Wild Horse 

disturbance LOP) within Wild Horse that would have been avoided LOP) within Wild Horse within Wild Horse Herd LOP) within Wild Horse LOP) within Wild Horse within Wild Horse Herd LOP) within Wild Horse Herd Management Area; 

Herd Management Area; by Proposed Action; LOP Herd Management Area; Management Area; Herd Management Area; Herd Management Area; Management Area; Herd Management Area; displacement due to human presence; displacement due to extended 13-42 years over displacement due to displacement due to human displacement due to displacement due to displacement due to human displacement due to potential vehicle/animal collisions; human presence; potential No Action human presence; potential presence; potential human presence; potential human presence; potential presence; potential human presence; potential more areas with human presence; vehicle/animal collisions; vehicle/animal collisions; vehicle/animal collisions; vehicle/animal collisions; vehicle/animal collisions; vehicle/animal collisions; vehicle/animal collisions; increased traffic; LOP extended LOP extended 13 years more areas with human more areas with human more areas with human more areas with human more areas with human more areas with human 13 years over No Action; potential for over No Action presence; increased traffic; presence; increased traffic; presence; increased presence; increased traffic; presence; increased traffic; presence; increased traffic; impacts generally would be lower 

LOP extended 13-42 years LOP extended 5-17 years traffic; LOP extended 9- LOP extended 13-42 years LOP extended 13-42 years LOP extended 13-42 years than as described for other action over No Action over No Action 30 years over No Action over No Action over No Action over No Action alternatives because of the 

implementation of management requirements and monitoring designed to ensure that the project meets field development and production objectives 

CULTURAL RESOURCES Disturbance/destruction of Potential impacts assumed to Total surface disturbance Same as Proposed Action but Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance important sites increase with increased 20,409 acres possibly increased in areas 7,506 acres 10,914 acres 15,790 acres 10,595 acres 14,655 acres reduced to 18,198 acres 12,013 acres; potential for impacts 

surface disturbance; total that would have been avoided generally would be lower than as surface disturbance by Proposed Action; total described for other action alternatives 4,209 acres; no new surface surface disturbance because of the implementation of disturbance 20,409 acres management requirements and 

monitoring designed to ensure that the project meets field development and production objectives 

Artifact collection/site Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Same as Proposed Action Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of vandalism 4,209 acres; no new surface of 20,409 acres; LOP (total surface disturbance of of 7,506 acres; LOP 10,914 acres; LOP extended of 15,790 acres; LOP of 10,595 acres; LOP 14,655 acres; LOP extended of 18,198 acres; LOP 12,013 acres; potential for impacts 

disturbance beyond that extended 13 years over No 20,409 acres) but possibly extended 13-42 years over 5-17 years over No Action extended 9-30 years over extended 13-42 years over 13-42 years over No Action extended 13-42 years over generally would be lower than as currently authorized; no Action increased in areas that would No Action No Action No Action No Action described for other action alternatives increased human presence have been avoided by because of the implementation of 

Proposed Action; LOP management requirements and extended 13-42 years over monitoring designed to ensure that the No Action project meets field development and 

production objectives; LOP extended 13 years over No Action 

Disturbance of Native American Avoidance of known sites Avoidance of known sites Same as Proposed Action Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of Total surface disturbance Total surface disturbance of religious or culturally and continued consultation and continued consultation (total surface disturbance of of 7,506 acres 10,914 acres of 15,790 acres of 10,595 acres 14,655 acres of reduced to 18,198 acres 12,013 acres; potential for impacts significant sites would minimize potential would minimize potential 20,409 acres) but possibly generally would be lower than as 

impact severity; no new impact severity; total increased in areas that would described for other action alternatives disturbance surface disturbance of have been avoided by because of the implementation of 

20,409 acres Proposed Action management requirements and 

monitoring designed to ensure that the project meets field development and production objectives 
E-10 

Table E-1 (continued) 

IMPACT BY ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE NO ACTION 

PROPOSED ACTION (3,100 Wells/16,200 Acres Disturbance) 

ALTERNATIVE A (3,100 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE B (3,100 Wells And No New Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE C (1,250 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE D (2,220 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE E 2 

(266 New Pads; 16 Total Pads/Section) 

ALTERNATIVE F 2 

(1,028 New Pads; 32 Total Pads/Section) 

ALTERNATIVE G 2 

(2,553 New Pads; 64 Total Pads/Section) 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 2 

(Specific Maximum Disturbance Allowances, Mitigation/Monitoring) 

SOCIOECONOMICS Local population increase Up to 13,947 new secondary Up to 9,899 new worker- Up to 9,899 new worker- Up to 9,899 new worker- Up to 3,392 new worker Up to 7,089 new worker Up to 9,899 new worker Up to 9,899 new worker Up to 9,899 new worker Up to 9,899 new worker years direct 

labor Annual Job Equivalents years direct labor and years direct labor and 60,625- years direct labor and years direct labor and 21,617- years direct labor and years direct labor and years direct labor and years direct labor and labor and 53,740-54,193 new AJEs (AJEs) from production for 52,930 new AJEs 61,110 new AJEs secondary 60,625-61,110 new AJEs 22,199 new AJEs secondary 38,466-38,474 new AJEs 59,868-80,315 new AJEs 57,823-99,071 new AJEs 53,740-54,193 new AJEs secondary labor for development; 63-year LOP; no population secondary labor for labor for development; 6,964 secondary labor for labor for development; 3,018 secondary labor for secondary labor for secondary labor for secondary labor for 6,964 new worker years and 32,634 impact anticipated beyond development; 6,964 new new worker-years and 33,939 development; 6,964 new new worker years and 27,583 development; 5,081 new development; 6,964 new development; 6,964 new development; 6,964 new new AJEs secondary labor for LOP existing levels; some job loss worker-years and 32,923 new AJEs secondary labor worker-years and 25,374 new AJEs secondary labor worker years and 31,200 worker years and 26,112 worker years and 29,775 new worker years and 32,634 from production; no impact to may occur as wells become new AJEs secondary labor for LOP from production; no new AJEs secondary labor for LOP from production; no new AJEs secondary labor new AJEs secondary labor AJEs secondary labor for new AJEs secondary labor population anticipated due to less productive and for LOP from production; impact to population for LOP from production; impact to population for LOP from production; for LOP from production; LOP from production; no for LOP from production; Operator-committed recruitment from abandonment begins to occur no impact to population anticipated due to Operator- no impact to population anticipated due to Operator- no impact to population no impact to population impact to population no impact to population local population; some unquantifiable 

anticipated due to committed recruitment from anticipated due to committed recruitment from anticipated due to anticipated due to anticipated due to Operator- anticipated due to in-migration may occur from active Operator-committed local population; some Operator-committed local population; some Operator-committed Operator-committed committed recruitment from Operator-committed job-seekers; LOP extended 13 years recruitment from local unquantifiable in-migration recruitment from local unquantifiable in-migration recruitment from local recruitment from local local population; some recruitment from local over No Action population; some may occur from active job- population; some may occur from active job- population; some population; some unquantifiable in-migration population; some unquantifiable in- seekers; LOP extended unquantifiable in- seekers; LOP extended 5-17 unquantifiable in- unquantifiable in- may occur from active job- unquantifiable inmigration may occur from 13-42 years over No Action migration may occur from years over No Action migration may occur from migration may occur from seekers; LOP extended migration may occur from active job-seekers; LOP active job-seekers; LOP active job-seekers; LOP active job-seekers; LOP 13-42 years over No Action active job-seekers; LOP extended 13 years over extended extended 9-30 years over extended extended No Action 13-42 years over No No Action 13-42 years over No 13-42 years over No 

Action Action Action 

Increased demand for housing No further impact anticipated No significant increase in No significant increase in No significant increase in No significant increase in No significant increase in No significant increase in No significant increase in No significant increase in No significant increase in population 

beyond existing levels population anticipated population anticipated population anticipated population anticipated population anticipated population anticipated population anticipated population anticipated anticipated 

Increased demand for services No further impact anticipated No significant increase in No significant increase in No significant increase in No significant increase in No significant increase in No significant increase in No significant increase in No significant increase in No significant increase in population 

beyond existing levels population anticipated population anticipated population anticipated population anticipated population anticipated population anticipated population anticipated population anticipated anticipated 

Change of community character No impact anticipated Impacts greater than those Impacts greater than those Impacts greater than those Impacts greater than those Impacts greater than those Impacts greater than those Impacts greater than those Impacts greater than those Impacts greater than those described 

beyond existing change in described under the No described under the No described under the No described under the No described under the No described under the No described under the No described under the No under the No Action Alternative social values and beliefs Action Alternative Action Alternative Action Alternative Action Alternative Action Alternative Action Alternative Action Alternative Action Alternative 

Increased tax revenues and Continued tax revenue and Tax revenues and royalties Tax revenues and royalties Tax revenues and royalties Tax revenues and royalties Tax revenues and Tax revenues and royalties Tax revenues and royalties Tax revenues and royalties Tax revenues and royalties would be royalties royalty streams for 63-year would be expected to would be expected to would be expected to would be expected to royalties would be would be expected to would be expected to would be expected to expected to increase in proportion to 

LOP; tax revenues and increase in proportion to increase in proportion to increase in proportion to increase in proportion to expected to increase in increase in proportion to increase in proportion to increase in proportion to number of new wells developed and royalty streams would number of new wells number of new wells number of new wells number of new wells proportion to number of number of new wells number of new wells number of new wells increased production from mineral decline as wells become less developed and increased developed and increased developed and increased developed and increased new wells developed and developed and increased developed and increased developed and increased resources; impacts greater than those productive; potential tax production from mineral production from mineral production from mineral production from mineral increased production from production from mineral production from mineral production from mineral described under the No Action revenues and royalties would resources; impacts greater resources; impacts greater resources; impacts greater resources; impacts greater mineral resources; impacts resources; impacts greater resources; impacts greater resources; impacts greater Alternative remain unrealized due to lack than those described under than those described under than those described under than those described under greater than those than those described under than those described under than those described under of new development and the No Action Alternative the No Action Alternative the No Action Alternative the No Action Alternative described under the No the No Action Alternative the No Action Alternative the No Action Alternative failure to recover mineral Action Alternative resources 

Loss of revenues from livestock $44,041 annual loss over Loss of $115 per AUM; Loss of $115 per AUM; Loss of $115 per AUM; Loss of $115 per AUM; Loss of $115 per AUM; Loss of $115 per AUM; Loss of $115 per AUM; Loss of $115 per AUM; Loss of $115 per AUM; possible loss grazing due to loss of animal 63-year LOP if all AUMs possible loss of $202,497 possible loss of $202,497 possible loss of $75,778 possible loss of $109,241 possible loss of $157,076 possible loss of $111,310 possible loss of $145,807 possible loss of $171,335 of $171,335 annually over LOP if all unit months (AUMs) lost annually over LOP if all annually over LOP if all annually over LOP if all annually over LOP if all annually over LOP if all annually over LOP if all annually over LOP if all annually over LOP if all AUMs lost; LOP extended 13-42 

AUMs lost; LOP extended AUMs lost; LOP extended AUMs lost; LOP extended AUMs lost; LOP extended 5- AUMs lost; LOP extended AUMs lost; LOP extended AUMs lost; LOP extended AUMs lost; LOP extended years over No Action; potential for 13 years over No Action 13-42 years over No Action 13-42 years over No 17 years over No Action 9-30 years over No Action 13-42 years over No 13-42 years over No Action 13-42 years over No impacts generally would be lower 

Action Action Action than as described for other action 

alternatives because of the implementation of management requirements and monitoring designed to ensure that the project meets field development and production objectives 

Loss of hunting revenues No impact anticipated Loss of $963 per hunter Loss of $963 per hunter day; Loss of $963 per hunter Loss of $963 per hunter day; Loss of $963 per hunter Loss of $963 per hunter Loss of $963 per hunter day; Loss of $963 per hunter Loss of $963 per hunter day; possible 

beyond existing levels; LOP day; possible loss of possible loss of $42,140 day; possible loss of possible loss of $42,140 day; possible loss of day; possible loss of possible loss of $42,140 day; possible loss of loss of $42,140 annually over LOP if would be 63 years $42,140 annually over annually over LOP if all $42,140 annually over annually over LOP if all $42,140 annually over $42,140 annually over annually over LOP if all $42,140 annually over all hunter days lost; LOP extended 13 

LOP if all hunter days hunter days lost; LOP LOP if all hunter days hunter days lost; LOP LOP if all hunter days LOP if all hunter days hunter days lost; LOP LOP if all hunter days years over No Action; impacts greater lost; LOP extended 13 extended 13-42 years over lost; LOP extended 13-42 extended 5-17 years over No lost; LOP extended 9-30 lost; LOP extended 13-42 extended 13-42 years over lost; LOP extended 13-42 than those described under the No years over No Action; No Action; impacts greater years over No Action; Action; impacts greater than years over No Action; years over No Action; No Action; impacts greater years over No Action; Action Alternative; potential for impacts greater than those than those described under impacts greater than those those described under the No impacts greater than those impacts greater than those than those described under impacts greater than those impacts generally would be lower described under the No the No Action Alternative described under the No Action Alternative described under the No described under the No the No Action Alternative described under the No than as described for other action Action Alternative Action Alternative Action Alternative Action Alternative Action Alternative alternatives because of the 

implementation of management requirements and monitoring designed to ensure that the project meets field development and production objectives 
E-11 

Table E-1 (continued) 

IMPACT BY ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE NO ACTION 

PROPOSED ACTION (3,100 Wells/16,200 Acres Disturbance) 

ALTERNATIVE A (3,100 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE B (3,100 Wells And No New Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE C (1,250 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE D (2,220 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE E 2 

(266 New Pads; 16 Total Pads/Section) 

ALTERNATIVE F 2 

(1,028 New Pads; 32 Total Pads/Section) 

ALTERNATIVE G 2 

(2,553 New Pads; 64 Total Pads/Section) 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 2 

(Specific Maximum Disturbance Allowances, Mitigation/Monitoring) 

Loss of recreation revenues No impact anticipated Loss of $29.62 per Loss of $29.62 per RVD; Loss of $29.62 per RVD; Loss of $29.62 per RVD; Loss of $29.62 per RVD; Loss of $29.62 per RVD; Loss of $29.62 per RVD; Loss of $29.62 per RVD; Loss of $29.62 per RVD; possible 

beyond existing levels; LOP recreational visitor days possible loss of $100,590 possible loss of $100,590 possible loss of $100,590 possible loss of $100,590 possible loss of $100,590 possible loss of $100,590 possible loss of $100,590 loss of $100,590 annually over LOP if would be 63 years (RVDs); possible loss of annually over LOP if all annually over LOP if all annually over LOP if all annually over LOP if all annually over LOP if all annually over LOP if all annually over LOP if all all RVDs are lost; LOP extended 13 

$100,590 annually over RVDs are lost; LOP extended RVDs are lost; LOP RVDs are lost; LOP extended RVDs are lost; LOP RVDs are lost; LOP RVDs are lost; LOP extended RVDs are lost; LOP years over No Action LOP if all RVDs are lost; 13-42 years over No Action extended 13-42 years over 5-17 years over No Action extended 9-30 years over extended 13-42 years over 13-42 years over No Action extended 13-42 years over LOP extended 13 years No Action No Action No Action No Action over No Action 

Stimulation of local economics No new development; up to Up to $552 million direct Up to $547 million direct Up to $607 million direct Up to $560 million direct Up to $556 million direct Up to $602 million direct Up to $587 million direct Up to $558 million direct Up to $558 million direct economic 

$311 million revenues and economic impact and up economic impact and up to economic impact and up economic impact and up to economic impact and up economic impact and up to economic impact and up to economic impact and up impact and up to $137 million $12 million secondary labor to $135 million secondary $133 million secondary labor to $155 million secondary $138 million secondary labor to $136 million secondary $153 million secondary $148 million secondary labor to $137 million secondary secondary labor earnings annually earnings from production labor earnings annually earnings annually from labor earnings annually earnings annually from labor earnings annually labor earnings annually earnings annually from labor earnings annually from development; up to $555 million annually for 63-year LOP from development; up to development; up to $577 from development; up to development; up to $547 from development; up to from development; up to development; up to $506 from development; up to revenues from production annually for 

$560 million revenues and million revenues and up to $432 million revenues and million revenues and up to $570 million revenues and $444 million revenues and million revenues and up to $555 million revenues LOP; LOP extended 13 years over No up to $21 million in $22 million in secondary up to $16 million in $21 million in secondary up to $22 million in up to $17 million in $19 million in secondary from production annually Action secondary labor earnings labor earnings from secondary labor earnings labor earnings from secondary labor earnings secondary labor earnings labor earnings from for LOP; LOP extended from production annually production annually for LOP; from production annually production annually for LOP; from production annually from production annually production annually for LOP; 13-42 years over No for LOP; LOP extended LOP extended 13-42 years for LOP; LOP extended LOP extended 5-17 years for LOP; LOP extended 9- for LOP; LOP extended LOP extended 13-42 years Action 13 years over No Action over No Action 13-42 years over No over No Action 30 years over No Action 13-42 years over No over No Action 

Action Action 

Environmental justice for LOP No impact anticipated; no No minority communities No minority communities in No minority communities No minority communities in No minority communities No minority communities No minority communities in No minority communities No minority communities in study 

minority communities in in study area; no low- study area; no low-income in study area; no low- study area; no low-income in study area; no low- in study area; no low- study area; no low-income in study area; no low- area; no low-income populations in study area; no low-income income populations in populations in study area income populations in populations in study area income populations in income populations in populations in study area income populations in study area populations in study area study area study area study area study area study area 

LAND USE/LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

Loss of animal unit months Maximum loss of 342 AUMs Maximum short-term loss Same as Proposed Action but Maximum short-term loss Maximum short-term loss of Maximum short-term loss Maximum short-term loss Maximum short-term loss of Maximum short-term loss Maximum short-term loss of (AUMs) for livestock, wild and 116 AUMs for the of 1,720 AUMs and possibly increased in areas of 618 AUMs and 909 AUMs and 284 AUMs of 1,325 AUMs and of 881 AUMs and 1,227 AUMs and 336 AUMs of 1,531 AUMs and 1,002 AUMs and 310 AUMs lost for horses, and wildlife for LOP 63-year LOP; no new AUM 509 AUMs lost for the that would have been avoided 218 AUMs lost for the lost for the LOP; increased 400 AUMs lost for the 300 AUMs lost for the lost for the LOP; increased 455 AUMs lost for the the LOP; increased loss of 660 AUMs 

losses LOP; approximately by Proposed Action; LOP LOP; increased loss of loss of 567 AUMs LOP; increased loss of LOP; increased loss of 539 loss of 885 AUMs LOP; increased loss of (maximum) and 194 AUMs for the 

1,240 AUMs would be extended 276 AUMs (maximum) (maximum) and 168 AUMs 983 AUMs (maximum) AUMs (maximum) and (maximum) and 219 AUMs 1,189 AUMs (maximum) LOP above No Action; potential for reclaimed during LOP to 13-42 years over No Action and 102 AUMs for the for the LOP above No and 284 AUMs for the 184 AUMs for the LOP for the LOP above No and 339 AUMs for the impacts generally would be lower provide forage within 10- LOP above No Action; Action; LOP extended 5- LOP above No Action; above No Action; LOP Action; LOP extended 13- LOP above No Action; than as described for other action 12 years of disturbance; LOP extended 13-42 years 17 years over No Action LOP extended 9-30 years extended 13-42 years over 42 years over No Action LOP extended 13-42 years alternatives because of the increased loss of 1,378 over No Action over No Action No Action over No Action implementation of management AUMs short-term and requirements and monitoring designed 393 AUMs for the LOP to ensure that the project meets field above No Action; LOP development and production extended 13 years over No objectives; LOP extended 13 years Action over No Action 

LAND USE/RECREATION Reduced recreational use of No additional impacts to Displacement of existing Same as Proposed Action but Displacement of existing Displacement of existing Displacement of existing Displacement of existing Displacement of existing Displacement of existing Displacement of existing dispersed JIDPA and adjacent areas for recreational resources beyond dispersed recreation (e.g., possibly increased in areas dispersed recreation (e.g., dispersed recreation (e.g., dispersed recreation (e.g., dispersed recreation (e.g., dispersed recreation (e.g., dispersed recreation (e.g., recreation (e.g., hunting, wildlife LOP existing levels; LOP would hunting, wildlife viewing, that would have been avoided hunting, wildlife viewing, hunting, wildlife viewing, hunting, wildlife viewing, hunting, wildlife viewing, hunting, wildlife viewing, hunting, wildlife viewing, viewing, photography) due to the 

be 63 years photography) due to the by Proposed Action; LOP photography) due to the photography) due to the photography) due to the photography) due to the photography) due to the photography) due to the increased level of development (e.g., 

increased level of extended 13-42 years over increased level of increased level of increased level of increased level of increased level of increased level of facilities noise, traffic, dust, human development (e.g., No Action development (e.g., development (e.g., facilities development (e.g., development (e.g., development (e.g., facilities development (e.g., presence) and the perceived reduction facilities noise, traffic, facilities noise, traffic, noise, traffic, dust, human facilities noise, traffic, facilities noise, traffic, noise, traffic, dust, human facilities noise, traffic, in the quality of the recreational dust, human presence) and dust, human presence) and presence) and the perceived dust, human presence) and dust, human presence) and presence) and the perceived dust, human presence) and experience; LOP extended 13 years the perceived reduction in the perceived reduction in reduction in the quality of the the perceived reduction in the perceived reduction in reduction in the quality of the the perceived reduction in over No Action; potential for impacts the quality of the the quality of the recreational experience; LOP the quality of the the quality of the recreational experience; LOP the quality of the generally would be lower than as recreational experience; recreational experience; extended 5-17 years over No recreational experience; recreational experience; extended 13-42 years over recreational experience; described for other action alternatives LOP extended 13 years LOP extended 13-42 years Action LOP extended 9-30 years LOP extended 13-42 years No Action LOP extended 13-42 years because of the implementation of over No Action over No Action over No Action over No Action over No Action management requirements and 

monitoring designed to ensure that the project meets field development and production objectives 
E-12 

Table E-1 (continued) 

IMPACT BY ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE NO ACTION 

PROPOSED ACTION (3,100 Wells/16,200 Acres Disturbance) 

ALTERNATIVE A (3,100 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE B (3,100 Wells And No New Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE C (1,250 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE D (2,220 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE E 2 

(266 New Pads; 16 Total Pads/Section) 

ALTERNATIVE F 2 

(1,028 New Pads; 32 Total Pads/Section) 

ALTERNATIVE G 2 

(2,553 New Pads; 64 Total Pads/Section) 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 2 

(Specific Maximum Disturbance Allowances, Mitigation/Monitoring) 

LAND USE/TRANSPORTATION Increased road miles and road An additional 199 miles of An additional 465 miles of Same as Proposed Action but No new roads; impact An additional 188 miles of An additional 330 miles of An additional 40 miles of An additional 154 miles of An additional 453 miles of An additional 664 miles of resource density in JIDPA for 63-year currently authorized by BLM resource roads, 8 miles of possibly increased in areas severity would be resource roads, 8 miles of resource roads, 8 miles of resource roads, 8 miles of resource roads, 8 miles of resource roads, 8 miles of roads, 8 miles of collector roads, and LOP collector roads collector roads, and 12 that would have been avoided somewhat mitigated with collector roads, and 12 miles collector roads, and 12 collector roads, and 12 collector roads, and 12 miles collector roads, and 12 miles of Burma Road improvement 

miles of Burma Road by Proposed Action; impact adherence to the of Burma Road improvement miles of Burma Road miles of Burma Road of Burma Road improvement 12 miles of Burma Road above No Action; impact severity improvement above No severity would be somewhat Transportation Plan; LOP above No Action; impact improvement above No improvement above No above No Action; impact improvement above No would be somewhat mitigated with Action; impact severity mitigated with adherence to extended 13-42 years over severity would be somewhat Action; impact severity Action; impact severity severity would be somewhat Action; impact severity adherence to the Transportation Plan; would be somewhat the Transportation Plan; LOP No Action mitigated with adherence to would be somewhat would be somewhat mitigated with adherence to would be somewhat LOP extended 13 years over No mitigated with adherence extended 13-42 years over the Transportation Plan; LOP mitigated with adherence mitigated with adherence the Transportation Plan; LOP mitigated with adherence Action; potential for impacts to the Transportation Plan; No Action extended 5-17 years over No to the Transportation Plan; to the Transportation Plan; extended 13-42 years over to the Transportation Plan; generally would be lower than as LOP extended 13 years Action LOP extended 9-30 years LOP extended 13-42 years No Action LOP extended 13-42 years described for other action alternatives over No Action over No Action over No Action over No Action because of the implementation of 

management requirements and monitoring designed to ensure that the project meets field development and production objectives 

Increased traffic for the 63-year Traffic would be maintained Traffic increase may cause Same as Proposed Action but Traffic increase may cause Traffic increase may cause Traffic increase may Traffic increase may cause Traffic increase may cause Traffic increase may cause Traffic increase may cause LOP at existing levels with some congestion, road damage, possibly increased in areas congestion, road damage, congestion, road damage, and cause congestion, road congestion, road damage, congestion, road damage, and congestion, road damage, congestion, road damage, and 

potential for reduction and increased collision that would have been avoided and increased collision increased collision potential; damage, and increased and increased collision increased collision potential; and increased collision increased collision potential; new and 

potential; new and by Proposed Action; LOP potential; new and new and existing roads would collision potential; new potential; new and existing new and existing roads would potential; new and existing roads would be built and existing roads would be extended 13-42 years over existing roads would be be built and maintained to and existing roads would roads would be built and be built and maintained to existing roads would be maintained to facilitate safety and built and maintained to No Action built and maintained to facilitate safety and be built and maintained to maintained to facilitate facilitate safety and built and maintained to accommodate increased traffic; facilitate safety and facilitate safety and accommodate increased facilitate safety and safety and accommodate accommodate increased facilitate safety and adherence to the Transportation Plan accommodate increased accommodate increased traffic; adherence to the accommodate increased increased traffic; traffic; adherence to the accommodate increased would to some extent mitigate impact traffic; adherence to the traffic; adherence to the Transportation Plan would to traffic; adherence to the adherence to the Transportation Plan would to traffic; adherence to the severity; LOP extended 13 years over Transportation Plan would Transportation Plan would some extent mitigate impact Transportation Plan would Transportation Plan would some extent mitigate impact Transportation Plan would No Action; potential for impacts to some extent mitigate to some extent mitigate severity; LOP extended 5-17 to some extent mitigate to some extent mitigate severity; LOP extended 13- to some extent mitigate generally would be lower than as impact severity; LOP impact severity; LOP years over No Action impact severity; LOP impact severity; LOP 42 years over No Action impact severity; LOP described for other action alternatives extended 13 years over No extended 13-42 years over extended 9-30 years over extended 13-42 years over extended 13-42 years over because of the implementation of Action No Action No Action No Action No Action management requirements and 

monitoring designed to ensure that the project meets field development and production objectives 

VISUAL RESOURCES 

Modification to basic visual No additional impacts to Continued long-term Same as Proposed Action but Continued long-term Continued long-term Continued long-term Continued long-term Continued long-term Continued long-term Continued long-term modification of elements and changes in visual visual resources beyond modification of visual possibly increased in areas modification of visual modification of visual modification of visual modification of visual modification of visual modification of visual visual characteristics; current visual character of JIDPA for the LOP current authorized actions for characteristics; current that would have been avoided characteristics; current characteristics; current visual characteristics; current characteristics; current characteristics; current visual characteristics; current resource management (VRM) Class and until areas reclaimed the 43-year LOP visual resource by Proposed Action; LOP visual resource resource management (VRM) visual resource visual resource resource management (VRM) visual resource IV designation of JIDPA would be 

management (VRM) Class extended 13-42 years over management (VRM) Class IV designation of management (VRM) management (VRM) Class IV designation of management (VRM) maintained; LOP extended 13 years IV designation of JIDPA No Action Class IV designation of JIDPA would be maintained; Class IV designation of Class IV designation of JIDPA would be maintained; Class IV designation of over No Action; potential for impacts would be maintained; JIDPA would be LOP extended 5-17 years JIDPA would be JIDPA would be LOP extended 13-42 years JIDPA would be generally would be lower than as LOP extended 13 years maintained; LOP extended over No Action maintained; LOP extended maintained; LOP extended over No Action maintained; LOP extended described for other action alternatives over No Action 13-42 years over No 9-30 years over No Action 13-42 years over No 13-42 years over No because of the implementation of 

Action Action Action management requirements and 

monitoring designed to ensure that the project meets field development and production objectives 

Light pollution effects at JIDPA No additional impacts Light impacts would be Light impacts would be Light impacts would be Light impacts would be Light impacts would be Light impacts would be Light impacts would be Light impacts would be Light impacts would be increased due and viewsheds where JIDPA is beyond current levels; increased due to additional increased due to additional increased due to additional increased due to additional increased due to additional increased due to additional increased due to additional increased due to additional to additional development; duration of visible duration of impacts would be development; duration of development; duration of development; duration of development; duration of development; duration of development; duration of development; duration of development; duration of impacts would be 76 years; potential 

63 years impacts would be 76 years impacts would be 76- impacts would be 76- impacts would be 68- impacts would be 72- impacts would be 76- impacts would be 76- impacts would be 76- for impacts generally would be lower 

105 years 105 years 80 years 93 years 105 years 105 years 105 years than as described for other action 

alternatives because of the implementation of management requirements and monitoring designed to ensure that the project meets field development and production objectives 
E-13 

Table E-1 (continued) 

IMPACT BY ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE NO ACTION 

PROPOSED ACTION (3,100 Wells/16,200 Acres Disturbance) 

ALTERNATIVE A (3,100 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE B (3,100 Wells And No New Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE C (1,250 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE D (2,220 Wells And Pads) 

ALTERNATIVE E 2 

(266 New Pads; 16 Total Pads/Section) 

ALTERNATIVE F 2 

(1,028 New Pads; 32 Total Pads/Section) 

ALTERNATIVE G 2 

(2,553 New Pads; 64 Total Pads/Section) 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 2 

(Specific Maximum Disturbance Allowances, Mitigation/Monitoring) 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Soil, surface water, and ground No additional opportunities Increased above No Same as Proposed Action but Increased above No Increased above No Action Increased above No Increased above No Increased above No Action Increased above No Increased above No Action due to water contamination and for material spills, pipeline Action due to more possibly increased in areas Action due to more due to more materials, Action due to more Action due to more due to more materials, Action due to more more materials, produced, used, wildlife exposure from ruptures, and/or exposure to materials, produced, used, that would have been avoided materials, produced, used, produced, used, stored, and materials, produced, used, materials, produced, used, produced, used, stored, and materials, produced, used, stored, and transported; adherence to accidental spills, pipeline hazardous materials above stored, and transported; by Proposed Action; LOP stored, and transported; transported; adherence to stored, and transported; stored, and transported; transported; adherence to stored, and transported; SPCCPs, SWPPPs, and other ruptures, etc., for the LOP present approved levels; LOP adherence to SPCCPs, extended adherence to SPCCPs, SPCCPs, SWPPPs, and other adherence to SPCCPs, adherence to SPCCPs, SPCCPs, SWPPPs, and other adherence to SPCCPs, applicable local, state, and federal 

would be 63 years SWPPPs, and other 13-42 years over No Action SWPPPs, and other applicable local, state, and SWPPPs, and other SWPPPs, and other applicable local, state, and SWPPPs, and other rules and regulations and appropriate 

applicable local, state, and applicable local, state, and federal rules and regulations applicable local, state, and applicable local, state, and federal rules and regulations applicable local, state, and monitoring, containment, and disposal federal rules and federal rules and and appropriate monitoring, federal rules and federal rules and and appropriate monitoring, federal rules and of hazardous materials would limit regulations and regulations and containment, and disposal of regulations and regulations and containment, and disposal of regulations and potential impact severity; LOP appropriate monitoring, appropriate monitoring, hazardous materials would appropriate monitoring, appropriate monitoring, hazardous materials would appropriate monitoring, extended 13 years over No Action containment, and disposal containment, and disposal limit potential impact containment, and disposal containment, and disposal limit potential impact containment, and disposal of hazardous materials of hazardous materials severity; LOP extended of hazardous materials of hazardous materials severity; LOP extended of hazardous materials would limit potential would limit potential 5-17 years over No Action would limit potential would limit potential 13-42 years over No Action would limit potential impact severity; LOP impact severity; LOP impact severity; LOP impact severity; LOP impact severity; LOP extended 13 years over No extended extended extended extended Action 13-42 years over No 9-30 years over No Action 13-42 years over No 13-42 years over No 

Action Action Action 

1 Impacts assume successful implementation of the variously proposed mitigation/monitoring/development requirements (see Appendices A and B). 2 Assumes 3,100 additional wells. 
E-14 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project F-1 

APPENDIX F — AIR QUALITY IMPACT TABLES 

Table F-1 Summary of Maximum Modeled Near-field NO2 Concentrations Compared to Ambient 

Air Quality Standards and PSD Class II Increments, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Direct PSD Percent of 

Alternative 

Averaging 

Time 

Modeled 

Impact1 

Class II 

Increment1 

Background 

Concentration1 

Total 

Concentration1 

NAAQS/ 

WAAQS1 

NAAQS/ 

WAAQS 

No Action Annual nm2 25 3.4 3.4 100 3 

Proposed Action3 Annual 18.9 25 3.4 22.3 100 22 

Alternative A3

 Annual 18.9 25 3.4 22.3 100 22 

Alternative B3

 Annual 18.9 25 3.4 22.3 100 22 

Alternative C4

 Annual 18.6 25 3.4 22.0 100 22 

Alternative D5

 Annual 18.8 25 3.4 22.2 100 22 

Alternative E3

 Annual 18.9 25 3.4 22.3 100 22 

Alternative F3

 Annual 18.9 25 3.4 22.3 100 22 

Alternative G3 Annual 18.9 25 3.4 22.3 100 22 

Preferred Annual 18.9 25 3.4 22.3 100 22 

Alternative3 

1 In μg/m3

. 2 nm = not modeled. 3 Assumes 3,100 wells. 4 Assumes 1,250 wells. 5 Assumes 2,200 wells. 
F-2 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table F-2 Summary of Maximum Modeled Near-field CO Concentrations Compared to Ambient 

Air Quality Standards, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Direct Percent of 

Alternative 

Averaging 

Time 

Modeled 

Impact1 

Background 

Concentration1 

Total 

Concentration1 

NAAQS/ 

WAAQS1 

NAAQS/ 

WAAQS 

No Action 1-hour nm2 3,336 3,336.0 40,000 8 

8-hour nm2 1,381 1,381.0 10,000 14 

Proposed Action3

 1-hour 459.1 3,336 3,795.1 40,000 9 

8-hour 266.0 1,381 1,647.0 10,000 16 

Alternative A3

 1-hour 459.1 3,336 3,795.1 40,000 9 

8-hour 266.0 1,381 1,647.0 10,000 16 

Alternative B3 1-hour 459.1 3,336 3,795.1 40,000 9 

8-hour 266.0 1,381 1,647.0 10,000 16 

Alternative C4

 1-hour 439.0 3,336 3,775.0 40,000 9 

8-hour 262.1 1,381 1,643.1 10,000 16 

Alternative D5

 1-hour 449.3 3,336 3,785.3 40,000 9 

8-hour 264.1 1,381 1,645.1 10,000 16 

Alternative E3

 1-hour 459.1 3,336 3,795.1 40,000 9 

8-hour 266.0 1,381 1,647.0 10,000 16 

Alternative F3

 1-hour 459.1 3,336 3,795.1 40,000 9 

8-hour 266.0 1,381 1,647.0 10,000 16 

Alternative G3

 1-hour 459.1 3,336 3,795.1 40,000 9 

8-hour 266.0 1,381 1,647.0 10,000 16 

Preferred 

Alternative3 

1-hour 

8-hour 

459.1 

266.0 

3,336 

1,381 

3,795.1 

1,647.0 

40,000 

10,000 

9 

16 

1 In μg/m3

. 2 nm = not modeled. 3 Assumes 3,100 wells. 4 Assumes 1,250 wells. 5 Assumes 2,200 wells. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project F-3 

Table F-3 Summary of Maximum Modeled Near-field SO2 Concentrations Compared to Ambient 

Air Quality Standards, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Direct Percent of 

Alternative 

Averaging 

Time 

Modeled 

Impact1 

Background 

Concentration1 

Total 

Concentration1 

NAAQS/ 

WAAQS1 

NAAQS/ 

WAAQS 

No Action 3-hour nm2 132 132.0 1,300 10 

24-hour nm2 43 43.0 365/260 12/17 

Annual nm2

 9 9.0 80/60 11/15 

Proposed Action3 3-hour 103.8 132 235.8 1,300 18 

24-hour 36.7 43 79.7 365/260 22/31 

Annual 5.2 9 14.2 80/60 18/24 

Alternative A3 3-hour 103.8 132 235.8 1,300 18 

24-hour 36.7 43 79.7 365/260 22/31 

Annual 5.2 9 14.2 80/60 18/24 

Alternative B4 3-hour 128.3 132 260.3 1,300 20 

24-hour 45.3 43 88.3 365/260 24/34 

Annual 6.4 9 15.4 80/60 19/26 

Alternative C3 3-hour 103.8 132 235.8 1,300 18 

24-hour 36.7 43 79.7 365/260 22/31 

Annual 5.2 9 14.2 80/60 18/24 

Alternative D3 3-hour 103.8 132 235.8 1,300 18 

24-hour 36.7 43 79.7 365/260 22/31 

Annual 5.2 9 14.2 80/60 18/24 

Alternative E4 3-hour 128.3 132 260.3 1,300 20 

24-hour 45.3 43 88.3 365/260 24/34 

Annual 6.4 9 15.4 80/60 19/26 

Alternative F4 3-hour 128.3 132 260.3 1,300 20 

24-hour 45.3 43 88.3 365/260 24/34 

Annual 6.4 9 15.4 80/60 19/26 

Alternative G4 3-hour 128.3 132 260.3 1,300 20 

24-hour 45.3 43 88.3 365/260 24/34 

Annual 6.4 9 15.4 80/60 19/26 

Preferred 

Alternative4 

3-hour 

24-hour 

128.3 

45.3 

132 

43 

260.3 

88.3 

1,300 

365/260 

20 

24/34 

Annual 6.4 9 15.4 80/60 19/26 

1 In μg/m3

. 2 nm = not modeled. 3 Assumes straight drilling. 4 Assumes directional drilling. 
F-4 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table F-4 Summary of Maximum Modeled Near-field PM10 Concentrations Compared to Ambient 

Air Quality Standards, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Direct Percent of 

Alternative 

Averaging 

Time 

Modeled 

Impact1 

Background 

Concentration1 

Total 

Concentration1 

NAAQS/ 

WAAQS1 

NAAQS/ 

WAAQS 

No Action 24-hour nm2 33 33.0 150 22 

Annual nm2 16 16.0 50 32 

Proposed Action3 24-hour 74.1 33 107.1 150 71 

Annual 3.4 16 19.4 50 39 

Alternative A3 24-hour 74.1 33 107.1 150 71 

Annual 3.4 16 19.4 50 39 

Alternative B4 24-hour 102.1 33 135.1 150 90 

Annual 5.6 16 21.6 50 43 

Alternative C3 24-hour 74.1 33 107.1 150 71 

Annual 3.4 16 19.4 50 39 

Alternative D3 24-hour 74.1 33 107.1 150 71 

Annual 3.4 16 19.4 50 39 

Alternative E4 24-hour 102.1 33 135.1 150 90 

Annual 5.6 16 21.6 50 43 

Alternative F5 24-hour 94.0 33 127.0 150 85 

Annual 4.7 16 20.7 50 41 

Alternative G3 24-hour 74.1 33 107.1 150 71 

Annual 3.4 16 19.4 50 39 

Preferred 24-hour 94.0 33 127.0 150 85 

Alternative5 

Annual 4.7 16 20.7 50 41 

1 In μg/m3

. 2 nm = not modeled. 3 Assumes 3.8-acre well pads. 4 Assumes 10.0-acre well pads. 5 Assumes 7.0-acre well pads. 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project F-5 

Table F-5 Summary of Maximum Modeled Near-field PM2.5 Concentrations Compared to Ambient 

Air Quality Standards, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Percent of 

Alternative Averaging Time 

Direct Modeled 

Impact1 

Background 

Concentration1 

Total 

Concentration1 

NAAQS/ 

WAAQS1,2 

NAAQS/ 

WAAQS 

No Action 24-hour nm3 13 13.0 65 20 

Annual nm3 5 5.0 15 33 

Proposed Action4 24-hour 27.0 13 40.0 65 62 

Annual 1.3 5 6.3 15 42 

Alternative A4 24-hour 27.0 13 40.0 65 62 

Annual 1.3 5 6.3 15 42 

Alternative B5 24-hour 32.2 13 45.2 65 70 

Annual 1.8 5 6.8 15 45 

Alternative C4 24-hour 27.0 13 40.0 65 62 

Annual 1.3 5 6.3 15 42 

Alternative D4 24-hour 27.0 13 40.0 65 62 

Annual 1.3 5 6.3 15 42 

Alternative E5 24-hour 32.2 13 45.2 65 70 

Annual 1.8 5 6.8 15 45 

Alternative F6 24-hour 31.0 13 44.0 65 68 

Annual 1.6 5 6.6 15 44 

Alternative G4 24-hour 27.0 13 40.0 65 62 

Annual 1.3 5 6.3 15 42 

Preferred 24-hour 31.0 13 44.0 65 68 

Alternative6 

Annual 1.6 5 6.6 15 44 

1 In μg/m3

. 2 The WAAQS are not yet enforced in Wyoming per Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR) Chapter 2, 

Section 2(b)(b). 3 nm = not modeled. 4 Assumes 3.8-acre well pads. 5 Assumes 10-acre well pads. 6 Assumes 7-acre well pads. 

Table F-6 Summary of Maximum Modeled Near-field O3 Concentrations Compared to Ambient Air 

Quality Standards, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Percent of 

Direct Modeled Background Total NAAQS/ NAAQS/ 

Alternative Averaging Time Impact1 Concentration1 Concentration1 WAAQS1 WAAQS 

No Action 1-hour nm2 75.2 75.2 235 32 

 8-hour nm2 75.2 75.2 157 48 

All Alternatives 1-hour 111.8 75.2 187.0 235 80 

 8-hour 78.3 75.2 153.5 157 98 

1 In μg/m3

. 2 nm = not modeled. 
F-6 

Table F-7 Summary of Maximum Modeled HAP Concentrations from Direct Project Sources, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylene n-Hexane Formaldehyde 

Alternative 

Averaging 

Period 

Healthbased 

Level1,2 

Concentration2 

Percent of 

Healthbased 

Standard 

Healthbased 

Level1,2 

Concentration2 

Percent of 

Healthbased 

Standard 

Healthbased 

Level1,2 

Concentration2 

Percent of 

Healthbased 

Standard 

Healthbased 

Level1,2 

Concentration2 

Percent of 

Healthbased 

Standard 

Healthbased 

Level1,2 

Concentration2 

Percent of 

Healthbased 

Standard 

Concentration2 

Percent of 

Healthbased 

Standard 

Healthbased 

Level1,2 

No Action3 1-Hour 1,300 0.0 0.0 37,000 0.0 0.0 35,000 0.0 0.0 22,000 0.0 0.0 39,000 0.0 0.0 94 0.0 0.0 

Annual 30 0.0 0.0 400 0.0 0.0 1,000 0.0 0.0 430 0.0 0.0 200 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 

Proposed Action4 1-Hour 1,300 996 76.6 37,000 1,994 5.4 35,000 109 0.3 22,000 1,085 4.9 39,000 536 1.4 94 31.9 33.9 

Annual 30 0.85 2.8 400 1.73 0.4 1,000 0.09 0.01 430 0.93 0.2 200 0.35 0.2 9.8 0.02 0.2 

Alternative A4 1-Hour 1,300 996 76.6 37,000 1,994 5.4 35,000 109 0.3 22,000 1,085 4.9 39,000 536 1.4 94 31.9 33.9 

Annual 30 0.85 2.8 400 1.73 0.4 1,000 0.09 0.01 430 0.93 0.2 200 0.35 0.2 9.8 0.02 0.2 

Alternative B5 1-Hour 1,300 309 23.8 37,000 619 1.7 35,000 34 0.1 22,000 337 1.5 39,000 166 0.4 94 31.9 33.9 

Annual 30 0.85 2.8 400 1.73 0.4 1,000 0.09 0.01 430 0.93 0.2 200 0.35 0.2 9.8 0.02 0.2 

Alternative C6 1-Hour 1,300 590 45.4 37,000 1,181 3.2 35,000 64 0.2 22,000 643 2.9 39,000 317 0.8 94 31.9 33.9 

Annual 30 0.35 1.2 400 0.71 0.2 1,000 0.04 0.004 430 0.38 0.09 200 0.14 0.07 9.8 0.02 0.2 

Alternative D7 1-Hour 1,300 566 43.5 37,000 1,132 3.1 35,000 62 0.2 22,000 616 2.8 39,000 304 0.8 94 31.9 33.9 

Annual 30 0.61 2.0 400 1.23 0.3 1,000 0.07 0.007 430 0.66 0.15 200 0.25 0.13 9.8 0.02 0.2 

Alternative E5 1-Hour 1,300 309 23.8 37,000 619 1.7 35,000 34 0.1 22,000 337 1.5 39,000 166 0.4 94 31.9 33.9 

Annual 30 0.85 2.8 400 1.73 0.4 1,000 0.09 0.01 430 0.93 0.2 200 0.35 0.2 9.8 0.02 0.2 

Alternative F6 1-Hour 1,300 590 45.4 37,000 1,181 3.2 35,000 64 0.2 22,000 643 2.9 39,000 317 0.8 94 31.9 33.9 

Annual 30 0.85 2.8 400 1.73 0.4 1,000 0.09 0.01 430 0.93 0.2 200 0.35 0.2 9.8 0.02 0.2 

Alternative G7 1-Hour 1,300 566 43.5 37,000 1,132 3.1 35,000 62 0.2 22,000 616 2.8 39,000 304 0.8 94 31.9 33.9 

Annual 30 0.85 2.8 400 1.73 0.4 1,000 0.09 0.01 430 0.93 0.2 200 0.35 0.2 9.8 0.02 0.2 

Preferred 1-Hour 1,300 309 23.8 37,000 619 1.7 35,000 34 0.1 22,000 337 1.5 39,000 166 0.4 94 31.9 33.9 Alternative5 

Annual 30 0.85 2.8 400 1.73 0.4 1,000 0.09 0.01 430 0.93 0.2 200 0.35 0.2 9.8 0.02 0.2 

1 Based on EPA (2002).2 In μg/m3. 3 No Action Alternative was not modeled. 4 Assumes 5-acre well spacing. 5 Assumes 40-acre well spacing. 6 Assumes 20-acre well spacing. 7 Assumes 10-acre well spacing. 
F-7 

Table F-8 Summary of Long-Term MLE and MEI Cancer Risk Analyses, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming,2005.

1 

MLE MEI 

Modeled Unit Risk Exposure Adjust- Unit Risk Exposure AdjustAlternative HAP Constituent Concentration2 Factor3 ment Factor Cancer Risk Factor3 ment Factor Cancer Risk 

No Action3 Benzene 0.0 7.8E-06 0.0949 -- 7.8E-06 0.71 -­ Formaldehyde 0.0 1.3E-05 0.0949 -- 1.3E-05 0.71 -­

Total Combined 

Proposed Action Benzene 0.85 7.8E-06 0.0949 6.3E-07 7.8E-06 0.71 4.73E-06 

Formaldehyde 0.02 1.3E-05 0.0949 2.0E-08 1.3E-05 0.71 1.80E-07 

Total Combined 6.5E-07 

4.9E-06 

Alternative A Benzene 0.85 7.8E-06 0.0949 6.3E-07 7.8E-06 0.71 4.73E-06 

Formaldehyde 0.02 1.3E-05 0.0949 2.0E-08 1.3E-05 0.71 1.80E-07 

Total Combined 6.5E-07 

4.9E-06 

Alternative B Benzene 0.85 7.8E-06 0.0949 6.3E-07 7.8E-06 0.71 4.73E-06 

Formaldehyde 0.02 1.3E-05 0.0949 2.0E-08 1.3E-05 0.71 1.80E-07 

Total Combined 6.5E-07 

4.9E-06 

Alternative C Benzene 0.35 7.8E-06 0.0949 2.6E-07 7.8E-06 0.71 1.94E-06 

Formaldehyde 0.02 1.3E-05 0.0949 2.0E-08 1.3E-05 0.71 1.80E-07 

Total Combined 2.8E-07 

2.1E-06 

Alternative D Benzene 0.61 7.8E-06 0.0949 4.5E-07 7.8E-06 0.71 3.38E-06 

Formaldehyde 0.02 1.3E-05 0.0949 2.0E-08 1.3E-05 0.71 1.80E-07 

Total Combined 4.7E-07 306E-06 

Alternative E Benzene 0.85 7.8E-06 0.0949 6.3E-07 7.8E-06 0.71 4.73E-06 

Formaldehyde 0.02 1.3E-05 0.0949 2.0E-08 1.3E-05 0.71 1.80E-07 

Total Combined 6.5E-07 

4.9E-06 

Alternative F Benzene 0.85 7.8E-06 0.0949 6.3E-07 7.8E-06 0.71 4.73E-06 

Formaldehyde 0.02 1.3E-05 0.0949 2.0E-08 1.3E-05 0.71 1.80E-07 

Total Combined 6.5E-07 

4.9E-06 

Alternative G Benzene 0.85 7.8E-06 0.0949 6.3E-07 7.8E-06 0.71 4.73E-06 

Formaldehyde 0.02 1.3E-05 0.0949 2.0E-08 1.3E-05 0.71 1.80E-07 

Total Combined 6.5E-07 

4.9E-06 

Preferred Alternative Benzene 0.85 7.8E-06 0.0949 6.3E-07 7.8E-06 0.71 4.73E-06 

Formaldehyde 0.02 1.3E-05 0.0949 2.0E-08 1.3E-05 0.71 1.80E-07 

Total Combined 

6.5E-07 4.9E-06 

1 Based on EPA (1993, 1997).2 In μg/m3. 3 In 1 ÷ μg/m3. 4 No Action Alternative was not modeled. 

Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 
F-8 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table F-9 Project and Non-Project Emissions (tons/yr) Included in Far-field Analysis, Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.1 

Source Category NOX SO2 PM10 PM2.5 

Project Sources 

3,100 wells – full field production (all alternatives with 3,100 377.6 0.7 736.1 134.1 

producing wells) 

No Action 14.5 0.0 47.0 8.6 

3,100 wells, straight drilling (approximates Alternative A) 

WDR 250 wells/yr (approximates Proposed Action) 1,627.7 28.3 949.1 205.6 

WDR 150 wells/yr 1,154.8 17.2 864.0 177.3 

WDR 75 wells/yr 766.2 9.0 800.0 156.0 

3,100 Wells, directional drilling (approximates Alternative B) 

WDR 250 wells/yr 1,828.3 34.4 960.5 217.1 

WDR 150 wells/yr 1,275.2 20.9 870.8 184.1 

WDR 75 wells/yr 826.4 10.8 803.4 159.4 

1,250 Wells, straight drilling (approximates Alternative C) 

WDR 250 wells/yr 1,528.3 27.8 509.9 125.3 

WDR 150 wells/yr 1,055.4 16.8 424.7 96.9 

WDR 75 wells/yr 666.8 8.5 360.7 75.6 

3,100 wells, 50% straight drilling, 50% directional drilling 

(approximates Alternative F) 

WDR 250 wells/yr 1,728.0 31.3 954.8 211.4 

WDR 150 wells/yr 1,214.9 19.1 867.4 180.7 

WDR 75 wells/yr 800.3 9.9 802.0 158.0 

Non-Project Sources 

RFD 3,166.5 56.1 84.0 81.9 

RFFA 486.3 -1,407.0 -1,282.8 -586.6 

 State-permitted 4,098.9 -61.4 559.2 516.6 

Non-Project emissions sources (reasonably foreseeable development [RFD] and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions [RFFA]) are described in Section 4.1.2.11; WDR = well development rate. 

1 
F-9 

Table F-10 Summary of Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Direct Project Sources for Comparison to Ambient Air Quality Standards1, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Bridger Wilderness

Class I 

Fitzpatrick Wilderness

Class I 

Popo Agie Wilderness

Class II 

Wind River 

Roadless Area Class II 

Grand Teton National 

Park Class I 

Teton Wilderness 

Class I 

Washakie Wilderness Area 

Class I 

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact2 

Total 

Concentration3 

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact2 

Total 

Concentration3 

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact2 

Total 

Concenration3 

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact2 

Total 

Concentration3 

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact2 

Total 

Concentration3 

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact2 

Total 

Concentration3 

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact2 

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact2 

Total 

Concentration3 

Alternative or 

Yellowstone National 

Park Class I 

Total 

Concentration3 

Development Phase WDR Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual 

No Action4 -- -- 3.40 -- 3.40 -- 3.40 -- 3.40 -- 3.40 -- 3.40 -- 3.40 -- 3.40 

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives 0 0.026 3.43 0.001 3.40 0.009 3.41 0.006 3.41 0.000 3.40 0.000 3.40 0.000 3.40 0.000 3.40 with 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 0.132 3.53 0.006 3.41 0.044 3.44 0.026 3.43 0.002 3.40 0.001 3.40 0.001 3.40 0.001 3.40 Proposed Action Alternative A 150 0.091 3.49 0.004 3.40 0.031 3.43 0.019 3.42 0.001 3.40 0.001 3.40 0.000 3.40 0.001 3.40 

75 0.057 3.46 0.003 3.40 0.021 3.42 0.012 3.41 0.001 3.40 0.000 3.40 0.000 3.40 0.000 3.40 

Alternative B 250 0.153 3.55 0.006 3.41 0.050 3.45 0.030 3.43 0.002 3.40 0.001 3.40 0.001 3.40 0.001 3.40 

150 0.103 3.50 0.004 3.40 0.035 3.43 0.021 3.42 0.001 3.40 0.001 3.40 0.000 3.40 0.001 3.40 

75 0.062 3.46 0.003 3.40 0.023 3.42 0.013 3.41 0.001 3.40 0.000 3.40 0.000 3.40 0.001 3.40 

Alternative C 250 0.121 3.52 0.005 3.41 0.041 3.44 0.024 3.42 0.002 3.40 0.001 3.40 0.001 3.40 0.001 3.40 

150 0.080 3.48 0.003 3.40 0.028 3.43 0.016 3.42 0.001 3.40 0.000 3.40 0.000 3.40 0.001 3.40 

75 0.045 3.45 0.002 3.40 0.017 3.42 0.010 3.41 0.001 3.40 0.000 3.40 0.000 3.40 0.000 3.40 

Alternative D 250 

150 Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

75 

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 0.141 3.54 0.006 3.41 0.046 3.45 0.027 3.43 0.002 3.40 0.001 3.40 0.001 3.40 0.001 3.40 

150 0.096 3.50 0.004 3.40 0.033 3.43 0.019 3.42 0.001 3.40 0.001 3.40 0.000 3.40 0.001 3.40 

75 0.063 3.46 0.003 3.40 0.023 3.42 0.013 3.41 0.001 3.40 0.000 3.40 0.000 3.40 0.001 3.40 

Alternative G 250 

150 Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

75 

Preferred 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. Alternative 

1 Ambient Air Quality Standards: Annual NAAQS/WAAQS = 100 μg/m3. 2 In μg/m3. 3 Total concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration; annual background NO2 concentration = 3.4 μg/m3. 4 No Action Alternative was not modeled; total concentration represents background concentration only. 
F-10 

Table F-11 Summary of Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentrations at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Direct Project Sources for Comparison to Ambient Air Quality Standards1, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class II Wind River Roadless Area Class II 

Direct Modeled Impact2 

Total 

Concentration3 Direct Modeled Impact2 

Total 

Concentration3 Direct Modeled Impact2 

Total 

Concentration3 

Total 

Concentration3 Alternative or 

Development Phase WDR 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr 3-hr Annual 3-hr Annual 

Direct Modeled Impact2 

24-hr 

No Action4 -- -- -- -- 132.0 43.0 -- -- -- 132.0 43.0 -- -- -- 132.0 43.0 -- -- -- 132.0 43.0 

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives 0 0.005 0.001 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.001 0.000 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.002 0.000 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.001 0.000 0.000 132.0 43.0 with 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 0.229 0.073 0.004 132.2 43.1 0.019 0.005 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.081 0.013 0.001 132.1 43.0 0.037 0.010 0.001 132.0 43.0 Proposed Action 

Alternative A 150 0.143 0.046 0.002 132.1 43.0 0.012 0.003 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.055 0.008 0.001 132.1 43.0 0.024 0.006 0.000 132.0 43.0 

75 0.073 0.022 0.001 132.1 43.0 0.006 0.002 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.026 0.005 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.011 0.004 0.000 132.0 43.0 

Alternative B 250 0.280 0.090 0.004 132.3 43.1 0.023 0.006 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.100 0.016 0.001 132.1 43.0 0.045 0.013 0.001 132.0 43.0 

150 0.174 0.056 0.003 132.2 43.1 0.015 0.004 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.067 0.010 0.001 132.1 43.0 0.029 0.008 0.001 132.0 43.0 

75 0.089 0.027 0.001 132.1 43.0 0.008 0.002 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.032 0.006 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.014 0.004 0.000 132.0 43.0 

Alternative C 250 0.227 0.073 0.004 132.2 43.1 0.019 0.005 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.081 0.013 0.001 132.1 43.0 0.036 0.010 0.001 132.0 43.0 

150 0.140 0.045 0.002 132.1 43.0 0.012 0.003 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.054 0.008 0.001 132.1 43.0 0.023 0.006 0.000 132.0 43.0 

75 0.071 0.022 0.001 132.1 43.0 0.006 0.002 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.026 0.005 0.000 132.1 43.0 0.011 0.004 0.000 132.0 43.0 

Alternative D 250 150 

Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

75

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 0.254 0.079 0.004 132.3 43.1 0.021 0.006 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.090 0.014 0.001 132.1 43.0 0.041 0.011 0.001 132.0 43.0 

150 0.157 0.050 0.002 132.2 43.0 0.014 0.004 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.060 0.009 0.001 132.1 43.0 0.026 0.007 0.001 132.0 43.0 

75 0.081 0.024 0.001 132.1 43.0 0.007 0.002 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.029 0.005 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.012 0.004 0.000 132.0 43.0 

Alternative G 250 150 

Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

75 

Preferred 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. 

Alternative 

1 Ambient Air Quality Standards: 3-hr NAAQS/WAAQS = 1,300 μg/m3; 24-hr NAAQS/WAAQS = 365 μg/m3 (NAAQS) and 260 μg/m3 (WAAQS); Annual NAAQS/WAAQS = 100 μg/m3 80 (NAAQS) and 60 μg/m3 (WAAQS). 2 In μg/m3. 3 Total concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration; annual background SO2 concentration = 9 μg/m3; 8-hr background SO2 concentration = 43 μg/m3; 3-hr background SO2 concentration = 32 μg/m3; total concentration remains equal to 

the background conentration of 9 μg/m3 (now shown) under all alternatives.

4 No Action Alternative was not modeled; total concentration represents background concentration only. 
F-11 

Table F-11 (continued) 

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park Class I 

Direct Modeled Impact2 

Total 

Concentration3 Direct Modeled Impact2 

Total 

Concentration3 Direct Modeled Impact2 

Total 

Concentration3 Direct Modeled Impact2 

Total 

Concentration3 Alternative or 

Development Phase WDR 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr 3-hr 24-hr 3-hr Annual 

Washakie Wilderness Area Class I 

Annual 

No Action4 -- -- -- -- 132.0 43.0 -- -- -- 132.0 43.0 -- -- -- 132.0 43.0 -- -- -- 132.0 43.0 

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.001 0.000 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.000 0.000 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.001 0.000 0.000 132.0 43.0 with 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 0.008 0.002 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.007 0.001 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.003 0.001 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.006 0.002 0.000 132.0 43.0 Proposed Action 

Alternative A 150 0.005 0.001 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.004 0.001 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.002 0.001 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.004 0.001 0.000 132.0 43.0 

75 0.003 0.001 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.002 0.000 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.001 0.000 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.003 0.001 0.000 132.0 43.0 

Alternative B 250 0.009 0.003 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.009 0.002 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.004 0.001 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.007 0.002 0.000 132.0 43.0 

150 0.006 0.002 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.005 0.001 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.002 0.001 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.005 0.001 0.000 132.0 43.0 

75 0.003 0.001 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.003 0.000 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.001 0.000 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.003 0.001 0.000 132.0 43.0 

Alternative C 250 0.008 0.002 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.007 0.001 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.003 0.001 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.006 0.002 0.000 132.0 43.0 

150 0.005 0.001 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.004 0.001 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.002 0.001 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.004 0.001 0.000 132.0 43.0 

75 0.002 0.001 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.002 0.000 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.001 0.000 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.002 0.001 0.000 132.0 43.0 

Alternative D 250 

150 Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

75 

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 0.009 0.003 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.008 0.001 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.003 0.001 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.007 0.002 0.000 132.0 43.0 

150 0.005 0.002 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.005 0.001 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.002 0.001 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.004 0.001 0.000 132.0 43.0 

75 0.003 0.001 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.003 0.000 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.001 0.000 0.000 132.0 43.0 0.003 0.001 0.000 132.0 43.0 

Alternative G 250 

150 Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

75 

Preferred 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. Alternative 

1 Ambient Air Quality Standards: 3-hr NAAQS/WAAQS = 1,300 μg/m3; 24-hr NAAQS/WAAQS = 365 μg/m3 (NAAQS) and 260 μg/m3 (WAAQS); Annual NAAQS/WAAQS = 100 μg/m3 80 (NAAQS) and 60 μg/m3 (WAAQS). 2 In μg/m3. 3 Total concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration; annual background SO2 concentration = 9 μg/m3; 8-hr background SO2 concentration = 43 μg/m3; 3-hr background SO2 concentration = 32 μg/m3; total concentration remains equal to 

the background conentration of 9 μg/m3 (now shown) under all alternatives.

4 No Action Alternative was not modeled; total concentration represents background concentration only. 
F-12 

Table F-12 Summary of Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentrations at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Direct Project Sources for Comparison to Ambient Air Quality Standards1, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class II 

Direct Modeled Impact2 Total Concentration3 Direct Modeled Impact2 Total Concentration3 Direct Modeled Impact2 Total Concentration3 Direct Modeled Impact2 Total Concentration3 Alternative or 

Development Phase WDR 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr 24-hr Annual 

Wind River Roadless Area Class II 

Annual 

No Action4 -- -- -- 33.0 16.00 -- -- 33.0 16.00 -- -- 33.0 16.00 -- -- 33.0 16.00 

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives 0 0.75 0.030 33.7 16.03 0.07 0.003 33.1 16.00 0.15 0.008 33.1 16.01 0.12 0.006 33.1 16.01 with 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 1.66 0.063 34.7 16.06 0.18 0.006 33.2 16.01 0.26 0.018 33.3 16.02 0.19 0.013 33.2 16.01 Proposed Action Alternative A 150 1.28 0.050 34.3 16.05 0.14 0.005 33.1 16.00 0.21 0.014 33.2 16.01 0.16 0.010 33.2 16.01 

75 1.00 0.039 34.0 16.04 0.10 0.004 33.1 16.00 0.18 0.011 33.2 16.01 0.14 0.008 33.1 16.01 

Alternative B 250 1.70 0.068 34.7 16.07 0.20 0.007 33.2 16.01 0.24 0.02 33.2 16.02 0.19 0.014 33.2 16.01 

150 1.31 0.053 34.3 16.05 0.15 0.005 33.1 16.01 0.20 0.015 33.2 16.01 0.16 0.011 33.2 16.01 

75 0.99 0.041 34.0 16.04 0.11 0.004 33.1 16.00 0.17 0.011 33.2 16.01 0.14 0.008 33.1 16.01 

Alternative C 250 1.24 0.046 34.2 16.05 0.14 0.005 33.1 16.00 0.17 0.014 33.2 16.01 0.13 0.009 33.1 16.01 

150 0.87 0.033 33.9 16.03 0.10 0.003 33.1 16.00 0.13 0.010 33.1 16.01 0.09 0.007 33.1 16.01 

75 0.59 0.022 33.6 16.02 0.06 0.002 33.1 16.00 0.09 0.007 33.1 16.01 0.07 0.005 33.1 16.00 

Alternative D 250 

150 Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

75 

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 1.65 0.064 34.7 16.06 0.19 0.006 33.2 16.01 0.25 0.018 33.2 16.02 0.19 0.013 33.2 16.01 

150 1.31 0.051 34.3 16.05 0.14 0.005 33.1 16.01 0.21 0.014 33.2 16.01 0.16 0.010 33.2 16.01 

75 1.04 0.041 34.0 16.04 0.11 0.004 33.1 16.00 0.18 0.011 33.2 16.01 0.14 0.008 33.1 16.01 

Alternative G 250 

150 Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

75 

Preferred 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. Alternative 

1 Ambient Air Quality Standards: 24-hr NAAQS/WAAQS = 150 μg/m3; Annual NAAQS/WAAQS = 50 μg/m3. 2 In μg/m3. 3 Total concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration; annual background PM10 concentration = 16 μg/m3; 24-hr background PM10 concentration = 33 μg/m3. 4 No Action Alternative was not modeled; total concentration represents background concentration only. 
F-13 

Table F-12 (continued) 

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park Class I 

Direct Modeled Impact2 Total Concentration3 Direct Modeled Impact2 Total Concentration3 Direct Modeled Impact2 Total Concentration3 Direct Modeled Impact2 Total Concentration3 Alternative or 

Development Phase WDR 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr 24-hr Annual 

Washakie Wilderness Area Class I 

Annual 

No Action4 -- -- -- 33.0 16.00 -- -- 33.0 16.00 -- -- 33.0 16.00 -- -- 33.0 16.00 

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives 0 0.03 0.001 33.0 16.00 0.02 0.001 33.0 16.00 0.01 0.000 33.0 16.00 0.03 0.001 33.0 16.00 with 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 0.09 0.003 33.1 16.00 0.04 0.002 33.0 16.00 0.04 0.001 33.0 16.00 0.08 0.002 33.1 16.00 Proposed Action Alternative A 150 0.07 0.002 33.1 16.00 0.03 0.001 33.0 16.00 0.03 0.001 33.0 16.00 0.06 0.002 33.1 16.00 

75 0.05 0.001 33.0 16.00 0.03 0.001 33.0 16.00 0.02 0.001 33.0 16.00 0.04 0.001 33.0 16.00 

Alternative B 250 0.10 0.003 33.1 16.00 0.05 0.002 33.0 16.00 0.05 0.001 33.0 16.00 0.08 0.002 33.1 16.00 

150 0.08 0.002 33.1 16.00 0.03 0.001 33.0 16.00 0.03 0.001 33.0 16.00 0.06 0.002 33.1 16.00 

75 0.05 0.002 33.1 16.00 0.03 0.001 33.0 16.00 0.02 0.001 33.0 16.00 0.04 0.001 33.0 16.00 

Alternative C 250 0.08 0.002 33.1 16.00 0.04 0.001 33.0 16.00 0.04 0.001 33.0 16.00 0.06 0.002 33.1 16.00 

150 0.05 0.002 33.1 16.00 0.02 0.001 33.0 16.00 0.03 0.001 33.0 16.00 0.04 0.001 33.0 16.00 

75 0.03 0.001 33.0 16.00 0.02 0.001 33.0 16.00 0.02 0.000 33.0 16.00 0.03 0.001 33.0 16.00 

Alternative D 250 

150 Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

75 

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 0.10 0.003 33.1 16.00 0.04 0.002 33.0 16.00 0.04 0.001 33.0 16.00 0.08 0.002 33.1 16.00 

150 0.07 0.002 33.1 16.00 0.03 0.001 33.0 16.00 0.03 0.001 33.0 16.00 0.06 0.002 33.1 16.00 

75 0.05 0.002 33.1 16.00 0.03 0.001 33.0 16.00 0.02 0.001 33.0 16.00 0.04 0.001 33.0 16.00 

Alternative G 250 

150 Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

75 

Preferred 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. Alternative 

1 Ambient Air Quality Standards: 24-hr NAAQS/WAAQS = 150 μg/m3; Annual NAAQS/WAAQS = 50 μg/m3 . 2 In μg/m3. 3 Total concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration; annual background PM10 concentration = 16 μg/m3; 24-hr background PM10 concentration = 33 μg/m3. 4 No Action Alternative was not modeled; total concentration represents background concentration only. 
F-14 

Table F-13 Summary of Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentrations at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Direct Project Sources for Comparison to Ambient Air Quality Standards1, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class II 

Direct Modeled Impact2 Total Concentration3 Direct Modeled Impact2 Total Concentration3 Direct Modeled Impact2 Total Concentration3 Direct Modeled Impact2 Total Concentration3 Alternative or 

Development Phase WDR 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr 24-hr Annual 

Wind River Roadless Area Class II 

Annual 

No Action4 -- -- -- 13.0 5.00 -- -- 13.0 5.00 -- -- 13.0 5.00 -- -- 13.0 5.00 

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives 0 0.75 0.030 13.7 5.03 0.07 0.003 13.1 5.00 0.15 0.008 13.1 5.01 0.12 0.006 13.1 5.01 with 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 1.66 0.063 14.7 5.06 0.18 0.006 13.2 5.01 0.26 0.018 13.3 5.02 0.19 0.013 13.2 5.01 Proposed Action Alternative A 150 1.28 0.050 14.3 5.05 0.14 0.005 13.1 5.00 0.21 0.014 13.2 5.01 0.16 0.010 13.2 5.01 

75 1.00 0.039 14.0 5.04 0.10 0.004 13.1 5.00 0.18 0.011 13.2 5.01 0.14 0.008 13.1 5.01 

Alternative B 250 1.70 0.068 14.7 5.07 0.20 0.007 13.2 5.01 0.24 0.020 13.2 5.02 0.19 0.014 13.2 5.01 

150 1.31 0.053 14.3 5.05 0.15 0.005 13.1 5.01 0.20 0.015 13.2 5.01 0.16 0.011 13.2 5.01 

75 0.99 0.041 14.0 5.04 0.11 0.004 13.1 5.00 0.17 0.011 13.2 5.01 0.14 0.008 13.1 5.01 

Alternative C 250 1.24 0.046 14.2 5.05 0.14 0.005 13.1 5.00 0.17 0.014 13.2 5.01 0.13 0.009 13.1 5.01 

150 0.87 0.033 13.9 5.03 0.10 0.003 13.1 5.00 0.13 0.010 13.1 5.01 0.09 0.007 13.1 5.01 

75 0.59 0.022 13.6 5.02 0.06 0.002 13.1 5.00 0.09 0.007 13.1 5.01 0.07 0.005 13.1 5.00 

Alternative D 250 

150 Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

75 

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 1.65 0.064 14.7 5.06 0.19 0.006 13.2 5.01 0.25 0.018 13.2 5.02 0.19 0.013 13.2 5.01 

150 1.31 0.051 14.3 5.05 0.14 0.005 13.1 5.01 0.21 0.014 13.2 5.01 0.16 0.010 13.2 5.01 

75 1.04 0.041 14.0 5.04 0.11 0.004 13.1 5.00 0.18 0.011 13.2 5.01 0.14 0.008 13.1 5.01 

Alternative G 250 

150 Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

75 

Preferred 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. Alternative 

1 Ambient Air Quality Standards: 24-hr NAAQS/WAAQS = 65 μg/m3; Annual NAAQS/WAAQS = 15 μg/m3; the WAAQS are not yet enforced in Wyoming per WAQSR Chapter 2, Section 2(b)(v). 2 In μg/m3. 3 Total concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration; annual background PM10 concentration = 5 μg/m3; 24-hr background PM10 concentration = 13 μg/m3. 4 No Action Alternative was not modeled; total concentration represents background concentration only. 
F-15 

Table F-13 (continued) 

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park Class I 

Direct Modeled Impact2 Total Concentration3 Direct Modeled Impact2 Total Concentration3 Direct Modeled Impact2 Total Concentration3 Direct Modeled Impact2 Total Concentration3 Alternative or 

Development Phase WDR 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr 24-hr Annual 

Washakie Wilderness Area Class I 

Annual 

No Action4 -- -- -- 13.0 5.00 -- -- 13.0 5.00 -- -- 13.0 5.00 -- -- 13.0 5.00 

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives 0 0.03 0.001 13.0 5.00 0.02 0.001 13.0 5.00 0.01 0.000 13.0 5.00 0.03 0.001 13.0 5.00 with 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 0.09 0.003 13.1 5.00 0.04 0.002 13.0 5.00 0.04 0.001 13.0 5.00 0.08 0.002 13.1 5.00 Proposed Action Alternative A 150 0.07 0.002 13.1 5.00 0.03 0.001 13.0 5.00 0.03 0.001 13.0 5.00 0.06 0.002 13.1 5.00 

75 0.05 0.001 13.0 5.00 0.03 0.001 13.0 5.00 0.02 0.001 13.0 5.00 0.04 0.001 13.0 5.00 

Alternative B 250 0.10 0.003 13.1 5.00 0.05 0.002 13.0 5.00 0.05 0.001 13.0 5.00 0.08 0.002 13.1 5.00 

150 0.08 0.002 13.1 5.00 0.03 0.001 13.0 5.00 0.03 0.001 13.0 5.00 0.06 0.002 13.1 5.00 

75 0.05 0.002 13.1 5.00 0.03 0.001 13.0 5.00 0.02 0.001 13.0 5.00 0.04 0.001 13.0 5.00 

Alternative C 250 0.08 0.002 13.1 5.00 0.04 0.001 13.0 5.00 0.04 0.001 13.0 5.00 0.06 0.002 13.1 5.00 

150 0.05 0.002 13.1 5.00 0.02 0.001 13.0 5.00 0.03 0.001 13.0 5.00 0.04 0.001 13.0 5.00 

75 0.03 0.001 13.0 5.00 0.02 0.001 13.0 5.00 0.02 0.000 13.0 5.00 0.03 0.001 13.0 5.00 

Alternative D 250 

150 Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

75 

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 0.10 0.003 13.1 5.00 0.04 0.002 13.0 5.00 0.04 0.001 13.0 5.00 0.08 0.002 13.1 5.00 

150 0.07 0.002 13.1 5.00 0.03 0.001 13.0 5.00 0.03 0.001 13.0 5.00 0.06 0.002 13.1 5.00 

75 0.05 0.002 13.1 5.00 0.03 0.001 13.0 5.00 0.02 0.001 13.0 5.00 0.04 0.001 13.0 5.00 

Alternative G 250 

150 Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

75 

Preferred 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. Alternative 

1 Ambient Air Quality Standards: 24-hr NAAQS/WAAQS = 65 μg/m3; Annual NAAQS/WAAQS = 15 μg/m3; the WAAQS are not yet enforced in Wyoming per WAQSR Chapter 2, Section 2(b)(v). 2 In μg/m3. 3 Total concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration; annual background PM10 concentration = 5 μg/m3; 24-hr background PM10 concentration = 13 μg/m3. 4 No Action Alternative was not modeled; total concentration represents background concentration only. 
F-16 

Table F-14 Summary of Maximum Modeled Direct NO2 Concentrations at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas Compared to PSD Significance Impact Levels (SILs) and Applicable PSD Increments, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 1 

Bridger Wilderness Class I 

Fitzpatrick Wilderness

Class I 

Popo Agie Wilderness

Class II 

Wind River Roadless Area 

Class II 

Grand Teton National Park 

Class I Teton Wilderness Class I 

Washakie Wilderness Area 

Class I 

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact 

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact 

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact 

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact 

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact 

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact 

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact 

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact 

Alternative or Development Phase WDR Annual 

PSD 

SIL 2 

PSD 

Increment Annual 

PSD 

SIL 2 

PSD 

Increment Annual 

PSD 

SIL2 

PSD 

Increment Annual 

PSD 

SIL2 

PSD 

Increment Annual 

PSD 

SIL 2 

PSD 

Increment Annual 

PSD 

SIL 2 

PSD 

Increment Annual Annual 

PSD 

SIL 2 

PSD 

Increment 

Yellowstone National Park 

Class I 

PSD 

SIL 2 

PSD 

Increment 

No Action3 -- -- 0.1 2.5 -- 0.1 2.5 -- 1.0 25 -- 1.0 25 -- 0.1 2.5 -- 0.1 2.5 -- 0.1 2.5 -- 0.1 2.5 

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives 0 0.026 0.1 2.5 0.001 0.1 2.5 0.009 1.0 25 0.006 1.0 25 0.000 0.1 2.5 0.000 0.1 2.5 0.000 0.1 2.5 0.000 0.1 2.5 with 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 0.132 0.1 2.5 0.006 0.1 2.5 0.044 1.0 25 0.026 1.0 25 0.002 0.1 2.5 0.001 0.1 2.5 0.001 0.1 2.5 0.001 0.1 2.5 Proposed Action Alternative A 150 0.091 0.1 2.5 0.004 0.1 2.5 0.031 1.0 25 0.019 1.0 25 0.001 0.1 2.5 0.001 0.1 2.5 0.000 0.1 2.5 0.001 0.1 2.5 

75 0.057 0.1 2.5 0.003 0.1 2.5 0.021 1.0 25 0.012 1.0 25 0.001 0.1 2.5 0.000 0.1 2.5 0.000 0.1 2.5 0.000 0.1 2.5 

Alternative B 250 0.153 0.1 2.5 0.006 0.1 2.5 0.050 1.0 25 0.030 1.0 25 0.002 0.1 2.5 0.001 0.1 2.5 0.001 0.1 2.5 0.001 0.1 2.5 

150 0.103 0.1 2.5 0.004 0.1 2.5 0.035 1.0 25 0.021 1.0 25 0.001 0.1 2.5 0.001 0.1 2.5 0.000 0.1 2.5 0.001 0.1 2.5 

75 0.062 0.1 2.5 0.003 0.1 2.5 0.023 1.0 25 0.013 1.0 25 0.001 0.1 2.5 0.000 0.1 2.5 0.000 0.1 2.5 0.001 0.1 2.5 

Alternative C 250 0.121 0.1 2.5 0.005 0.1 2.5 0.041 1.0 25 0.024 1.0 25 0.002 0.1 2.5 0.001 0.1 2.5 0.001 0.1 2.5 0.001 0.1 2.5 

150 0.080 0.1 2.5 0.003 0.1 2.5 0.028 1.0 25 0.016 1.0 25 0.001 0.1 2.5 0.000 0.1 2.5 0.000 0.1 2.5 0.001 0.1 2.5 

75 0.045 0.1 2.5 0.002 0.1 2.5 0.017 1.0 25 0.010 1.0 25 0.001 0.1 2.5 0.000 0.1 2.5 0.000 0.1 2.5 0.000 0.1 2.5 

Alternative D 250 

150 Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C.

75 

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 0.141 0.1 2.5 0.006 0.1 2.5 0.046 1.0 25 0.027 1.0 25 0.002 0.1 2.5 0.001 0.1 2.5 0.001 0.1 2.5 0.001 0.1 2.5 

150 0.096 0.1 2.5 0.004 0.1 2.5 0.033 1.0 25 0.019 1.0 25 0.001 0.1 2.5 0.001 0.1 2.5 0.000 0.1 2.5 0.001 0.1 2.5 

75 0.063 0.1 2.5 0.003 0.1 2.5 0.023 1.0 25 0.013 1.0 25 0.001 0.1 2.5 0.000 0.1 2.5 0.000 0.1 2.5 0.001 0.1 2.5 

Alternative G 250 

150 Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F.

75

Preferred 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G.Alternative

1 In μg/m3. 2 Proposed Class I significance impact level (SIL) in μg/m3, Federal Register Vol. 61, No. 142, Pg. 38,292, July 23, 1996. 3 No Action Alternative was not modeled; annual background NO2 concentration = 3.4 μg/m3. 
F-17 

Table F-15 Summary of Maximum Modeled Direct SO2 Concentrations at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas Compared to PSD Significance Impact Levels (SILs) and Applicable PSD Increments, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 1 

Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I 

Direct Modeled Impact PSD SIL2 PSD Increment Direct Modeled Impact PSD SIL2 PSD Increment Direct Modeled Impact PSD Increment Alternative or 

Development Phase WDR 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 3-hr 24-hr Annual 

Popo Agie Wilderness Class II 

PSD SIL2

24-hr Annual 

No Action3 -- -- -- -- 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 -- -- -- 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 -- -- -- 25.0 5.0 1.0 512 91 20 

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives with 0 0.005 0.001 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.001 0.000 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.002 0.000 0.000 25.0 5.0 1.0 512 91 20 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 0.229 0.073 0.004 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.019 0.005 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.081 0.013 0.001 25.0 5.0 1.0 512 91 20 Proposed Action Alternative A 150 0.143 0.046 0.002 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.012 0.003 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.055 0.008 0.001 25.0 5.0 1.0 512 91 20 

75 0.073 0.022 0.001 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.006 0.002 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.026 0.005 0.000 25.0 5.0 1.0 512 91 20 

Alternative B 250 0.280 0.090 0.004 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.023 0.006 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.100 0.016 0.001 25.0 5.0 1.0 512 91 20 

150 0.174 0.056 0.003 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.015 0.004 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.067 0.010 0.001 25.0 5.0 1.0 512 91 20 

75 0.089 0.027 0.001 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.008 0.002 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.032 0.006 0.000 25.0 5.0 1.0 512 91 20 

Alternative C 250 0.227 0.073 0.004 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.019 0.005 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.081 0.013 0.001 25.0 5.0 1.0 512 91 20 

150 0.140 0.045 0.002 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.012 0.003 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.054 0.008 0.001 25.0 5.0 1.0 512 91 20 

75 0.071 0.022 0.001 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.006 0.002 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.026 0.005 0.000 25.0 5.0 1.0 512 91 20 

Alternative D 250 150 

Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

75 

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 0.254 0.079 0.004 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.021 0.006 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.090 0.014 0.001 25.0 5.0 1.0 512 91 20 

150 0.157 0.050 0.002 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.014 0.004 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.060 0.009 0.001 25.0 5.0 1.0 512 91 20 

75 0.081 0.024 0.001 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.007 0.002 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.029 0.005 0.000 25.0 5.0 1.0 512 91 20 

Alternative G 250 150 

Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

75 

Preferred Alternative 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. 

1 In μg/m3. 2 Proposed Class I significance impact level (SIL) in μg/m3, Federal Register Vol. 61, No. 142, Pg. 38,292, July 23, 1996. 3 No Action Alternative was not modeled; annual background SO2 concentration = 9 μg/m3; 8-hr background SO2 concentration = 43 μg/m3; 3-hr background SO2 concentration = 132 μg/m3. 
F-18 

Table F-15 (continued) 

Wind River Roadless Area Class II Grand Teton National Park Class I 

Direct Modeled Impact PSD SIL2 PSD Increment Direct Modeled Impact PSD SIL2 PSD Increment Direct Modeled Impact PSD Increment Alternative or 

Development Phase WDR 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 3-hr 24-hr Annual 

Teton Wilderness Class I 

PSD SIL2

24-hr Annual 

No Action3 -- -- -- -- 25.0 5.0 1.0 512 91 20 -- -- -- 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 -- -- -- 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives with 0 0.001 0.000 0.000 25.0 5.0 1.0 512 91 20 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.001 0.000 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 0.037 0.010 0.001 25.0 5.0 1.0 512 91 20 0.008 0.002 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.007 0.001 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 Proposed Action 

Alternative A 150 0.024 0.006 0.000 25.0 5.0 1.0 512 91 20 0.005 0.001 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.004 0.001 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 

75 0.011 0.004 0.000 25.0 5.0 1.0 512 91 20 0.003 0.001 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.002 0.000 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 

Alternative B 250 0.045 0.013 0.001 25.0 5.0 1.0 512 91 20 0.009 0.003 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.009 0.002 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 

150 0.029 0.008 0.001 25.0 5.0 1.0 512 91 20 0.006 0.002 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.005 0.001 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 

75 0.014 0.004 0.000 25.0 5.0 1.0 512 91 20 0.003 0.001 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.003 0.000 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 

Alternative C 250 0.036 0.010 0.001 25.0 5.0 1.0 512 91 20 0.008 0.002 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.007 0.001 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 

150 0.023 0.006 0.000 25.0 5.0 1.0 512 91 20 0.005 0.001 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.004 0.001 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 

75 0.011 0.004 0.000 25.0 5.0 1.0 512 91 20 0.002 0.001 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.002 0.000 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 

Alternative D 250 150 

Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

75 

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 0.041 0.011 0.001 25.0 5.0 1.0 512 91 20 0.009 0.003 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.008 0.001 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 

150 0.026 0.007 0.001 25.0 5.0 1.0 512 91 20 0.005 0.002 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.005 0.001 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 

75 0.012 0.004 0.000 25.0 5.0 1.0 512 91 20 0.003 0.001 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.003 0.000 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 

Alternative G 250 150 

Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

75 

Preferred Alternative 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. 

1 In μg/m3. 2 Proposed Class I significance impact level (SIL) in μg/m3, Federal Register Vol. 61, No. 142, Pg. 38,292, July 23, 1996. 3 No Action Alternative was not modeled; annual background SO2 concentration = 9 μg/m3; 8-hr background SO2 concentration = 43 μg/m3; 3-hr background SO2 concentration = 132 μg/m3. 
F-19 

Table F-15 (continued) 

Yellowstone National Park Class I Washakie Wilderness Area Class I 

Direct Modeled Impact PSD SIL2 PSD Increment Direct Modeled Impact PSD SIL2 PSD Increment Alternative or 

Development Phase WDR 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 3-hr 

No Action3 -- -- -- -- 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 -- -- -- 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives with 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.001 0.000 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 0.003 0.001 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.006 0.002 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 Proposed Action Alternative A 150 0.002 0.001 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.004 0.001 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 

75 0.001 0.000 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.003 0.001 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 

Alternative B 250 0.004 0.001 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.007 0.002 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 

150 0.002 0.001 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.005 0.001 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 

75 0.001 0.000 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.003 0.001 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 

Alternative C 250 0.003 0.001 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.006 0.002 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 

150 0.002 0.001 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.004 0.001 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 

75 0.001 0.000 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.002 0.001 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 

Alternative D 250 150 

Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

75 

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 0.003 0.001 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.007 0.002 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 

150 0.002 0.001 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.004 0.001 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 

75 0.001 0.000 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 0.003 0.001 0.000 1.0 0.2 0.1 25 5 2 

Alternative G 250 150 

Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

75 

Preferred Alternative 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. 

1 In μg/m3. 2 Proposed Class I significance impact level (SIL) in μg/m3, Federal Register Vol. 61, No. 142, Pg. 38,292, July 23, 1996. 3 No Action Alternative was not modeled; annual background SO2 concentration = 9 μg/m3; 8-hr background SO2 concentration = 43 μg/m3; 3-hr background SO2 concentration = 132 μg/m3. 
F-20 

Table F-16 Summary of Maximum Modeled Direct PM10 Concentrations at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas Compared to PSD Significance Impact Levels (SILs) and Applicable PSD Increments, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.1 

Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class II 

Direct Modeled 

Impact PSD SIL2 PSD Increment 

Direct Modeled 

Impact PSD SIL2 PSD Increment 

Direct Modeled 

Impact PSD SIL2 PSD Increment 

Direct Modeled 

Impact PSD Increment Alternative or 

Development Phase WDR 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 3-hr 24-hr Annual 

Wind River Roadless Area Class II 

PSD SIL2

24-hr Annual 

No Action3 -- -- -- 0.3 0.2 8 4 -- -- 0.3 0.2 8 4 -- -- 5.0 1.0 30 17 -- -- 5.0 1.0 30 17 

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives with 0 0.75 0.030 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.07 0.003 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.15 0.008 5.0 1.0 30 17 0.12 0.006 5.0 1.0 30 17 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 1.66 0.063 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.18 0.006 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.26 0.018 5.0 1.0 30 17 0.19 0.013 5.0 1.0 30 17 Proposed Action Alternative A 150 1.28 0.050 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.14 0.005 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.21 0.014 5.0 1.0 30 17 0.16 0.010 5.0 1.0 30 17 

75 1.00 0.039 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.10 0.004 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.18 0.011 5.0 1.0 30 17 0.14 0.008 5.0 1.0 30 17 

Alternative B 250 1.70 0.068 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.20 0.007 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.24 0.02 5.0 1.0 30 17 0.19 0.014 5.0 1.0 30 17 

150 1.31 0.053 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.15 0.005 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.20 0.015 5.0 1.0 30 17 0.16 0.011 5.0 1.0 30 17 

75 0.99 0.041 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.11 0.004 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.17 0.011 5.0 1.0 30 17 0.14 0.008 5.0 1.0 30 17 

Alternative C 250 1.24 0.046 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.14 0.005 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.17 0.014 5.0 1.0 30 17 0.13 0.009 5.0 1.0 30 17 

150 0.87 0.033 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.10 0.003 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.13 0.010 5.0 1.0 30 17 0.09 0.007 5.0 1.0 30 17 

75 0.59 0.022 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.06 0.002 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.09 0.007 5.0 1.0 30 17 0.07 0.005 5.0 1.0 30 17 

Alternative D 250 

150 Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

75 

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 1.65 0.064 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.19 0.006 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.25 0.018 5.0 1.0 30 17 0.19 0.013 5.0 1.0 30 17 

150 1.31 0.051 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.14 0.005 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.21 0.014 5.0 1.0 30 17 0.16 0.010 5.0 1.0 30 17 

75 1.04 0.041 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.11 0.004 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.18 0.011 5.0 1.0 30 17 0.14 0.008 5.0 1.0 30 17 

Alternative G 250 

150 Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

75 

Preferred Alternative 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. 

1 In μg/m3. 2 Proposed Class I significance impact level (SIL) in μg/m3, Federal Register Vol. 61, No. 142, Pg. 38,292, July 23, 1996. 3 No Action Alternative was not modeled; annual background PM10 concentration = 16 μg/m3; 24-hr background PM10 concentration = 33 μg/m3. 
F-21 

Table F-16 (continued) 

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park Class I 

Direct Modeled 

Impact PSD SIL2 PSD Increment 

Direct Modeled 

Impact PSD SIL2 PSD Increment 

Direct Modeled 

Impact PSD SIL2 PSD Increment 

Direct Modeled 

Impact PSD Increment Alternative or 

Development Phase WDR 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr 3-hr 24-hr Annual 

Washakie Wilderness Area Class I 

PSD SIL2

Annual 

No Action3 -- -- -- 0.3 0.2 8 4 -- -- 0.3 0.2 8 4 -- -- 0.3 0.2 8 4 -- -- 0.3 0.2 8 4 

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives with 0 0.03 0.001 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.02 0.001 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.01 0.000 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.03 0.001 0.3 0.2 8 4 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 0.09 0.003 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.04 0.002 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.04 0.001 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.08 0.002 0.3 0.2 8 4 Proposed Action Alternative A 150 0.07 0.002 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.03 0.001 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.03 0.001 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.06 0.002 0.3 0.2 8 4 

75 0.05 0.001 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.03 0.001 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.02 0.001 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.04 0.001 0.3 0.2 8 4 

Alternative B 250 0.10 0.003 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.05 0.002 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.05 0.001 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.08 0.002 0.3 0.2 8 4 

150 0.08 0.002 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.03 0.001 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.03 0.001 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.06 0.002 0.3 0.2 8 4 

75 0.05 0.002 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.03 0.001 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.02 0.001 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.04 0.001 0.3 0.2 8 4 

Alternative C 250 0.08 0.002 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.04 0.001 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.04 0.001 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.06 0.002 0.3 0.2 8 4 

150 0.05 0.002 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.02 0.001 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.03 0.001 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.04 0.001 0.3 0.2 8 4 

75 0.03 0.001 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.02 0.001 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.02 0.000 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.03 0.001 0.3 0.2 8 4 

Alternative D 250 

150 Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

75 

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 0.10 0.003 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.04 0.002 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.04 0.001 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.08 0.002 0.3 0.2 8 4 

150 0.07 0.002 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.03 0.001 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.03 0.001 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.06 0.002 0.3 0.2 8 4 

75 0.05 0.002 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.03 0.001 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.02 0.001 0.3 0.2 8 4 0.04 0.001 0.3 0.2 8 4 

Alternative G 250 

150 Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

75 

Preferred Alternative 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. 

1 In μg/m3. 2 Proposed Class I significance impact level (SIL) in μg/m3, Federal Register Vol. 61, No. 142, Pg. 38,292, July 23, 1996. 3 No Action Alternative was not modeled; annual background PM10 concentration = 16 μg/m3; 24-hr background PM10 concentration = 33 μg/m3. 
F-22 

Table F-17 Summary of Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Direct Project Sources Using FLAG Background Data, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Bridger Wilderness 

Class I 

Fitzpatrick Wilderness 

Class I 

Popo Agie Wilderness 

Class II 

Wind River Roadless 

Area Class II 

Grand Teton National 

Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I 

Yellowstone National 

Park Class I 

Washakie Wilderness 

Area Class I 

Alternative or Development Phase WDR 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

No Action2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives 0 1.02 1 0.13 0 0.21 0 0.18 0 0.08 0 0.03 0 0.04 0 0.06 0 with 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 3.16 9 0.56 0 0.54 0 0.45 0 0.32 0 0.14 0 0.16 0 0.24 0 Proposed Action Alternative A 150 2.36 5 0.39 0 0.39 0 0.32 0 0.23 0 0.10 0 0.11 0 0.17 0 

75 1.69 2 0.26 0 0.30 0 0.23 0 0.15 0 0.06 0 0.07 0 0.11 0 

Alternative B 250 3.32 11 0.65 0 0.62 0 0.52 0 0.36 0 0.16 0 0.18 0 0.27 0 

150 2.47 6 0.44 0 0.43 0 0.36 0 0.26 0 0.11 0 0.12 0 0.19 0 

75 1.71 2 0.28 0 0.29 0 0.24 0 0.17 0 0.07 0 0.08 0 0.12 0 

Alternative C 250 2.75 8 0.49 0 0.47 0 0.39 0 0.29 0 0.13 0 0.14 0 0.22 0 

150 1.92 4 0.34 0 0.32 0 0.25 0 0.20 0 0.09 0 0.10 0 0.15 0 

75 1.22 2 0.21 0 0.20 0 0.15 0 0.12 0 0.05 0 0.06 0 0.09 0 

Alternative D 250 

150 Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

75 

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 3.25 10 0.60 0 0.58 0 0.48 0 0.34 0 0.15 0 0.17 0 0.25 0 

150 2.44 5 0.42 0 0.41 0 0.35 0 0.24 0 0.10 0 0.12 0 0.18 0 

75 1.80 2 0.29 0 0.31 0 0.25 0 0.17 0 0.07 0 0.08 0 0.12 0 

Alternative G 250 

150 Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

75 

Preferred 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. Alternative 

1 In deciviews (dv).2 No Action Alternative was not modeled. 
F-23 

Table F-18 Summary of Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Direct Project Sources Using IMPROVE Background Data, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 

2005. 

Bridger Wilderness 

Class I 

Fitzpatrick Wilderness 

Class I 

Popo Agie Wilderness 

Class II 

Wind River Roadless 

Area Class II 

Grand Teton National 

Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I 

Washakie Wilderness 

Area Class I 

Alternative or Development Phase WDR 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Yellowstone National 

Park Class I 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

No Action2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives 0 1.14 1 0.15 0 0.24 0 0.20 0 0.08 0 0.03 0 0.04 0 0.06 0 with 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 3.48 10 0.64 0 0.62 0 0.52 0 0.33 0 0.14 0 0.16 0 0.24 0 Proposed Action Alternative A 150 2.61 7 0.45 0 0.44 0 0.37 0 0.23 0 0.10 0 0.11 0 0.17 0 

75 1.87 3 0.30 0 0.34 0 0.26 0 0.16 0 0.07 0 0.08 0 0.11 0 

Alternative B 250 3.74 11 0.75 0 0.71 0 0.60 0 0.37 0 0.16 0 0.18 0 0.27 0 

150 2.75 8 0.51 0 0.50 0 0.42 0 0.26 0 0.11 0 0.13 0 0.19 0 

75 1.90 4 0.32 0 0.34 0 0.28 0 0.17 0 0.07 0 0.08 0 0.12 0 

Alternative C 250 3.04 8 0.57 0 0.54 0 0.45 0 0.29 0 0.13 0 0.15 0 0.22 0 

150 2.13 4 0.39 0 0.37 0 0.29 0 0.20 0 0.09 0 0.10 0 0.15 0 

75 1.36 2 0.24 0 0.23 0 0.18 0 0.12 0 0.05 0 0.06 0 0.09 0 

Alternative D 250 

150 Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

75 

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 3.57 10 0.69 0 0.66 0 0.56 0 0.34 0 0.15 0 0.17 0 0.25 0 

150 2.70 8 0.49 0 0.47 0 0.40 0 0.25 0 0.11 0 0.12 0 0.18 0 

75 2.00 4 0.34 0 0.34 0 0.28 0 0.17 0 0.07 0 0.08 0 0.12 0 

Alternative G 250 

150 Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

75 

Preferred 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. Alternative 

1 In deciviews (dv).2 No Action Alternative was not modeled. 
F-24 

Table F-19 Summary of Maximum Modeled Change in ANC at Acid-Sensitive Lakes from Direct Project Sources, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Black Joe Lake - Bridger

Wilderness Class I 

Deep Lake - Bridger

Wilderness Class I 

Hobbs Lake - Bridger

Wilderness Class I 

Lazy Boy Lake - Bridger

Wilderness Class I 

Upper Frozen Lake - Bridger

Wilderness Class I 

Lower Saddlebag - Popo Agie 

Wilderness Class II 

Ross Lake - Fitzpatrick

Wilderness Class I 

Alternative or Development Phase WDR 

ANC 

Change1 

Percent ANC 

Change 

ANC 

Change1 

Percent ANC 

Change 

ANC 

Change1 

Percent ANC 

Change 

ANC 

Change1 

Percent ANC 

Change 

ANC 

Change1 

Percent ANC 

Change 

ANC 

Change1 

Percent ANC 

Change 

ANC 

Change1 

Percent ANC 

Change 

Level of Acceptable -- 6.70 -- 5.99 -- 6.99 -- 1.00 -- 1.00 -- 5.55 -- 5.35 --Change 

No Action2 -- 67.0 -- 59.9 -- 69.9 -- 18.8 -- 5.0 -- 55.5 -- 53.5 --

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives 0 0.02 0.033 0.02 0.041 0.00 0.006 0.00 0.008 0.03 0.567 0.03 0.046 0.00 0.003 with 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 0.10 0.155 0.11 0.190 0.02 0.030 0.01 0.038 0.14 2.808 0.13 0.231 0.01 0.013 Proposed Action Alternative A 150 0.07 0.109 0.08 0.133 0.01 0.021 0.01 0.027 0.10 1.969 0.09 0.161 0.01 0.009 

75 0.05 0.072 0.05 0.087 0.01 0.013 0.00 0.017 0.06 1.269 0.06 0.107 0.00 0.006 

Alternative B 250 0.12 0.177 0.13 0.217 0.02 0.035 0.01 0.043 0.16 3.221 0.15 0.263 0.01 0.015 

150 0.08 0.122 0.09 0.150 0.02 0.023 0.01 0.030 0.11 2.219 0.10 0.181 0.01 0.010 

75 0.05 0.079 0.06 0.095 0.01 0.014 0.00 0.019 0.07 1.386 0.06 0.117 0.00 0.007 

Alternative C 250 0.10 0.142 0.10 0.173 0.02 0.029 0.01 0.037 0.13 2.581 0.12 0.216 0.01 0.013 

150 0.06 0.096 0.07 0.117 0.01 0.019 0.00 0.025 0.09 1.741 0.08 0.146 0.00 0.009 

75 0.04 0.059 0.04 0.071 0.01 0.012 0.00 0.016 0.05 1.041 0.05 0.091 0.00 0.005 

Alternative D 250 

150 Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

75 

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 0.109 0.163 0.120 0.200 0.023 0.033 0.008 0.041 0.148 2.959 0.135 0.243 0.008 0.014 

150 0.076 0.113 0.082 0.138 0.015 0.022 0.005 0.028 0.102 2.047 0.093 0.168 0.005 0.010 

75 0.053 0.079 0.057 0.095 0.010 0.015 0.004 0.019 0.070 1.407 0.065 0.117 0.004 0.007 

Alternative G 250 

150 Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

75 

Preferred 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. Alternative 

4 In μeq/L.2 No Action Alternative was not modeled; ANC represents background only. 
F-25 

Table F-20 Summary of Maximum Modeled Sulfur (S) Deposition Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive Class II Areas from Direct Project Sources, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Alternative or Development Bridger Wilderness Fitzpatrick Wilderness Popo Agie Wilderness Wind River Roadless Area Grand Teton National Park Teton Wilderness Yellowstone National Park Washakie Wilderness Area Phase WDR Class I1 Class I1 Class II1 Class II1 Class I1 Class I1 Class I1 Class I1 

No Action2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All 0 0.0000316 0.0000036 0.0000184 0.0000114 0.0000015 0.0000008 0.0000006 0.0000010 alternatives with 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A 250 0.0014419 0.0001484 0.0007323 0.0004267 0.0000656 0.0000367 0.0000241 0.0000425 and ProposedAction Alternative A 150 0.0009009 0.0000920 0.0004551 0.0002642 0.0000398 0.0000223 0.0000147 0.0000258 75 

0.0005122 0.0000452 0.0002438 0.0001285 0.0000203 0.0000112 0.0000074 0.0000128 

Alternative B 250 0.0017643 0.0001814 0.0008954 0.0005214 0.0000802 0.0000449 0.0000295 0.0000520 150 

0.0011000 0.0001122 0.0005549 0.0003218 0.0000486 0.0000272 0.0000180 0.0000315 

75 

0.0006225 0.0000547 0.0002954 0.0001552 0.0000246 0.0000135 0.0000090 0.0000155 

Alternative C 250 0.0014232 0.0001462 0.0007216 0.0004199 0.0000647 0.0000362 0.0000238 0.0000419 150 

0.0008828 0.0000899 0.0004444 0.0002574 0.0000389 0.0000218 0.0000144 0.0000252 

75 

0.0004942 0.0000431 0.0002331 0.0001217 0.0000194 0.0000107 0.0000071 0.0000122 

Alternative D 250 

150 Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

Alternative E 75 

250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

Alternative F 75 

250 0.0015994 0.0001645 0.0008114 0.0004722 0.0000728 0.0000407 0.0000267 0.0000471 

150 

0.0010003 0.0001020 0.0005045 0.0002925 0.0000442 0.0000247 0.0000163 0.0000286 

75 

0.0005668 0.0000500 0.0002693 0.0001416 0.0000225 0.0000124 0.0000082 0.0000142 

Alternative G 250 

150 Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

Preferred 75 

250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. 

Alternative 

1 In kg/ha-yr. 2 No Action Alternative was not modeled; sulfur deposition analysis threshold (DAT) for direct Project impacts = 0.005 kg/ha-yr. 
F-26 

Table F-21 Summary of Maximum Modeled Nitrogen (N) Deposition Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive Class II Areas from Direct Project Sources, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Wind River Yellowstone Washakie 

Bridger Wilderness Fitzpatrick Wilderness Popo Agie Wilderness Roadless Area Grand Teton National Park Teton Wilderness National Park Wilderness Area 

Alternative or Development Phase WDR Class I1 Class I1 Class II1 Class II1 Class I1 Class I1 Class I1 Class I1 

No Action2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives with 3,100 wells 0 0.00669 0.00057 0.00344 0.00212 0.00023 0.00011 0.00008 0.00014 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and Proposed Action 250 0.03487 0.00266 0.01654 0.00988 0.00116 0.00056 0.00041 0.00072 Alternative A 150 0.02440 0.00187 0.01164 0.00696 0.00081 0.00039 0.00028 0.00050 75 

0.01653 0.00120 0.00771 0.00448 0.00052 0.00025 0.00018 0.00032 

Alternative B 250 0.04017 0.00300 0.01886 0.01128 0.00131 0.00063 0.00046 0.00080 150 

0.02771 0.00208 0.01306 0.00781 0.00090 0.00043 0.00032 0.00055 

75 

0.01837 0.00130 0.00844 0.00486 0.00056 0.00027 0.00020 0.00035 

Alternative C 250 0.03233 0.00248 0.01527 0.00906 0.00110 0.00053 0.00038 0.00068 150 

0.02186 0.00170 0.01039 0.00614 0.00074 0.00036 0.00026 0.00047 

75 

0.01399 0.00103 0.00650 0.00366 0.00046 0.00022 0.00016 0.00029 

Alternative D 250 

150 Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

75 

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 0.03644 0.00282 0.01734 0.01037 0.00123 0.00059 0.00043 0.00076 150 

0.02595 0.00198 0.01227 0.00731 0.00085 0.00041 0.00030 0.00053 

75 

0.01839 0.00132 0.00851 0.00495 0.00057 0.00027 0.00020 0.00035 

Alternative G 250 

150 Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

75 

Preferred Alternative 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. 

1 In kg/ha-yr. 2 No Action Alternative was not modeled; nitrogen deposition analysis threshold (DAT) for direct Project impacts = 0.005 kg/ha-yr. 
F-27 

Table F-22 Summary of Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Communities from Direct Project Sources Using FLAG Background Data, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Big Piney Big Sandy Boulder Bronx Cora Daniel Farson LaBarge Pinedale 

Alternative or Development Phase WDR 

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact1 

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Merna 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

No Action2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives with 0 0.57 0 0.76 0 0.49 0 0.31 0 0.60 0 0.49 0 0.47 0 0.26 0 0.19 0 0.93 0 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 1.75 2 2.77 19 2.09 9 1.48 1 2.81 1 2.24 1 2.04 5 1.15 2 0.68 0 3.78 2 Proposed Action Alternative A 150 1.28 1 2.04 12 1.51 3 1.07 1 2.06 1 1.63 1 1.44 3 0.81 0 0.50 0 2.84 1 

75 0.89 0 1.47 2 1.00 1 0.71 0 1.37 1 1.08 1 0.98 0 0.52 0 0.33 0 1.92 1 

Alternative B 250 1.87 5 3.13 24 2.35 11 1.66 1 3.19 1 2.55 1 2.29 6 1.29 2 0.78 0 4.32 3 

150 1.35 2 2.29 15 1.67 5 1.17 1 2.29 1 1.81 1 1.59 4 0.90 0 0.56 0 3.18 2 

75 0.90 0 1.61 3 1.08 2 0.73 0 1.44 1 1.15 1 1.05 1 0.57 0 0.36 0 2.09 1 

Alternative C 250 1.48 2 2.50 14 1.92 6 1.32 1 2.54 1 2.00 1 1.88 5 1.10 2 0.61 0 3.39 2 

150 1.00 1 1.76 6 1.33 3 0.90 0 1.77 1 1.38 1 1.27 3 0.75 0 0.42 0 2.41 1 

75 0.60 0 1.17 1 0.81 0 0.54 0 1.05 1 0.82 0 0.80 0 0.47 0 0.26 0 1.45 1 

Alternative D 250 

150 Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

75 

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 1.84 4 2.90 19 2.20 10 1.55 1 2.96 1 2.36 1 2.12 5 1.21 2 0.72 0 3.98 3 

150 1.36 2 2.16 12 1.59 5 1.13 1 2.19 1 1.73 1 1.51 3 0.85 0 0.53 0 3.03 1 

75 0.96 0 1.61 4 1.10 2 0.78 0 1.51 1 1.20 1 1.07 1 0.58 0 0.37 0 2.15 1 

Alternative G 250 

150 Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

75 

Preferred Alternative 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. 

1 In deciviews (dv).2 No Action Alternative was not modeled. 
F-28 

Table F-23 Summary of Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Communities from Direct Project Sources Using IMPROVE Background Data, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Big Piney Big Sandy Boulder Bronx Cora Daniel Farson LaBarge Pinedale 

Alternative or Development Phase WDR 

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact1 

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Merna 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

No Action2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives with 0 0.66 0 0.85 0 0.56 0 0.36 0 0.69 0 0.57 0 0.55 0 0.30 0 0.22 0 1.07 1 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 2.01 6 3.05 23 2.39 12 1.70 1 3.20 1 2.56 1 2.33 6 1.32 2 0.79 0 4.27 3 Proposed Action Alternative A 150 1.48 2 2.26 13 1.73 6 1.23 1 2.36 1 1.87 1 1.65 5 0.93 0 0.57 0 3.23 2 

75 1.03 1 1.63 3 1.15 3 0.82 0 1.57 1 1.25 1 1.13 3 0.60 0 0.38 0 2.20 1 

Alternative B 250 2.15 9 3.45 26 2.68 18 1.91 1 3.62 2 2.90 2 2.62 7 1.48 2 0.90 0 4.87 5 

150 1.56 2 2.53 15 1.92 6 1.35 1 2.61 1 2.07 1 1.82 5 1.03 1 0.64 0 3.61 2 

75 1.04 1 1.79 6 1.24 3 0.85 0 1.66 1 1.32 1 1.21 3 0.66 0 0.42 0 2.39 1 

Alternative C 250 1.71 4 2.77 17 2.20 9 1.52 1 2.89 1 2.29 1 2.15 5 1.26 2 0.70 0 3.85 2 

150 1.16 1 1.95 8 1.53 3 1.04 1 2.03 1 1.59 1 1.46 3 0.87 0 0.49 0 2.75 1 

75 0.70 0 1.30 1 0.93 0 0.62 0 1.21 1 0.94 0 0.92 0 0.54 0 0.30 0 1.66 1 

Alternative D 250 

150 Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

75 

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 2.12 7 3.19 24 2.52 16 1.78 1 3.36 2 2.69 1 2.42 6 1.40 2 0.83 0 4.49 3 

150 1.57 2 2.39 14 1.82 6 1.30 1 2.50 1 1.99 1 1.74 5 0.98 0 0.61 0 3.44 2 

75 1.11 1 1.79 7 1.26 3 0.90 0 1.74 1 1.37 1 1.23 3 0.67 0 0.42 0 2.45 1 

Alternative G 250 

150 Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

75 

Preferred Alternative 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. 

1 In deciviews (dv).2 No Action Alternative was not modeled. 
F-29 

Table F-24 Summary of Maximum Modeled In-field Pollutant Concentrations from Direct Project Sources Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.1 

NO2 SO2 PM10

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact 

Total 

Concentration2 NAAQS/ WAAQS Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration2 NAAQS/WAAQS Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration2 NAAQS/WAAQS Direct Modeled Impact 

NAAQS/WAAQS

3 

Alternative or Development Phase WDR Annual Annual Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual Annual 24-hr Annual 

PM

2.5 

Total Concentration2

24-hr 

No Action4 -- -- 3.4 100 -- -- -- 132 43 9 1,300 365/260 80/60 -- -- 33 16 150 50 -- -- 13 5 65 15 MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives 0 2.5 5.9 100 0.2 0.1 0.0 132.2 43.1 9.0 1,300 365/260 80/60 90.4 12.6 123.4 28.6 150 50 16.3 2.0 29.3 7.0 65 15 with 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A 250 13.7 17.1 100 18.3 3.7 0.4 150.3 46.7 9.4 1,300 365/260 80/60 113.2 16.0 146.2 32.0 150 50 21.6 3.1 34.6 8.1 65 15 and ProposedAction Alternative A 150 12.0 15.4 100 13.9 3.4 0.3 145.9 46.4 9.3 1,300 365/260 80/60 103.9 14.7 136.9 30.7 150 50 19.3 2.8 32.3 7.8 65 15 

75 10.3 13.7 100 13.9 3.4 0.3 145.9 46.4 9.3 1,300 365/260 80/60 97.0 13.7 130.0 29.7 150 50 17.7 2.6 30.7 7.6 65 15 

Alternative B 250 16.2 19.6 100 22.5 4.6 0.5 154.5 47.6 9.5 1,300 365/260 80/60 113.6 16.1 146.6 32.1 150 50 22.0 3.2 35.0 8.2 65 15 

150 14.3 17.7 100 17.1 4.2 0.4 149.1 47.2 9.4 1,300 365/260 80/60 104.1 14.8 137.1 30.8 150 50 19.4 2.9 32.4 7.9 65 15 

75 11.8 15.2 100 17.1 4.2 0.3 149.1 47.2 9.3 1,300 365/260 80/60 97.1 13.8 130.1 29.8 150 50 17.7 2.7 30.7 7.7 65 15 

Alternative C 250 12.6 16.0 100 18.3 3.7 0.4 150.3 46.7 9.4 1,300 365/260 80/60 59.3 8.6 92.3 24.6 150 50 11.9 1.9 24.9 6.9 65 15 

150 11.0 14.4 100 13.9 3.4 0.3 145.9 46.4 9.3 1,300 365/260 80/60 49.9 7.3 82.9 23.3 150 50 9.5 1.7 22.5 6.7 65 15 

75 9.1 12.5 100 13.9 3.4 0.3 145.9 46.4 9.3 1,300 365/260 80/60 43.1 6.3 76.1 22.3 150 50 8.3 1.4 21.3 6.4 65 15 

Alternative D 250 

150 Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

75 

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 16.5 19.9 100 20.3 4.1 0.4 152.3 47.1 9.4 1,300 365/260 80/60 105.6 15.1 138.6 31.1 150 50 20.4 3.2 33.4 8.2 65 15 

150 15.7 19.1 100 15.4 3.8 0.4 147.4 46.8 9.4 1,300 365/260 80/60 104.0 14.9 137.0 30.9 150 50 19.4 3.1 32.4 8.1 65 15 

75 14.2 17.6 100 15.4 3.8 0.3 147.4 46.8 9.3 1,300 365/260 80/60 97.1 14.0 130.1 30.0 150 50 17.7 2.9 30.7 7.9 65 15 

Alternative G 250 

150 Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

75 

Preferred 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. Alternative 

1 In μg/m3. 2 Total concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration; annual background NO2 concentration = 3.4 μg/m3; annual background SO2 concentration = 9 μg/m3; 8-hr background SO2 concentration = 43 μg/m3; 3-hr background SO2 concentration = 132 μg/m3; annual 

background PM10 concentration = 16 μg/m3; 24-hr background PM10 concentration = 33 μg/m3; annual background PM2.5 concentration = 5 μg/m3; 24-hr background PM2.5 concentration = 13 μg/m3. 

3 WAAQS for PM2.5 are not yet enforced in Wyoming per WAQSR Chapter 2, Section 2(b)(v). 4 No Action Alternative was not modeled; total concentration represents background concentration only. 
F-30 Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table F-25 RFD Projects Included in Cumulative Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Big Piney-LaBarge LaBarge Creek - MA 12 

BTA Bravo Little Greys River - MA 31 

Burley Lower Bush Creek CBM (Kennedy Oil) 

Burlington Little Monument Lower Greys River - MA 32 

Cave Gulch Moxa Arch 

Cliff Creek - USFS Management Area (MA) 22 Mulligan Draw 

Compressor Station, Pipeline- Williams Pinedale Anticline Project 

Continental Divide/Wamsutter II EIS Piney Creeks - MA 26 

Cooper Reservoir (1998) Pioneer Gas Plant 

Copper Ridge Shallow Gas Project Powder River Basin 

Cottonwood Creek - MA 25 Riley Ridge 

Creston-Blue Gap Road Hollow 

Cutthroat Gas Processing Plant Sierra Madre 

Desolation Flats Soda Unit 

Eighth Granger Gas Plant Expansion South Baggs 

Fontenelle Natural Gas Infill Drilling South Piney 

Ham's Fork Pipeline Stage Coach 

Hickey Mountain-Table Mountain Upper Hoback - MA 23 

Horse Creek - MA 24 Vermillion Basin 

Horse Trap Willow Creek - MA 49 

Jack Morrow Hills Wind River (Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] lead 

agency) 
F-31 

Table F-26 Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentrations at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Direct Project and Regional Sources for Comparison to Ambient Air Quality Standards1, Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.2 

Bridger Wilderness Class I 

Fitzpatrick Wilderness

Class I 

Popo Agie Wilderness

Class II 

Wind River Roadless Area 

Class II 

Grand Teton National Park 

Class I Teton Wilderness Class I 

Washakie Wilderness Area 

Class I 

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact 

Total 

Concentration3 

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact 

Total 

Concentration3 

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact 

Total 

Concentration3 

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact 

Total 

Concentration3 

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact 

Total 

Concentration3 

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact 

Total 

Concentration3 

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact 

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact 

Total 

Concentration3 Alternative or 

Development Phase WDR Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual 

Yellowstone National Park 

Class I 

Total 

Concentration3 

Annual 

No Action -- 0.119 3.52 0.011 3.41 0.027 3.43 0.024 3.42 0.029 3.43 0.007 3.41 0.003 3.40 0.009 3.41 MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives with 0 0.143 3.54 0.012 3.41 0.036 3.44 0.030 3.43 0.029 3.43 0.007 3.41 0.003 3.40 0.010 3.41 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 0.245 3.64 0.017 3.42 0.070 3.47 0.051 3.45 0.030 3.43 0.007 3.41 0.003 3.40 0.010 3.41 Proposed Action Alternative A 150 0.203 3.60 0.015 3.42 0.057 3.46 0.043 3.44 0.030 3.43 0.007 3.41 0.003 3.40 0.010 3.41 

75 0.170 3.57 0.014 3.41 0.047 3.45 0.036 3.44 0.029 3.43 0.007 3.41 0.003 3.40 0.010 3.41 

Alternative B 250 0.265 3.67 0.017 3.42 0.076 3.48 0.055 3.45 0.030 3.43 0.007 3.41 0.003 3.40 0.010 3.41 

150 0.216 3.62 0.016 3.42 0.060 3.46 0.045 3.45 0.030 3.43 0.007 3.41 0.003 3.40 0.010 3.41 

75 0.175 3.57 0.014 3.41 0.049 3.45 0.037 3.44 0.030 3.43 0.007 3.41 0.003 3.40 0.010 3.41 

Alternative C 250 0.233 3.63 0.016 3.42 0.067 3.47 0.048 3.45 0.030 3.43 0.007 3.41 0.003 3.40 0.010 3.41 

150 0.192 3.59 0.015 3.41 0.054 3.45 0.041 3.44 0.030 3.43 0.007 3.41 0.003 3.40 0.010 3.41 

75 0.159 3.56 0.013 3.41 0.044 3.44 0.034 3.43 0.029 3.43 0.007 3.41 0.003 3.40 0.010 3.41 

Alternative D 250 

150 Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

75 

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 0.254 3.65 0.017 3.42 0.072 3.47 0.052 3.45 0.030 3.43 0.007 3.41 0.003 3.40 0.010 3.41 

150 0.209 3.61 0.015 3.42 0.058 3.46 0.044 3.44 0.030 3.43 0.007 3.41 0.003 3.40 0.010 3.41 

75 0.176 3.58 0.014 3.41 0.049 3.45 0.038 3.44 0.030 3.43 0.007 3.41 0.003 3.40 0.010 3.41 

Alternative G 250 

150 Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

75 

Preferred Alternative 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. 

1 Ambient Air Quality Standards: annual NAAQS/WAAQS = 100 μg/m3. 2 In μg/m3. 3 Total concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration; annual background NO2 concentration = 3.4 μg/m3. 
F-32 

Table F-27 Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentrations at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Direct Project and Regional Sources for Comparison to Ambient Air Quality Standards1, Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.2 

Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class II 

Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration3 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1,2 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration3 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration3 Alternative or 

Development Phase WDR 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr 3-hr 24-hr Amual 

Wind River Roadless Area Class II 

Annual 

No Action -- 0.16 0.04 0.00 132.16 43.04 9.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 132.02 43.01 9.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 132.02 43.01 9.00 0.11 0.01 0.00 132.11 43.01 9.00 

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives 0 0.16 0.04 0.00 132.16 43.04 9.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 132.02 43.01 9.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 132.02 43.01 9.00 0.11 0.01 0.00 132.11 43.01 9.00 with 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 0.24 0.08 0.00 132.24 43.08 9.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 132.02 43.01 9.00 0.08 0.01 0.00 132.08 43.01 9.00 0.12 0.01 0.00 132.12 43.01 9.00 Proposed Action Alternative A 150 0.17 0.05 0.00 132.17 43.05 9.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 132.02 43.01 9.00 0.06 0.01 0.00 132.06 43.01 9.00 0.11 0.01 0.00 132.11 43.01 9.00 

75 0.17 0.04 0.00 132.17 43.04 9.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 132.02 43.01 9.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 132.03 43.01 9.00 0.11 0.01 0.00 132.11 43.01 9.00 

Alternative B 250 0.29 0.10 0.00 132.29 43.10 9.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 132.02 43.01 9.00 0.10 0.02 0.00 132.10 43.02 9.00 0.12 0.02 0.00 132.12 43.02 9.00 

150 0.19 0.06 0.00 132.19 43.06 9.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 132.02 43.01 9.00 0.07 0.01 0.00 132.07 43.01 9.00 0.11 0.01 0.00 132.11 43.01 9.00 

75 0.17 0.04 0.00 132.17 43.04 9.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 132.02 43.01 9.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 132.03 43.01 9.00 0.11 0.01 0.00 132.11 43.01 9.00 

Alternative C 250 0.24 0.08 0.00 132.24 43.08 9.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 132.02 43.01 9.00 0.08 0.01 0.00 132.08 43.01 9.00 0.12 0.01 0.00 132.12 43.01 9.00 

150 0.17 0.05 0.00 132.17 43.05 9.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 132.02 43.01 9.00 0.06 0.01 0.00 132.06 43.01 9.00 0.11 0.01 0.00 132.11 43.01 9.00 

75 0.17 0.04 0.00 132.17 43.04 9.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 132.02 43.01 9.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 132.03 43.01 9.00 0.11 0.01 0.00 132.11 43.01 9.00 

Alternative D 250 

150 Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

75 

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 0.27 0.09 0.00 132.27 43.09 9.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 132.02 43.01 9.00 0.09 0.02 0.00 132.09 43.02 9.00 0.12 0.01 0.00 132.12 43.01 9.00 

150 0.17 0.06 0.00 132.17 43.06 9.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 132.02 43.01 9.00 0.06 0.01 0.00 132.06 43.01 9.00 0.11 0.01 0.00 132.11 43.01 9.00 

75 0.17 0.04 0.00 132.17 43.04 9.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 132.02 43.01 9.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 132.03 43.01 9.00 0.11 0.01 0.00 132.11 43.01 9.00 

Alternative G 250 

150 Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

75 

Preferred 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. Alternative 

1 Ambient Air Quality Standards: 3-hr NAAQS/WAAQS = 1,300 μg/m3; 24-hr NAAQS/WAAQS = 365 μg/m3 (NAAQS) and 260 μg/m3 (WAAQS); Annual NAAQS/WAAQS = 100 μg/m3 80 (NAAQS) and 60 μg/m3 (WAAQS). 2 In μg/m3. 3 Total concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration; annual background SO2 concentration = 9 μg/m3; 8-hr background SO2 concentration = 43 μg/m3; 3-hr background SO2 concentration = 132 μg/m3. 
F-33 

Table F-27 (continued) 

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park Class I 

Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration3 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1,2 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration3 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration3 Alternative or 

Development Phase WDR 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr 3-hr 24-hr Amual 

Washakie Wilderness Area Class I 

Annual 

No Action -- 0.20 0.04 0.01 132.20 43.04 9.01 0.04 0.01 0.00 132.04 43.01 9.00 0.07 0.01 0.00 132.07 43.01 9.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 132.02 43.01 9.00 

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives 0 0.20 0.04 0.01 132.20 43.04 9.01 0.04 0.01 0.00 132.04 43.01 9.00 0.07 0.01 0.00 132.07 43.01 9.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 132.02 43.01 9.00 with 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 0.20 0.04 0.01 132.20 43.04 9.01 0.04 0.01 0.00 132.04 43.01 9.00 0.07 0.01 0.00 132.07 43.01 9.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 132.02 43.01 9.00 Proposed Action Alternative A 150 0.20 0.04 0.01 132.20 43.04 9.01 0.04 0.01 0.00 132.04 43.01 9.00 0.07 0.01 0.00 132.07 43.01 9.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 132.02 43.01 9.00 

75 0.20 0.04 0.01 132.20 43.04 9.01 0.04 0.01 0.00 132.04 43.01 9.00 0.07 0.01 0.00 132.07 43.01 9.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 132.02 43.01 9.00 

Alternative B 250 0.20 0.04 0.01 132.20 43.04 9.01 0.04 0.01 0.00 132.04 43.01 9.00 0.07 0.01 0.00 132.07 43.01 9.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 132.02 43.01 9.00 

150 0.20 0.04 0.01 132.20 43.04 9.01 0.04 0.01 0.00 132.04 43.01 9.00 0.07 0.01 0.00 132.07 43.01 9.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 132.02 43.01 9.00 

75 0.20 0.04 0.01 132.20 43.04 9.01 0.04 0.01 0.00 132.04 43.01 9.00 0.07 0.01 0.00 132.07 43.01 9.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 132.02 43.01 9.00 

Alternative C 250 0.20 0.04 0.01 132.20 43.04 9.01 0.04 0.01 0.00 132.04 43.01 9.00 0.07 0.01 0.00 132.07 43.01 9.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 132.02 43.01 9.00 

150 0.20 0.04 0.01 132.20 43.04 9.01 0.04 0.01 0.00 132.04 43.01 9.00 0.07 0.01 0.00 132.07 43.01 9.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 132.02 43.01 9.00 

75 0.20 0.04 0.01 132.20 43.04 9.01 0.04 0.01 0.00 132.04 43.01 9.00 0.07 0.01 0.00 132.07 43.01 9.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 132.02 43.01 9.00 

Alternative D 250 

150 Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

75 

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 0.20 0.04 0.01 132.20 43.04 9.01 0.04 0.01 0.00 132.04 43.01 9.00 0.07 0.01 0.00 132.07 43.01 9.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 132.02 43.01 9.00 

150 0.20 0.04 0.01 132.20 43.04 9.01 0.04 0.01 0.00 132.04 43.01 9.00 0.07 0.01 0.00 132.07 43.01 9.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 132.02 43.01 9.00 

75 0.20 0.04 0.01 132.20 43.04 9.01 0.04 0.01 0.00 132.04 43.01 9.00 0.07 0.01 0.00 132.07 43.01 9.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 132.02 43.01 9.00 

Alternative G 250 

150 Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

75 

Preferred 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. Alternative 

1 Ambient Air Quality Standards: 3-hr NAAQS/WAAQS = 1,300 μg/m3; 24-hr NAAQS/WAAQS = = 365 μg/m3 (NAAQS) and 260 μg/m3 (WAAQS); Annual NAAQS/WAAQS = 100 μg/m3 80 (NAAQS) and 60 μg/m3 (WAAQS). 2 In μg/m3. 3 Total concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration; annual background SO2 concentration = 9 μg/m3; 8-hr background SO2 concentration = 43 μg/m3; 3-hr background SO2 concentration = 132 μg/m3. 
F-34 

Table F-28 Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Direct Project and Regional Sources Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards1, Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.2 

Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class II Wind River Roadless Area Class II 

Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration3 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration3 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration3 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration3 Alternative or 

Development Phase WDR 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr 24-hr Annual Annual 

No Action -- 0.46 0.018 33.46 16.02 0.13 0.005 33.13 16.00 0.14 0.008 33.14 16.01 0.21 0.009 33.21 16.01 

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives 0 0.91 0.047 33.91 16.05 0.15 0.008 33.15 16.01 0.20 0.015 33.20 16.01 0.23 0.014 33.23 16.01 with 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 1.82 0.081 34.82 16.08 0.20 0.011 33.20 16.01 0.31 0.024 33.31 16.02 0.29 0.021 33.29 16.02 Proposed Action Alternative A 150 1.45 0.067 34.45 16.07 0.17 0.010 33.17 16.01 0.27 0.020 33.27 16.02 0.27 0.018 33.27 16.02 

75 1.16 0.057 34.16 16.06 0.16 0.009 33.16 16.01 0.24 0.017 33.24 16.02 0.25 0.016 33.25 16.02 

Alternative B 250 1.87 0.086 34.87 16.09 0.22 0.012 33.22 16.01 0.30 0.026 33.30 16.03 0.30 0.022 33.30 16.02 

150 1.48 0.071 34.48 16.07 0.18 0.010 33.18 16.01 0.26 0.021 33.26 16.02 0.27 0.019 33.27 16.02 

75 1.16 0.058 34.16 16.06 0.16 0.009 33.16 16.01 0.23 0.018 33.23 16.02 0.25 0.016 33.25 16.02 

Alternative C 250 1.40 0.063 34.40 16.06 0.18 0.010 33.18 16.01 0.23 0.020 33.23 16.02 0.28 0.017 33.28 16.02 

150 1.03 0.050 34.03 16.05 0.17 0.008 33.17 16.01 0.20 0.016 33.20 16.02 0.26 0.015 33.26 16.01 

75 0.75 0.040 33.75 16.04 0.16 0.007 33.16 16.01 0.18 0.013 33.18 16.01 0.24 0.013 33.24 16.01 

Alternative D 250 

150 Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

75 

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 1.82 0.081 34.82 16.08 0.21 0.011 33.21 16.01 0.30 0.024 33.30 16.02 0.29 0.021 33.29 16.02 

150 1.47 0.069 34.47 16.07 0.18 0.010 33.18 16.01 0.27 0.020 33.27 16.02 0.27 0.018 33.27 16.02 

75 1.20 0.059 34.20 16.06 0.16 0.009 33.16 16.01 0.24 0.018 33.24 16.02 0.25 0.016 33.25 16.02 

Alternative G 250 

150 Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

75 

Preferred 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. Alternative 

1 Ambient Air Quality Standards: 24-hr NAAQS/WAAQS = 150 μg/m3; Annual NAAQS/WAAQS = 50 μg/m3. 2 In μg/m3. 3 Total concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration; annual background PM10 concentration = 16 μg/m3; 24-hr background PM10 concentration = 33 μg/m3. 
F-35 

Table F-28 (continued) 

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park Class I 

Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration3 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration3 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration3 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration3 Alternative or 

Development Phase WDR 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr 24-hr Annual 

Washakie Wilderness Area Class I 

Annual 

No Action -- 0.12 0.012 33.12 16.01 0.04 0.005 33.04 16.00 0.05 0.004 33.05 16.00 0.04 0.003 33.04 16.00 

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives 0 0.13 0.013 33.13 16.01 0.05 0.006 33.05 16.01 0.05 0.004 33.05 16.00 0.05 0.004 33.05 16.00 with 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 0.14 0.015 33.14 16.02 0.08 0.007 33.08 16.01 0.06 0.005 33.06 16.00 0.09 0.005 33.09 16.00 Proposed Action Alternative A 150 0.13 0.014 33.13 16.01 0.07 0.006 33.07 16.01 0.06 0.005 33.06 16.00 0.07 0.004 33.07 16.00 

75 0.13 0.014 33.13 16.01 0.06 0.006 33.06 16.01 0.05 0.004 33.05 16.00 0.06 0.004 33.06 16.00 

Alternative B 250 0.15 0.015 33.15 16.02 0.08 0.007 33.08 16.01 0.07 0.005 33.07 16.00 0.10 0.005 33.10 16.01 

150 0.13 0.015 33.13 16.01 0.07 0.006 33.07 16.01 0.06 0.005 33.06 16.00 0.08 0.005 33.08 16.00 

75 0.13 0.014 33.13 16.01 0.06 0.006 33.06 16.01 0.05 0.004 33.05 16.00 0.06 0.004 33.06 16.00 

Alternative C 250 0.14 0.015 33.14 16.01 0.07 0.006 33.07 16.01 0.06 0.005 33.06 16.00 0.08 0.005 33.08 16.00 

150 0.13 0.014 33.13 16.01 0.06 0.006 33.06 16.01 0.05 0.004 33.05 16.00 0.06 0.004 33.06 16.00 

75 0.13 0.013 33.13 16.01 0.05 0.006 33.05 16.01 0.05 0.004 33.05 16.00 0.05 0.004 33.05 16.00 

Alternative D 250 

150 Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

75 

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 0.14 0.015 33.14 16.02 0.08 0.007 33.08 16.01 0.06 0.005 33.06 16.00 0.09 0.005 33.09 16.00 

150 0.13 0.014 33.13 16.01 0.07 0.006 33.07 16.01 0.06 0.005 33.06 16.00 0.08 0.004 33.08 16.00 

75 0.13 0.014 33.13 16.01 0.06 0.006 33.06 16.01 0.05 0.004 33.05 16.00 0.06 0.004 33.06 16.00 

Alternative G 250 

150 Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

75 

Preferred 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. Alternative 

1 Ambient Air Quality Standards: 24-hr NAAQS/WAAQS = 150 μg/m3; Annual NAAQS/WAAQS = 50 μg/m3. 2 In μg/m3. 3 Total concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration; annual background PM10 concentration = 16 μg/m3; 24-hr background PM10 concentration = 33 μg/m3. 
F-36 

Table F-29 Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentrations at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Direct Project and Regional Sources Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards1, Jonah Infill Drilling 

Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.2 

Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class II Wind River Roadless Area Class II 

Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration3 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration3 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration3 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration3 Alternative or 

Development Phase WDR 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr 24-hr Annual Annual 

No Action -- 0.43 0.019 13.43 5.02 0.12 0.006 13.12 5.01 0.13 0.009 13.13 5.01 0.19 0.010 13.19 5.01 

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives 0 0.91 0.048 13.91 5.05 0.14 0.008 13.14 5.01 0.20 0.016 13.20 5.02 0.22 0.015 13.22 5.02 with 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 1.82 0.081 14.82 5.08 0.20 0.012 13.20 5.01 0.31 0.026 13.31 5.03 0.28 0.022 13.28 5.02 Proposed Action 

Alternative A 150 1.45 0.068 14.45 5.07 0.17 0.011 13.17 5.01 0.27 0.022 13.27 5.02 0.26 0.019 13.26 5.02 

75 1.15 0.058 14.15 5.06 0.16 0.009 13.16 5.01 0.23 0.019 13.23 5.02 0.24 0.017 13.24 5.02 

Alternative B 250 1.87 0.087 14.87 5.09 0.22 0.013 13.22 5.01 0.30 0.028 13.30 5.03 0.29 0.023 13.29 5.02 

150 1.48 0.071 14.48 5.07 0.18 0.011 13.18 5.01 0.26 0.023 13.26 5.02 0.26 0.020 13.26 5.02 

75 1.15 0.059 14.15 5.06 0.16 0.010 13.16 5.01 0.23 0.020 13.23 5.02 0.24 0.017 13.24 5.02 

Alternative C 250 1.40 0.064 14.40 5.06 0.18 0.011 13.18 5.01 0.23 0.023 13.23 5.02 0.27 0.018 13.27 5.02 

150 1.03 0.051 14.03 5.05 0.16 0.009 13.16 5.01 0.19 0.019 13.19 5.02 0.25 0.016 13.25 5.02 

75 0.75 0.041 13.75 5.04 0.15 0.008 13.15 5.01 0.17 0.015 13.17 5.02 0.23 0.014 13.23 5.01 

Alternative D 250 

150 Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

75 

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 1.81 0.082 14.81 5.08 0.21 0.012 13.21 5.01 0.30 0.027 13.30 5.03 0.29 0.022 13.29 5.02 

150 1.47 0.070 14.47 5.07 0.17 0.011 13.17 5.01 0.27 0.023 13.27 5.02 0.26 0.020 13.26 5.02 

75 1.19 0.060 14.19 5.06 0.16 0.010 13.16 5.01 0.24 0.020 13.24 5.02 0.24 0.018 13.24 5.02 

Alternative G 250 

150 Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

75 

Preferred 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. Alternative 

1 Ambient Air Quality Standards: 24-hr NAAQS/WAAQS = 65 μg/m3; Annual NAAQS/WAAQS = 15 μg/m3; the WAAQS are not yet enforced in Wyoming per WAQSR Chapter 2, Section 2(b)(v). 2 In μg/m3. 3 Total concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration; annual background PM2.5 concentration = 5 μg/m3; 24-hr background PM2.5 concentration = 13 μg/m3. 
F-37 

Table F-29 (continued) 

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park Class I 

Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration3 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration3 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration3 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration3 Alternative or 

Development Phase WDR 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr 24-hr Annual 

Washakie Wilderness Area Class I 

Annual 

No Action -- 0.11 0.013 13.11 5.01 0.04 0.005 13.04 5.01 0.04 0.004 13.04 5.00 0.04 0.004 13.04 5.00 

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives 0 0.13 0.013 33.13 16.01 0.05 0.006 33.05 16.01 0.05 0.004 33.05 16.00 0.05 0.004 33.05 16.00 with 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 0.14 0.015 13.14 5.02 0.08 0.007 13.08 5.01 0.06 0.005 13.06 5.01 0.09 0.005 13.09 5.01 Proposed Action Alternative A 150 0.13 0.015 13.13 5.01 0.06 0.006 13.06 5.01 0.06 0.005 13.06 5.00 0.07 0.005 13.07 5.00 

75 0.12 0.014 13.12 5.01 0.06 0.006 13.06 5.01 0.05 0.005 13.05 5.00 0.06 0.005 13.06 5.00 

Alternative B 250 0.15 0.016 13.15 5.02 0.08 0.007 13.08 5.01 0.07 0.005 13.07 5.01 0.10 0.006 13.10 5.01 

150 0.13 0.015 13.13 5.02 0.07 0.007 13.07 5.01 0.06 0.005 13.06 5.00 0.08 0.005 13.08 5.00 

75 0.12 0.014 13.12 5.01 0.06 0.006 13.06 5.01 0.05 0.005 13.05 5.00 0.06 0.005 13.06 5.00 

Alternative C 250 0.13 0.015 13.13 5.02 0.07 0.007 13.07 5.01 0.06 0.005 13.06 5.00 0.08 0.005 13.08 5.01 

150 0.12 0.014 13.12 5.01 0.06 0.006 13.06 5.01 0.05 0.005 13.05 5.00 0.06 0.005 13.06 5.00 

75 0.12 0.014 13.12 5.01 0.05 0.006 13.05 5.01 0.05 0.004 13.05 5.00 0.05 0.004 13.05 5.00 

Alternative D 250 

150 Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

75 

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 0.14 0.016 13.14 5.02 0.08 0.007 13.08 5.01 0.06 0.005 13.06 5.01 0.09 0.005 13.09 5.01 

150 0.13 0.015 13.13 5.01 0.07 0.007 13.07 5.01 0.06 0.005 13.06 5.00 0.08 0.005 13.08 5.00 

75 0.12 0.014 13.12 5.01 0.06 0.006 13.06 5.01 0.05 0.005 13.05 5.00 0.06 0.005 13.06 5.00 

Alternative G 250 

150 Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

75 

Preferred 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. Alternative 

1 Ambient Air Quality Standards: 24-hr NAAQS/WAAQS = 65 μg/m3; Annual NAAQS/WAAQS = 15 μg/m3; the WAAQS are not yet enforced in Wyoming per WAQSR Chapter 2, Section 2(b)(v). 2 In μg/m3. 3 Total concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration; annual background PM2.5 concentration = 5 μg/m3; 24-hr background PM2.5 concentration = 13 μg/m3. 
F-38 

Table F-30 Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentrations at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas Compared to Applicable PSD Increments, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.1 

Bridger Wilderness 

Class I 

Fitzpatrick Wilderness 

Class I 

Popo Agie Wilderness 

Class II 

Wind River Roadless 

Area Class II 

Grand Teton National 

Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I 

Washakie Wilderness 

Area Class I 

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact 

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact 

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact 

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact 

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact 

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact 

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact 

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact Alternative or 

Development Phase WDR Annual 

PSD 

Increment Annual 

PSD 

Increment Annual 

PSD 

Increment Annual 

PSD 

Increment Annual 

PSD 

Increment Annual 

PSD 

Increment Annual Annual 

PSD 

Increment 

Yellowstone National 

Park Class I 

PSD 

Increment 

No Action2 -- 0.119 2.5 0.011 2.5 0.027 25 0.024 25 0.029 2.5 0.007 2.5 0.003 2.5 0.009 2.5 

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives 0 0.143 2.5 0.012 2.5 0.036 25 0.030 25 0.029 2.5 0.007 2.5 0.003 2.5 0.010 2.5 with 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 0.245 2.5 0.017 2.5 0.070 25 0.051 25 0.030 2.5 0.007 2.5 0.003 2.5 0.010 2.5 Proposed Action Alternative A 150 0.203 2.5 0.015 2.5 0.057 25 0.043 25 0.030 2.5 0.007 2.5 0.003 2.5 0.010 2.5 

75 0.170 2.5 0.014 2.5 0.047 25 0.036 25 0.029 2.5 0.007 2.5 0.003 2.5 0.010 2.5 

Alternative B 250 0.265 2.5 0.017 2.5 0.076 25 0.055 25 0.030 2.5 0.007 2.5 0.003 2.5 0.010 2.5 

150 0.216 2.5 0.016 2.5 0.060 25 0.045 25 0.030 2.5 0.007 2.5 0.003 2.5 0.010 2.5 

75 0.175 2.5 0.014 2.5 0.049 25 0.037 25 0.030 2.5 0.007 2.5 0.003 2.5 0.010 2.5 

Alternative C 250 0.233 2.5 0.016 2.5 0.067 25 0.048 25 0.030 2.5 0.007 2.5 0.003 2.5 0.010 2.5 

150 0.192 2.5 0.015 2.5 0.054 25 0.041 25 0.030 2.5 0.007 2.5 0.003 2.5 0.010 2.5 

75 0.159 2.5 0.013 2.5 0.044 25 0.034 25 0.029 2.5 0.007 2.5 0.003 2.5 0.010 2.5 

Alternative D 250 

150 Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

75 

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 0.254 2.5 0.017 2.5 0.072 25 0.052 25 0.030 2.5 0.007 2.5 0.003 2.5 0.010 2.5 

150 0.209 2.5 0.015 2.5 0.058 25 0.044 25 0.030 2.5 0.007 2.5 0.003 2.5 0.010 2.5 

75 0.176 2.5 0.014 2.5 0.049 25 0.038 25 0.030 2.5 0.007 2.5 0.003 2.5 0.010 2.5 

Alternative G 250 

150 Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

75 

Preferred 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. Alternative 

In μg/m3. Annual background NOX concentration = 3.4 μg/m3. 1 
F-39 

Table F-31 Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentrations at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas Compared to Applicable PSD Increments, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.1 

Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class II 

Direct Modeled Impact PSD Increment Direct Modeled Impact PSD Increment Direct Modeled Impact PSD Increment Direct Modeled Impact PSD Increment Alternative or 

Development Phase WDR 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr 3-hr 24-hr Annual 

Wind River Roadless Area Class II 

Annual 

No Action -- 0.16 0.04 0.00 25 5 2 0.02 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.02 0.01 0.00 512 91 20 0.11 0.01 0.00 512 91 20 

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives 0 0.16 0.04 0.00 25 5 2 0.02 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.02 0.01 0.00 512 91 20 0.11 0.01 0.00 512 91 20 with 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 0.24 0.08 0.00 25 5 2 0.02 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.08 0.01 0.00 512 91 20 0.12 0.01 0.00 512 91 20 Proposed Action Alternative A 150 0.17 0.05 0.00 25 5 2 0.02 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.06 0.01 0.00 512 91 20 0.11 0.01 0.00 512 91 20 

75 0.17 0.04 0.00 25 5 2 0.02 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.03 0.01 0.00 512 91 20 0.11 0.01 0.00 512 91 20 

Alternative B 250 0.29 0.10 0.00 25 5 2 0.02 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.10 0.02 0.00 512 91 20 0.12 0.02 0.00 512 91 20 

150 0.19 0.06 0.00 25 5 2 0.02 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.07 0.01 0.00 512 91 20 0.11 0.01 0.00 512 91 20 

75 0.17 0.04 0.00 25 5 2 0.02 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.03 0.01 0.00 512 91 20 0.11 0.01 0.00 512 91 20 

Alternative C 250 0.24 0.08 0.00 25 5 2 0.02 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.08 0.01 0.00 512 91 20 0.12 0.01 0.00 512 91 20 

150 0.17 0.05 0.00 25 5 2 0.02 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.06 0.01 0.00 512 91 20 0.11 0.01 0.00 512 91 20 

75 0.17 0.04 0.00 25 5 2 0.02 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.03 0.01 0.00 512 91 20 0.11 0.01 0.00 512 91 20 

Alternative D 250 

150 Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

75 

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 0.27 0.09 0.00 25 5 2 0.02 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.09 0.02 0.00 512 91 20 0.12 0.01 0.00 512 91 20 

150 0.17 0.06 0.00 25 5 2 0.02 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.06 0.01 0.00 512 91 20 0.11 0.01 0.00 512 91 20 

75 0.17 0.04 0.00 25 5 2 0.02 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.03 0.01 0.00 512 91 20 0.11 0.01 0.00 512 91 20 

Alternative G 250 

150 Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

75 

Preferred 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. Alternative 

In μg/m3. Annual background SO2 concentration = 9 μg/m3; 8-hr background SO2 concentration = 43 μg/m3; 3-hr background SO2 concentration = 132 μg/m3. 1 
F-40 

Table F-31 (continued) 

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park Class I 

Direct Modeled Impact PSD Increment Direct Modeled Impact PSD Increment Direct Modeled Impact PSD Increment Direct Modeled Impact PSD Increment Alternative or 

Development Phase WDR 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr 3-hr 24-hr Annual 

Washakie Wilderness Area Class I 

Annual 

No Action -- 0.20 0.04 0.01 25 5 2 0.04 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.07 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.02 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives 0 0.20 0.04 0.01 25 5 2 0.04 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.07 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.02 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 with 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 0.20 0.04 0.01 25 5 2 0.04 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.07 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.02 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 Proposed Action Alternative A 150 0.20 0.04 0.01 25 5 2 0.04 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.07 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.02 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 

75 0.20 0.04 0.01 25 5 2 0.04 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.07 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.02 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 

Alternative B 250 0.20 0.04 0.01 25 5 2 0.04 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.07 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.02 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 

150 0.20 0.04 0.01 25 5 2 0.04 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.07 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.02 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 

75 0.20 0.04 0.01 25 5 2 0.04 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.07 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.02 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 

Alternative C 250 0.20 0.04 0.01 25 5 2 0.04 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.07 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.02 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 

150 0.20 0.04 0.01 25 5 2 0.04 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.07 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.02 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 

75 0.20 0.04 0.01 25 5 2 0.04 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.07 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.02 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 

Alternative D 250 

150 Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

75 

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 0.20 0.04 0.01 25 5 2 0.04 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.07 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.02 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 

150 0.20 0.04 0.01 25 5 2 0.04 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.07 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.02 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 

75 0.20 0.04 0.01 25 5 2 0.04 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.07 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 0.02 0.01 0.00 25 5 2 

Alternative G 250 

150 Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

75 

Preferred 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. Alternative 

In μg/m3. Annual background SO2 concentration = 9 μg/m3; 8-hr background SO2 concentration = 43 μg/m3; 3-hr background SO2 concentration = 132 μg/m3. 1 
F-41 

Table F-32 Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentrations at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas Compared to Applicable PSD Increments, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.1 

Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class II 

Direct Modeled Impact PSD Increment Direct Modeled Impact PSD Increment Direct Modeled Impact PSD Increment Direct Modeled Impact PSD Increment Alternative or 

Development Phase WDR 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr 24-hr Annual 

Wind River Roadless Area Class II 

Annual 

No Action -- 0.46 0.018 8 4 0.13 0.005 8 4 0.14 0.008 30 17 0.21 0.009 30 17 

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives 0 0.91 0.047 8 4 0.15 0.008 8 4 0.20 0.015 30 17 0.23 0.014 30 17 with 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 1.82 0.081 8 4 0.20 0.011 8 4 0.31 0.024 30 17 0.29 0.021 30 17 Proposed Action Alternative A 150 1.45 0.067 8 4 0.17 0.010 8 4 0.27 0.020 30 17 0.27 0.018 30 17 

75 1.16 0.057 8 4 0.16 0.009 8 4 0.24 0.017 30 17 0.25 0.016 30 17 

Alternative B 250 1.87 0.086 8 4 0.22 0.012 8 4 0.30 0.026 30 17 0.30 0.022 30 17 

150 1.48 0.071 8 4 0.18 0.010 8 4 0.26 0.021 30 17 0.27 0.019 30 17 

75 1.16 0.058 8 4 0.16 0.009 8 4 0.23 0.018 30 17 0.25 0.016 30 17 

Alternative C 250 1.40 0.063 8 4 0.18 0.010 8 4 0.23 0.020 30 17 0.28 0.017 30 17 

150 1.03 0.050 8 4 0.17 0.008 8 4 0.20 0.016 30 17 0.26 0.015 30 17 

75 0.75 0.040 8 4 0.16 0.007 8 4 0.18 0.013 30 17 0.24 0.013 30 17 

Alternative D 250 

150 Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

75 

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 1.82 0.081 8 4 0.21 0.011 8 4 0.30 0.024 30 17 0.29 0.021 30 17 

150 1.47 0.069 8 4 0.18 0.010 8 4 0.27 0.020 30 17 0.27 0.018 30 17 

75 1.20 0.059 8 4 0.16 0.009 8 4 0.24 0.018 30 17 0.25 0.016 30 17 

Alternative G 250 

150 Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

75 

Preferred 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. Alternative 

In μg/m3. Annual background PM10 concentration = 16 μg/m3; 24-hr background PM10 concentration = 33 μg/m3. 1 
F-42 

Table F-32 (continued) 

Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class II 

Direct Modeled Impact PSD Increment Direct Modeled Impact PSD Increment Direct Modeled Impact PSD Increment Direct Modeled Impact PSD Increment Alternative or 

Development Phase WDR 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr 24-hr Annual 

Wind River Roadless Area Class II 

Annual 

No Action -- 0.12 0.012 8 4 0.04 0.005 8 4 0.05 0.004 8 4 0.04 0.003 8 4 

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives 0 0.13 0.013 8 4 0.05 0.006 8 4 0.05 0.004 8 4 0.05 0.004 8 4 with 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 0.14 0.015 8 4 0.08 0.007 8 4 0.06 0.005 8 4 0.09 0.005 8 4 Proposed Action Alternative A 150 0.13 0.014 8 4 0.07 0.006 8 4 0.06 0.005 8 4 0.07 0.004 8 4 

75 0.13 0.014 8 4 0.06 0.006 8 4 0.05 0.004 8 4 0.06 0.004 8 4 

Alternative B 250 0.15 0.015 8 4 0.08 0.007 8 4 0.07 0.005 8 4 0.10 0.005 8 4 

150 0.13 0.015 8 4 0.07 0.006 8 4 0.06 0.005 8 4 0.08 0.005 8 4 

75 0.13 0.014 8 4 0.06 0.006 8 4 0.05 0.004 8 4 0.06 0.004 8 4 

Alternative C 250 0.14 0.015 8 4 0.07 0.006 8 4 0.06 0.005 8 4 0.08 0.005 8 4 

150 0.13 0.014 8 4 0.06 0.006 8 4 0.05 0.004 8 4 0.06 0.004 8 4 

75 0.13 0.013 8 4 0.05 0.006 8 4 0.05 0.004 8 4 0.05 0.004 8 4 

Alternative D 250 

150 Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

75 

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 0.14 0.015 8 4 0.08 0.007 8 4 0.06 0.005 8 4 0.09 0.005 8 4 

150 0.13 0.014 8 4 0.07 0.006 8 4 0.06 0.005 8 4 0.08 0.004 8 4 

75 0.13 0.014 8 4 0.06 0.006 8 4 0.05 0.004 8 4 0.06 0.004 8 4 

Alternative G 250 

150 Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

75 

Preferred 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. Alternative 

In μg/m3. Annual background PM10 concentration = 16 μg/m3; 24-hr background PM10 concentration = 33 μg/m3. 1 
F-43 

Table F-33 Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Direct Project and Regional Sources Using FLAG Background Data, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Bridger Wilderness 

Class I 

Fitzpatrick Wilderness 

Class I 

Popo Agie Wilderness 

Class II 

Wind River Roadless 

Area Class II 

Grand Teton National 

Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I 

Washakie Wilderness 

Area Class I 

Alternative or Development Phase WDR 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Yellowstone National 

Park Class I 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

No Action -- 1.69 3 0.42 0 0.50 0 0.73 0 0.33 0 0.14 0 0.15 0 0.17 0 

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives 0 1.98 4 0.48 0 0.57 0 0.82 0 0.34 0 0.16 0 0.17 0 0.20 0 with 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 3.65 11 0.76 0 0.85 0 1.08 1 0.50 0 0.23 0 0.25 0 0.34 0 Proposed Action Alternative A 150 2.89 9 0.62 0 0.74 0 0.98 0 0.41 0 0.20 0 0.21 0 0.28 0 

75 2.33 4 0.52 0 0.66 0 0.90 0 0.36 0 0.18 0 0.18 0 0.24 0 

Alternative B 250 3.81 15 0.82 0 0.90 0 1.12 2 0.54 0 0.24 0 0.27 0 0.37 0 

150 2.99 11 0.65 0 0.77 0 1.00 1 0.43 0 0.21 0 0.22 0 0.30 0 

75 2.38 5 0.53 0 0.68 0 0.90 0 0.36 0 0.18 0 0.18 0 0.25 0 

Alternative C 250 3.27 11 0.71 0 0.83 0 1.06 1 0.47 0 0.22 0 0.24 0 0.32 0 

150 2.56 8 0.57 0 0.72 0 0.95 0 0.38 0 0.20 0 0.19 0 0.27 0 

75 2.22 4 0.51 0 0.64 0 0.87 0 0.36 0 0.17 0 0.17 0 0.23 0 

Alternative D 250 

150 Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

75 

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 3.73 14 0.78 0 0.87 0 1.11 1 0.51 0 0.24 0 0.26 0 0.35 0 

150 2.97 10 0.63 0 0.76 0 0.99 0 0.42 0 0.21 0 0.21 0 0.29 0 

75 2.39 6 0.53 0 0.68 0 0.91 0 0.36 0 0.18 0 0.18 0 0.25 0 

Alternative G 250 

150 Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

75 

Preferred 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. Alternative 

In deciviews (dv). 1 
--

F-44 Table F-34 Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Direct Project and Regional Sources Using IMPROVE Background Data, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Bridger Wilderness 

Class I 

Fitzpatrick Wilderness 

Class I 

Popo Agie Wilderness 

Class II 

Wind River Roadless 

Area Class II 

Grand Teton National 

Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I 

Washakie Wilderness 

Area Class I 

Alternative or Development Phase WDR 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

Yellowstone National 

Park Class I 

Number of 

Days

>1.0 dv 

No Action 1.94 3 0.49 0 0.58 0 0.81 0 0.33 0 0.14 0 0.16 0 0.17 0 

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives 0 2.26 4 0.56 0 0.66 0 0.92 0 0.35 0 0.16 0 0.17 0 0.20 0 with 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 4.01 17 0.87 0 0.99 0 1.21 2 0.50 0 0.24 0 0.25 0 0.34 0 Proposed Action Alternative A 150 3.19 9 0.71 0 0.86 0 1.09 2 0.41 0 0.21 0 0.21 0 0.29 0 

75 2.65 7 0.61 0 0.77 0 1.00 0 0.36 0 0.18 0 0.18 0 0.24 0 

Alternative B 250 4.18 19 0.95 0 1.04 2 1.25 2 0.54 0 0.25 0 0.27 0 0.37 0 

150 3.30 9 0.76 0 0.90 0 1.11 2 0.44 0 0.21 0 0.22 0 0.30 0 

75 2.71 7 0.61 0 0.78 0 1.01 1 0.36 0 0.18 0 0.18 0 0.25 0 

Alternative C 250 3.60 13 0.82 0 0.96 0 1.18 2 0.47 0 0.23 0 0.24 0 0.32 0 

150 2.92 7 0.66 0 0.83 0 1.06 1 0.38 0 0.20 0 0.20 0 0.27 0 

75 2.53 4 0.59 0 0.74 0 0.97 0 0.36 0 0.17 0 0.17 0 0.23 0 

Alternative D 250 

150 Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

75 

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 4.10 17 0.90 0 1.00 1 1.23 2 0.52 0 0.24 0 0.26 0 0.36 0 

150 3.27 9 0.73 0 0.88 0 1.11 2 0.43 0 0.21 0 0.21 0 0.29 0 

75 2.72 7 0.62 0 0.78 0 1.01 1 0.37 0 0.19 0 0.18 0 0.25 0 

Alternative G 250 

150 Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

75 

Preferred 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. Alternative 

In deciviews (dv). 1 
F-45 

Table F-35 Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative Change in ANC at Acid Sensitive Lakes from Direct Project and Regional Sources, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Black Joe Lake - Bridger

Wilderness Class I 

Deep Lake - Bridger Wilderness

Class I 

Hobbs Lake - Bridger Wilderness

Class I 

Lazy Boy Lake - Bridger 

Wilderness Class I 

Upper Frozen Lake - Bridger

Wilderness Class I 

Lower Saddlebag - Popo Agie

Wilderness Class II 

Ross Lake - Fitzpatrick

Wilderness Class I 

Alternative or Development Phase WDR ANC Change1 

Percent ANC 

Change ANC Change1 

Percent ANC 

Change ANC Change1 

Percent ANC 

Change ANC Change1 

Percent ANC 

Change ANC Change1 

Percent ANC 

Change ANC Change1 

Percent ANC 

Change ANC Change1 

Percent ANC 

Change 

Background ANC -- 67.0 -- 59.9 -- 69.9 -- 18.8 -- 5.0 -- 55.5 -- 53.5 --Level of Acceptable -- 6.70 -- 5.99 -- 6.99 -- 1.00 -- 1.00 -- 5.55 -- 5.35 --Change (μeq/L) 

No Action -- 0.085 0.13 0.087 0.14 0.042 0.06 0.025 0.13 0.091 1.83 0.096 0.17 0.026 0.05 

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives with 0 0.107 0.16 0.111 0.18 0.046 0.07 0.026 0.14 0.120 2.39 0.122 0.22 0.027 0.05 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 0.185 0.28 0.196 0.33 0.062 0.09 0.032 0.17 0.227 4.53 0.220 0.40 0.032 0.06 Proposed Action Alternative A 150 0.156 0.23 0.164 0.27 0.056 0.08 0.030 0.16 0.187 3.73 0.183 0.33 0.030 0.06 

75 0.132 0.20 0.137 0.23 0.051 0.07 0.028 0.15 0.153 3.06 0.154 0.28 0.029 0.05 

Alternative B 250 0.199 0.30 0.211 0.35 0.065 0.09 0.032 0.17 0.246 4.92 0.237 0.43 0.033 0.06 

150 0.164 0.24 0.173 0.29 0.057 0.08 0.030 0.16 0.198 3.97 0.193 0.35 0.031 0.06 

75 0.137 0.20 0.142 0.24 0.051 0.07 0.028 0.15 0.159 3.17 0.160 0.29 0.029 0.05 

Alternative C 250 0.177 0.26 0.186 0.31 0.061 0.09 0.031 0.17 0.215 4.31 0.212 0.38 0.032 0.06 

150 0.147 0.22 0.154 0.26 0.054 0.08 0.029 0.16 0.175 3.50 0.175 0.31 0.030 0.06 

75 0.124 0.18 0.128 0.21 0.049 0.07 0.028 0.15 0.142 2.84 0.146 0.26 0.028 0.05 

Alternative D 250 

150 Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

75 

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 0.190 0.28 0.202 0.34 0.063 0.09 0.032 0.17 0.234 4.67 0.226 0.41 0.033 0.06 

150 0.159 0.24 0.168 0.28 0.057 0.08 0.030 0.16 0.192 3.84 0.188 0.34 0.031 0.06 

75 0.137 0.20 0.142 0.24 0.052 0.07 0.028 0.15 0.160 3.20 0.160 0.29 0.029 0.05 

Alternative G 250 

150 Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

75 

Preferred 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. Alternative 

In μeq/L. 1 
F-46 

Table F-36 Summary of Modeled Cumulative Sulfur (S) Deposition Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Direct Project and Regional Sources, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.1 

Alternative or Bridger Wilderness Fitzpatrick Wilderness Popo Agie Wilderness Class Wind River Roadless Area Grand Teton National Park Teton Wilderness Class Yellowstone National Park Washakie Wilderness Area Development Phase WDR Class I Class I II Class II Class I I Class I Class I 

No Action -- -0.001 -0.001 -0.003 -0.001 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.000 

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives 0 -0.001 -0.001 -0.003 -0.001 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.000 with 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 -0.001 -0.001 -0.002 -0.001 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.000 Proposed Action Alternative A 150 -0.001 -0.001 -0.002 -0.001 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.000 75 

-0.001 -0.001 -0.002 -0.001 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.000 

Alternative B 250 -0.001 -0.001 -0.002 -0.001 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.000 150 

-0.001 -0.001 -0.002 -0.001 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.000 

75 

-0.001 -0.001 -0.002 -0.001 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.000 

Alternative C 250 -0.001 -0.001 -0.002 -0.001 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.000 150 

-0.001 -0.001 -0.002 -0.001 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.000 

75 

-0.001 -0.001 -0.002 -0.001 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.000 

Alternative D 250 

150 Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

Alternative E 75 

250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

Alternative F 75 

250 -0.001 -0.001 -0.002 -0.001 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.000 

150 

-0.001 -0.001 -0.002 -0.001 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.000 

75 

-0.001 -0.001 -0.002 -0.001 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.000 

Alternative G 250 

150 Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

Preferred 75 

250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. 

Alternative 

In kg/ha-yr. Sulfur deposition analysis level of concern for cumulative impacts = 5.0 kg/ha-hr. 1 
F-47 

Table F-37 Summary of Modeled Cumulative Far-field Nitrogen Deposition Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Direct Project and Regional Sources, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 

2005.1 

Alternative or Bridger Wilderness Fitzpatrick Wilderness Popo Agie Wilderness Class Wind River Roadless Area Grand Teton National Park Teton Wilderness Class Yellowstone National Park Washakie Wilderness Area Development Phase WDR Class I Class I II Class II Class I I Class I Class I 

No Action -- 0.030 0.005 0.012 0.011 0.009 0.003 0.002 0.003 

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives 0 0.035 0.006 0.016 0.013 0.009 0.003 0.002 0.004 with 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 0.057 0.008 0.029 0.021 0.010 0.004 0.003 0.004 Proposed Action Alternative A 150 0.048 0.007 0.024 0.018 0.010 0.003 0.003 0.004 75 

0.041 0.006 0.020 0.015 0.010 0.003 0.002 0.004 

Alternative B 250 0.061 0.008 0.031 0.022 0.011 0.004 0.003 0.004 150 

0.051 0.007 0.025 0.019 0.010 0.004 0.003 0.004 

75 

0.042 0.007 0.021 0.016 0.010 0.003 0.002 0.004 

Alternative C 250 0.055 0.008 0.028 0.020 0.010 0.003 0.003 0.004 150 

0.046 0.007 0.023 0.017 0.010 0.003 0.003 0.004 

75 

0.039 0.006 0.019 0.014 0.010 0.003 0.002 0.004 

Alternative D 250 

150 Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

Alternative E 75 

250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

Alternative F 75 

250 0.059 0.008 0.030 0.021 0.010 0.004 0.003 0.004 

150 

0.049 0.007 0.025 0.018 0.010 0.003 0.003 0.004 

75 

0.042 0.007 0.021 0.016 0.010 0.003 0.002 0.004 

Alternative G 250 

150 Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

Preferred 75 

250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. 

Alternative 

In kg/ha-yr. Nitrogen deposition analysis level of concern for cumulative impacts = 3.0 kg/ha-hr. 1 
F-48 

Table F-38 Summary of Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Communities from Direct Project and Regional Sources Using FLAG Background Data, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Big Piney Big Sandy Boulder Bronx Cora Daniel Farson Labarge Pinedale 

Alternative or Development Phase WDR 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days >

1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days >

1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days >

1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days >

1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days >

1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days >

1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days >

1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days >

1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days >

1.0 dv 

Merna 

Number of 

Days >

1.0 dv 

No Action -- 1.91 5 1.27 1 2.56 4 0.66 0 0.74 0 0.68 0 1.33 3 1.62 6 0.88 0 1.55 2 

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives with 0 1.98 7 1.64 4 2.67 5 0.69 0 0.81 0 0.79 0 1.47 6 1.79 6 0.91 0 1.69 4 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 2.29 16 3.29 31 3.26 19 1.56 1 2.92 6 2.34 6 2.49 11 2.54 9 1.00 0 3.91 8 Proposed Action Alternative A 150 2.09 13 2.60 20 2.89 11 1.15 1 2.18 3 1.74 2 1.99 10 2.27 6 0.96 0 2.98 8 

75 2.04 10 2.06 10 2.78 8 0.80 0 1.49 1 1.20 1 1.73 10 2.04 6 0.94 0 2.07 5 

Alternative B 250 2.41 20 3.64 34 3.48 23 1.74 1 3.29 7 2.64 10 2.68 12 2.66 12 1.06 3 4.44 9 

150 2.10 13 2.84 23 2.91 13 1.25 1 2.40 3 1.92 3 2.10 10 2.34 6 0.97 0 3.32 8 

75 2.05 10 2.20 13 2.79 9 0.82 0 1.57 1 1.26 1 1.78 10 2.07 6 0.94 0 2.23 5 

Alternative C 250 2.24 15 3.04 23 3.11 16 1.40 1 2.65 5 2.10 4 2.36 10 2.50 9 0.99 0 3.52 8 

150 2.08 12 2.34 15 2.84 10 0.98 0 1.89 1 1.49 1 1.86 10 2.22 6 0.96 0 2.55 6 

75 2.03 8 1.78 8 2.74 6 0.72 0 1.18 1 0.93 0 1.62 9 1.99 6 0.93 0 1.79 4 

Alternative D 250 150 

Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

75 

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 2.37 18 3.41 32 3.36 21 1.63 1 3.06 7 2.45 8 2.59 11 2.60 10 1.00 2 4.10 9 

150 2.10 13 2.72 23 2.90 12 1.21 1 2.30 3 1.84 3 2.05 10 2.30 6 0.97 0 3.16 8 

75 2.05 10 2.19 13 2.79 9 0.86 0 1.63 1 1.31 1 1.78 10 2.08 6 0.94 0 2.29 5 

Alternative G 250 150 

Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

75 

Preferred Alternative 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. 

In deciviews (dv). 1 
F-49 

Table F-39 Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Communities from Direct Project and Regional Sources Using IMPROVE Background Data, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 

Wyoming, 2005. 

Big Piney Big Sandy Boulder Bronx Cora Daniel Farson Labarge Pinedale 

Alternative or Development Phase WDR 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days >

1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days >

1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days >

1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days >

1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days >

1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days >

1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days >

1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days >

1.0 dv 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number 

of Days > 

1.0 dv 

Merna 

Maximum 

Visibility

Impact1 

Number of 

Days >

1.0 dv 

No Action -- 2.18 7 1.45 2 2.92 4 0.74 0 0.85 0 0.79 0 1.48 3 1.86 6 0.98 0 1.78 2 

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives with 0 2.26 11 1.88 9 3.04 5 0.77 0 0.93 0 0.89 0 1.69 8 2.05 6 1.01 1 1.94 5 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 2.62 20 3.62 34 3.70 21 1.79 1 3.32 8 2.67 11 2.75 12 2.90 12 1.13 5 4.41 10 Proposed Action Alternative A 150 2.39 15 2.88 24 3.28 13 1.32 1 2.49 5 1.99 6 2.26 10 2.59 9 1.07 1 3.38 8 

75 2.33 13 2.28 14 3.17 9 0.92 0 1.71 3 1.38 1 1.98 10 2.33 6 1.05 1 2.37 8 

Alternative B 250 2.75 22 4.00 36 3.94 21 1.99 4 3.74 10 3.01 14 2.96 13 3.03 12 1.23 6 5.00 15 

150 2.40 17 3.13 28 3.31 16 1.44 1 2.74 6 2.19 7 2.36 10 2.67 9 1.08 2 3.76 8 

75 2.34 14 2.43 16 3.17 9 0.94 0 1.80 3 1.44 2 2.04 10 2.37 6 1.05 1 2.55 8 

Alternative C 250 2.55 18 3.35 30 3.54 18 1.60 1 3.01 7 2.41 9 2.61 11 2.85 11 1.10 4 3.99 8 

150 2.38 14 2.58 18 3.23 10 1.13 1 2.16 5 1.71 4 2.13 10 2.54 7 1.07 1 2.91 8 

75 2.32 13 1.97 9 3.12 7 0.80 0 1.36 1 1.08 1 1.85 10 2.28 6 1.04 1 2.05 5 

Alternative D 250 150 

Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C. 

75 

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 2.70 20 3.75 34 3.80 21 1.87 2 3.48 8 2.80 13 2.86 13 2.96 12 1.16 5 4.63 11 

150 2.40 16 3.00 25 3.30 14 1.39 1 2.63 6 2.11 6 2.31 10 2.63 10 1.08 1 3.59 8 

75 2.34 14 2.43 16 3.18 9 0.99 0 1.87 3 1.50 2 2.04 10 2.38 6 1.05 1 2.62 8 

Alternative G 250 150 

Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F. 

75 

Preferred Alternative 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G. 

In deciviews (dv). 1 
F-50 

Table F-40 Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative In-field Pollutant Concentrations from Direct Project Sources Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards (100 mg/m3 NAAQS and WAAQS), Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2005.1 

NOX SO2 PM10

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact 

Total 

Concentration2 NAAQS/ WAAQS Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration2 NAAQS/WAAQS Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration2 NAAQS/WAAQS Direct Modeled Impact NAAQS/WAAQS3 Alternative or 

Development Phase WDR Annual Annual Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 

PM

2.5 

Total 

Concentration2 

Annual 24-hr 

No Action -- 1.2 4.6 100 0.7 0.1 0.0 132.7 43.1 9.0 1,300 365/260 80/60 0.3 0.0 33.3 16.0 150 50 0.3 0.0 13.3 5.0 65 15 

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION EMISSIONS 

All alternatives with 0 3.2 6.6 100 0.7 0.1 0.0 132.7 43.1 9.0 1,300 365/260 80/60 90.5 12.6 123.5 28.6 150 50 16.5 2.0 29.5 7.0 65 15 3,100 wells 

MAXIMUM FIELD EMISSIONS 

Alternative A and 250 14.0 17.4 100 18.2 3.6 0.4 150.2 46.6 9.4 1,300 365/260 80/60 113.4 16.0 146.4 32.0 150 50 21.8 3.1 34.8 8.1 65 15 Proposed Action Alternative A 150 12.4 15.8 100 13.9 3.2 0.3 145.9 46.2 9.3 1,300 365/260 80/60 104.0 14.7 137.0 30.7 150 50 19.4 2.9 32.4 7.9 65 15 

75 10.7 14.1 100 13.9 3.2 0.3 145.9 46.2 9.3 1,300 365/260 80/60 97.2 13.8 130.2 29.8 150 50 17.9 2.6 30.9 7.6 65 15 

Alternative B 250 16.5 19.9 100 22.4 4.5 0.4 154.4 47.5 9.4 1,300 365/260 80/60 113.8 16.1 146.8 32.1 150 50 22.2 3.3 35.2 8.3 65 15 

150 14.6 18.0 100 17.1 4.0 0.4 149.1 47.0 9.4 1,300 365/260 80/60 104.2 14.8 137.2 30.8 150 50 19.6 3.0 32.6 8.0 65 15 

75 12.2 15.6 100 17.1 4.0 0.3 149.1 47.0 9.3 1,300 365/260 80/60 97.2 13.8 130.2 29.8 150 50 17.9 2.7 30.9 7.7 65 15 

Alternative C 250 13.0 16.4 100 18.2 3.6 0.4 150.2 46.6 9.4 1,300 365/260 80/60 59.5 8.6 92.5 24.6 150 50 12.0 2.0 25.0 7.0 65 15 

150 11.3 14.7 100 13.9 3.2 0.3 145.9 46.2 9.3 1,300 365/260 80/60 50.1 7.3 83.1 23.3 150 50 9.7 1.7 22.7 6.7 65 15 

75 9.5 12.9 100 13.9 3.2 0.3 145.9 46.2 9.3 1,300 365/260 80/60 43.2 6.4 76.2 22.4 150 50 8.4 1.5 21.4 6.5 65 15 

Alternative D 250 

150 Alternative D was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative C.

75

Alternative E 250 

150 Alternative E was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative B and Alternative F. 

75 

Alternative F 250 16.8 20.2 100 20.2 4.0 0.4 152.2 47.0 9.4 1,300 365/260 80/60 105.7 15.1 138.7 31.1 150 50 20.6 3.2 33.6 8.2 65 15 

150 15.9 19.3 100 15.4 3.6 0.4 147.4 46.6 9.4 1,300 365/260 80/60 104.1 14.9 137.1 30.9 150 50 19.5 3.1 32.5 8.1 65 15 

75 14.6 18.0 100 15.4 3.6 0.3 147.4 46.6 9.3 1,300 365/260 80/60 97.2 14.0 130.2 30.0 150 50 17.9 2.9 30.9 7.9 65 15 

Alternative G 250 

150 Alternative G was not modeled. Results would be between Alternative A and Alternative F.

75

Preferred 250 Preferred Alternative was not modeled. Results would be similar to Alternative G.

Alternative

1 In μg/m3. 2 Total concentration includes direct modeled impact, including RFD and RFFA, and background concentration; annual background NOX concentration = 3.4 μg/m3; annual background SO2 concentration = 9 μg/m3; 8-hr background SO2 concentration = 43 μg/m3; 3-hr background SO2 

concentration = 132 μg/m3; annual background PM10 concentration = 16 μg/m3; 24-hr background PM10 concentration = 33 μg/m3; annual background PM2.5 concentration = 5 μg/m3; 24-hr background PM2.5 concentration = 13 μg/m3. 

3 WAAQS for PM2.5 are not yet enforced in Wyoming per WAQSR Chapter 2, Section 2(b)(v). 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

APPENDIX G — JONAH INFILL DRILLING 

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES 

TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT 
Draft EIS, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

This page intentionally left blank. 
JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT

DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES

TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT 

Prepared for 

Bureau of Land Management 

Pinedale Field Office 

Pinedale, Wyoming 

and 

Rock Springs Field Office 

Rock Springs, Wyoming 

and 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project Operators 

South Piney Natural Gas Development Project Companies 

By 

TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 

Laramie, Wyoming 

MAI Project 35982 

February 2005
Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................................... iii 

1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1

2.0 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................3 

2.1 TRAFFIC AND WORKFORCE ..................................................................................3 

2.2 PRECONSTRUCTION PLANNING AND SITE LAYOUT ......................................6 

2.3 CONSTRUCTION AND DRILLING OPERATIONS ................................................7 

2.4 WELL PADS ................................................................................................................7

2.5 ROADS.........................................................................................................................8

2.6 DRILLING OPERATIONS........................................................................................10 

2.7 COMPLETION OPERATIONS.................................................................................20 

2.8 PRODUCTION OPERATIONS.................................................................................23 

2.9 PIPELINES.................................................................................................................30

2.9.1 Gathering System Pipelines .........................................................................31 

2.9.2 From-field Transport Pipelines....................................................................31 

2.10 COMPRESSOR STATIONS....................................................................................31 

2.11 ABANDONMENT AND RECLAMATION ...........................................................32 

2.12 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS..................................................................................33 

3.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................35

APPENDIX A: TRANSPORTATION PLAN, JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT 

APPENDIX B: RECLAMATION PLAN, JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT 

APPENDIX C: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT SUMMARY,

 JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Page 

Figure 2.1 Typical Access Road with Adjacent Pipeline Schematic, Jonah Infill 

Drilling Program, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2004 ........................................... 9 

Figure 2.2 Representation of Gas Traps, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2004....................................................................................... 12 

Figure 2.3 Schematic Representation of a Typical Vertical Well Pad Layout During 

Drilling, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 2004.............................. 15 
ii Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED) 

Page 

Figure 2.4 Example Directional Drill/Multi-well Pad Layout at an Existing Well Pad, 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2004 .......................... 18 

Figure 2.5 Typical Completed and Abandoned Well Bore Diagrams, Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2004.............................................. 21 

Figure 2.6 Typical Production Facility Layout, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2004....................................................................................... 24 

LIST OF TABLES 

Page 

Table 2.1 Estimated Traffic Requirements, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming................................................................................................. 4 

Table 2.2 Estimated Work Force Requirements, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2004......................................................................... 5 

Table 2.3 Anticipated Gas Recovery Volumes, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2004...................................................................................... 14 

Table 2.4 Natural Gas Composition Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2004....................................................................................... 25 

Table 2.5 Condensate Constituent Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2004....................................................................................... 26 

Table 2.6 Average Water Quality from Natural Gas Wells, Water Wells, and the 

Existing Evaporation Pond and Relevant Class III Ground Water Quality 

Standards, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2004 ........ 28 

Table 2.7 Existing and Anticipated Compression Requirements (Horsepower), Jonah 

Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2004..................................... 32 
Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project iii 

LIST OF MAPS 

Page 

Map 2.1 Down-hole Well Spacing Potential, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2004....................................................................................... 13 

Map 2.2 Surface Disturbance Avoidance Areas, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2004......................................................................... 16 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

APD Application for Permit to Drill 

AQD Air Quality Division 

BACT Best Available Control Technologies 

bbl Barrels 

BCF Billion cubic feet 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

CERLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 

1980 

COA Conditions of Approval 

DR Decision Records 

EA Environmental Assessments 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

JIDPA Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area 

LOP Life-of-project 

LQD Land Quality Division 

mmcf Million cubic feet 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

NTC Notice to Lessees 

Operators Oil and gas development companies 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

OVM Organic vapor meter 

ppm Parts per million 

ROW Right-of-way 

SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 

SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition 

TCF Trillion cubic feet 

TDS Total Dissolved Solids 

TRPH Total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons 
iv Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED) 

VOC Volatile organic compound 

WDEQ Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

WDOT Wyoming Department of Transportation 

WOGCC Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 

WQD Water Quality Division 

WSEO Wyoming State Engineer’s Office 
Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This technical support document provides a summary of the primary facets for development of 

the Jonah Infill Drilling Project and includes a Transportation Plan, Reclamation Plan, and 

Hazardous Materials Summary. These materials are provided in support of the Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (Bureau of Land Management [BLM] 

2004). Where development actions would likely differ among development alternatives (i.e., 

Proposed Action, Alternatives A-G, and the Preferred Alternative), these differences are 

identified. 
2 Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3 

2.0 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

Drilling and development operations would continue year-round and may utilize as many as 20 

drilling rigs operating in the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area (JIDPA) simultaneously (the 250 

well/year case). The BLM may, however, restrict the pace of development in the area to only 75 

or 150 wells developed per year, and in these cases the number of simultaneously operating rigs 

may be reduced or drilling may not continue year-round. 

2.1 TRAFFIC AND WORKFORCE 

Workers, material, and equipment would be transported to the JIDPA over U.S. Highway 191, 

State Highway 351, and BLM Roads 4206 (Burma Road), 5409 (Luman Road) and the Jonah 

North Road, and most of these trips would likely originate from Rock Springs, Pinedale, Big 

Piney, or Marbleton, Wyoming. An estimated 810 round trips would be required to construct, 

drill, complete, and tie in (pipeline construction) each well (Table 2.1). However, where wells 

would be directionally drilled, drilling traffic would increase by approximately 20% per well 

(i.e., from 200 trips to 240 trips per well) primarily as a result of increased drilling duration. 

During production, an estimated maximum of 1,996 round trips per well would be necessary for 

condensate and water hauling and maintenance (assumes pumpers visit wells every 3 days and an 

average of 20 wells would be visited daily) (Table 2.1). Some reduction in production traffic and 

distance traveled may occur as a result of directionally drilled wells since more wells could be 

visited daily at fewer well pad locations. Additional detail on traffic requirements is provided in 

the Transportation Plan included as Appendix A of this document. 

Construction workers, rig crews, fracturing/completion crews, and support personnel would be 

primarily housed in Rock Springs, Pinedale, Boulder, Big Piney, Marbleton, La Barge, and 

Eden/Farson; therefore, no worker camps or temporary housing in the JIDPA are proposed. 

Table 2.2 provides the estimated work force requirements associated with the project. 
4 Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table 2.1 Estimated Traffic Requirements, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 

Wyoming. 

Life-of-Project (LOP) 

Round Trips 

Type of Traffic 

Round Trips 

per Well 

Maximum Development 

(Thousands)1 

Average Daily 

Traffic1 

Well Construction and Development 

Well Pad and Access Road Construction 20 62 -- 

(4 days/well site)2 

Drilling (22 days)

3 200 620 -- 

Completion/Testing (17 days) 570 1,767 -- 

Pipeline Construction (4 days) 20 62 -- 

Total well construction and development 810 2,511 529 

(54 days/well site) 

New Production Activities4 

Existing Production Activities4 

1,996 

-- 

6,188 

1,064 

424 

73 

Total5 2,569 9,763 5055 

1 Assumes 3,100 wells are drilled and completed as producers, wells produce every day, development 

actions would be completed in 13 years, well life is 40 years, and LOP is 53 years (excludes the final 

3 years of reclamation). 

2 Includes gravel hauling.

3 Includes rig up/rig down and assumes no directional drilling; directional wells average approximately 

26 days to drill. 

4 Assumes one pumper can visit 20 wells/day, one pad is visited every 3 days, and average well life is 

40 years. 

5 Some additional low volume traffic would also be necessary for reclamation activities; average daily 

traffic volumes are not additive. 
Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 5 

Table 2.2 Estimated Work Force Requirements, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2004.1 

Employment Category 

Worker-Days 

per Well 

Worker-Years for 

1,250 Wells2 

Worker-Years for 

2,200 Wells2 

Worker-Years for 

3,100 Wells2 

Well Construction and Development 

Well Pad and Access Road 16 77 136 191 

Construction (4 days x 4 

workers) 

Rig Up/Down (5 days x 15 75 361 635 895 

workers) 

Drilling3

 (22 days x 11 528 2,539 4,468 6,296 

workers x 2 shifts) 

Completion Testing 187 900 1,583 2,230 

(17 days x 11 workers) 

Pipeline Construction 24 116 203 287 

(4 days x 6 workers) 

Production and Maintenance Activities 

Production4,5 305 1,767 2,881 3,863 

Workovers6

 (every 10 to 20 210 1,010 1,777 2,504 

years) (10 days x 7 workers) 

Abandonment and Reclamation 

(5 days x 10 workers) 50 241 423 597 

Total 1,395 7,011 12,106 16,863 

1 Assumes all wells are drilled and completed as producers. 

2 260 worker-days = 1 worker-year. 

3 Assumes all vertical well drilling. 

4 Assumes 1 pumper can visit 20 wells/day, all pads are visited every 3 days, and wells produce for 

40 years. 

5 Assumes six full-time production foremen and six full-time field clerks in addition to pumpers. 

6 Assumes three workovers per well. 
6 Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Depending upon the number of wells authorized (1,250, 2,200, or 3,100) and the number of wells 

developed per year (75, 150, or 250), project construction, drilling, completion, and production 

would require from 43 to 85 years to complete (see EIS Table 2.1). The fewer the number of 

wells and the faster the pace of development, the shorter the life-of-project (LOP). 

Oil and gas development companies (Operators) would comply with existing federal, state, and 

county requirements and restrictions developed to protect road networks and the traveling public. 

Special arrangements would be made with the Wyoming Department of Transportation 

(WDOT), as required, to transport oversized and/or overweight loads to the JIDPA. The 

transportation planning process for this project is described in Appendix A. 

2.2 PRECONSTRUCTION PLANNING AND SITE LAYOUT 

Pursuant to Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1, each proposed well would require an Application 

for Permit to Drill (APD) approved by BLM prior to any surface disturbance. Each APD would 

include site-specific information regarding all facets of well development including 

environmental concerns. Operators and/or their contractors and subcontractors would conduct all 

phases of project implementation (e.g., wellpad construction, road and pipeline construction, 

drilling and completion operations, maintenance, reclamation, and abandonment) in full 

compliance with all applicable federal, state, and county plans, laws, and regulations and 

according to approved APD specifications, right-of-way (ROW) permits, and site-specific 

environmental assessments (EAs) and decision records (DRs). Operators would be fully 

accountable for their contractors' and subcontractors' compliance with the requirements in the 

approved permits and/or plans. 

When development of federal minerals would take place on private surface, Operators would 

follow Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1 and C.F.R. 43 Subpart 3814 with regard to access for 

natural gas resource development and remuneration to the landowner for potential damage. 
Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 7 

2.3 CONSTRUCTION AND DRILLING OPERATIONS 

All activities at each well in the JIDPA would follow procedures approved by the BLM in the 

APD and attached Conditions of Approval (COAs). Well pad, access road, and other 

construction activities would follow guidelines set forth in the most recent edition of the "Gold 

Book," Surface Operating Standards for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development, and/or 

Manual 9113 – Roads (BLM 1985) concerning road construction standards on projects subject to 

federal jurisdiction. Sufficient topsoil to facilitate revegetation would be segregated from 

subsoils during all construction and would be replaced on the surface upon completion of 

operations as part of the reclamation and revegetation program. Topsoil stockpiles would be 

stabilized with vegetation until used for reclamation. Further detail on proposed reclamation 

activities is provided in the Reclamation Plan, included as Appendix B of this document. 

2.4 WELL PADS 

Major components of each individual well pad include the following: 

• a level drilling area for placement and support of the drilling rig and related 

equipment, production facilities, and storage tanks; 

• an earthen reserve pit to contain drilling fluids, drilled cuttings, and fluids 

produced during the drilling operation; and 

• an earthen flare pit for the safe ignition of flammable gases produced during 

completion and testing operations. 

The entire well pad area would be cleared of all vegetation, and up to 12 inches of topsoil would 

be removed from all cut, fill, and/or subsoil storage areas. Topsoil would be stockpiled for 

future use in reclamation. After the topsoil has been removed, the pad would be graded to 

prepare a level working surface. Each well location would be designed so that the amount of cut 

and fill material would "balance," where feasible, thereby minimizing the need to stockpile 

excess subsoil adjacent to the well location until site reclamation. Materials excavated from the 

reserve pit would be stockpiled adjacent to the reserve pit and used to backfill the pit during 

reclamation. 
8 Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

The area required for drilling and completion of each well would vary depending upon the type 

of well being drilled (i.e., vertical or directional), the total number of wells to be developed from 

the pad, and/or whether new development would occur from an existing pad. In general, new 

vertical wells would require 3.8-acre pads and directional well pads with multiple wells would 

require from 5.0 to 10.0 acres. 

Well pad and access road construction would take 4 days per location and would require 

4 workers (16 worker days) (see Table 2.2). These services would be provided by local 

contractors. 

Erosion control would be maintained through prompt revegetation and by constructing surface 

water drainage controls such as berms, diversion ditches, and sediment ponds as necessary at 

each well location. All diversion ditches and other surface water and erosion control structures 

at each location would be shown on topographic relief maps provided with each APD. Storm 

Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) would be prepared by each Operator for all wells, 

access roads, and other disturbances of more than 5 acres in compliance with the Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) requirements (McMurry Oil Company 2003). 

2.5 ROADS 

New resource road construction would average approximately 0.15 mile for each new well pad. 

With the inclusion of an adjacent gathering pipeline, 1.3 acres of disturbance would be required 

initially (73.3-ft initial disturbance width) and 0.5 acre of disturbance would be required for the 

LOP (29-ft LOP disturbance width). Figure 2.1 provides a typical road with adjacent pipeline 

schematic. 

Roads would be designed by a licensed professional engineer if deemed necessary by the BLM 

(i.e., in problem areas such as steep slopes, unsuitable soils), and all roads would be built in 

accordance with guidelines established for oil and gas exploration and development activities in 

BLM Manual Section 9113 (BLM 1985, 1991a). On completion of construction activities, the 
Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 9 

Figure 2.1 Typical Access Road with Adjacent Pipeline Schematic, Jonah Infill Drilling 

Program, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2004. 
10 Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

engineer would certify that the road was constructed in accordance with the approved road 

construction design, if deemed necessary by the BLM. Any deficiencies would be corrected to 

ensure compliance with both the approved Road Construction Plan and the APD. Once resource 

road construction is complete, all but 29 ft of the ROW (road surface area and portions of borrow 

ditch) would be reclaimed and revegetated. All road construction, upgrading, maintenance, and 

road reclamation activities would be implemented in accordance with the Transportation Plan for 

this project (see Appendix A). 

As the existing project has proceeded, various existing lower-volume resource roads have been 

upgraded to local/collector road conditions (e.g., Jonah North Road), and it is anticipated that 

these upgrades would be implemented on approximately 8 miles of existing resource roads in the 

JIDPA for this proposed project. Additionally, the existing Burma Road from the JIDPA north 

to Wyoming Highway 351 would be upgraded. New or upgraded collector roads in the JIDPA 

would be developed under all alternatives except No Action, and under Alternative B, only the 

Burma Road would be upgraded. Approximately 73 acres of new disturbance and 37 acres of 

LOP disturbance would be required for new in-field collector roads, and approximately 75 acres 

of new disturbance and 20 acres of LOP disturbance would be required for the Burma Road 

upgrade. Operators would work with the BLM and the WDOT in establishing the appropriate 

needs for the Burma Road/Highway 351 junction (e.g., turnouts, paving, new fencing, and 

culverts). 

Aggregates used for road and well location construction would be acquired from commercial 

sources primarily on federal and state lands on and adjacent to the JIDPA. Prior to aggregate 

extraction, appropriate permits would be obtained from the BLM and/or WDEQ/Land Quality 

Division (LQD) and WDEQ/Air Quality Division (AQD), as appropriate. Aggregates would be 

free of noxious weeds. 

2.6 DRILLING OPERATIONS 

Gas reserves within the JIDPA are estimated to be 10.5 trillion cubic feet (TCF), and this project 

is proposed to maximize the recovery of these reserves. Drilling and development activities over 
Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 11 

the last few years have led to a better understanding of the gas resources beneath the JIDPA, and 

it has been determined that considerable volumes of gas would be left unrecovered without the 

development of additional wells (BLM 2002) (Figure 2.2). Map 2.1 shows projected down-hole 

well spacing for maximum resource recovery. Without additional drilling in the area, a total of 

approximately 3,366 billion cubic feet (BCF) would be recovered by existing operations, leaving 

approximately 7,134 BCF unrecovered (Table 2.3). Recovery volumes would vary depending 

upon the total number and types of wells (vertical or directional) drilled, and, based upon the 

alternatives analyzed in the EIS, recovery volumes are estimated to range from 3,366 to 8,191 

BCF. 

Up to twenty drilling rigs rated for drilling to depths of 12,000 ft or more may be employed 

simultaneously during project development to accommodate development of 250 wells per year. 

However, if a slower development pace occurs (e.g., 150 or 75 wells developed per year), the 

number of simultaneously operating rigs would likely be reduced. Drilling is scheduled to begin 

in 2005, subsequent to the release of the Record of Decision for this project. Operators propose 

to drill throughout the year utilizing the mitigative measures and environmental considerations 

outlined in EIS Appendix B. All drilling operations and other well site activities would be 

conducted in compliance with applicable BLM, Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation 

Commission (WOGCC), WDEQ, and other federal, state, and county rules and regulations. 

Including rig up and rig down activities, drilling each vertical well would take an average of 

approximately 22 days, with some additional time potentially being required for wells drilled 

deeper than 12,000 ft. Drilling would require approximately 22 individuals, including two 

11-person rig operations crews necessary to conduct drilling 24-hr/day (see Table 2.2). Most 

project personnel would be hired locally, and construction workers, rig crews, and support 

personnel likely would live in Pinedale, Rock Springs, Boulder, Big Piney, Marbleton, La Barge, 

or Eden/Farson. Approximately 200 round trips to each well location would be required during 

vertical well drilling operations (see Table 2.1). 
12 Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling P

roject 

Figure 2.2 Representation of Gas Traps, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2004. 
Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 13 

Map 2.1 Down-hole Well Spacing Potential, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 

Wyoming, 2004. 
14 Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table 2.3 Anticipated Gas Recovery Volumes, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2004.1 

Development Technique 

Estimated Recovery Volumes 

(billion cubic feet [BCF])2 

Estimated Unrecovered 

Volumes (BCF)2 

No New Wells 3,366 7,134 

3,100 Wells/16,200 acres disturbance3 7,947 2,533 

3,100 Wells/3,100 new well pads 8,191 2,309 

3,100 Wells/Existing 497 Well Pads3

 6,124 4,376 

1,250 wells/1,250 new well pads 6,657 3,843 

2,200 wells/2,200 new well pads 7,554 2,946 

3,100 wells/266 new well pads 

(16 total pads/section)3 

6,302 4,198 

3,100 wells/1,028 new well pads 

(32 total pads/section)3 

7,186 3,314 

3,100 wells/2,553 new well pads 

(64 total pads/section) 3 

7,876 2,624 

1 Data provided by EnCana. 2 Assumes 10,500 billion cubic feet (BCF) of gas in place; 1 BCF corresponds to the annual use by 

approximately 13,700 residences (Energy Information Administration 2004). Typical gas field recoveries range 

from 75%-85% of gas in place. 3 Assumes 10% of directional wells do not reach total depth and 1,000 ft of formation cannot be developed. 

Does not fully account for losses/unrecovered resources associated with undeveloped wells (assumed 

uneconomic). 

Figure 2.3 presents a schematic representation of a typical vertical well pad layout during 

drilling. 

Whereas vertical drilling is the Operator-preferred method for well development, directional 

drilling would be used to recover gas beneath sensitive areas (i.e., 0.25-mile greater sage-grouse 

lek buffers, 825-ft active raptor nest buffers, and the 600-ft Sand Draw buffer) (Map 2.2). To 

accommodate development of reserves beneath these areas, as many as 422 directionally drilled 

wells would likely be developed under the Proposed Action; since the aforementioned buffers 

would not be avoided under Alternative A, fewer directionally drilled wells would likely be 

developed. Additional directionally drilled wells would also likely be developed under all 
Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 15 

Figure 2.3 Schematic Representation of a Typical Vertical Well Pad Layout During Drilling, 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 2004. 
16 Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Map 2.2 Surface Disturbance Avoidance Areas, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2004. 
Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 17 

alternatives to access reserves beneath areas with steep slopes and other topographic features. 

Additional directional wells would likely be developed under Alternatives B and E-G due to 

surface disturbance limitations. However, directional wells have a greater risk of total failure, 

require additional time and costs to develop, may be uneconomic in some cases, and may result 

in unrecovered reserves. 

Directional drilling provides for the construction of a single well pad that may accommodate as 

many as 13 wells. Figure 2.4 provides a summary schematic of a multi-well pad developed at an 

existing vertical well pad site. Drilling directional wells would require an average of 26 days to 

drill, including rig-up and rig-down operations. With multiple well pads, the initial and LOP 

disturbance required for each pad is increased. Initial disturbance may be 10 acres per pad and 

LOP disturbance 3 acres per pad. However, these multiple well pads may be serviced by one 

access road and gathering system pipeline, as well as a single separation, dehydration, and 

storage facility. Where new directional wells are developed at an existing well site, separate 

separation, dehydration, and storage facilities may be used. Use of directional drilling 

techniques would be contingent upon economic and technical feasibility, potential resource 

recovery issues, and environmental considerations. An evaluation of directional drilling in the 

Jonah Field can be found in Encana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc. (EnCana) (2004). 

Most wells would be completed in the Lance Formation (Lance Pool); however, secondary 

reserves may be encountered in other formations, and approximately 100 acres of new and LOP 

disturbance are anticipated for exploration activities. Drilling would occur commensurate with 

new discoveries coupled with anticipated developmental costs and gas prices. 

Drilling operations primarily would utilize a water-based mud system with additives to minimize 

downhole problems; however, oil-based mud systems (closed/tank-controlled) may be employed 

at some wells (more likely with directionally drilled wells). Drilling would require 

approximately 11,000 barrels (bbl) of water per well (42 gal/bbl) (1.4 acre-ft). Total drilling 

water requirements for a 3,100 well project would be approximately 4,395 acre-ft, or 338 acre-ft 

per year over a 13-year well development period (250 wells per year case). The rate of water use 
18 Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Figure 2.4 Example Directional Drill/Multi-well Pad Layout at an Existing Well Pad, Jonah 

Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2004. 
Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 19 

may decrease if fewer natural gas wells are developed per year, and total water needs may be 

reduced if fewer natural gas wells are drilled. Additionally, directional drilling requirements 

may result in increased water use. 

While produced water recycling would be maximally employed (see Section 2.8), additional 

water would be required and would be obtained from the existing 25 water wells developed in 

the JIDPA for current development operations and approximately 16 new water wells. Fewer 

additional water wells would be developed in the event that development occurs at a pace of less 

than 250 wells per year. Water wells would be developed on natural gas well pads and would 

require no new surface disturbance and <0.5 acre of LOP disturbance. 

Water would be trucked or piped from water wells and/or treatment facilities to drilling sites 

depending on site-specific conditions, disturbance requirements, and time of year. Water 

pipelines would be temporary and would consist of either standard 3- to 6-inch diameter 

aluminum sections or polypipe. These water pipelines would be laid on the ground surface 

within road ROWs or directly overland and would be removed after completion/testing 

operations are done. The contracted water hauler would be responsible for obtaining any 

required permits from the Wyoming State Engineer's Office (WSEO). Water used to drill a well 

would be reused for drilling subsequent wells to the maximum extent practicable. 

Cuttings and all drilling fluids would be contained in the reserve pit, and drilling fluids would be 

recovered and reused to drill the next well to the maximum extent possible. If oil-based fluids 

are used, they would be recovered in tanks. If any oil enters reserve pits, it would be removed 

pursuant to WOGCC rules and regulations and the pit would be flagged overhead or covered 

with netting to prevent waterfowl use in compliance with BLM Informational Bulletin Number 

WY-93-054. 

Any shallow water zones encountered during drilling would be reported and adequately 

protected by installing surface casing and cementing back to the surface. After completion of 

drilling, the well would be logged and production casing run in accordance with the drilling 

program approved in the APD. Surface casing would be set to a depth adequate to isolate near­
20 Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

surface freshwater aquifers (approximately 2,500 ft). Production casing would be run and 

cement circulated to a minimum of 400 ft above the Lance Formation, effectively isolating all 

geologic formations and eliminating any fluid migration between hydrocarbon-bearing zones and 

freshwater aquifers (Figure 2.5). 

2.7 COMPLETION OPERATIONS 

Once the well has been drilled and cased, completion operations would begin to clean the well 

bore, to conduct pressure testing, and to perforate potentially productive zones. A bond log 

would be run (a bond log is the process by which the integrity of the cement bond between the 

casing and the borehole is verified), casing would be perforated in potentially productive zones 

downhole (e.g., Lance Pool sand lenses), and production tubing run. Multiple sand lenses would 

be fracture-stimulated. Fracture-stimulation (fracturing) is the process by which sand, nitrogen 

foam, and other materials are pumped downhole under pressure through the perforations in the 

casing and subsequently into the formation. As the formation is fractured, the spaces (fractures) 

are filled with sand to prop open the fractures and facilitate the flow of gas into the wellbore and 

through tubing to the surface. 

On completion of fracturing, the well is flowed back to the surface in an attempt to recover 

as much of the fracture fluid as possible and to clean excess sand out of the perforations. 

Production tubing would be set, if warranted, prior to installing production equipment and 

placing the well "on line." All fracture fluid additives would meet BLM and/or U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirements for disposal of oil field wastes. All 

fluids utilized in the completion procedure would be contained on the well pad in pits or 

tanks and disposed of in compliance with state and federal rules and regulations. 

In the past, gases and condensate produced in association with completion and testing have 

been diverted to an unlined flare pit and ignited (flared); however, for this project, it is 

anticipated that only about 50% of all future completion operations would utilize flaring. 

To minimize the need for flaring, a high-pressure flow-back unit designed to separate sand, 
Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 21 

Figure 2.5 Typical Completed and Abandoned Well Bore Diagrams, Jonah Infill Drilling 

Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2004. 
22 Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

condensate, natural gas, and water would be used. Sand would be piped to the reserve pit, 

water would be captured in a flow-back tank, and gas and condensate would be piped to the 

normal production unit. This process would result in the capture and sales of approximately 

35 million cubic feet (mmcf) of gas and 250 bbl of condensate per well that would otherwise 

have been lost. 

Approximately 33,300 bbl of water (4.3 acre-ft) would be needed for completion and testing 

of each well, and this water would come from the same locations as specified for drilling 

operations (see Section 2.6). The estimated total water requirement for drilling, completion, 

and testing operations at each well would be 44,300 bbls (5.7 acre-ft), and 10% or more of 

this water may be from recycling operations (see Section 2.8). Water requirements for 

3,100 wells are estimated to be 17,700 acre-ft, approximately 1,362 acre-ft per year over a 

13-year development period (250 well/year) case. 

Completion and testing would require 11 workers for 35 days (Table 2.2), and workers 

would likely be from Rock Springs, Big Piney, or LaBarge. 

The reserve pit would be closed pursuant to WOGCC rules and regulations and would generally 

be backfilled within two to three years following termination of drilling and completion 

operations, depending upon the rate of reserve pit fluid evaporation. If natural evaporation of the 

reserve pit is not feasible, alternative methods of drying, removal of fluids, or other treatment 

would be implemented. If fluids would be disposed of by any method other than evaporation or 

hauling to an approved disposal facility, approval by the BLM would be obtained. Off-lease 

disposal of fluids would be in strict accordance with all appropriate rules and regulations 

regarding the discharge, transport, and/or disposal of such fluids. 

Reclamation of disturbed areas not needed for production would occur as specified in APDs and, 

upon completion, each vertical well pad would require approximately 0.9 acre of LOP 

disturbance. From 1.5 to 3.0 acres of LOP disturbance would be required for each multiple well 

pad. 
Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 23 

2.8 PRODUCTION OPERATIONS 

After well completion, production equipment would be set, gathering pipelines installed, and the 

well placed on line, with production continuing as long as the well is capable of commercial 

production and a demand for the gas exists (estimated at about 40 years per well). Production 

equipment typically would include a "Christmas tree" at the well head (a series of valves 

designed to control pressures and regulate flows from the well); separators to segregate natural 

gas, condensate, and water and to lower volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions; 

aboveground tanks for condensate and produced water storage; a methanol tank and pump; a 

glycol dehydrator and pump; and a meter run for measurement of gas volumes produced into the 

pipeline. More tanks or larger tanks would be required at multiple well pads. As gas production 

declines from wells so does condensate and water production and, over time, condensate and 

water tanks may be removed from well pads and/or smaller tanks may be installed to 

accommodate reduced storage requirements for condensate and produced water. 

All aboveground production facilities would be painted a standard environmental color (e.g., 

Carlsbad Canyon) that blends with the surrounding landscape, except for structures that require 

safety coloration to comply with Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations. A 

typical production facility layout is shown in Figure 2.6. 

Natural gas production from wells in the JIDPA is expected to range from 0.5 to over 5.0 mmcf 

per day (mmcfpd), with average production field-wide expected to be 2-3 mmcfpd per well. As 

wells age, produced gas volumes would decline. Gas composition data is provided in Table 2.4. 

No hydrogen sulfide is known to occur in natural gas from the JIDPA, and none is expected to be 

encountered during project operations. 

Condensate production from each well is expected to average from 5 to 45 bbl/day (i.e., 

approximately 9 to 10 bbl/mmcf of gas produced). Condensate constituents are shown in 

Table 2.5. Condensates would be stored in tanks at each well location, and all tank batteries 

would be bermed to contain 110% of the volume of the largest tank. Condensates would be 
24 Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Figure 2.6 Typical Production Facility Layout, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 

Wyoming, 2004. 
Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 25 

Table 2.4 Natural Gas Composition Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 

Wyoming, 2004.1 

Component Percentage by Weight 

 Carbon Dioxide 1.33 

 Hydrogen Sulfide 0.00 

Nitrogen 2.21 

Methane 77.90 

Ethane 8.66 

Propane 4.21 

Isobutane 1.26 

n-Butane 1.23 

Isopentane 0.58 

n-Pentane 0.41 

 Cyclopentane 0.00 

n-Hexane 0.18 

 Cyclohexane 0.11 

 Other Hexanes 0.31 

Heptanes 0.53 

 Methylcyclohexane 0.19 

 2,2,4 Trimethylpentane 0.0011 

Benzene 0.054 

Toluene 0.085 

 Ethylbenzene 0.0040 

 Xylenes 0.04 

 C8+ Heavies 0.70 

Total 100.00 

Data provided by EnCana. 1 
26 Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table 2.5 Condensate Constituent Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 

Wyoming, 2004.1 

Component Percentage by Weight 

Ethane 0.11 

Propane 0.87 

Isobutane 1.27 

n-Butane 2.04 

Neopentane 0.11 

Isopentane 2.73 

n-Pentane 2.82 

 2,2-Dimethylbutane 0.24 

 2,3-Dimethylbutane 0.76 

 2-Methylpentane 2.35 

 3-Methylpentane 4.76 

n-Hexane 3.64 

Heptanes 19.76 

Octanes 29.35 

Nonanes 18.61 

 Decanes plus 10.57 

Other2 0.01

 Total3 100.00 

1 Data provided by EnCana. 

2 Includes methane, nitrogen, and carbon monoxide. 

3 Includes benzene (1.12%), toluene (4.84%), xylene (5.59%), and 2,2,4-trimethlypentane (0.34%), 

which are contained within some of the listed components. 
Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 27 

removed from storage tanks on a periodic basis as needed and transported by truck for sale. Best 

available control technologies (BACTs) would be used to reduce VOC emissions from 

condensate storage tanks pursuant to WDEQ/AQD rules and regulations. 

Water production volumes from natural gas wells initially start at about 5 bbl per mmcf of gas 

for about a 3-month period, then drop to about 2 bbl/mmcf thereafter. Produced water quality 

data are provided in Table 2.6. Water would be removed from the gas stream by the separators 

and dehydration, would be stored in a tank(s) at each location, and would be periodically 

removed and recycled or disposed of in accordance with BLM/WOGCC/WDEQ rules and 

regulations. Produced water would be trucked to approved disposal sites. 

A produced water disposal system is currently in operation on state surface in the JIDPA (see 

EIS Map 1.2). The system consists of an oil separation facility and a series of lined surface pits. 

During the summer, the primary means of disposal is evaporation, which is enhanced by the use 

of a spray system to atomize the water. During the winter, this water is frozen into large mounds 

of ice. During the freezing process the water is ionically separated into fresh water, and a brine 

solution that is pumped off for storage and ultimate evaporation at the facility. The fresh water is 

stored as ice during the winter, and when it thaws in the spring, it is put to beneficial use (e.g., 

road watering). 

Alternative water handling uses are currently being developed. Because produced water quality 

has steadily improved as a result of eliminating potassium chloride as a base fluid for fracturing, 

considerable volumes of water can now be recycled and reused. During the drilling phase of a 

well, produced water is used by some Operators to drill from the surface casing (below fresh 

water zones) to the top of the Lance Formation. On average 4,700 bbls of produced water are 

recycled and used during the drilling of a vertical well; however this amount may range from 

2,000 to 12,000 bbls depending on well depth, time of drilling, and water loss problems. The 

quantity of water needed is increased with directional drilling due to pit sizes, total drill bore 

lengths, and other requirements; more mud is necessary for directional drilling. 
28 Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table 2.6 Average Water Quality from Natural Gas Wells, Water Wells, and the Existing 

Evaporation Pond and Relevant Class III Ground Water Quality Standards, Jonah 

Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2004.1 

WDEQ Class III 

Water Quality 

Underground water 

Quality Standard2 Produced Water3 Evaporation Pond4 Water Wells4 

Parameter (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) 

pH5 (standard pH units) 6.5-8.5 7.49 7.80 9.69 

Total Dissolved Solids 5,000 4,527 4,752 670 

(TDS) 

Chloride 2,000 1,853 2,153 107 

Sulfate 3,000 38 51 126 

Barium -­ 6

 <0.1 6.0 -- 

Boron 5 -- 2.7 -- 

Aluminum5 5 4.5 -- -- 

Cadmium5 0.05 <0.001 -- -- 

Chromium5 0.05 <0.004 -- -- 

Copper5 0.5 <0.02 -- -- 

Iron --6 <17.78 <2.09 0.17 

Lead5 0.1 <0.34 -- -- 

Magnesium -­ 6 3.12 6.02 0 

Mercury5 0.00005 <0.003 -- -- 

Arsenic5 0.2 <0.005 -- -- 

Selenium5 0.05 <0.003 -- -- 

Zinc5 25 1.8 -- -- 

Calcium -­ 6 292 651 0 

Bicarbonate --6 856 747 81 

Carbonate --6 355 -- 110 

Sodium -­ 6 1,042 1,051 245 

Potassium -­ 6 -- 83 -- 

1 Data provided by EnCana, McMurry Oil Company, and Schlumberger. 2 From WDEQ (1990). 3 Average produced water concentrations from 30 natural gas wells. 4 Evaporation pond data are from a single sample; water well data are an average from six water wells. 5 Produced water data are averaged from four natural gas wells. 6 -- = no WDEQ standards for Class III ground water. 
Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 29 

Produced water is also being used to drill out frac plugs at the end of the completion phase, using 

from 2,000 to 4,000 bbls per well, depending upon the conditions of the well during the 

operation. 

Produced water is also being used by some Operators as a component of a gel system for fracture 

stimulation of new wells. Starting in the fall of 2003, use of produced water for fracturing has 

resulted in the utilization of up to nearly 100% of produced water volumes for some Operators. 

Currently almost all of EnCana's produced water is being reused for fracture stimulation and/or 

drilling operations. 

Slick-water fractures are also being employed for some completions. This is fresh water, with a 

low concentration of friction reducer, and sand without gels or cross-linker systems. The 

effectiveness of this technique is being evaluated from completion operations at the five wells 

where it has been employed. 

One water disposal well is present in the JIDPA (6,500 ft deep/Fort Union Formation) (see EIS 

Map 1.2) and at least two additional disposal wells are proposed to accommodate produced water 

and brine disposal needs. All water disposal and underground injection wells would be 

developed in compliance with Onshore Oil and Gas Order Nos. 1, 2, and 7, as well as WOGCC 

Underground Injection Control rules and regulations (WOGCC Rule 405) governing the 

subsurface disposal of water. 

Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) facilities are being established at many 

wells in the JIDPA. This system is designed to increase production efficiency by providing 

real-time operating information to field staff, including well flow rates and pressures, processing 

equipment operating conditions, tank levels, and emissions control equipment status. 

Implementation of the SCADA system reduces the number of well pad visits (and associated 

traffic) by 30 to 40% from the number of pad visits necessary without SCADA. SCADA realtime monitoring also reduces the potential for spills (tank-level monitoring) and the reliability of 

emissions control equipment. 
30 Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Routine on-site maintenance operations at each producing well (with SCADA) generally would 

include worker visits every 3 days to monitor the overall operation of the well and make 

adjustments as required to ensure efficient operation. An average of 20 wells could be visited 

each day during production. Well workovers would occur every 10 to 20 years; however, 

workovers would not be undertaken on a set schedule but rather on an as-needed basis to 

increase or maintain production from downhole producing zones or to re-complete in new zones. 

A well would require a workover for any of several reasons: 

• changing or replacing old tubing, rods, or pumps; 

• refracturing producing formation(s) using advanced techniques designed to 

stimulate additional production; 

• cleaning out the well bore and perforations to stimulate/facilitate production; and 

• "re-completing" in other potentially productive zones that were not originally 

completed at the time the well was drilled. 

2.9 PIPELINES 

Industry-standard pipeline equipment, materials, techniques, and procedures in conformance 

with all applicable regulatory requirements would be employed during construction, testing, 

operation, and maintenance of pipelines. Depending on the location of acceptable tie-ins, 

gathering pipeline ROWs would be located within/adjacent to road ROWs to the greatest extent 

practicable to minimize surface disturbance and to maximize construction and gas transport 

efficiency. A typical access road with adjacent gathering pipeline is shown in Figure 2.1. 

Pipeline trenches would generally be 2 to 3 ft wide and located 8 to 10 ft outside of the road 

outslopes. All trenches would be backfilled and compacted as soon as possible. To facilitate 

compaction, no vegetation or snow would be present in the trench during backfilling. Pipeline 

ROW reclamation would be initiated as soon as practical following disturbance, in accordance 

with Appendix B (Reclamation Plan). 

All newly constructed pipelines would be tested with natural gas or water to ensure their 

integrity. Testing would consist of filling pipeline segments and pressurizing to levels exceeding 
Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 31 

operating pressures. If leaks or ruptures occur, they would be repaired and testing would be 

repeated until successful. Natural gas used for testing either would be returned to the gathering 

system for sales or vented to the surface in accordance with Notice to Lessees (NTL)-4A and/or 

WOGCC Rule 340. If fresh water would be used for pipeline testing, the water would be 

discharged (upon completion of the testing) to existing drainages at rates less than the existing 

capacity of the affected drainages in accordance with requirements of a temporary permit issued 

by WDEQ/Water Quality Division (WQD). 

2.9.1 Gathering System Pipelines 

Natural gas would be transported from well pads via buried pipelines generally from 3 to 

12 inches in diameter to larger existing lines within the field. Pipelines generally would follow 

roads to minimize surface disturbance; however, where limited by topographic or other 

constraints, some lines may be built away from roads. The approximate width of gathering 

system pipeline ROWs would be 35 ft outside of and adjacent to road ROWs (50-ft total pipeline 

ROW width), and an average 0.15 mile of buried pipeline would be required per well pad. 

Where multiple wells are developed at a single well pad, only one gathering system pipeline 

would be necessary. 

2.9.2 From-field Transport Pipelines 

Two existing pipelines within a single corridor are currently being used to transport natural gas 

from the JIDPA. No additional pipelines from the field are currently proposed; however, in the 

event new transport pipelines are proposed, further pipeline-specific National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) analyses would be implemented. 

2.10 COMPRESSOR STATIONS 

While not specifically proposed for this project, with the anticipated increase in gas production 

from the JIDPA and other nearby natural gas fields (e.g., Pinedale Anticline), additional pipeline 

compression needs have been identified. No new compressor stations would be built, but 
32 Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

existing stations in the area would be expanded. Table 2.7 provides a listing of the primary 

stations utilized for JIDPA gas transport, as well as their existing permitted compression 

horsepower and anticipated expansion requirements. A total of approximately 33,844 horsepower of new compression is anticipated in part as a result of this project. 

2.11 ABANDONMENT AND RECLAMATION 

At the end of a well's useful life, Operators would obtain all necessary authorizations from the 

BLM or WOGCC to abandon the well. All aboveground facilities would be removed, and all 

unsalvageable materials would be disposed of at authorized sites. Wells would be permanently 

plugged according to BLM and/or WOGCC requirements, including 43 C.F.R. 3162.3-4 and 

Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1. Pipelines would be purged of combustible materials and 

abandoned in place or removed, based on landowner specifications. Abandoned wellpads, roads, 

and other disturbed areas would be restored to near pre-disturbance condition and revegetated 

according to the specifications of the BLM or private landowner, the Reclamation Plan 

(Appendix B), and/or as specified in the APD or ROW grant, unless they are determined to be 

left in place by the BLM or private landowner. All disturbed surfaces would be recontoured to 

their approximate original contours, with reclamation of the wellpad and access road performed 

as soon as practicable after final abandonment. 

Table 2.7 Existing and Anticipated Compression Requirements (Horsepower), Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2004. 

Compressor Stations 

Compression 

Status 

Bird 

Canyon1 Luman2 

Yellow 

Point3 Jonah Field4 Falcon5 Total 

Existing Permitted 15,746 18,340 1,121 4,899 11,736 51,842 

Anticipated Future 11,004 11,604 0 3,900 7,336 33,844 

Total 26,750 29,944 1,121 8,799 19,072 85,686 

1 Duke facility at NW1⁄4, Section 34, T27N, R111W, southwest of the JIDPA. 2 Duke facility at NE1⁄4, Section 24, T28N, R109W, just south of the JIDPA. 3 Duke facility at NE1⁄4, Section 13, T28N, R109W, in the JIDPA. 4 Mountain Gas facility at Section 34, T29N, R108W, in the JIDPA. 5 Duke facility at SW1⁄4, Section 36, T29N, R108W, just north of the JIDPA. 
Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 33 

2.12 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

All procedures identified in Appendix C of this document (Hazardous Material Management 

Summary) would be applied for this Project. 

During the course of routine oil and gas production operations, minor leaks, spills, and other 

accidental releases of crude oil and condensate may occur, thereby creating 

hydrocarbon-impacted soils. While the surface use lease may allow for the temporary storage 

and treatment of oil-contaminated soils on well pads, some Operators discourage this practice. 

As a Best Management Practice, one Operator plans to transport, accumulate, and treat these 

contaminated soils at a new bioremediation facility dedicated solely to soils remediation 

(EnCana 2003). This proposed ancillary facility would be located on state surface in the SW1⁄4 

NE1⁄4, Section 36, T29N, R108W. The dimensions of the facility would be 200 x 200 ft. 

Containment berm walls 2 ft high x 4 ft wide would be located on the east, south, and west 

perimeters of the pad to contain storm water runoff. Erosion controls would be installed on the 

soil berms and pad shoulders to maintain their integrity, and walls and shoulder would be 

revegetated during operations. All weather year-round access to the facility would be 

maintained, and the facility would be gated and locked. 

Point sources for hydrocarbon-impacted soils are wellhead and production battery spills and 

releases, as well as gas and flow line leaks. The typical range of hydrocarbon contamination, 

expressed as total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH), ranges from <500 ppm to 

>20,000 ppm depending on such factors as spill volume, exposure time, and weather. 

Hydrocarbon-impacted soils would be treated at the facility by enhancing hydrocarbon 

degradation with indigenous bacteria. Impacted soils would be placed in windrows 

approximately 10 ft wide x 120 ft long and 24 inches deep. On a scheduled basis, the soil mass 

in each windrow would be turned to continually expose soil mass layers to oxygen, moisture, and 

sunlight. No tillage of the soils would occur during periods of high winds or when surface 

conditions would create fugitive dust emissions. 
34 Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Impacted soils received at the facility that reflect hydrocarbon concentrations in excess of 

20,000 ppm TRPH would be blended with soils exhibiting lower hydrocarbon concentrations to 

avoid pockets of high hydrocarbon concentrations in soil masses. 

When an individual windrow is filled to designated dimensions and volumes, hydrocarbon 

concentrations would be periodically measured using an organic vapor meter (OVM). When 

OVM readings indicate that hydrocarbon concentrations have dropped to <1,000 ppm, a 

composite sample of the soil mass would be collected for TRPH analysis. When TRPH 

concentrations have dropped below WOGCC TRPH-concentration limits, the soil mass would be 

removed from the facility for recycling under a variety of uses approved and stipulated by the 

WOGCC. The primary use of remediated soils from this facility would be construction related 

(e.g., road grades). 

Notice of any spill or leakage, as defined in BLM NTL 3A, would be immediately reported by 

the Operator to the BLM and other federal and state officials (e.g., WDEQ) as required by law. 

Verbal notification would be given as soon as possible but no later than 24 hrs after the 

discovery of the incident. Verbal notification would be confirmed in writing within 15 days or 

other such time required by the appropriate regulatory agency. Any release of hazardous 

substances (leaks, spills, etc.) in excess of the reportable quantity, as established by 40 C.F.R. 

117, would be reported as required by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended (42 United States Code 

[U.S.C.] 9601 et seq.). If the release of a hazardous substance in a reportable quantity does 

occur, a copy of the report would be furnished to the BLM and all other appropriate federal and 

state agencies. 

Additionally, all work sites and work activities in the JIDPA would be in compliance with 

OSHA rules and regulations, including OSHA regulation 49 C.F.R. 1910.1028 (benzene). 
Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 35 

3.0 REFERENCES 

Bureau of Land Management. 1985. Manual 9113-Roads. Engineering Rel. 9-247. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 

. 1991a. Wyoming Supplement to the Bureau 9113 Manual. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, 

Wyoming. 16 pp. 

. 2002. Geologic and Reservoir Analysis of Proposal for 20-acre Infill Drilling of 

Selected Upper Cretaceous Lance Formation Wells in Four Pilot Areas, Jonah Field Area, 

Sublette County, Wyoming. BLM Reservoir Management Group, Wyoming State 

Office. Signed June 2002. 10 pp. + tables. 

. 2004. Jonah Infill Drilling Project Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale and Rock Springs 

Field Offices, Pinedale and Rock Springs, Wyoming. 

EnCana Oil & Gas (U.S.A.), Inc. 2003. An Application for a Bio Remediation Cell Pad Facility 

to be Located in the Jonah Field Adjacent and Contiguous to McMurry Oil Company 

Stud Horse Butte #7-36 Production Battery Which is Located in the SWNE/4, Section 36, 

T29N, R108W Sublette County, Wyoming. Submitted by EnCana Oil & Gas (USA), 

Inc., Denver, Colorado, to the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Committee, Casper. 

Prepared by L.C. Roberts, ASCE #320326. 8 pp. + append. 

______. 2004. Jonah Infill Drilling Project Evaluation of Directional Drilling. Prepared for 

EnCana Oil and Gas (U.S.A.) Inc., Denver, Colorado, by Reservoir Management 

Services, Inc. 22 pp. 

Energy Information Administration. 2004. Natural Gas Annual 2002. <http://www.eia.doe. 

gov>. Accessed April 2004. 

McMurry Oil Company. 2003. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, Jonah Field. Prepared 

for McMurry Oil Company, an affiliate of EnCana Oil & Gas (U.S.A.), Inc., Denver, 

Colorado, by Lesair Environmental, Inc., Littleton, Colorado. 7 pp. + append. 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. 1990. Water Quality Rules and Regulations. 

Chapter I. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division. 

87 pp. 
36 Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

APPENDIX A: 

TRANSPORTATION PLAN, 

JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT 
Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

APPENDIX A: 

TRANSPORTATION PLAN, 

JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT

Prepared for 

Bureau of Land Management 

Wyoming State Office 

Cheyenne, Wyoming

Bureau of Land Management 

Pinedale Field Office 

Pinedale, Wyoming 

and 

Bureau of Land Management 

Rock Springs Field Office 

Rock Springs, Wyoming

TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 

Laramie, Wyoming 

MAI Project 35982

February 2005 
Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.............................................................................. A-iv 

A-1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... A-1 

A-1.1 OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................. A-1 

A-1.2 SCOPE............................................................................................................. A-3 

A-1.3 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................... A-4 

A-2.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT/TRANSPORTATION PLAN SCOPING ................... A-7 

A-3.0 ROAD ROUTE DESCRIPTIONS ............................................................................. A-11 

A-3.1 U.S. HIGHWAY 191...................................................................................... A-11 

A-3.2 WYOMING STATE HIGHWAY 351 .......................................................... A-12 

A-3.3 LUMAN ROAD.............................................................................................. A-12 

A-3.4 BURMA ROAD.............................................................................................. A-13 

A-3.5 JONAH NORTH ROAD ................................................................................ A-13 

A-3.6 RIM ROAD ..................................................................................................... A-14 

A-3.7 ADDITIONAL LOCAL AND RESOURCE ROADS AND 

GATHERING PIPELINES ............................................................................ A-14 

A-4.0 EXISTING AND PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION NEEDS .............................. A-15 

A-4.1 THE EXISTING NETWORK........................................................................ A-15 

A-4.2 PROPOSED NETWORK USE OR MODIFICATION................................ A-16 

A-4.3 ULTIMATE ROAD DISPOSITION ............................................................. A-26 

A-5.0 ROAD CLASSIFICATIONS ..................................................................................... A-29 

A-5.1 FUNCTIONAL ROAD CLASSIFICATION, GENERAL .......................... A-29 

A-5.2 FUNCTIONAL ROAD CLASSIFICATION................................................ A-29 

A-6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS .................................................................... A-33 

A-6.1 TOPOGRAPHIC CONSTRAINTS ............................................................... A-33 

A-6.1.1 Steep Slope Areas............................................................................ A-33 

A-6.1.2 Playas................................................................................................ A-33 

A-6.1.3 Large Drainages................................................................................. A-34 

A-6.2 SOIL CONSTRAINTS..................................................................................... A-34 

A-6.3 BIOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS................................................................... A-47 

A-6.4 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS.......................................... A-47 

A-7.0 ROAD SPECIFICATIONS, PLANS, AND MAINTENANCE .............................. A-49 

A-7.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................... A-49 

A-7.2 TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ROADS ......................................... A-50 

A-7.3 ROAD SURFACE MATERIAL .................................................................... A-51 

A-7.4 DRAINAGE CROSSINGS ............................................................................ A-51 

A-7.4.1 Culverts ............................................................................................ A-53 
A-ii Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

Page 

A-7.4.2 Low-water Crossings....................................................................... A-53 

A-7.4.3 Bridges or Structures....................................................................... A-53 

A-7.5 ROAD LAYOUT AND CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION........................ A-54 

A-7.5.1 Centerline Staking ........................................................................... A-54 

A-7.5.2 Construction Monitoring................................................................. A-54 

A-7.6 OTHER DESIGN GUIDELINES .................................................................. A-55 

A-7.7 MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................... A-56 

A-8.0 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS........................................................................... A-57 

A-9.0 LITERATURE CITED............................................................................................... A-59 

LIST OF MAPS 

Page 

Map A-1.1 Transportation Planning Area and Existing Road Network ........................ A-2 

Map A-6.1 Project Area Soils, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 

Wyoming, 2004 .............................................................................................. A-40 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Page 

Figure A-5.1 Typical Access Road (Local/Collector and Resource) with Adjacent 

Pipeline Schematic, Jonah Infill Drilling Program, Sublette County, 

Wyoming, 2004 .............................................................................................. A-31 

LIST OF TABLES 

Page 

Table A-4.1 Vehicle Characteristics and Number of Trips for a 3,100 Wells on 3,100 

New Well Pads Project .................................................................................... A-17 
Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-iii 

LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) 

Page

Table A-4.2 Vehicle Characteristics and Number of Trips for a 3,100 Wells on No 

New Well Pads Project .................................................................................... A-18 

Table A-4.3 Vehicle Characteristics and Number of Trips for a 1,250 Wells on 1,250 

Table A-4.4 Vehicle Characteristics and Number of Trips for a 2,200 Wells on 2,200 

Table A-4.6 Vehicle Characteristics and Number of Trips for a 3,100 Wells on 1,028 

Table A-4.7 Vehicle Characteristics and Number of Trips for a 3,100 Wells on 2,553 

Table A-4.8 Vehicle Characteristics and Number of Trips for a 533 Wells on 497 Well 

Table A-4.9 Estimated Traffic Requirements Summary, All Development Scenarios, 

Table A-4.10 Approximate Traffic Volumes for Selected Roads, Jonah Infill Drilling 

Table A-4.11 Estimated Life-of-Project (Years), Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

Table A-6.5 Soil Types, Soil Use, and Management Considerations, Jonah Infill 

Table A-6.6 Soil Salvage Depth and Soil Characteristics for Project Area Soils, 

New Well Pads Project .................................................................................... A-19 

New Well Pads Project .................................................................................... A-20 

Table A-4.5 Vehicle Characteristics and Number of Trips for a 3,100 Wells on 266 

New Well Pads Project .................................................................................... A-21 

New Well Pads Project .................................................................................... A-22 

New Well Pads Project .................................................................................... A-23 

Pads Project (No New Wells) .......................................................................... A-24 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming ............................... A-24 

Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2004 ...................................................... A-25 

County, Wyoming, 2004.................................................................................. A-26 

Table A-6.1 Criteria to Establish Soil Suitability for Drastically Disturbed Areas ....... A-35 

Table A-6.2 Criteria Used to Establish Suitability for Pond/Reservoir Areas ............... A-36 

Table A-6.3 Criteria Used to Establish Suitability for Roadfill....................................... A-37 

Table A-6.4 Criteria Used to Establish Suitability for Shallow Excavations ................. A-38 

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2004......................................... A-41 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2004 ................ A-42 
A-iv Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

APD Application for Permit to Drill 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

EIS Environmental impact statement 

HS-20 Refers to the AASHTO truck type and axle load rating 

I-80 Interstate 80 

JIDPA Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area 

LOP Life-of-Project 

Operators Oil and gas and pipeline companies 

PFO Pinedale Field Office 

ROW Right-of-way 

RSFO Rock Springs Field Office 

TP Transportation Plan 

TPA Transportation planning area 

TRC Mariah TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 

WDOT Wyoming Department of Transportation 
Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-1 

A-1.0 INTRODUCTION 

A-1.1 OBJECTIVES 

This Transportation Plan (TP) was prepared to supplement a proposal by oil and gas 

companies (Operators) to drill new wells in the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area (JIDPA), 

as described in the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area environmental impact statement (EIS). 

This TP provides an assessment of future road development and use in and around the 

JIDPA and of potential impacts to the existing transportation system and provides a basis 

for future oil- and gas-related exploration and production transportation planning within the 

area. 

The transportation planning area (TPA) includes the JIDPA plus adjacent areas that include 

roads that may be used to access the JIDPA (Map A-1.1). The TPA includes U.S. Highway 

191 (1.5 to 10.0 miles east of the JIDPA) and State Highway 351 (6 miles north of the area). 

More detailed maps of the TPA are available for review at the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) Pinedale Field Office (PFO) and Rock Springs Field Office (RSFO). 

This TP deals primarily with corridors for proposed local and collector roads on and 

adjacent to the JIDPA. The EIS discusses the projected well development within the area 

and associated impacts due to the development. Localized planning for each new well 

location would be necessary, and this document and applicable transportation codes and 

standards would be used in localized planning efforts. Operational updates would be made 

during project development to detail specific localized transportation networks, if deemed 

necessary by the BLM. All new or upgraded roads in the TPA would incorporate the 

general provisions of this planning document. 

The objectives and content of this TP are listed and discussed below. 

• The annual operational update process is described, including scheduling and 

responsibilities. 
A-2 Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Map A-1.1 Transportation Planning Area and Existing Road Network. 
Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-3 

• Existing roads in the JIDPA are described, and primary routes (i.e., projectrequired collector and local roads) are identified on maps. High volume roads 

(i.e., local or collector roads) and resource, two-track, and other unimproved 

roads are also discussed. 

• Existing roads and road corridors that may be used as collector or local roads 

for the proposed project are identified. 

• Existing natural gas pipelines in the JIDPA are shown, and pipeline 

development actions are presented. 

• Natural transportation obstacles (e.g., steep terrain, drainages) and 

environmentally sensitive areas (e.g., sage grouse leks, raptor nests) are 

identified. These areas would be avoided, where practical, when determining 

the location of future high traffic volume transportation routes. 

• Soils in the JIDPA are identified, and their limitations for project operations 

are presented. A brief description of field evaluation and observation 

methods for determining if a soil may have erosion, stability, or other 

problems is also presented. 

• Road types are discussed by functional classification. Standard road surface, 

construction-related disturbance, and right-of-way (ROW) widths are 

provided in the EIS. 

• Maintenance and other agreements are discussed. 

This document was prepared for the BLM by TRC Mariah Associates Inc. (TRC Mariah). 

A-1.2 SCOPE 

The scope of this TP includes a description of the existing road network, the general 

locations of proposed high-traffic-volume roads and corridors, and definitions of the road 

types. Relevant requirements for road construction or upgrading are identified. A working 

plan is outlined to help determine the procedures for planning a road to serve a proposed 

well, or group of wells, and the development of agreements for use and maintenance are 

outlined. 
A-4 Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

This plan also applies to the transportation of gas, condensate, or water via pipelines within 

the area. Pipelines generally would be located adjacent to roads to reduce the total amount 

of new surface disturbance. However, this design may complicate route selection, and in 

some instances, lead to increased environmental impacts. If this occurs, pipelines would be 

located along alternative routes. 

Existing and improved access roads to the JIDPA are under the jurisdiction of the BLM, 

who approves their design and requires their maintenance. Most roads within the JIDPA 

also are under the jurisdiction of the BLM, and maintenance of these roads is conducted by 

Operators. This document describes the responsibility for road maintenance, and the type of 

maintenance is discussed generically (see Section A-7.0). Operators would provide the 

BLM with copies of road maintenance agreements that include the name of a designated 

contact person. Non-oil-and-gas roads would be maintained by the BLM or other ROW 

holder. 

A-1.3 LIMITATIONS 

• The condition (e.g., road design, upgrading requirements) and maintenance 

status (e.g., plowed) of existing roads and casual routes in the transportation 

network are identified on detailed maps available at area BLM offices. Many 

existing roads may not be passable during inclement weather or during winter 

months. All roads developed for this project would need upgrading, 

maintenance, and winter snow removal. Specific road upgrading and 

maintenance responsibilities would be identified annually, under the direction 

of the BLM. 

• Due to the sensitivity of paleontologic and historic/cultural resources, the 

known locations of these resources on and adjacent to the JIDPA are not 

provided. Further detail on paleontological and historic/cultural resources 

would be collected prior to road development as a component of the 

Application for Permit to Drill (APD) and/or ROW application process. 
Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-5 

• The transportation network described in this document is focused on local and 

collector roads and potential road corridors; however, existing 

low-traffic-volume resource roads and unimproved roads also are identified 

on the detailed maps available for review at the BLM PFO and RSFO. 
A-6 Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-7 

A-2.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT/TRANSPORTATION PLAN SCOPING 

Transportation issues and concerns were identified during the preparation of this and other 

regional oil and gas development EISs. The BLM PFO requested public and agency input 

on the Jonah Infill Drilling Project in April and December of 2003 through scoping letters, 

press releases, and phone calls to potentially affected area users and management agencies. 

Those contacted include Operators; local and regional media sources; federal, state, and 

local government representatives; state and county transportation departments; the 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department and other state offices; recreation and conservation 

groups; livestock permitees; and other potentially affected entities. A complete list of 

contacts can be obtained from the BLM PFO. 

All comments received during the scoping process were considered in developing this TP. 

Comments included the following. 

• Roads should not be overdesigned. 

• Pipelines should parallel roads. 

• Pipelines and power lines should be buried. 

• Unburied pipelines can spook horses and make off-road travel more difficult. 

• Undesirable conditions along two-track roads (e.g., poor drainage crossings) 

should be repaired, and these roads should be eliminated if another road 

accesses the same area. 

• Two-track roads that are not used and which can be reclaimed should be 

identified. 

• Two-track roads should not be eliminated. 

• Access to two-track roads from high-traffic-volume crowned-and-ditched 

roads should be maintained. 

• High-traffic-volume crowned-and-ditched roads should be constructed such 

that vehicles with horse trailers can pull off the road at regular intervals and 

avoid parking in borrow ditches. 

• Livestock and wildlife watering areas should be avoided. 

• Cattle guards should be cleaned out annually prior to May 1. 
A-8 Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

• Sand Draw and a 300-ft buffer should be avoided. 

• Greater sage-grouse leks and associated buffers should be avoided. 

• Noise impacts to greater sage-grouse should be considered. 

• Greater sage-grouse and mountain plover surveys should be conducted to 

better define desirable road corridors. 

• Development impacts to greater sage-grouse should be thoroughly evaluated and 

the following commitments made: 1) to adopt a policy of no surface disturbance 

within 3 miles of occupied leks and 2) to require road closures (permanent or 

seasonal) where oil and gas production is permitted. 

• All off-road motorized travel in areas with threatened, endangered, proposed, 

candidate, and BLM Wyoming-sensitive species should be prohibited. 

• A 1.0-mile disturbance-free buffer should be applied around bald eagle nests and 

winter roosts, or, if not practical, activity should be conducted outside of 

February 15-August 15 to protect nesting birds and November 1-April 15 to 

protect roosting birds. 

• Mule deer winter range west of the JIDPA and east of the Green River may be 

impacted if access to the JIDPA is through Reardon or Chapel Canyons. 

• The use of north/south-oriented roads should be maximized to accommodate 

pronghorn antelope movements. 

• The impacts of the project on wildlife deaths due to increased traffic and 

animal/vehicle collisions should be addressed. 

• Negative impacts of the road network on wildlife habitat, increased poaching, 

diminished enjoyment for hunters, visual impacts, and undue stress on wildlife 

during critical times of the year should be identified. 

• To protect migratory animals: 1) no surface occupancy should be allowed in 

severe winter relief ranges for mule deer and pronghorn; and 2) a minimum buffer 

zone of 200 meters should be used for wells and roads until ongoing studies are 

completed and recommendations based on study results can be made. 

• Overwinter fawn survival may decrease in response to human activity or other 

disturbances causing increased energy expenditure. 
Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-9 

• Research has consistently documented avoidance by elk of roads open to 

vehicular traffic during the spring, summer, and fall months. The effects of open 

roads on mule deer and pronghorn are less understood. 

• Animal-vehicle collisions can be a major source of ungulate mortality. 

• Under the PFO and RSFO Resource Management Plans (RMPs) wells may be 

drilled during the summer months in crucial winter ranges and then maintained 

through the winter. Traffic associated with maintenance and general road traffic 

may continue to disturb big game in these areas, especially in the spring, when big 

game energy reserves are typically low. 

• Limits on the density of wells and roads within important ungulate habitats as 

determined through monitoring and research efforts should be set. 

• The TPA boundary should be extended westward to the Green River and 

southward to the Sweetwater County line. 

• The use of looped roads should be minimized to avoid increased traffic. 

• Turnout lanes and adequate site distances should be considered for existing 

and future high traffic volume road junctions with existing highways. 

• All roads developed for this project should be reclaimed when they are no 

longer required. 

• Sublette County has no interest in acquiring any of the roads developed for 

this project. 

• The ultimate road situation (i.e., after the project is completed) should be 

similar to predevelopment (pre-1990). 

• The majority of large trucks currently access the JIDPA using the Luman 

Road, and the Luman Road should remain as the principal access road for 

large vehicles. 

• The Burma Road currently is seldom used by large vehicles and should 

remain as such. 

• Improvements to the Burma Road should include widening, installation of a 

new cattle guard and culvert, and appropriate surfacing. 

• Close the Burma Road or leave it unimproved if additional access to the 

JIDPA is provided from the northeast. 
A-10 Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

• The southwest access to the JIDPA is used primarily by light-duty trucks. 

• A road and pipeline corridor southwest of the JIDPA would be required for 

the life-of-Project (LOP), and an additional road and pipeline corridor may be 

required north of the JIDPA. 

• No new road construction should be authorized; wells could be built along 

existing improved roads. 

• Limit habitat fragmentation, protect current roadless areas, provide for 

aggressively closing of unnecessary or ecologically destructive roads, and provide 

for maintaining needed roads to reduce negative impacts. 

• The TP should require adequate design considerations to minimize impacts 

and provide orderly and safe traffic movement. The plan should include dust 

mitigation measures and siltation barriers, and the county should use tax revenues 

obtained from gas production to pave primary field access roads, similar to the 

policy of paving roads for energy development in Campbell County. 

• Ensure that no cross-country vehicle travel is allowed in known habitat or 

locations of BLM Wyoming-sensitive plant species within the JIDPA. 

• New technologies designed to reduce project impacts should be tested during 

development and implemented as appropriate. 
Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-11 

A-3.0 ROAD ROUTE DESCRIPTIONS 

There are two paved all-weather roads currently providing access to the TPA--U.S., 

Highway 191 and Wyoming State Highway 351. The remainder of the roads are not paved. 

Most unpaved project-required roads are now appropriately surfaced (e.g., gravel, 

aggregate) to be passable when wet and during winter, and improvements and maintenance 

including snow removal are regularly performed. In addition, some realignment of these 

routes may occur to minimize impacts to sensitive resources, to ensure safety, and to 

maximize traffic flow efficiency. Map A-1.1 and the detailed maps available for review at 

BLM offices show the location of all existing roads including collector and local road routes 

with the highest traffic volumes on the TPA. 

The following sections briefly describe the location and status of the road routes on the TPA 

used to access the JIDPA and in-field development sites. Any new roads and necessary 

improvements and realignments to existing routes would be developed in accordance with 

BLM standards, and all routes would be selected to ensure safety, to maximize 

transportation efficiency, to avoid sensitive environmental resources, and to minimize road 

densities. 

A-3.1 U.S. HIGHWAY 191 

U.S. Highway 191 is the primary transportation corridor currently linking the JIDPA (at the 

Luman Road and Rim Road) to regional communities (e.g., Pinedale, Rock Springs). U.S. 

Highway 191 has an average of 1,460 vehicles per day from the Sweetwater County line to 

State Highway 351, and approximately 1,300 vehicles travel north from State Highway 351 

to Boulder, Wyoming, each day (personal communication, November 17, 2003, with 

Sherman Wiseman, Transportation Survey, Wyoming Department of Transportation 

[WDOT]). U.S. Highway 191 recently has been improved over much of its length between 

Interstate 80 (I-80) and State Highway 351, and a turnout at the Luman Road junction has 

been developed. No future JIDPA access points along U.S. Highway 191 are anticipated; 

however, turnout lanes may be deemed appropriate at the junction of U.S. Highway 191 and 
A-12 Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

the Rim Road. Additionally, any potential new access roads junctions would be developed 

in consideration of sight distances and may require turnout lanes. These actions would be 

coordinated with the WDOT. Special arrangements would be made with WDOT to place road 

signs along this road to increase awareness of potential driving hazards and increase employee 

and public safety. These signs may include, but would not be restricted to, school bus stops, upcoming turn markers (i.e., Luman Road and Rim Road), animal crossings, etc. 

A-3.2 WYOMING STATE HIGHWAY 351 

Wyoming State Highway 351 runs east/west approximately 6 miles north of the JIDPA. 

This road provides access to the JIDPA via the Burma and Jonah North Roads primarily for 

the traffic traveling from the Big Piney/Marbleton area. State Highway 351 traffic has 

increased from 700 vehicles a day in 2002 to 1,200 vehicles a day in 2003 and is scheduled 

for improvement in 2010 (personal communication, September 9, 2003, with Bob Maxam, 

Resident Engineer, WDOT, Pinedale). Turnout lanes and sight distances would be 

considered at the Burma Road and Jonah North Road junctions and at any future access 

points, and this action would be coordinated with WDOT. Special arrangements would be 

made with WDOT to place road signs along this road to increase awareness of potential driving 

hazards and increase employee and public safety. These signs may include, but would not be 

restricted to, school bus stops, up-coming turnmarkers (i.e., Burma Road and Jonah North Road), 

animal crossings, etc. 

A-3.3 LUMAN ROAD 

The existing unpaved Luman Road links the JIDPA to U.S. Highway 191 east of the area 

and is the primary field access route. This road is a local/collector road, is 

gravel/aggregate-surfaced, and is regularly treated with magnesium chloride from its 

junction with U.S. Highway 191 through the JIDPA. The Luman Road has been improved 

through the JIDPA and continues to the southwest to its junction with the existing County 

Line Road. Access to the JIDPA from the southwest would be restricted to the Whelan 

Bridge near LaBarge to avoid increased traffic in Reardon and Chapel Canyons. Additional 
Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-13 

improvement and maintenance work on the Luman Road would be performed by operators 

under the jurisdiction of the BLM. It is anticipated that, at field abandonment, the Luman 

Road would remain in an upgraded condition. Multiple subsurface gas sales pipelines 

currently exist along the Luman Road. These pipelines may be replaced with larger 

pipelines or additional pipelines may be constructed. Since no new pipelines are currently 

proposed from the JIDPA, further pipeline development would require another 

environmental analysis. 

A-3.4 BURMA ROAD 

The Burma Road extends from Wyoming State Highway 351 12 miles south to the JIDPA. 

An upgrade to the Burma Road to allow for additional access to the field from the northwest 

is being considered for this project. Upgrade improvements would likely include 

straightening, widening, and surfacing. Additionally, the approach to State Highway 351 

would be widened and paved, and a new cattle guard and culvert would be installed. 

Improvements would be planned and built according to BLM standards. At field 

abandonment, the entire route would be reclaimed to conditions approximating those 

currently existing in the area unless there is an identified need for the improved road by 

other area users. 

A-3.5 JONAH NORTH ROAD 

The Jonah North Road begins at Wyoming State Highway 351 (approximately 4.7 miles 

west from the U.S Highway 191 junction) and extends 7 miles south into the JIDPA. This 

road has collector road status and has been gravel/aggregate-surfaced. No further 

improvements are currently scheduled, and any additional road upgrades/improvements 

would be planned and built according to BLM standards under the analyses provided in the 

Pinedale Anticline EIS (BLM 2000). The road is regularly treated with magnesium chloride 

to control fugitive dust. At field abandonment, the entire route would be reclaimed unless 

there is an identified need for the improved road by other area users. 
A-14 Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

A-3.6 RIM ROAD 

The Rim Road serves as a connector road between the Jonah North Road and U.S. Highway 

191 approximately 2.4 miles south from the Wyoming State Highway 351 junction. This 

road has resource road status and has been gravel/aggregate-surfaced but does not receive 

regular maintenance. The road is not intended for oil and gas development traffic, and its 

primary purpose is to provide for livestock management and recreation traffic. No 

improvements are currently scheduled, and any additional road upgrades or improvements 

would be planned and built according to BLM standards, under the analyses provided in the 

Pinedale Anticline EIS (BLM 2000). The road is treated with magnesium chloride to 

control fugitive dust. To preclude oil and gas development traffic from the road, signs may 

be posted indicating closure to oil field traffic and/or the cattle guard at U.S. Highway 191 

may be replaced with a gate. At field abandonment, the entire route would be reclaimed 

unless there is an identified need for the improved road by other area users. 

A-3.7 ADDITIONAL LOCAL AND RESOURCE ROADS AND GATHERING 

PIPELINES 

Additional local and resource roads and gathering pipelines would be constructed in the 

JIDPA as necessary to accommodate new wells, and these routes would be specified in 

annual operational updates. Where any new roads are shown to duplicate existing two-track 

roads, the existing two-track would be reclaimed unless it is deemed necessary for other 

area activities (e.g., livestock operations). At field abandonment, it is anticipated that most, 

if not all, newly constructed local and resource roads would be reclaimed unless there is an 

identified need for the road by other area users. 
Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-15 

A-4.0 EXISTING AND PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 

A-4.1 THE EXISTING NETWORK 

The existing transportation network on the TPA is shown on Map A-1.1. This system 

includes four primary access roads: the Luman Road that connects the JIDPA to U.S. 

Highway 191 east of the JIDPA and the County Line Road southwest of the area; the Burma 

Road that runs north from the JIDPA to State Highway 351; and the Jonah North Road that 

connects the northeastern edge of the field north to State Highway 351. Historic use of the 

roads has been limited primarily to livestock operators and recreationists (e.g., hunters, 

off-road vehicle (ORV) users). The principle current use of these and other roads in the 

area is for oil- and gas-related traffic. The existing transportation system is generally 

suitable for all current users. 

The Luman Road is utilized by all user groups, receives more use by large vehicles than any 

other road on the area, and is the most heavily used road in the area. Most use of the Luman 

Road occurs in the JIDPA and eastward to U.S. Highway 191; however, access from the 

southwest is suited for all-weather traffic. Vehicles currently traveling the route from the 

southwest may access the route from Whelan Bridge in LaBarge or from Five Mile Bridge 

south of Big Piney and east up Reardon or Chapel Canyons. Existing traffic primarily uses 

the Whelan Bridge. Most of the heavy vehicle traffic in the JIDPA travels the Luman Road 

to U.S. Highway 191 and is for oil- and gas-related activities. 

The Burma Road is traversed by all users but is currently not well suited for all-weather 

travel or large vehicles. The road receives less use than the Luman Road; however, there is 

a moderate amount of heavy truck use during dry weather. 

The Jonah North Road is traversed by all users as an all-weather travel and large vehicle 

access route. The road receives less use than the Luman Road; however, there is a moderate 

amount of heavy truck use during dry weather. 
A-16 Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Undesignated two-track roads also may be used for access. These routes are used primarily 

by grazing permittees and recreationists and are prohibited for use by Operators except in 

emergencies. Grazing permittees primarily use the two-tracks to access water 

developments. 

A-4.2 PROPOSED NETWORK USE OR MODIFICATION 

The typical stages of a trip necessary for use of the JIDPA transportation system are listed 

below: 

• main movement (i.e., U.S. and state highway lanes for workers with 

destinations terminating in the JIDPA); 

• transition (i.e., turnout lanes, where there is a change in travel speed); 

• distribution/collection (i.e., oil/gas field unit or ranch access roads, collector 

and local roads); and 

• terminal access (i.e., well location access roads, resource roads). 

When planning transportation facilities, all of the described traffic stages can be identified 

within the system, but any stage could be eliminated if not needed (e.g., intermediate stages 

may not be necessary). Each movement stage is handled by a separate facility designed 

specifically for its function. Identifying the stages helps to plan traffic flows. 

The TPA transportation network may experience problems at traffic stage changes due to the 

relatively high volume of expected traffic. Estimated traffic requirements for the Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project are provided in Tables A-4.1 through A-4.8 and are summarized in Table A-4.9. 

Construction, drilling, and completion activities have the greatest traffic requirements (an 

estimated 810 to 850 round trips per well over a 90- to 94-day period). For the entire field, 

average daily traffic during development is expected to range from 172 to 189 vehicles per day 

primarily on the Luman Road (Table A-4.10). All well development activities are anticipated to 

require from 5 to 42 years to complete depending upon the total number of wells developed and 

the pace of development (Table A-4.11). 
Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-17 

Table A-4.1 Vehicle Characteristics and Number of Trips for a 3,100 Wells on 3,100 New 

Well Pads Project. 

Round Total 

Average Average Speed Average Speed Trips Per Project 

Construction 

Activities/Vehicle 

Weight x 

1000 lbs

1 

No. of 

Wheels 

on Collector 

Road 

on Resource 

Road 

Well Pad 

or Well 

Round 

Trips2 

Well Pad/Access Road 

Gravel/Haul Trucks3 35 18 20 15 8 24,800 

Light trucks/Pickups3 7 4 30 20 12 37,200 

Drilling (vertical) 

Semi 44 (28-60) 18 20 15 140 434,000 

Logging/Mud Trucks 48 10 20 15 10 31,000 

Roustabouts 20 6 30 20 20 62,000 

Vendors/Marketers4 7 4 30 20 30 93,000 

Completion Traffic 

Semi/Transport/Water/ 54 (28-80) 18 20 15 350 1,085,000 

Sand 

Large Haul Trucks 48 10 20 15 50 155,000 

Small Haul Trucks 20 6 20 15 30 93,000 

Light Trucks/Pickup 7 4 30 20 140 434,000 

Pipeline Construction 

Haul Trucks5 54 (28-80) 18 20 15 8 24,800 

Light trucks/Pickups5 7 4 30 20 12 37,200 

Subtotal Development 810 2,511,000 

Production Activities 

Workover Rig 90 18 20 15 3 9,300 

Haul Trucks6 54 (28-80) 10 20 15 1,750 5,425,000 

Light Trucks/Pickups7 7 4 30 20 243 753,300 

Subtotal Production 1,996 6,187,600 

Total8 2,806 8,698,600 

1 Loaded and empty weights provided in parentheses. 2 Based on 3,100 new well pads and 3,100 new wells. 3 Based on 3,100 new well pads and access roads. 4 Based on 300 round trips/well with 10 wells visited/trip. 5 Based on one pipeline/well. 6 Includes water and condensate hauling. 7 Assumes all wells visited every 3 days, approximately 20 wells visited daily, and a 40-year well life. 8 Some additional low-volume traffic would also be necessary for reclamation activities. 
A-18 Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table A-4.2 Vehicle Characteristics and Number of Trips for a 3,100 Wells on No New Well 

Pads Project. 

Round Total 

Average Average Speed Average Speed Trips Per Project 

Construction 

Activities 

Weight x 

1000 lbs

1 

No. of 

Wheels 

on Collector 

Road 

on Resource 

Road 

Well Pad 

or Well 

Round 

Trips2 

Well Pad Expansion 

Gravel/Haul Trucks3 35 18 20 15 4 2,000 

Light trucks/Pickups3 7 4 30 20 6 3,000 

Drilling (Directional) 

Semi 44 (28-60) 18 20 15 168 520,800 

Logging/Mud Trucks 48 10 20 15 12 37,200 

Roustabouts 20 6 30 20 24 74,400 

Vendors/Marketers4 7 4 30 20 36 111,600 

Completion Traffic 

Semi/Transport/Water/ 54 (28-80) 18 20 15 350 1,085,000 

Sand 

Large Haul Trucks 48 10 20 15 50 155,000 

Small Haul Trucks 20 6 20 15 30 93,000 

Light Trucks/Pickup 7 4 30 20 140 434,000 

Pipeline Construction 

Gravel/Haul Trucks5 54 (28-80) 18 20 15 8 4,000 

Light trucks/Pickups5 7 4 30 20 12 6,000 

Subtotal Development 840 2,526,000 

Production Activities 

Workover Rig 90 18 20 15 3 9,300 

Haul Trucks6 54 (28-80) 10 20 15 1,750 5,425,000 

Light Trucks/Pickups7 7 4 30 20 487 242,000 

Subtotal Production 2,240 5,676,300 

Total8 3,080 8,202,300 

1 Loaded and empty weights provided in parentheses. 2 Based on 497 existing well pads and 3,100 new wells. 3 Based on expansion of 497 existing well pads. 4 Based on 300 round trips/well with 10 wells visited/trip. 5 Based on one new pipeline/existing wellpad. 6 Includes water and condensate hauling. 7 Assumes all wells visited every 3 days, approximately 10 well pads (about 6 wells/pad) can be visited daily, and 

a 40-year well life. 8 Some additional low-volume traffic would also be necessary for reclamation activities. 
Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-19 

Table A-4.3 Vehicle Characteristics and Number of Trips for a 1,250 Wells on 1,250 New 

Well Pads Project. 

Round Total 

Average Average Speed Average Speed Trips Per Project 

Construction 

Activities 

Weight x 

1000 lbs

1 

No. of 

Wheels 

on Collector 

Road 

on Resource 

Road 

Well Pad 

or Well 

Round 

Trips2 

Well Pad/Access Roads 

Gravel/Haul Trucks3 35 18 20 15 8 10,000 

Light trucks/Pickups3 7 4 30 20 12 15,000 

Drilling (vertical) 

Semi 44 (28-60) 18 20 15 140 175,000 

Logging/Mud Trucks 48 10 20 15 10 12,500 

Roustabouts 20 6 30 20 20 25,000 

Vendors/Marketers4 7 4 30 20 30 37,500 

Completion Traffic 

Semi/Transport/Water/ 54 (28-80) 18 20 15 350 437,500 

Sand 

Large Haul Trucks 48 10 20 15 50 62,500 

Small Haul Trucks 20 6 20 15 30 37,500 

Light Trucks/Pickups 7 4 30 20 140 175,000 

Pipeline 

Construction 

Gravel/Haul Trucks5 54 (28-80) 18 20 15 8 10,000 

Light trucks/Pickups5 7 4 30 20 12 15,000 

Subtotal Development 810 1,012,500 

Production Activities 

Workover Rig 90 18 20 15 3 800 

Haul Trucks6 54 (28-80) 10 20 15 1,750 2,187,500 

Light Trucks/Pickups7 7 4 30 20 243 303,800 

Subtotal Production 1,996 2,495,100 

Total8 2,806 3,507,600 

1 Loaded and empty weights provided in parentheses. 2 Based on 1,250 new well pads and 1,250 new wells. 3 Based on 1,250 new well pads and access roads. 4 Based on 300 round trips/well with 10 wells visited/trip. 5 Based on one pipeline/wellpad. 6 Includes water and condensate hauling. 7 Assumes all wells visited every 3 days, approximately 20 wells visited daily, and a 40-year well life. 8 Some additional low-volume traffic would also be necessary for reclamation activities. 
A-20 Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table A-4.4 Vehicle Characteristics and Number of Trips for a 2,200 Wells on 2,200 New 

Well Pads Project. 

Round Total 

Average Average Speed Average Speed Trips Per Project 

Construction 

Activities 

Weight x 

1000 lbs

1 

No. of 

Wheels 

on Collector 

Road 

on Resource 

Road 

Well Pad 

or Well 

Round 

Trips2 

Well Pad/Access Road 

Gravel/Haul Trucks3 35 18 20 15 8 17,600 

Light trucks/Pickups3 7 4 30 20 12 26,400 

Drilling (vertical) 

Semi 44 (28-60) 18 20 15 140 308,000 

Logging/Mud Trucks 48 10 20 15 10 22,000 

Roustabouts 20 6 30 20 20 44,000 

Vendors/Marketers4 7 4 30 20 30 66,000 

Completion Traffic 

Semi/Transport/Water/ 54 (28-80) 18 20 15 350 770,000 

Sand 

Large Haul Trucks 48 10 20 15 50 110,000 

Small Haul Trucks 20 6 20 15 30 66,000 

Light Trucks/Pickups 7 4 30 20 140 308,000 

Pipeline Construction 

Gravel/Haul Trucks5 54 (28-80) 18 20 15 8 17,600 

Light trucks/Pickups5 7 4 30 20 12 26,400 

Subtotal Development 810 1,782,000 

Production Activities 

Workover Rig 90 18 20 15 3 6,600 

Haul Trucks6 54 (28-80) 10 20 15 1,750 3,850,000 

Light Trucks/Pickups7 7 4 30 20 243 534,600 

Subtotal Production 1,996 4,450,600 

Total8 2,806 6,232,600 

1 Loaded and empty weights provided in parentheses. 2 Based on 2,200 new well pads and 1,250 new wells. 3 Based on 2,200 new well pads and access roads. 4 Based on 300 round trips/well with 10 wells visited/trip. 5 Based on one pipeline/wellpad. 6 Includes water and condensate hauling. 7 Assumes all wells visited every 3 days, approximately 20 wells visited daily, and a 40-year well life. 8 Some additional low-volume traffic would also be necessary for reclamation activities. 
Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-21 

Table A-4.5 Vehicle Characteristics and Number of Trips for a 3,100 Wells on 266 New Well 

Pads Project. 

Round Total 

Average Average Speed Average Speed Trips Per Project 

Construction 

Activities 

Weight x 

1000 lbs

1 

No. of 

Wheels 

on Collector 

Road 

on Resource 

Road 

Well Pad 

or Well 

Round 

Trips2 

Well Pad Expansion 

Gravel/Haul Trucks3 35 18 20 15 4-8 4,100 

Light trucks/Pickups3 7 4 30 20 6-12 6,200 

Drilling (Directional) 

Semi 44 (28-60) 18 20 15 168 520,800 

Logging/Mud Trucks 48 10 20 15 12 37,200 

Roustabouts 20 6 30 20 24 74,400 

Vendors/Marketers4 7 4 30 20 36 111,600 

Completion Traffic 

Semi/Transport/Water/ 54 (28-80) 18 20 15 350 1,085,000 

Sand 

Large Haul Trucks 48 10 20 15 50 155,000 

Small Haul Trucks 20 6 20 15 30 93,000 

Light Trucks/Pickups 7 4 30 20 140 434,000 

Pipeline Construction 

Gravel/Haul Trucks5 54 (28-80) 18 20 15 8 6,100 

Light trucks/Pickups5 7 4 30 20 12 9,200 

Subtotal Development 850 2,536,600 

Production Activities 

Workover Rig 90 18 20 15 3 9,300 

Haul Trucks6 54 (28-80) 10 20 15 1,750 5,425,000 

Light Trucks/Pickups/ 

Pumpers7 

7 4 30 20 487 371,600 

Subtotal Production 2,240 5,805,900 

Total8 3,090 8,342,500 

1 Loaded and empty weights provided in parentheses. 2 Based on 266 new well pads and 3,100 new wells. 3 Based on 266 new well pads and access roads, and well pad expansion at the 497 existing pads. 4 Based on 360 round trips/well with 10 wells visited/trip. 5 Based on one pipeline/wellpad (includes 266 new and 497 existing pads; 763 total). 6 Includes water and condensate hauling. 7 Assumes all wells visited every 3 days, approximately 10 well pads (about 5 wells/pad) visited daily, and a 

40-year well life. 8 Some additional low-volume traffic would also be necessary for reclamation activities. 
A-22 Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table A-4.6 Vehicle Characteristics and Number of Trips for a 3,100 Wells on 1,028 New 

Well Pads Project. 

Round Total 

Average Average Speed Average Speed Trips Per Project 

Construction 

Activities 

Weight x 

1000 lbs

1 

No. of 

Wheels 

on Collector 

Road 

on Resource 

Road 

Well Pad 

or Well 

Round 

Trips2 

Well Pad/Access Road 

Gravel/Haul Trucks3 35 18 20 15 4-8 10,200 

Light trucks/Pickups3 7 4 30 20 6-12 15,300 

Drilling (Directional) 

Semi 44 (28-60) 18 20 15 168 520,800 

Logging/Mud Trucks 48 10 20 15 12 37,200 

Roustabouts 20 6 30 20 24 74,400 

Vendors/Marketers4 7 4 30 20 36 111,600 

Completion Traffic 

Semi/Transport/Water/ 54 (28-80) 18 20 15 350 1,085,000 

Sand 

Large Haul Trucks 48 10 20 15 50 155,000 

Small Haul Trucks 20 6 20 15 30 93,000 

Light Trucks/Pickups 7 4 30 20 140 434,000 

Pipeline Construction 

Gravel/Haul Trucks5 54 (28-80) 18 20 15 8 12,200 

Light trucks/Pickups5 7 4 30 20 12 18,300 

Subtotal Development 850 2,567,000 

Production Activities 

Workover Rig 90 18 20 15 3 9,300 

Haul Trucks6 54 (28-80) 10 20 15 1,750 5,425,000 

Light Trucks/Pickups7 7 4 30 20 487 742,700 

Subtotal Production 2,240 6,177,000 

Total8 3,090 8,744,000 

1 Loaded and empty weights provided in parentheses. 2 Based on 1,028 new well pads and 3,100 new wells. 3 Based on 1,028 new well pads and access roads, and well pad expansion at the 497 existing pads. 4 Based on 360 round trips/well with 10 wells visited/trip. 5 Based on one new pipeline/wellpad (includes 1,028 new and 497 existing pads; 1,525 total). 6 Includes water and condensate hauling. 7 Assumes all wells visited every 3 days, approximately 10 well pads (about 3 wells/pad) visited daily, and a 

40-year well life. 8 Some additional low-volume traffic would also be necessary for reclamation activities. 
Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-23 

Table A-4.7 Vehicle Characteristics and Number of Trips for a 3,100 Wells on 2,553 New 

Well Pads Project. 

Round Total 

Average Average Speed Average Speed Trips Per Project 

Construction 

Activities 

Weight x 

1000 lbs

1 

No. of 

Wheels 

on Collector 

Road 

on Resource 

Road 

Well Pad 

or Well 

Round 

Trips2 

Well Pad/Access Road 

Gravel/Haul Trucks3 35 18 20 15 4-8 22,400 

Light trucks/Pickups3 7 4 30 20 6-12 33,600 

Drilling (vertical) 

Semi 44 (28-60) 18 20 15 140 434,000 

Logging/Mud Trucks 48 10 20 15 10 31,000 

Roustabouts 20 6 30 20 20 62,000 

Vendors/Marketers4 7 4 30 20 30 93,000 

Completion Traffic 

Semi/Transport/Water/ 54 (28-80) 18 20 15 350 1,085,000 

Sand 

Large Haul Trucks 48 10 20 15 50 155,000 

Small Haul Trucks 20 6 20 15 30 93,000 

Light Trucks/Pickups 7 4 30 20 140 434,000 

Pipeline Construction 

Gravel/Haul Trucks5 54 (28-80) 18 20 15 8 24,400 

Light trucks/Pickups5 7 4 30 20 12 36,600 

Subtotal Development 810 2,504,000 

Production Activities 

Workover Rig 90 18 20 15 3 9,300 

Haul Trucks6 54 (28-80) 10 20 15 1,750 5,425,000 

Light Trucks/Pickups7 7 4 30 20 243 753,300 

Subtotal Production 1,996 6,187,600 

Total8 2,806 8,691,600 

1 Loaded and empty weights provided in parentheses. 2 Based on 2,553 new well pads and 3,100 new wells. 3 Based on 2,553 new well pads and access roads, and well pad expansion at the 497 existing pads. 4 Based on 360 round trips/well with 10 wells visited/trip. 5 Based on one new pipeline/wellpad. 6 Includes water and condensate hauling. 7 Assumes all wells visited every 3 days, approximately 20 wells visited daily, and a 40-year well life. 8 Some additional low-volume traffic would also be necessary for reclamation activities. 
A-24 Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table A-4.8 Vehicle Characteristics and Number of Trips for a 533 Wells on 497 Well Pads 

Project (No New Wells). 

Total 

Average Average Speed Average Speed Round Project 

Construction 

Activities 

Weight x 

1000 lbs

1 

No. of 

Wheels 

on Collector 

Road 

on Resource 

Road 

Trips Per 

Well 

Round 

Trips2 

Production Activities 

Workover Rig 90 18 20 15 3 1,600 

Haul Trucks3 54 (28-80) 10 20 15 1,750 932,800 

Light Trucks/Pickups4 7 4 30 20 243 129,500 

Total5 1,996 1,063,900 

1 Loaded and empty weights provided in parentheses. 2 Based on the existing authorization for 497 well pads and 533 wells. 3 Includes water and condensate hauling. 4 Assumes all wells visited every 3 days, approximately 20 wells visited daily, and a 40-year well life. 5 Some additional low-volume traffic would also be necessary for reclamation activities. 

Table A-4.9 Estimated Traffic Requirements Summary, All Development Scenarios, Jonah 

Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming. 

Type of Traffic 

Round Trips 

per Well 

LOP Round Trips 

(Thousands)1 

Average Daily 

Traffic1 

Well Construction and Development 

Well Pad and Access Road Construction 10-20 5-62 -- 

(4 days/well site)2 

Drilling (22-26 day average)3 200-240 250-744 -- 

Completion/Testing (60 days) 570 713-1,767 -- 

Pipeline Construction (4 days) 20 10-62 -- 

Total well construction and development 810-850 978-2,635 32-172 

(90-94 days/well site; 5-42 years for the 

project) 

New Production Activities4 1,996-2,240 2,495-6,188 171-424 

Existing Production Activities4 -- 1,064 73 

Total5 2,806-3,090 4,537-9,887 146-564 

1 Assumes 1,250 to 3,100 new wells are drilled and completed as producers, wells produce every day, 

development actions would be completed in from 5 to 42 years, well life is 40 years, and LOP is from 48 to 

85 years (includes the final 3 years of reclamation). 2 Includes gravel hauling. 3 Includes rig move; average varies from 22 days for a vertical well to 26 days for a directional well. 4 Assumes one pumper can visit 20 wells/day, one pad every 3 days, and average well life is 40 years. 5 Average daily traffic volumes are not additive. 
A-25 

Table A-4.10 Approximate Traffic Volumes for Selected Roads, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2004.1 

Approximate Number of Round Trips2 Approximate Average Daily Traffic3 

Road Type (Number of Wells) Development Production Total Development Production Total Resource Road (1 well)2 810-850 1,996-2,240 2,806-3,090 9-10 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 Resource Road (10 wells) 8,100-8,500 19,960-22,400 28,060-30,900 86-94 1.4-1.5 0.9-1.8 Collector/Local Roads (50 wells) 40,500-42,500 99,800-112,000 140,300-154,500 172-189 6.8-7.7 4.5-8.8 Collector/Local Roads (100 wells) 81,000-85,000 199,600-224,000 280,600-309,000 172-189 13.7-15.3 9.0-17.6 Collector/Local Roads (500 wells) 405,000-423,000 998,000-1,120,000 1,403,000-1,545,000 172-189 68.4-76.7 45.2-88.2 Luman Road (1,747 wells)4 1,012,500-1,062,500 3,487,000-3,913,300 4,499,500-4,975,800 172-189 239-268 145-284 

Luman Road (2,697 wells)5 1,782,000-1,870,000 5,383,200-6,041,300 7,165,200-7,911,300 172-189 369-414 231-452 Luman Road (3,597 wells)6 2,511,000-2,635,000 7,179,600-8,057,300 9,690,600-10,692,300 172-189 492-552 312-610 

1 Summarized for all development alternatives. 2 See Tables A-4.1 through A.4.7.3 Assumes a development period of 90 to 94 days per well and 20 simultaneous development operations, a productive well life of 40 years, and a LOF of 

43 to 85 years (see Table A-4.11).

4 1,250 new and 497 existing wells; no development actions would occur for the 497 existing wells. 5 2,250 new and 497 existing wells; no development actions would occur for the 497 existing wells. 6 3,100 new and 497 existing wells; no development actions would occur for the 497 existing wells. Approximates maximum project traffic. 

25 
A-26 Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table A-4.11 Estimated Life-of-Project (Years), Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 

Wyoming, 2004. 

Project Phase/Rate No New Wells 1,250 Wells 2,200 Wells 3,100 Wells 

Development 

75 wells drilled/year 0 17 30 42 

150 wells drilled/year 0 9 15 21 

250 wells drilled/year 0 5 9 13 

Total Development 0 5-17 9-30 13-42 

Production 40 40 40 40 

Reclamation 3 3 3 3 

Life-of-Project 431 48-60 52-73 562

-85 

1

 No New Wells. 2

 Proposed Action LOP. 

Localized construction and drilling activity would temporarily place heavy demands on road 

servicing. Traffic demands would be high in areas where drilling and completion activities 

are occurring throughout the development period (5 to 42 years) but would be reduced 

within other areas of the JIDPA and once development is completed. Once all wells have 

been developed, traffic requirements would remain high for the remainder of the LOP (i.e., 

averaging between 492 to 552 vehicles per day) (Table A-4.10). JIDPA roads would be 

used continually until all wells in the area are abandoned and disturbed areas reclaimed. 

For the entire LOP under the various potential development scenarios (i.e., 43 to 85 years) 

overall traffic requirements are anticipated to range from 312 to 610 vehicles per day 

(Table A-4.10). 

A-4.3 ULTIMATE ROAD DISPOSITION 

When the field is ready for abandonment (estimated to be approximately 43 to 85 years 

from authorization), the transportation network within the TPA would be reclaimed to 

appear much as it did prior to development. Roads identified as necessary or desirable for 
Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-27 

other area users (e.g., grazing permittees, recreationists) may be retained with 

improvements. 

Resource roads that may be retained after the LOP would be those that were identified 

during transportation planning as duplicating an existing two-track or other 

low-traffic-volume road, for which these two-tracks or other roads were reclaimed. In 

addition, resource roads that are deemed necessary by the BLM for other area uses also may 

be retained. 

The Luman and Burma Roads likely would be retained after project completion in an 

upgraded status. All other project-required roads are anticipated to be entirely reclaimed or 

returned to conditions similar to those occurring on the area prior to development. 

Road use following project completion likely would be limited to two of the three existing 

uses (i.e., grazing management and recreation), and responsibility for maintenance of roads 

would revert back to the BLM. A determination regarding the extent of post-project road 

maintenance (e.g., winter snow removal) cannot be determined at this time since the level of 

future area use is unknown. Decisions would be made during the later years of the project 

based on public input. 
A-28 Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-29 

A-5.0 ROAD CLASSIFICATIONS 

A-5.1 FUNCTIONAL ROAD CLASSIFICATION, GENERAL 

The general functional road classification used in this document classifies roads according 

to a hierarchy of traffic movement within a traffic system. This classification is described 

in BLM Manual Section 9113 (BLM 1985) and does not necessarily depend on road 

condition. 

A-5.2 FUNCTIONAL ROAD CLASSIFICATION 

The road classification system used in this document is based on the one currently used by 

the BLM. The special attributes of the roads within the TPA require the use of multiple 

collector roads. 

The road classification described below is derived from the BLM Manual Section 9113 

(BLM 1985, 1991). 

• Local/Collector Roads. These roads normally provide primary access to large 

blocks of land and connect with or are extensions of a public road system. 

They also usually provide the internal access network within an oil and gas 

field. Local/collector roads usually require application of the highest 

standards used by the BLM. The road design speed is 20-50 mph. The 

Luman, Burma, Jonah North, and three additional in-field roads are identified 

as local/collector roads for this project (see Map A-1.1). 

• Resource Roads. These normally are spur roads that provide point access. 

Roads servicing individual oil and gas well locations usually fall within this 

classification. These roads have a design speed of 15-30 mph and are often 

constructed with intervisible turnouts. 

• Casual Use Routes. Casual use routes are those that have not been 

constructed or maintained. They are usually created by repeated travel along 

the same route over time and are often called two-tracks. 
A-30 Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

The public local/collector roads in the JIDPA include the three main BLM roads: the 

Luman, Burma and Jonah North Roads. There are also numerous undesignated casual 

routes (unimproved/two-track roads) on the area and Operator-maintained well access 

(resource) roads (see Map A-1.1). 

Some of the existing casual routes within the JIDPA may be upgraded and used as resource 

or local roads for natural gas development activities. Future resource roads (i.e., 

low-traffic-volume roads) are not specifically identified in this document due to the lack of 

site-specific details for the proposed project. Resource roads and future local roads would 

be identified during localized area transportation planning and would be specified in annual 

operational updates. 

Proposed high-traffic-volume roads and/or road corridors (collector and local roads) are 

identified within this document (see Map A-1.1) and on maps available for review at area 

BLM offices. Resource roads that currently provide access to one or more existing wells or 

other facilities are also shown on the maps. 

Operational updates would be used to determine the type of road standard and design 

parameters for new and/or upgraded roads. Design parameters for the road types proposed 

for this project (i.e., local/collector, and resource roads) are shown in Figure A-5.1 and 

would be commensurate with BLM 9113 Manual specifications (BLM 1985, 1991). No 

roads required for this project would have travel surface widths of less than 29 ft. 

All roads upgraded or developed for this project would be designed, constructed, and 

surfaced to provide all-weather access. However, some local and resource roads initially 

may be constructed without appropriate surfacing material and, therefore, may become 

impassable during inclement weather. Operators would assume the risk of denied access to 

facility sites during inclement weather on roads that become impassable, since the BLM 

may deny access to avoid resource damage during periods when roads are unsuitable for 

travel. 
Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-31 

Figure A-5.1 Typical Access Road (Local/Collector and Resource) with Adjacent Pipeline 

Schematic, Jonah Infill Drilling Program, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2004. 
A-32 Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-33 

A-6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS

There are many natural obstacles (e.g., steep slopes, poor soils for road construction, 

sensitive resources) throughout the TPA that pose problems for road construction and 

development. This section discusses several of the more formidable obstacles. Additional 

areas of concern may be identified during transportation planning and during APD or ROW 

application review processes. Although roads could be constructed through many of the 

obstacles, these areas would be avoided, where possible, to avoid resource conflicts and 

augmented construction costs. The maps available for review at area BLM offices show the 

locations of the following natural and/or physical obstacles. 

A-6.1 TOPOGRAPHIC CONSTRAINTS 

In addition to the topographic obstacles listed below, there are many small dry lake beds and 

low-lying areas, small drainage channels, rock outcroppings, steep slopes, etc., that would 

be considered when choosing transportation routes within and adjacent to the TPA. 

A-6.1.1 Steep Slope Areas 

Steep slope areas occur throughout the TPA, and these areas would be avoided where 

possible to minimize erosion, visual resource, and biological resource impacts. Notable 

steep slope areas present in the TPA include Blue Rim, Stud Horse and Teakettle Buttes, 

and Ross and Yellow Point Ridges (see maps available at area BLM offices). 

A-6.1.2 Playas 

Two playas are known to occur on the TPA. Playas would be avoided where possible 

during construction to protect these special landscape features. 
A-34 Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

A-6.1.3 Large Drainages 

Crossing drainages is expensive and can cause adverse impacts if crossings are not appropriately 

designed and constructed. When it is necessary to cross a large drainage, an appropriate bridge, 

culvert, or low water crossing would be selected and designed to handle at least a 10-year flood. 

In addition, drainages and adjacent areas often contain significant cultural resource sites. The 

number of drainage crossings would be scrupulously limited; to the extent practicable, no new 

crossings would be constructed. Large drainages within the TPA include Sand Draw, North 

Alkaline Draw, Granite Wash, East and West Buckhorn Draws, and Long Draw. 

A-6.2 SOIL CONSTRAINTS 

Site investigations and soil evaluations provide valuable information on soil types and limitations 

of the materials encountered on a road project. The extent of sampling and testing work required 

depends on the type and size of the road and soils characteristics. Lower-standard roads (e.g., 

some resource roads) generally would not require soil investigations. Visual examination is 

generally sufficient for low-traffic-volume roads that would not carry frequent heavy loadings 

and for roads that appear to have soil types well-suited to road construction. Soils that generally 

cause problems are loose windblown sand, silt, and clay (fine-grained materials without the 

presence of gravel or rocky material). Fine-grained silts or clays are particularly troublesome 

when saturated. Sands cause problems when dry. 

Sands, silts, and clays may be difficult to distinguish when in combination, and intermediate silts 

have some characteristics of both sands and clays. Roads constructed on poor soils may perform 

well immediately after construction but may lose stability by bearing failure (sand) or become 

too slippery or unable to support loads (clay) when wet. Road surfacing (e.g., gravel, pavement, 

etc.) can mitigate road placement on poor soils. 

Classifying soil types at proposed construction sites is valuable in predicting potential surface 

damage and in determining the need for and type of surfacing material (Tables A-6.1 to A-6.4). 

Laboratory testing to determine the structural values of the soil may be advisable on roads 
Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-35 

Table A-6.1 Criteria to Establish Soil Suitability for Drastically Disturbed Areas.1

 Rating2 

Parameter Good Fair Poor 

Restrictive 

Feature 

Soil reaction (pH) 5.6-7.8 5.0-5.5 

8.5-9.0 

<5.0 

>9.0 

Too acid 

Too alkaline 

Salinity (mmhos/cm) 0-8 8-16 >16 

>8 

Excess salt 

Depth to cemented pan 

(inches) 

>40 20-40 <20 Reclamation 

problems 

Texture3 SL, L, SIL, 

SCL, VFSL, FSL, CL, 

SICL (<35% C) 

CL, SICL, SC 

LS, LFS, LVFS 

C, SIC, 

S, FS, VFS 

Too clayey 

Too sandy 

Soil adsorption ratio 0-5 5-12 >12 Excess sodium 

Depth to bedrock 

(inches) 

>40 20-40 <20 Reclamation 

problems 

Erosion factor <0.35 >0.35 >0.35 Erodes easily 

Wind erodability group 1, 2 Soil blowing 

Coarse fragments 

(% wt) 

3-10 inches 0-15 15-35 >35 Small stones 

>10 inches 0-3 3-10 >10 Large stones, 

reclamation 

problems 

1 Adapted from Soil Survey Staff (1983). 2 A rating of good means vegetation is relatively easy to establish and maintain, the surface is stable and 

resists erosion, and the reconstructed soil has good potential productivity. Material rated fair can be 

vegetated and stabilized by modifying one or more properties. Topdressing with better material or 

application of soil amendments may be necessary for satisfactory performance. Material rated poor has 

such severe problems that revegetation and stabilization are very difficult and costly. Topdressing with 

better material is necessary to establish and maintain vegetation. 3 U.S. Department of Agriculture Texture. 

C Clay S Sand 

CL Clay loam SC Sandy clay 

FS Fine sand SCL Sandy clay loam

FSL Fine sandy loam SIC Silty clay 

L Loam SICL Silty clay loam

LFS Loamy fine sand SIL Silt loam

LS Loamy sand SL Sandy loam

LVFS Loamy very fine sand VFS Very fine sand 

VFSL Very fine sandy loam 
A-36 Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table A-6.2 Criteria Used to Establish Suitability for Pond/Reservoir Areas.1

 Limits 

Property Slight Moderate Severe Restrictive Feature 

Texture2 SIC, C, SICL, CL, 

SC, SCL 

L, SICL, CL, SIL, 

FSL, VFSL 

SL, FSL, LS, S, 

LFS, gypsum 

Seepage, piping 

Permeability 

(inches/hr) (20-60 

inches) 

<0.6 0.6-2.0 >2.0 Seepage 

Depth to 

(inches) 

bedrock >60 20-60 <20 Depth to rock 

Depth to cemented 

pan (inches) 

>60 20-60 <20 Cemented pan 

Slope (%) 0-3 3-8 >8 Slope 

1 Adapted from Soil Survey Staff (1983). Pond/reservoir areas are areas that hold water behind a dam or 

embankment and, for this project, include reserve pits. Soils best suited to this use have a low seepage 

potential, which is determined by permeability and depth to fractured or permeable bedrock, cemented 

pan, or other permeable material. The soil is rated on its properties in the upper 60 inches as a natural 

barrier against seepage into deeper layers, without regard to cutoff trenches or other features that may be 

installed under the reserve pit. Excessive slope in the direction perpendicular to the axis of the pond 

embankment seriously reduces the storage capacity of the reservoir area. Furthermore, suitable sites may 

be difficult to find on slopes steeper than about 10%. 2 U.S. Department of Agriculture Texture. 

C Clay SC Sandy clay 

CL Clay loam SCL Sandy clay loam

FSL Fine sandy loam SIC Silty clay 

L Loam SICL Silty clay loam

LFS Loamy fine sand SIL Silt loam

LS Loamy sand SL Sandy loam

S Sand VFSL Very fine sandy loam
Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-37 

Table A-6.3 Criteria Used to Establish Suitability for Roadfill.1

 Limits 

Property Slight Moderate Severe Restrictive Feature 

Depth to bedrock 

(inches) 

>60 40-60 <40 Area reclaim 

Texture2 -- L, SIL, FSL, 

VFSL, SCL, SC, 

SICL 

CL, C, SIC Low strength 

Layer thickness 

(inches) 

>60 30-60 <30 Thin layer 

Fracture 3 

inches (wt %)3 

<25 25-50 >50 Large stones 

Depth to high 

water table (ft) 

>3 1-3 <1 Wetness 

Slope (%) 0-15 15-25 >25 Slope 

Shrink-swell Low Moderate High Shrink-swell 

1 Adapted from Soil Survey Staff (1983). Roadfill consists of soil material that is excavated from its 

original position and used in road embankments elsewhere. The evaluations for roadfill are for low 

embankments that generally are less than 6 ft in height and are less exacting in design than high 

embankments such as those along superhighways. The rating is given for the whole soil, from the 

surface to a depth of about 5 ft, based on the assumption that soil horizons will be mixed in loading, 

dumping, and spreading. Soils are rated as to the amount of material available for excavation, the ease of 

excavation, and how well the material performs after it is in place. Soil properties that affect the amount 

of material available for excavation are thickness of suitable material above bedrock or other material 

that is not suitable. The percent of coarse fragments more than 3 inches in diameter, the depth to a high 

water table, and the slope are properties that influence the ease of excavation. A high content of gypsum 

can cause piping or pitting. Some damage to the borrow area is expected, but if revegetation and erosion 

control are likely to be difficult, the soil is rated severe. 2 U.S. Department of Agriculture Texture. 

C Clay SCL Sandy clay loam

CL Clay loam SIC Silty clay 

FSL Fine sandy loam SICL Silty clay loam

L Loam SIL Silt loam

SC Sandy clay VFSL Very fine sandy loam 3 Weighted average to 40 inches. 
A-38 Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table A-6.4 Criteria Used to Establish Suitability for Shallow Excavations.1 

Factors Affecting 

Location and Use Slight 

Limits 

Moderate Severe Restrictive Feature 

Texture2 L, SIL, CL, SCL, 

SICL 

SL, FSL, SI3, SC, 

all gravelly types 

C4, SIC4, S, LS, 

organic soils, all 

very gravelly types 

Soil drainage class Excessive to well Moderately well Somewhat poorly 

to very poorly 

Wetness 

Depth to high 

water table (ft) 

>6.0 2.5-6.0 <2.5 Ponding, wetness 

Flooding None, rare None Subject to flooding Floods 

Slope <8% 8-15% >15% Slope 

Depth to bedrock 

(inches)5 

>60 40-60 <40 Depth to rock 

Stoniness (classes) 0, 1 2 3, 4, 5 Stones 

Rockiness 

(classes) 

0 1 2, 3, 4, 5 Rocks 

1 Adapted from Soil Survey Staff (1983). 2 U.S. Department of Agriculture Texture. If soil contains a thick fragipan, duripan, or other material 

difficult (but not impossible) to excavate with handtools, increase the limitation rating by one class 

unless it already is "severe." 

C Clay SC Sandy clay 

CL Clay loam SCL Sandy clay loam 

FSL Fine sandy loam SI Silt 

L Loam SIC Silty clay 

LS Loamy sand SICL Silty clay loam 

S Sand SIL Silt loam

 SL Sandy loam 3 If soil will stand in vertical cuts like loess, reduce rating to "slight." 4 If friable like some kaolinitic clays, reduce rating to "moderate." 5 If bedrock is soft enough to excavate with ordinary handtools or light equipment such as a backhoe, 

reduce "moderate" and "severe" ratings by one class. 
Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-39 

requiring high traffic volumes and/or repeated heavy loads. Soils would be classified prior 

to road construction and specified with appropriate construction criteria in operational 

updates and/or APD and ROW applications. 

Soils present on the JIDPA are shown on Map A-6.1 and the detailed maps available at area 

BLM offices. Most soils within the TPA have limitations for road construction, shallow 

excavations associated with pipeline construction, pond/reservoir areas (reserve pits), and 

reclamation. Limitations were identified using criteria obtained from the U.S. Soil 

Conservation Service National Soils Handbook, 603.15 (Soil Survey Staff 1983) 

(Tables A-6.1 through A-6.4). 

Major soils within the JIDPA include the Vermillion Variant-Seedskadee-Fraddle complex 

on 0-3% slopes (Unit 127); Monte-Leckman complex on 1-6% slopes (Unit 106); the 

Fraddle-Ouard-San Arcacio Variant complex on 3-8% slopes (Unit 124); the Ouard-Ouard 

Variant-Boltus complex on 1-8% slopes (Unit 114); the Garsid-Monte Association on 1-6% 

slopes (Unit 119); the San Arcacio-Saguache association on 0-3% slopes (Unit 125); the 

Huguston-Horsley-Terada complex on 6-30% slopes (Unit 116); and the Haterton-Garsid 

complex on 1-8% slopes (Unit 113) (Table A-6.5). These mapping units collectively cover 

approximately 78% of the JIDPA. Primary limitations associated with these soils include 

thin soils, shallow depth to rock, low strength, sandiness, and stoniness (Tables A-6.5 and 

A-6.6). Steep slopes may limit development and reclamation potential in localized areas, 

but most soils are typically located on gently sloping, undulating uplands. The Cowestglen 

sand loam on 0-2% slopes (Unit 951/106) and the Monte-Leckman complex (Unit 106) on 1-6% 

slopes occur adjacent to drainage channels and on terraces and alluvial fans. These soils are 

limited by frost action, flooding, excess sand, and/or small stones. 
A-40 Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Map A-6.1 Project Area Soils, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 

2004. 
Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-41 

Table A-6.5 Soil Types, Soil Use, and Management Considerations, Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2004. 

Map 

Unit 

Number Map Unit Name Use and Management Considerations Acres 

102 Langspring Variant-Langspring Gently sloping to nearly level mesa tops and uplands. Loamy uplands. Generally 149 

complex, 1-10% slopes suitable for road construction. Rehabilitation limited due to excess lime and small 

stones. 

104 Chrisman silty clay, 0 to 2% Saline upland sites, in closed basins Construction activities limited due to severe 42 

slopes shrink-swell properties. Rehabilitation potential limited by moderately alkaline soils. 

106 Monte-Leckman complex, Nearly level to gently sloping alluvial fans and drainageways. Loamy, saline uplands. 3,488 

1-6% slopes Generally suitable for road construction. Rehabilitation limited by excess sands or 

small stones. 

108 Dines-Clowers-Quealman Nearly level to gently sloping drainageways and alluvial terraces. Loamy sites, saline 268 

complex, 0-3% slopes uplands. Limited for road construction due to low strength. Rehabilitation potential 

limited by excess salt, sand, and small stones. 

110 Fraddle-Tresano complex, Rolling uplands, upper dissected fans, and valley-filling slopes. Loamy uplands. 1,541 

1-8% slopes Limited for construction activities and reclamation due to thin soils. 

113 Haterton-Garsid complex, Nearly level to gently sloping uplands and sideslopes. Shallow loamy and loamy sites. 2,102 

1-8% slopes Construction limited by shallow depth to bedrock, slope, and low strength. 

Rehabilitation limited by shallow depth to bedrock and steep slopes. 

114 Ouard-Ouard Variant-Boltus Nearly level to gently sloping uplands. Shallow loamy, shallow clayey, and shaley 3,132 

complex, 1-8% slopes sites. Limited due to low strength and shallow depth to bedrock. Rehabilitation 

limited due to thin soils. 

116 Huguston-Horsley-Terada Gently sloping to moderately steep sideslopes and rolling uplands. Shaley and loamy 2,109 

complex, 6-30% slopes sites. Limited due to shallow depth to bedrock, low strength, and steep slopes. 

Rehabilitation limited by shallow depths and slopes. 

119 Garsid-Monte association, Gently undulating uplands. Loamy sites. Construction limited by thin soils, low 3,087 

1-6% slopes strength, and steep slopes. Rehabilitation limited by steep slopes. 

121 Garsid-Terada-Langspring Undulating uplands. Loamy sites. Construction limited due to thin soils, low strength, 1,261 

Variant complex, 1-6% slopes and steep slopes. Rehabilitation limited by steep slopes, small stones, and excess lime. 

122 Baston-Boltus-Chrisman Undulating and dominantly concave uplands. Clayey, shaley, and saline upland sites. 85 

association, 0-6% slopes Construction limited by low strength, shrink-swell potential, thin soils, and steep 

slopes. Rehabilitation limited by thin soils, clayey textures, excess salt, and steep 

slopes. 

123 Spool Variant-Ouard Variant- Gently sloping to steep sideslopes and rolling uplands. Shallow sandy, shallow 1,260 

San Arcacio Variant complex, clayey, and loamy sites. Construction limited by shallow depth to bedrock and low 

4-25% slopes strength. Rehabilitation limited by shallow depths, small stones, sandy or clayey 

textures, or steep slopes. 

124 Fraddle-Ouard-San Arcacio Rolling uplands. Loamy and shallow loamy sites. Construction limited by thin soils 3,194 

Variant complex, 3-8% slopes and low strength. Rehabilitation limited by thin soils, clayey textures, or small stones. 

125 San Arcacio-Saguache Old floodplains, fans, and terraces. Loamy and sandy sites. Generally suitable for 2,304 

association, 0-3% slopes road construction. Rehabilitation limited by small stones. 

127 Vermillion Variant- Nearly level uplands and mesas. Shallow loamy and loamy sites. Limited for 4,427 

Seedskadee-Fraddle complex, construction due to shallow depth to bedrock, low strength, and thin soils. 

0-3% slopes Rehabilitation limited by stoniness, excess lime, and thin soils. 

128 Fraddle-Ouard-San Arcacio Nearly level upland surfaces. Loamy and shallow loamy sites. Construction limited 1,645 

Variant complex, 0-3% slopes by low strength and shallow depth to bedrock. Rehabilitation limited by thin soils and 

small stones. 

951/106 Cowestglen sandy loam, 0 to Nearly level drainage ways. Road construction potentially limited by moderate frost 406 

2% slopes/see also Map Unit action and flooding. See also Map Unit 106. 

106, above 

Total 30,500 
A-42 

Table A-6.6 Soil Salvage Depth and Soil Characteristics for Project Area Soils, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 

Wyoming, 2004.1 

Map TopsoilUnit Salvage Depth2 Depth Salinity Erosion No. (inches) Slope Map Unit Component Range Site (inches) Texture3 Reaction pH (mmhos/cm) Hazard 102 12 1-10% Langspring Variant Loamy 0-10 L 7.9-8.4 <2 Low 

10-22 CL, SCL, L, SL 8.5-9.0 <2 --

22-30 SCL, L, SL 7.9-8.4 <2 --

30+ Sandstone -- -- --

Langspring Loamy 0-9 L 7.9-8.4 <2 Low 

9-26 SCL, L, SL 8.5-9.0 <2 --

26-40 SCL, L, SL 7.9-8.4 <2 --

104 -- 0-2% Chrisman Saline upland 0-2 SIC, C, SICL 7.9-9.0 <2 Low 

2-60 SIC, C, SICL 77.8 >4 Low 

106 12 1-6% Monte Loamy/ 0-2 L 6.6-9.0 <2 Low 

saline upland 2-60 CL, L, SL 7.9-9.0 <2 --

Leckman Loamy/ 0-3 FSL, VFSL 7.9-9.0 <2 Low 

saline upland 3-60 FSL, VFSL 7.9-9.0 <2 --

108 12 0-3% Dines Saline upland 0-4 SIL >7.8 8-16 Low 

4-21 SIL, SICL >8.4 8-16 --

21-60 SIL, SICL >8.4 >16 --

Clowers Loamy 0-1 L 7.9-9.0 4-8 Low 

1-60 CL 7.9-9.0 4-8 --

Quealman Loamy 0-2 FSL, L, CL 7.4-8.4 <2 Low 

2-60 SR-LS-L-FSL 7.9-9.0 <2 --

110 12 1-8% Fraddle Loamy 0-4 SL 6.6-7.8 <2 Low 

4-22 SCL 6.6-7.8 <2 --

22-34 SL, SCL 7.4-8.4 2-4 --

34+ Soft sandstone -- -- --

Tresano Loamy 0-2 SL 6.6-7.8 <2 Low 

2-16 SCL 6.6-9.0 <2 --

16-60 SL 7.4-8.4 2-4 --
A-43 

Table A-6.6 (Continued) 

Map TopsoilUnit Salvage Depth2 Depth Salinity Erosion No. (inches) Slope Map Unit Component Range Site (inches) Texture3 Reaction pH (mmhos/cm) Hazard 113 12 1-8% Haterton Shallow loamy 0-3 L 7.9-9.0 2-4 Moderate 

3-12 L 7.9-9.0 2-4 --

12+ Siltstone -- -- --

Garsid Loamy 0-22 L, CL 7.4-9.0 2-4 Moderate 

22+ Shale -- -- --

114 4 1-8% Ouard Shallow loamy 0-1 SL, SCL 6.6-7.8 <2 Low 

1-19 SCL 6.6-7.8 <4 --

19+ Shale-sandstone -- -- --

Ouard Variant Shallow clayey 0-4 CL, L 6.6-7.8 <2 Low 

4-16 CL, C 7.4-9.0 <2 --

16+ Shale -- -- --

Boltus Shale 0-11 C, CL 7.9-9.0 8-16 Moderate 

11+ Shale -- -- --

116 9 6-30% Huguston Shallow loamy 0-9 SL, FSL 7.4-8.4 2-4 Moderate 

9+ Soft sandstone -- -- --

Horsley Shale 0-3 L 7.4-9.0 2-4 Moderate 

3-9 L, CL, SCL 7.4-9.0 <16 --

9+ Shale -- -- --

Terada Loamy 0-7 VFSL, FSL, LS 7.4-8.4 <2 Moderate 

7-34 VFSL, FSL 7.4-9.0 <2 --

34+ Sandstone -- -- --

119 12 1-6% Garsid Loamy 0-22 L, CL 7.4-9.0 2-4 Low 

22+ Shale -- -- --

Monte Loamy 0-2 L 6.6-9.0 <2 Low 

2-60 CL, L, SL 7.9-9.0 <2 --

121 10 1-6% Garsid Loamy 0-22 L, CL 7.4-9.0 2-4 Low 

22+ Shale -- -- --
A-44 

Table A-6.6 (Continued) 

Map TopsoilUnit Salvage Depth2 Depth Salinity Erosion No. (inches) Slope Map Unit Component Range Site (inches) Texture3 Reaction pH (mmhos/cm) Hazard 

Terada Loamy/sandy 0-7 VFSL, FSL, LS 7.4-8.4 <2 Low 

7-34 VFSL, FSL 7.4-9.0 <2 --

34+ Sandstone -- -- --

Langspring Variant Loamy 0-10 L 7.9-8.4 <2 Low 

10-22 CL, SCL, L, SL 8.5-9.0 <2 --

22-30 SCL, L, SL 7.9-8.4 <2 --

30+ Sandstone -- -- --

122 0 0-6% Baston Clayey 0-3 FSCL 8.0-9.0 <2 Low 

3-28 C >8.4 <4 -­

28+ Shale -- -- --

Boltus Shale 0-11 C, CL 7.9-9.0 8-16 Moderate 

11+ Shale -- -- --

Chrisman Clayey/ 0-2 SIC, C, SICL 7.9-9.0 <2 Low 

saline upland 2-60 SIC, C, SICL >7.8 <4 --

123 4 4-25% Spool Variant Shallow sandy 0-6 LFS, GR-SL 6.6-7.3 <2 Moderate to 

high 

6-12 LFS, CN-LFS, 6.6-7.8 <2 --

GR-SL, GR-S -- -- --

12+ Sandstone -- -- --

Ouard Variant Shallow clayey 0-4 CL, L 6.6-7.8 <2 Moderate 

4-16 CL, C 7.4-9.0 <2 --

16+ Shale -- -- --

San Arcacio Variant Loamy 0-4 SL 6.6-8.4 <8 Low to 

moderate 

4-14 SCL, SL 6.1-8.4 <2 --

14-25 LCOS, COS, GRV-S 6.6-8.4 <4 --

25+ Soft sandstone -- -- --

124 6 3-8% Fraddle Loamy 0-4 SL 6.6-7.8 <2 Low 
A-45 

Table A-6.6 (Continued) 

Map TopsoilUnit Salvage Depth2 Depth Salinity Erosion No. (inches) Slope Map Unit Component Range Site (inches) Texture3 Reaction pH (mmhos/cm) Hazard 

4-22 SCL 6.6-7.8 <2 --

22-34 SL, SCL 7.4-8.4 2-4 --

34+ Soft sandstone -- -- --

Ouard Shallow loamy 0-1 SL, SCL 6.6-7.8 <2 Low 

1-19 SCL 6.6-7.8 <4 --

19+ Shale-sandstone -- -- --

San Arcacio Variant Loamy 0-4 SL 6.6-8.4 <8 Low 

4-14 SCL, SL 6.1-8.4 <2 --

14-25 LCOS, COS, GRV-S 6.6-8.4 <4 --

25+ Soft sandstone -- -- --

125 6 0-3% San Arcacio Sandy/loamy 0-3 SL, COSL 6.6-8.4 <8 Low 

3-14 SCL, SL 6.6-8.4 <2 --

14-60 GRV-S, GR-SL, 7.4-8.4 <4 --

LCOS 

Saguache Loamy/sandy 0-6 SL, COSL, GR-SL 6.6-9.0 <2 Low 

6-60 GRV-S, COS, GRV- 6.6-9.0 <2 --

LS 

127 3 0-3% Vermillion Variant Shallow loamy 0-3 L 6.6-8.4 <2 Low 

3-8 CN-L, CN-CL 7.4-8.4 <4 --

8-27 FLX-L, FLV-CL, 7.9-8.4 <4 --

FLV-L 

27+ Hard mudstone -- -- --

Seedskadee Shallow loamy 0-14 SCL, L, SL 7.0-8.5 <2 Low 

14+ Hard sandstone -- -- --

Fraddle Loamy 0-4 SL 6.6-7.8 <2 Low 

4-22 SCL 6.6-7.8 <2 --

22-34 SL, SCL 7.4-8.4 2-4 --

34+ Soft sandstone -- -- --
A-46 

Table A-6.6 (Continued) 

Map TopsoilUnit Salvage Depth2 Depth Salinity Erosion No. (inches) Slope Map Unit Component Range Site (inches) Texture3 Reaction pH (mmhos/cm) Hazard 128 12 0-3% Fraddle Loamy 0-4 SL 6.6-7.8 <2 Low 

4-22 SCL 6.6-7.8 <2 -­

22-34 SL, SCL 7.4-8.4 2-4 --

34+ Soft sandstone -- -- --

Ouard Shallow loamy 0-1 SL, SCL 6.6-7.8 <2 Low 

1-19 SCL 6.6-7.8 <4 --

19+ Shale-sandstone -- -- --

San Arcacio Variant Loamy 0-4 SL 6.6-8.4 <8 Low 

4-14 SCL, SL 6.1-8.4 <2 --

14-25 LCOS, COS, GRV-S 6.6-8.4 <4 --

25+ Soft sandstone -- -- --

9512/106 -- 0-2%/see Cowestglen Overflow 0-3 CL 7.4-8.4 0 --

106 

3-8 CL 7.4-8.4 0 --

8-60 CL 7.4-8.4 0 --

1 Adapted from ERO Resources Corporation (1988). 2 Criteria used to determine topsoil salvage depth: maximize loamy textures; minimize clayey textures, rock content, and salinity; salvage at least 6 inches 

if possible; salvage greater depths in better soils to a) provide a deeper seedbed and b) compensate for insufficient soils at other locations. 3 U.S. Department of Agriculture Texture. 

C Clay FSL Fine sandy loam SCL Sandy clay loamCL Clay loam

 L Loam SIC 

Silty clay 

COS Coarse sand LCOS Loamy coarse sand SICL Silty clay loamCOSL Coarse sandy loam LFS Loamy fine sand SIL Silt loam

FS Fine sand 

LS 

 Loamy sand 

SL 

Sandy loam

FSCL Fine Sandy clay loam S Sand VFSL Very fine sandy loam

 Texture Modifier: 

CN Channery GR Gravelly 

FLV Very flaggy GRV Very gravelly 

FLX 

Extremely flaggy SR Stratified 
Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-47 

Several associations (i.e., the Monte-Leckman, Fraddle-Tresano, Huguston-Horsely-Terada, 

Garsid-Monte, Kandaly-Terada-Huguston, and Baston-Boltus-Chrisman complexes/ 

associations) may be good sources for topsoil (see Tables A-6.5 and A-6.6). The Spool 

Variant-Ouard Variant-San Arcacio Variant, Fraddle-Ouard-Sand Arcacio Variant, and San 

Arcacio-Saguache complexes/associations may be good gravel sources (see Tables A-6.5 

and A-6.6). 

A-6.3 BIOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS 

Known sensitive biological resources present in the TPA include greater sage-grouse leks 

and nesting areas, raptor nests, pronghorn antelope migration corridors, and various habitats 

suitable for threatened, endangered, and other sensitive species. As with other 

environmental constraints, these resource locations and their associated buffers would be 

avoided, where practical, to minimize disturbance. In addition, inventories and monitoring 

of these resources would be conducted as specified in annual wildlife monitoring reports 

(TRC Mariah 2004). The locations of these resources are shown on maps available for 

review at area BLM offices. 

A-6.4 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS 

Numerous paleontologic and cultural resource sites are known to exist on the JIDPA. These 

sites would be avoided where possible during road improvement and construction activities. 

In addition, surveys for these resources would be conducted prior to construction, and 

monitoring of construction sites would be implemented as appropriate during development 

to avoid unnecessary disturbance. 

Water developments (i.e., reservoirs, wells, and pipelines) occur throughout the area, and 

these locations are important for livestock and wildlife on the area. Roads developed and/or 

improvements for this project would avoid these locations, where possible, to minimize 

adverse effects to livestock and wildlife resources. 
A-48 Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-49 

A-7.0 ROAD SPECIFICATIONS, PLANS, AND MAINTENANCE 

A-7.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 

In general, all new, improved, or rebuilt roads within the TPA would be developed 

according to the standards stated below for designed roads. Roads on state or private land 

within the area would be planned and built according to these same standards unless 

otherwise specified by the state or private landowner. Where roads are not developed in 

accordance with BLM standards, the potential for adverse impacts to health and safety and 

sensitive environmental resources is increased. 

Newly designed roads on federal lands or those requiring a federal undertaking would 

comply with the requirements of the BLM District Engineer. The District Engineer 

requirements draw on the BLM Manual Section 9113 - Roads (BLM 1985) and the 

associated Wyoming State Supplement (BLM 1991), as well as other BLM manual sections. 

Design elements of the roads also would draw on the current American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices (U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 1988), 

American Society for Testing Materials, and Wyoming State and Sublette County design 

criteria, where appropriate. 

In March of 1992, the Wyoming BLM adopted the Wyoming State Supplement to the BLM 

Manual 9113 (BLM 1991). This supplement amplifies several parts of the BLM Section 

9113 (BLM 1985). Some of the information contained within this document is emphasized 

below: 

In Wyoming, BLM roads are designed, constructed, and/or upgraded for longterm use and are to be located, designed, and constructed to provide safety to 

the user and require the minimum amount of maintenance. Adequate design 

and construction of drainage structures, cut and fill slopes, and the travel-way 

will minimize future maintenance needs. The BLM will not accept roads 

constructed by others which require excessive maintenance expenditures by 

the BLM. 
A-50 Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

A standard below the Resource Road classification may only be constructed 

for short duration use (30-60 days) and should not service traffic during the 

winter and spring months. 

In most cases, flat-bladed roads develop into canals and are a hazard to the 

user as well as creating environmental problems. Flat-bladed roads will not 

be authorized in Wyoming. The exception to this rule will be for the lowest 

class resource road where upgrading of short segments of an existing route is 

planned (i.e., excavating a hump for better site distance, widening a curve, 

etc). 

Where information in the BLM manual dealing with roads and bridges seems inappropriate, 

the BLM PFO or RSFO Engineer would be consulted for clarification. 

The following standards are the minimum standards for all roads constructed on BLM lands 

in Wyoming. The standards are found within BLM (1985). These standards are values 

established to ensure adequate uniformity and quality of all roads constructed on lands 

administered by the BLM. Average daily traffic, vehicle types, and design speed determine 

the geometric standards to be applied. 

A-7.2 TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ROADS 

Because each road is unique, it is not the purpose of this document to give all of the 

technical data that may be necessary for every road. Each road construction project would 

be evaluated with its own requirements and appropriate technical information obtained 

during the transportation planning processes and subsequently processed APDs and ROW 

applications. 

BLM Manual Section 9113 (BLM 1985) and its Wyoming State Supplement (BLM 1991) 

contain the comprehensive technical requirements necessary for the design of roads on 

Wyoming BLM lands. A copy of applicable BLM manual sections can be obtained from the 

BLM RSFO. 
Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-51 

A-7.3 ROAD SURFACE MATERIAL 

Road-surfacing material sources in the area are known from three locations--two sand pits 

and one gravel quarry. Potential surface material sources on and adjacent to the area are 

shown on the maps available for review at area BLM offices. The need for additional 

surface aggregate sources is not anticipated for this project. 

Many roads within the TPA are or would be built across sandy or clayey soils and would 

require surfacing material. Both sandy and clayey soils are subject to special stability 

problems (see Section A-6.2), which can be remedied with the application of an aggregate 

surface. When surfacing aggregate is required for roads, it would consist of appropriate 

material and gradations. Surface material would be applied to the minimum compacted 

depths that meet current BLM standards. 

Given the long-term traffic volumes associated with this project, the BLM may require the 

paving of selected primary access roads (e.g., Luman, Burma, Jonah North) and/or the use 

of magnesium chloride or other dust suppressants on more in-field collector, local, and 

resource roads. 

A-7.4 DRAINAGE CROSSINGS 

Bridge, culvert, and low-water crossing designs would conform to the BLM Manual Section 

9112 (BLM 1990), Wyoming state law, and standard engineering practices. Drainage 

structures can be placed on most of the drainages within the TPA using a U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, Nationwide 404 Permit 14 (Road Crossings Sections 10 and 404). The U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers would be consulted to obtain permits for crossing drainages, and 

it is anticipated that nationwide permit stipulations would be met under most circumstances. 

If the stipulations in Permit 14 cannot be met, a full standard 404 Permit would be required. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would be notified when construction of a road involves 

a drainage, even if all provisions of Permit 14 are met or flow in the drainage is intermittent. 

Usually, a simple letter to and a reply from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would satisfy 
A-52 Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

the requirement on small drainages. If there is any question about the need to obtain a U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers permit or the type of permit necessary, contact with the Wyoming 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would be initiated. 

Culverts, bridges, or low-water crossings would be installed wherever a road is constructed 

across a defined drainage or natural channel. Culverts would be designed to pass no less 

than a 10-year flood without developing static head at the entrance, as identified by a BLM 

hydrologist, engineer, or other similarly qualified individual. Calculations would be based 

on local soil types and other pertinent environmental data. The size and gradient of the 

culvert would be designed to avoid damage from a 25-year flood. Culverts smaller than 

18 inches in diameter would not be used due to problems with cleaning and maintenance. 

In addition to installing culverts in defined drainages to provide adequate cross drainage and 

to minimize erosion, cross culverts would be installed at appropriate spacing for lateral 

drainage. There are three major factors to consider when determining culvert spacing-­

gradient, soil type, and rainfall intensity. Other factors that effect drainage are frost and 

frozen ground, snow depth, groundwater depth, soil permeability, and evaporation rate. 

Recommended spacing of cross culverts for various gradients and soil types are given in the 

BLM Manual Section 9113 (BLM 1985). This is a good guide for most situations and 

would be used unless local experience dictates otherwise. 

In some relatively flat areas with permeable well-drained soils, a culvert may fill with sand 

and silt annually, providing no drainage. Culverts in areas with highly erosive soils have a 

tendency to wash out, leaving an impassable barrier. When past experience or soil and 

gradient conditions indicate potential problems with culverts, the best option may be to 

construct the road without cross-drain culverts except on defined drainages and to evaluate 

the drainage performance of the road and adjacent area. Raised roads with flat-bottomed 

ditches may be useful in poorly drained areas. If unacceptable amounts of water accumulate 

and do not dissipate within a reasonable period of time, corrective action would be taken. 

Such action may include installing a dip or low-water crossing or installing a culvert and 

evaluating its performance. 
Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-53 

A-7.4.1 Culverts 

Culverts are to be aligned with the natural drainage and would comply with BLM Manual 

Sections 9112 (BLM 1990) and 9113 (BLM 1985) and the Wyoming State Supplement 

(BLM 1991). Culverts would be installed as needed at all road intersections except when an 

intersection occurs at the crest of a ridge. The minimum allowable culvert diameter is 

18 inches. Culverts and structures would be strong enough to support a minimum of HS-20 

loading (AASHTO specification) as required by BLM (1985). 

A-7.4.2 Low-water Crossings 

Low-water crossings may be used with BLM approval, when necessary, as a type of 

drainage crossing where a 10-year runoff design produces more runoff than can be 

reasonably handled with a drainage structure or when the cost of a structure is unreasonable. 

Cost analysis, terrain and drainage features, structure stability, and necessary drainage 

diversions must be considered when determining the best alternative for crossing a drainage. 

Environmental disturbance also must be considered. Drainage structures may not be the 

best environmental choice. Low-water crossings, if constructed properly, may cause less 

short- and long-term environmental damage than a large structure with road approach fills, 

water backup, and downstream bed scouring. Low-water crossings require continued 

maintenance to minimize erosion and to allow vehicles to cross. Low-water crossings 

should not be considered when there is a fishery or a water flow for more than just runoff 

periods. Low-water crossings in drainages with flow tend to become impassable during 

winter months due to the freeze and thaw cycles. Trucks attempting to cross ice crusts over 

water may break through and may high-center on the ice. 

A-7.4.3 Bridges or Structures 

Bridges and major culverts constructed on public lands must conform to standards as 

outlined in BLM Manual Section 9112 (BLM 1990), including design by or under the 
A-54 Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

direction of a qualified registered professional engineer. These structures are special and 

would be developed site-specifically. Some structures, such as bridges, may need to be 

designed to carry heavier loads and would be considered individually at the time of 

construction. All bridges must have a minimum curb-to-curb or rail-to-rail width 

(whichever is less) of 14 ft for single-lane roads and 24 ft for double-lane roads but, in all 

cases, not less than the nominal width of the adjacent travelway as measured at right angles 

to the travelway centerline. All structures would be designed for a minimum of a HS-20 

loading. 

A-7.5 ROAD LAYOUT AND CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION 

Surveying and staking necessary for road construction or improvement would be done by or 

under the direction of proper Wyoming registered professionals (e.g., surveyors, engineers). 

The complexity of the project would govern the amount of work, design, and inspection 

necessary. 

A-7.5.1 Centerline Staking 

Surveyors have many methods used to lay out roads. At a minimum, the BLM requires that 

stakes be placed on the centerline of the road at a maximum distance of 100 ft, at all fence 

or utility crossings, and at all abrupt breaks in ground profile of vertical change of 1 ft or 

more. Stakes would be placed on the centerline of the road at a maximum distance of 50 ft 

around curves of 4o or sharper. The station or stake number would be written clearly on 

each stake. Section corner ties would be made and shown on all road design plans, as 

presented in applications. The BLM may require additional construction staking criteria as 

determined on an individual basis. 

A-7.5.2 Construction Monitoring 

Many access roads can be constructed without major inspection efforts. Roads without 

unusual construction requirements may, in some cases, be monitored by Operators. The 
Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-55 

extent and type of construction monitoring would be determined by the BLM for roads 

across BLM land. 

Construction inspection ensures the following. 

• The route approved for construction is followed with as little environmental 

disturbance as practical. 

• All sensitive environmental, paleontological, or cultural/historic sites are 

adequately protected. 

• Construction methods properly remove organic matter from roadfill areas or 

fill material. 

• Topsoil removal, stockpiling, and replacement and, in some instances, 

reseeding are conducted commensurate with approved design. 

• Embankments meet proper width, slope, and compaction criteria. This may 

involve the use of water. 

• Frost in the ground is not so excessive that it precludes proper construction. 

• Reasonable efforts are made to walk equipment on the overall road surface to 

help with compaction. 

• Drainage structure installation includes adequate compaction, rip-rap 

placement, drainage bowl installation, cover depths, wing ditch slopes and 

lengths, etc. 

• Proper sign placement is used. 

In some cases, the inspector may be required to certify that the construction was completed 

according the design parameters and standards specified in ROW applications. In this case, 

a Wyoming registered professional would provide to the BLM and relevant Operators a seal 

and signature on an affidavit of completion, according to the approved plans and 

specifications. 

A-7.6 OTHER DESIGN GUIDELINES 

The BLM Manual Section 9113 - Roads (BLM 1985) and its Wyoming Supplement (BLM 

1991), as well as other applicable manual sections, would be the guides for design elements 
A-56 Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

such as horizontal and vertical alignment, curve super elevation, cross-section elements, 

earthwork design, drainage elements, cattle guards, signs and markers, sight distances, and 

staking. 

The roadway structure that includes the subgrade, the sub-base course (in some cases), and 

the base course (or the base course used as a surface course in the case of graded earth 

roads) must be strong enough to support HS-20 loadings (AASHTO specification) as 

required by BLM specifications or by engineer design where design exceeds BLM minimum 

requirements. 

The special qualities of the particular road and its location govern how the structure is 

designed and built. In general, road surfacing varies in thickness according to various 

design factors. 

All cattle guards or other structures are to have a minimum curb-to-curb or rail-to-rail width 

(whichever is less) of 16 ft for single-lane roads and 24 ft for double-lane roads but, in all 

cases, not less than the nominal width of the adjacent travelway as measured at right angles 

to the travelway centerline. All structures would be designed for a minimum of a HS-20 

loading. 

A-7.7 MAINTENANCE 

All roads on the project area would be maintained to BLM 9113 Manual specifications 

(BLM 1985, 1991, and the latest edition of the Gold Book (Surface Operating Standards for 

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development). Maintenance on collector roads is anticipated 

to occur at least twice per year, whereas local and resource road maintenance may be 

required only once annually. All roads required for the project would be maintained as 

necessary to provide all-weather access (e.g., grading, surface material application, snow 

plowing), and Operators would be responsible for these maintenance actions. Maintenance 

agreements developed among Operators would be provided to the BLM (see Section A-8.0). 

Where roads become impassable, the BLM may deny access until the roads are repaired 

and/or the potential for resource damage is otherwise alleviated. 
Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-57 

A-8.0 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS

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. Operators would provide the BLM with 

copies of all road maintenance agreements, including the name of a designated contact 

person. Non-project roads would be maintained by the BLM or other ROW holder. 

Problems may occur with new Operators in an area. Maintenance agreements must be 

revised to include new users. If a company is the first to drill in an area, that company may 

be the sole road maintainer until other companies begin to access the area. Agreements 

would be reviewed and budgets for maintenance prepared where new Operators or users are 

identified. Meetings may be held with Operators and other road users to review 

maintenance agreements. If a company only has a few roads, review may be made over the 

phone with other participants and then the contract can be mailed and notarized signatures 

obtained. When Operators or other area users propose new activity that would utilize part 

or all of an existing road, maintenance agreements for existing roads must be restructured to 

include the new users. 

Maintenance agreements would contain grading, surfacing, and other maintenance 

schedules, participant responsibilities, and cost allocation. Agreements would describe 

response methods and primary and secondary emergency contacts for hazard maintenance. 

Operator responsibilities for road maintenance can be divided into at least three types of 

agreements. The principle maintenance agreement type weights the maintenance cost share 

of each Operator according to the amount of projected use of the road. The projected use 

can be based on past use, number of producing wells and facilities down-road, and wet 

weather access needs. The maintenance contract would have each Operator's tallied 

amounts and commitments for the upcoming year. This agreement type would be the most 

commonly used on the JIDPA. Other types of agreements involve Operators taking care of 
A-58 Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

road maintenance on alternate time intervals or dividing a road into segments of near equal 

maintenance amounts and assigning each Operator maintenance responsibility for their 

segment of the road. 

Snow removal often is considered as a separate item. Some Operators may not need access 

to sites during the winter months and may not participate in costs associated with snow 

removal. In some cases, roads may only need maintenance once or twice per year or at 

some other time interval. 
Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project A-59 

A-9.0 LITERATURE CITED 

Bureau of Land Management. 1985. Manual 9113-Roads. Engineering Rel. 9-247. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 

. 1990. Bureau of Land Management Manual Section 9112. 

. 1991. Wyoming Supplement to the Bureau 9113 Manual. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office. 16 pp. 

. 2000. Record of Decision, Environmental Impact Statement for the Pinedale 

Anticline Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Project, Sublette County, 

Wyoming. Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, 

Wyoming, and Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming. BLM/WY/PL-00/026 + 

1310. RODEIS-00-018. 53 pp. + append. 

ERO Resources Corporation. 1988. Burma Road soil survey. Prepared for the U.S. 

Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Resource Area, Rock 

Springs District, by ERO Resources Corporation, Golden, Colorado. 157 pp. + 

append. 

Soil Survey Staff. 1983. National Soils Handbook and Updates. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (430-VI-NSH), Washington, D.C. 

TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 2004. 2003 Wildlife Studies, Jonah Field II Natural Gas 

Development Project. Prepared for U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale, 

Wyoming, Rock Springs Field Office, Rock Springs, Wyoming, and Jonah II Area 

Operators. 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. 1988. Manual on 

Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 
A-60 Transportation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

APPENDIX B: 

RECLAMATION PLAN, 

JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT 
Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

APPENDIX B: 

RECLAMATION PLAN, 

JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT

Prepared for 

Bureau of Land Management 

Wyoming State Office 

Cheyenne, Wyoming

Bureau of Land Management

Pinedale Field Office 

Pinedale, Wyoming 

and 

Bureau of Land Management 

Rock Springs Field Office 

Rock Springs, Wyoming

By 

TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 

Laramie, Wyoming 

MAI Project 35982 

February 2005
Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project B-i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................ B-ii 

B-1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... B-1

B-2.0 RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS AND SUCCESS STANDARDS...................... B-3 

B-2.1 RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS............................................................... B-3 

B-2.2 RECLAMATION SUCCESS STANDARDS ................................................... B-3 

B-3.0 AFFECTED COMMUNITIES ...................................................................................... B-7 

B-4.0 RECLAMATION PLAN............................................................................................... B-9 

B-4.1 PREDISTURBANCE PLANNING AND SITE PREPARATION ................... B-9 

B-4.1.1 Predisturbance Planning...................................................................... B-9 

B-4.1.2 Site Preparation................................................................................... B-11 

B-4.1.2.1 Trash and Spills.................................................................... B-11 

B-4.1.2.2 Topsoil and Spoil Handling ................................................. B-12 

B-4.1.2.3 Additional Procedures for Wetlands.................................... B-14 

B-4.2 RECLAMATION TIMING............................................................................... B-15 

B-4.3 TEMPORARY RECLAMATION..................................................................... B-15 

B-4.4 PERMANENT RECLAMATION..................................................................... B-16 

B-4.4.1 Facility Removal................................................................................. B-17 

B-4.4.2 Surface Preparation............................................................................. B-18 

B-4.4.2.1 Backfilling and Grading....................................................... B-18 

B-4.4.2.2 Ripping and Discing ............................................................. B-18 

B-4.4.3 Seedbed Preparation............................................................................ B-19 

B-4.4.3.1 Topsoil Replacement ........................................................... B-19 

B-4.4.3.2 Discing ................................................................................. B-20 

B-4.4.4 Revegetation ....................................................................................... B-20 

B-4.4.4.1 Seeding................................................................................. B-20 

B-4.4.4.2 Mulching.............................................................................. B-24 

B-4.5 EROSION CONTROL ..................................................................................... B-24 

B-4.5.1 Construction- and Operation-Phase Erosion Control .......................... B-24 

B-4.5.2 Reclamation-phase Erosion Control ................................................... B-26 

B-4.6 WEED CONTROL ............................................................................................ B-27 

B-5.0 RECLAMATION SUCCESS MONITORING ............................................................. B-29 

B-5.1 MONITORING RESPONSIBILITIES.............................................................. B-29 

B-5.2 MONITORING APPROACH ........................................................................... B-30 

B-5.3 MONITORING TEMPORARY RECLAMATION.......................................... B-36 

B-5.4 MONITORING PERMANENT RECLAMATION .......................................... B-36 

B-6.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. B-39 

ADDENDUM B-A: SOILS MAP AND TOPSOIL SALVAGE DEPTHS TABLE 
B-ii Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

LIST OF TABLES 

Page 

Table B-4.1 Criteria to Establish Suitability as Topsoil (or Topsoil Substitutes)................. B-13 

Table B-4.2 Seed Mixture for Temporary Reclamation ....................................................... B-16 

Table B-4.3 Suggested Permanent Reclamation Seed Mixture for Sagebrush-dominated 

Communities with Sandy Soils......................................................................... B-21 

Table B-4.4 Suggested Permanent Reclamation Seed Mixture for Sagebrush-dominated 

Communities with Alkaline Soils ..................................................................... B-21 

Table B-4.5 Suggested Permanent Reclamation Seed Mixture for Saltbush 

Communities..................................................................................................... B-22 

Table B-4.6 Suggested Permanent Reclamation Seed Mixture for Playas and Other 

Alkaline Areas .................................................................................................. B-22 

Table B-4.7 Suggested Permanent Reclamation Seed Mixture for Stabilized Sand Dune 

Communities..................................................................................................... B-23 

Table B-5.1 Monitoring Form............................................................................................... B-31

LIST OF FIGURES 

Page 

Figure B-4.1 Reclamation Process, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 

Wyoming, 2004................................................................................................. B-10 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

EIS Environmental impact statement 

JIDPA Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area 

Operators Natural gas developers 

POD Plan of Development 

PLS Pure Live Seed 

RMP Resource Management Plan 

ROW Right-of-way

SPCCP Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan 

SUP Surface Use Plan 

SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 
Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

B-1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This reclamation plan will be used by natural gas developers (the Operators) of the Jonah Infill 

Drilling Natural Gas Development Project as guidance to achieve successful reclamation on 

federal lands within the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area (JIDPA). Alternate reclamation 

procedures may be implemented on private and state lands or on federal lands as directed by the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The plan complies with BLM reclamation and 

management directives specified in the Pinedale Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) 

(BLM 1987a, 1987b, 1988) and the Rock Springs Field Office RMP (BLM 1992, 1996, 1997). 

This reclamation plan is also based on Executive Order 13112, impacts and scoping issues 

identified for the Jonah Infill Drilling environmental impact statement (EIS) (see EIS 

Section 1.4), and an on-site evaluation of reclamation status on selected areas in the JIDPA. 
B-2 Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project B-3 

B-2.0 RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS AND SUCCESS STANDARDS 

B-2.1 RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS 

BLM's reclamation requirements include the following major goals. 

• Isolate and/or remove all undesirable materials (e.g., contaminated soils, 

potentially hazardous materials) to protect the reclaimed landscape from 

contamination. 

• Recontour the land surface and implement other soil conservation, surface 

manipulation, and water management techniques to establish stable slopes, water 

courses, and drainage features to minimize erosion and sedimentation (also 

protecting surface and ground water resources). 

• Revegetate regraded areas to establish self-perpetuating native plant communities 

capable of supporting existing and future land uses. 

• Minimize visual contrasts. 

The reclamation success standards provided in Section B-2.2 are the measures that will show 

whether or not these goals are being met. 

B-2.2 RECLAMATION SUCCESS STANDARDS 

The following reclamation success standards are the measures that would be used to assess 

whether BLM's reclamation requirements are being met. The procedures presented below are 

designed to achieve the success standards and, in doing so, to meet BLM's requirements. 

Reclamation would be implemented, managed, and monitored by the Operators with BLM 

oversight/approval. Alternatives to all or portions of this reclamation plan may be implemented 

if the following standards would be met. 

1) No contaminated materials would occur at or near the surface, and all buried 

undesirable materials would be encapsulated in impermeable material (e.g., sealed 

pit liners, concrete) and covered with at least 4 ft of spoil. 
B-4 Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

2) The subsurface would be stable--holes would be plugged and no indications of 

subsidence, slumping, and/or significant downward movement of surface soil 

materials would be visible. 

3) Sites would be free of trash. 

4) Reclaimed areas would be stable and would not exhibit evidence of active sheet 

flow, rills or gullies greater than 2 inches wide or deep or are actively eroding, 

perceptible soil movement or head cutting in drainages, and/or slope instability on 

or adjacent to the reclaimed area. 

5) Soil surfaces would have adequate surface roughness to reduce runoff and to 

capture rainfall and snow melt. 

6) Vegetative canopy cover, production, and species diversity of desirable species 

would approximate the surrounding undisturbed areas. Vegetation would help 

stabilize the site, would support post-disturbance land uses, and would be 

self-sustaining. Revegetated areas would exhibit vegetative reproduction, either 

spreading by rhizomatous species or seed production, and be free of noxious and 

non-native/invasive species; non-native species may be present only with BLM 

approval. 

The following specific success standards for revegetation success (item 6 above) 

would be met. Unless otherwise indicated, these standards apply only to desirable 

species. Desirable species are generally considered those species present in the 

seed mix and/or perennial species present in the surrounding undisturbed 

landscape. 

Within 1 to 2 years after seeding, the following standards would be met (in 

addition to standards 1-6). 

a) Vegetative canopy cover would be at least 35% of the cover found 

on adjacent undisturbed areas. 
Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project B-5 

b) At least 20% of the total vegetation cover would be by the species 

contained in the seed mix and/or present on adjacent areas. 

c) Invasive, non-native species (weeds) or other undesirable species 

would not dominate the reclaimed area. 

Within 4 years after seeding, the following standards would be met (in addition to 

standards 1-6). 

d) Vegetative canopy cover would be at least 60% of the cover found 

on adjacent undisturbed areas. 

e) At least 50% of total vegetation cover would be by the species 

contained in the seed mix and/or present on adjacent undisturbed 

areas, and no single species would account for more than 50% of 

total vegetative cover unless it comprises greater than 50% of the 

total vegetative cover on adjacent undisturbed areas. 

f) Invasive, non-native species or other undesirable species (e.g., 

weeds) would comprise no more than 15% of total vegetative 

cover. 

Within 10 years after seeding, the following standards would be met. 

g) Vegetative canopy cover would be at least 80% of the cover found 

on adjacent undisturbed areas. 

h) At least 90% of the species present on revegetated areas would be 

species from the seed mixture, from the surrounding native 

vegetation, and/or other desirable species, and no single species 

would make up more than 25% of the total vegetative cover unless 

it comprises greater than 25% of the total vegetative cover on 

adjacent undisturbed sites. 

i) Undesirable species (e.g., noxious, non-native, or invasive species) 

would make up less than 5% of total vegetative cover. 

7) The reclaimed landscape would have characteristics that approximate the visual 

quality of adjacent areas with regard to location, scale (e.g., line, form, and 
B-6 Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

texture), contour, color, and orientation of major landscape features and would 

support post-disturbance land uses. 

Permanent revegetation would be considered successful when standards 1-5, 6g, 6h, 6i, and 7 

have been achieved. 
Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project B-7 

B-3.0 AFFECTED COMMUNITIES 

As described in Section 3.2.1 of the EIS, the JIDPA is dominated by the Wyoming big 

sagebrush/grassland vegetation type. Saltbush, cushionplant, and basin big sagebrush 

communities also are present to a limited extent, primarily in the eastern portions of the JIDPA 

and along Sand Draw. 

Potential wetlands occupy approximately 47 acres of the JIDPA (less than 0.1% of the area) and 

occur as inclusions within the dominant vegetation types. One of these potential wetlands is a 

large playa (23 acres) occurring on private surface in Section 32, T29N, R108W. 

One area with stabilized sand dunes occurs in the JIDPA in Sections 2 and 11, T28N, R108W 

(see Map 3.2 in the EIS). 

Reclamation potential within the sagebrush, grassland, and potential wetland communities is 

good to excellent. In the saltbush, cushionplant, and playa communities, reclamation success 

would be limited by shallow soils, droughtiness, salinity, and other adverse soil characteristics. 

Reclamation potential also may be limited by other extant conditions on the JIDPA, including 

sandy soils (dunal areas), steep slopes, noncohesive soils, weather conditions (high winds, 

drought), short growing seasons, and livestock and wildlife use. 
B-8 Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

This page intentionally left blank 
Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project B-9 

B-4.0 RECLAMATION PLAN 

The reclamation process will consist of the following steps (Figure B-4.1). 

• predisturbance planning and site preparation, 

• some temporary reclamation, 

• permanent reclamation, and 

• reclamation success monitoring. 

B-4.1 PREDISTURBANCE PLANNING AND SITE PREPARATION 

Predisturbance planning minimizes the amount of reclamation at a site by reducing land 

disturbance. In addition, preparing the site for construction while planning for reclamation (e.g., 

salvaging and stockpiling topsoil and spoil, separately; locating facilities away from cut-and-fill 

slopes; minimizing the area occupied by facilities) would facilitate achieving reclamation 

success. 

B-4.1.1 Predisturbance Planning 

During selection of drill site, road, pipeline, and ancillary facility locations, Operators would 

avoid the following areas, where practical: 

• areas with high erosion potential (e.g., rugged topography, steep slopes [>25%], 

stabilized sand dunes, floodplains); 

• areas with saturated soils; 

• areas within 500 ft of wetland or riparian areas (e.g., playas and open water 

areas); and 

• areas within 100 ft of ephemeral and intermittent channels. 

Prior to disturbance, Operators would conduct on-site inspections with the BLM or other surface 

owner of each proposed disturbance area to determine the suitability of proposed facility 

locations and/or corridors with regard to the above-listed avoidance areas. In addition, Operators 

would submit for BLM approval Surface Use Plans and/or Plans of Development for each 
B-10 Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Figure B-4.1 Reclamation Process, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 

Wyoming, 2004. 
Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project B-11 

proposed surface disturbance area or corridor. These plans would include the following 

components: 

• project administration, time frames, and responsible individuals; 

• a commitment to adhere to this reclamation plan; 

• detailed descriptions of all deviations from this plan required due to site-specific 

conditions and the rationale for changes; and 

• a commitment to meet the reclamation success standards described above. 

In addition to Surface Use Plans and Plans of Development, Storm Water Pollution Prevention 

Plans (SWPPPs) would be prepared for all project activities requiring greater than 5 acres of 

disturbance to ensure that storm water runoff would not cause surface water pollution. The 

SWPPP would include provisions for periodic inspection of storm water pollution prevention 

devices and practices. A Notice of Intent would be submitted to the Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality. Copies of the SWPPP and inspection reports would be filed in Operator 

offices. 

B-4.1.2 Site Preparation 

B-4.1.2.1 Trash and Spills 

Trash removal would occur routinely throughout field development and operation. Trash would 

be picked up by field personnel and disposed of at on-site trash receptacles. These receptacles 

would be serviced by a licensed solid waste contractor. 

Spills would be handled in accordance with Operator-specific Spill Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasure Plans (SPCCPs) for the field. 

Because trash and spilled materials would be routinely disposed of, removal of these materials is 

included in the operation plan rather than in the reclamation plan. However, topsoil would not 

be placed on contaminated materials, and the absence of contaminated materials at or near the 

ground surface is a reclamation requirement and a reclamation success criterion. 
B-12 Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

B-4.1.2.2 Topsoil and Spoil Handling 

Topsoil would be salvaged from all proposed disturbance areas and stockpiled, unless the BLM 

deems that leaving topsoil in place would facilitate better reclamation. Vegetation would be 

salvaged and stockpiled with topsoil to incorporate native seeds and organic matter. 

Addendum B-A provides a table of typical soil salvage depths for the various soil types 

occurring within the JIDPA. At each location to be disturbed, Operators would use the soils map 

and soil salvage depths table to determine appropriate surface soil material salvage depths. 

Alternatively, a qualified soil scientist or reclamation specialist may make a field-based 

determination on appropriate salvage depth(s). This may require soil testing to determine 

fertility and overall suitability of materials as a plant growth medium. Soil and spoil testing 

would be required (see Section B-4.4.3) if the Year 4 reclamation success standards (see 

Section B-2.2) are not met. The volume of topsoil or other suitable plant growth material to be 

salvaged, proposed topsoil replacement depth, and topsoil storage areas would be specified in the 

SUP or POD. If less than 6 inches of topsoil are available, topsoil could be mixed with suitable 

spoil, with BLM approval, so that a minimum of 6 inches of plant growth material is available 

for use during reclamation. Spoil to be mixed with topsoil would be tested, and amendments 

would be added so that it meets fair and above suitability criteria for topsoil (Table B-4.1). No 

unsuitable materials would be used. Alternatively, Operators would identify other topsoil 

stockpile(s) from which topsoil would be obtained for reclamation. For example, if Location A 

has less than 6 inches of topsoil but 24 inches were salvaged from neighboring Location B, 

Operators may identify the neighboring location as the source of additional surface soil material. 

The SUP or POD for both locations would note that a specific volume of topsoil from 

Location B is slated for use at Location A. 
Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project B-13 

Table B-4.1 Criteria to Establish Suitability as Topsoil (or Topsoil Substitutes).1

 Suitability 

Parameter Good Fair Poor Unsuitable 

pH 6.0-8.4 5.5-6.0 5.0-5.5 <5.0 

8.4-8.8 8.8-9.0 >9.0 

EC (conductivity) 0-4 4-8 8-162 >162 

mmhos/cm 

Saturation Percentage 25-80 >80 -­

<25 

Texture3 SL, L, SIL, CL, SICL, SC, C, SIC, S --

SCL, VFSL, LS, LFS 

FSL 

SAR <6 6-10 10-15 >15 

10-124 >124 

Selenium <2.0 ppm >2.0 ppm 

Boron <5.0 ppm >5.0 ppm 

Calcium Carbonate 0-15% 15-30% >30% --

Coarse Frag. (% volume) 

 3-10 inches 0-15 15-25 25-35 >35 

 >10 inches 0-3 3-7 7-10 >10 

Consistency5

 Moist VFR, FR LO, FI VFI, EXFI -­

Dry LO, SO SH, H VH 

1 Adapted from Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Land Quality Division (1981). 

2 EC (conductivity) of >8 may prove difficult to revegetate. 

3 Soil Conservation Service: 

C = Clay SC = Sandy Clay

CL = Clay loam SCL = Sandy clay loam

FSL = Fine sandy loam SIC = Silty clay

L = Loam SICL = Silty clay loam

LFS = Loamy fine sand SIL = Silt loam

LS = Loamy sand SL = Sandy loam

S = Sand VFSL = Very fine sandy loam

4 For fine-textured soils (clay >40%) (Gee et al. 1978). 

5

 Consistency:

EXFI = Extremely firm SH = Semi-hard 

FI = Firm SO = Soft 

FR = Friable VFI = Very firm

H = Hard VFR = Very friable 

LO = Loose VH = Very hard 
B-14 Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Where cut-and-fill construction is required, Operators would, to the extent possible, balance the 

volumes of cut versus fill material to minimize the volume of spoil stockpiled. Spoil would be 

salvaged and stockpiled separately from topsoil. 

For pipelines and access roads constructed on slopes of less than 15%, topsoil would be salvaged 

from all areas to be disturbed and stockpiled in windrows within the construction right-of-way 

(ROW) by sidecasting with a grader. Where pipelines and roads are to be constructed on slopes 

greater than 15%, topsoil would be transported to more level terrain for storage. 

Topsoil and spoil stockpiles would be constructed to remain stable until they are used for 

reclamation. Whenever possible, topsoil would be used immediately. If topsoil would be 

stockpiled for more than 2 years, than the piles would be reduced to 3 ft in height and seeded. 

Stockpile slopes will be 5:1 or less. If a topsoil stockpile is located on or adjacent to ground that 

slopes 3:1 or more, runoff would be diverted around the stockpile via interceptor ditches. 

Interceptor ditches would be V-shaped--1 ft deep and 3 ft wide with gently sloping sides--and 

would empty onto native, undisturbed vegetation. Alternatively, energy dispersing devices (e.g., 

rock aprons) would be placed at each end of the interceptor ditch. All stockpiles will be located 

so as not to affect existing drainages. Temporary reclamation (see Section B-4.3) would be 

implemented immediately on all topsoil and spoil stockpiles. 

Topsoil and spoil stockpiles would be clearly marked and noted on site maps and may be 

identified with signs. 

B-4.1.2.3 Additional Procedures for Wetlands 

Well pads would not be located in wetlands. Where roads and pipelines must cross wetlands, 

construction would occur when the area is dry, if possible. In work areas that would not be 

excavated but would be driven on (e.g., scalped pipeline corridors adjacent to pipeline trenches), 

vegetation would be cut to ground level, leaving existing root systems intact; these areas would 

not be graded. At least 12 inches of topsoil would be salvaged and replaced from wetland areas 

except in areas with standing water or saturated soils, where no topsoil would be salvaged. If 

standing water or saturated soils are present, either wide-track/balloon-tire construction 
Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project B-15 

equipment or typical construction equipment operated on equipment pads would be used. 

Equipment pads would be removed immediately upon completion of construction. 

B-4.2 RECLAMATION TIMING 

Temporary and permanent reclamation would occur in the first fall (September 15 to freeze-up) 

or spring (prior to May 15 and only if fall seeding is not feasible) following completion of 

required activities (e.g., road or pipeline construction, reserve pit fluid evaporation). 

B-4.3 TEMPORARY RECLAMATION 

The objectives of temporary reclamation are to meet success standards 1-6 above (see 

Section B-2.2). Additionally, vegetation on temporary reclamation would help stabilize soils. 

Temporary reclamation would be conducted on areas that would be redisturbed (e.g., topsoil and 

spoil stockpiles) prior to project abandonment. For operating well pad cut-and-fill slopes, 

Operators may elect to conduct either temporary or permanent reclamation. Temporary 

reclamation would not be used as a means to delay permanent reclamation on areas that would 

not be redisturbed. 

Temporary reclamation areas would be graded and contoured to slopes of 3:1 or less. Topsoil 

and spoil stockpiles would be constructed with side slopes of 5:1 or less. Graded surfaces would 

be ripped, if necessary, to eliminate soil compaction. Surfaces would then be disced to loosen 

surface material. 

Topsoil would not be replaced on all temporary reclamation areas for the following reasons. 

First, much of the temporary reclamation would occur on topsoil stockpiles. Second, topsoil 

should not be mixed with spoil (except as described in Section B-4.1.2.2), so placing topsoil on 

spoil stockpiles would not occur. Finally, replacing and then re-disturbing topsoil on temporary 

reclamation areas would increase the potential for topsoil loss while it is being handled, 

stockpiled, and replaced a second time; topsoil handling would be minimized. 

After discing, the area would be seeded using the seed mixture for temporary reclamation 

(Table B-4.2) or one of the seed mixtures for permanent reclamation (see Tables B-4.3 through 
B-16 Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table B-4.2 Seed Mixture for Temporary Reclamation.1 

Species 

Approximate Seeding Rate 

(PLS/acre)2 

Western wheatgrass (Elymus smithii) 2.0 

Slender wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus) 2.0 

Streambank wheatgrass (Elymus lanceolatus var. riparius) 2.0 

Total 16.0 

Winter wheat (Triticum aestivum)

3

 10.0 

1 It is anticipated that this seed mixture primarily would be used on topsoil and subsoil stockpiles 

designated for long-term storage. 

2 PLS/acre = pounds of pure live seed per acre; alternate seeding rates may be applied in some areas as 

deemed appropriately by BLM and specified in approved SUPs and/or PODs. 

3 A sterile hybrid would be seeded as a cover crop; cover crops would be used only in areas where 

rapid site stabilization is desired and where further disturbance and reseeding efforts likely would be 

conducted. 

B-4.7 below). Operators would determine which mixture to use based on seed availability, cost, 

or other operational considerations. 

Operators may elect to plant a cover crop of winter wheat or other sterile hybrid and then 

interseed with the other three species in the mixture for temporary reclamation or with a mixture 

for permanent reclamation. Cover crops provide rapid site stabilization and protect surfaces 

from wind and water erosion, and plant root structures improve soil permeability. 

B-4.4 PERMANENT RECLAMATION 

Permanent reclamation would be conducted on all disturbed areas no longer required for field 

operations (e.g., portions or all of well pads, road outslopes, and pipeline corridors). Permanent 

reclamation would be conducted on pads and roads for non-producing wells and on pads for 

wells that have reached the end of their productive life (includes facility removal and complete 

well pad and access road reclamation). Because permanent reclamation would occur throughout 

the LOP, this plan does not differentiate between "interim" and "final" reclamation. All 

permanent reclamation is considered final unless monitoring shows that it needs to be repeated. 
Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project B-17 

Operators would completely reclaim all portions of well pads not required for operations, access 

road out-slopes, and pipeline corridors in the fall or spring immediately following construction or 

dry hole abandonment. Reserve pits would be completely reclaimed in the first fall or spring 

after drying. If reclamation involves facility removal (Section B-4.4.1), regrading and reseeding 

would occur in the first fall or spring following facility removal. 

B-4.4.1 Facility Removal 

Some facilities would reach the end of their operational life during the LOP, whereas others 

would remain in use until field production is complete. When the Operators determine that a 

well or other facility is no longer needed, it would be removed and the area would be 

permanently reclaimed. 

All gas wells and generally all water wells would be abandoned according to BLM and/or 

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission regulations. Some water wells may be 

retained for other uses after the LOP. Aboveground wellpad, pipeline, and water disposal 

facilities, including buildings, tanks, flare pits, reserve pits, evaporation pits, and associated 

hardware, would be dismantled, removed from BLM lands, and salvaged and re-used or disposed 

of at approved sites. Underground pipelines would be purged of gas or liquid, plugged, and 

abandoned in place. 

Liquid or solid wastes remaining at well locations would be tested and properly disposed of 

according to state and federal regulations. Reserve and evaporation pit liners would be disposed 

of at state-approved sites or buried on-site. Concrete foundations, pads, or footings would be 

broken-up and removed or buried on-site. Aggregate used for wellpad, road, and other facility 

construction also would be removed or buried on-site. Operators would obtain BLM approval 

for all on-site burial proposals. 

Road reclamation would include the removal of bridges, culverts, cattleguards, sediment control 

structures, and signs. Drainage-crossing sideslopes would be reduced to no more than 4:1 to 

reduce bank erosion and produce stable sideslopes. Barriers would be used to discourage travel 

on the reclaimed roads and pipelines until permanent reclamation is deemed successful. 
B-18 Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

B-4.4.2 Surface Preparation 

B-4.4.2.1 Backfilling and Grading 

Backfilling would occur prior to grading. Areas to be backfilled include flare pits, reserve pits, 

cut slopes, pipeline trenches, borrow ditches, and facility foundations. Pipeline trenches would 

be backfilled so that the soil berm is less than 3 inches high. Spoil for backfill would be obtained 

from fill material and spoil stockpiles. 

Areas to be reclaimed would be graded to approximate original contours and to blend in with 

adjacent topography. Area-wide drainage would be restored so that surface runoff flows and 

gradients are returned to the conditions present prior to development. Graded surfaces would be 

suitable for the replacement of a uniform depth of topsoil, would promote cohesion between 

subsoil and topsoil layers, would reduce wind erosion, and would facilitate moisture capture. 

Specialized grading techniques would be applied at the Operators’ discretion and may include 

slope rounding, bench grading, stair-step grading, and/or contour furrowing. 

Dozers, loaders, scrapers, and motor graders are typically used for backfilling and grading. 

B-4.4.2.2 Ripping and Discing 

Compacted areas such as roads and wellpads would be ripped to a depth of approximately 2 ft to 

improve soil aeration, water infiltration, and root penetration. Ripped areas would be disced, if 

necessary, to fill-in deep furrows (where topsoil would be lost) and break-up large clods (to 

which topsoil would not adhere). 

Motor graders or tractors equipped with ripping shanks are typically used for ripping. Ripper 

shanks would be set approximately 1 to 2 ft apart. Discing is typically accomplished using a 

tractor-drawn disc set 2-6 inches deep. 
Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project B-19 

B-4.4.3 Seedbed Preparation 

Seedbed preparation maximizes seeding efficiency and improves reclamation success. It 

includes topsoil replacement (with amendments, where appropriate) and discing. Surface 

roughening procedures (e.g., pitting, gouging) also may be applied at the discretion of Operators. 

B-4.4.3.1 Topsoil Replacement 

Waterbars and erosion control devices would be installed on reclaimed areas prior to topsoil 

replacement, as necessary, to control topsoil erosion (see Section B-4.5.2). 

Between 6 and 24 inches of stockpiled topsoil would be redistributed uniformly on areas to be 

reclaimed. If the stockpile for a given location contains insufficient topsoil to meet the required 

6-inch minimum, topsoil would be mixed with suitable spoil or imported from another location 

as described in Section B-4.1.2.2. Topsoil would not be replaced on contaminated material--all 

contaminated material would be removed or otherwise handled in accordance with the SPCCPs. 

Topsoil is typically replaced using scrapers, dozers, and/or motorgraders. 

Once topsoil is replaced, seeding would occur within 2 weeks unless the ground is wet or frozen. 

In this circumstance, seeding would be delayed until the ground dries or thaws to the point where 

soils are friable. An early frost would not be used to delay seeding until the following spring if 

subsequent fall conditions are appropriate for seeding. 

Operators have the discretion to conduct soil fertility tests and/or use fertilizers; it is not required 

for the first attempt at permanent reclamation because fertilizers generally are not effective in 

semi-arid climates. Fertilizers would not be used near open water. In addition to fertilizer use, 

Operators have the discretion to use other amendments such as inoculation with soil 

microorganisms, lime, organic matter, etc. 

If Year-4 reclamation success standards are not met, soil tests would be implemented to determine 

the need for fertilizers or other soil amendments. 
B-20 Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

B-4.4.3.2 Discing 

After topsoil replacement, newly topsoiled areas would be disced or harrowed to reduce soil 

compaction, to break up soil clods, to improve root and water penetration, and to provide a friable but 

firm seedbed. The surface would be rough to reduce wind and water erosion and to promote 

moisture capture. 

If the surface is roughened during discing, other moisture-capture techniques are probably not 

needed. However, Operators have the full discretion to implement techniques such as pitting and 

gouging to concentrate water in pits and gouges. If Year-4 reclamation success standards are not 

met, BLM may require implementation of these kinds of techniques. 

Discing and harrowing are typically accomplished using a tractor-drawn disc or harrow set 

2-6 inches deep. 

B-4.4.4 Revegetation 

B-4.4.4.1 Seeding 

Reclaimed areas would be seeded using the seed mixtures presented in Tables B-4.3 through B-4.7. 

These mixtures were developed based on the following criteria: general conditions within the 

analysis area, species adaptations to site conditions, usefulness of the species for rapid site 

stabilization, species success in past revegetation efforts, seed costs and availability, and compliance 

with Executive Order 11987 and BLM Manual Section 1745 (i.e., use of native species). 

Alternative species and seeding rates may be used at Operator discretion, if warranted by site-specific 

conditions or seed availability, provided that the alternative species/seeding rates facilitate achieving 

reclamation success and all modifications are documented as described in Section B-2.2. 

Seed mixtures would be certified weed-free. 
Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project B-21 

Table B-4.3 Suggested Permanent Reclamation Seed Mixture for Sagebrush-dominated 

Communities with Sandy Soils.1 

Species Drill Seeding Rate (PLS/acre)2 

Grasses 

Thickspike wheatgrass (Elymus lanceolatus var. lanceolatus) 2.00 

Western wheatgrass (Elymus smithii) 2.00 

Bluebunch wheatgrass (Elymus spicatum) 2.00 

Indian ricegrass (Oryzopsis hymenoides) 3.00 

Needle-and-thread (Stipa comata) 3.00 

Forbs (select one or more of the following forb species) 

Desert Indian paintbrush (Castilleja chromosa) 1.00 

Scarlet globemallow (Sphaeralcea coccinea) 1.00 

Shrubs (select 2 or more of the following shrub species) 

Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata wyomingensis) 0.25 

Common winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata)

3

 1.00 

Four-wing saltbush (Atriplex canescens) 3.00 

Antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata) 1.00 

1 Operators may submit for approval alternative site-specific seed mixtures. 2 PLS/acre = pounds of pure live seed per acre. Seeding rates would be doubled if seed is to be broadcast. 3 Winterfat seed would be broadcast simultaneously with drill-seeding other species. 

Table B-4.4 Suggested Permanent Reclamation Seed Mixture for Sagebrush-dominated 

Communities with Alkaline Soils.1 

Approximate Seeding Rate 

Species (PLS/acre)2 

Grasses 

Western wheatgrass (Elymus smithii) 3.00 

Thickspike wheatgrass (Elymus lanceolatus var. lanceolatus) 3.00 

Alkaligrass (Puccinellia distans) 3.00 

Alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides) 3.00 

Forbs (select one or more of the following forb species) 

Scarlet globemallow (Sphaeralcea coccinea) 1.00 

Evening primrose (Oenothera sp.) 1.00 

Shrubs (select two or more of the following shrub species) 

Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata wyomingensis) 0.25 

Common winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata)

 3 1.00 

Four-wing saltbush (Atriplex canescens) 3.00 

Gardner saltbush (Atriplex gardneri) 1.00 

1 Operators may submit for approval alternative site-specific seed mixtures. 2 PLS/acre = pounds of pure live seed per acre. Seeding rates would be doubled if seed is to be broadcast. 3 Winterfat seed would be broadcast simultaneously with drill-seeding other species. 
B-22 Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table B-4.5 Suggested Permanent Reclamation Seed Mixture for Saltbush Communities.1 

Approximate Seeding Rate 

Species (PLS/acre)2 

Grasses 

Sandberg bluegrass (Poa sandbergii) 1.0 

Western wheatgrass (Elymus smithii) 2.0 

Thickspike wheatgrass (Elymus lanceolatus var. lanceolatus) 2.0 

Alkaligrass (Puccinellia distans) 3.0 

Alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides) 3.0 

Forbs (select one or more of the following forb species) 

Gooseberryleaf globemallow (Sphaeralcea grossulariaefolia) 1.0 

Northern sweetvetch (Hedysarum boreale) 1.0 

Evening primrose (Oenothera sp.) 1.0 

Shrubs (select two or more of the following shrub species) 

Four-wing saltbush (Atriplex canescens) 3.0 

Shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia) 1.0 

Gardner saltbush (Atriplex gardneri) 1.0 

Common winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata)

 3 1.0 

1 Operators may submit for approval alternative site-specific seed mixtures. 2 PLS/acre = pounds of pure live seed per acre. Seeding rates would be doubled if seed is to be broadcast. 3 Winterfat seed would be broadcast simultaneously with drill-seeding other species. 

Table B-4.6 Suggested Permanent Reclamation Seed Mixture for Playas and Other Alkaline 

Areas.1 

Species 

Approximate Seeding Rate 

(PLS/acre)2 

Grasses 

Muhly (Muhlenbergia spp.) 2.0 

Alkaligrass (Puccinellia distans) 3.0 

Alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides) 3.0 

Western wheatgrass (Elymus smithii) 3.0 

Forbs (select one or more of the following forb species) 

Gooseberryleaf globemallow (Sphaeralcea grossulariaefolia) 1.0 

Northern sweetvetch (Hedysarum boreale) 2.0 

Shrubs 

Four-wing saltbush (Atriplex canescens) 3.0 

Gardner saltbush (Atriplex gardneri) 1.0 

1 Operators may submit for approval alternative site-specific seed mixtures. 2 PLS/acre = pounds of pure live seed per acre. Seeding rates would be doubled if seed is to be broadcast. 
Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project B-23 

Table B-4.7 Suggested Permanent Reclamation Seed Mixture for Stabilized Sand Dune 

Communities.1 

Species 

Approximate Seeding Rate 

(PLS/acre)2 

Grasses 

Prairie sandreed (Calamovilfa longifolia) 3.00 

Bluebunch wheatgrass (Elymus spicatum) 2.00 

Sand dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandrus) 2.00 

Indian ricegrass (Oryzopsis hymenoides) 2.00 

Needle-and-thread (Stipa comata) 2.00 

Basin wildrye (Elymus cinerus) 1.00 

Forbs (select one or more of the following forb species) 

Gooseberryleaf globemallow (Sphaeralcea grossulariaefolia) 1.00 

Desert Indian paintbrush (Castilleja chromosa) 1.00 

Northern sweetvetch (Hedysarum boreale) 1.00 

Shrubs 

Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata wyomingensis) 0.25 

Spiny hopsage (Grayia spinosa) 1.00 

1 Operators may submit for approval alternative site-specific seed mixtures. 2 PLS/acre = pounds of pure live seed per acre. Seeding rates would be doubled if seed is to be broadcast. 

Operators would determine which seed mixture to use and which substitute species may be 

appropriate to include in the mixture either in consultation with BLM. Operators may also elect 

to use interseeding techniques (BLM may require this if Year-4 reclamation is not successful). 

Operators have the discretion to inoculate selected seed mixtures with soil microorganisms to 

facilitate germination and growth. If Year-4 reclamation success standards are not met, BLM 

may require seed mixture inoculation. 

Seeding would be conducted in the fall between September 15 and freeze-up. If fall seeding is 

not feasible, seeding may occur between spring thaw and May 15. Seeds would be planted along 

contour using a rangeland drill equipped with an agitator and depth bands to mix seed and ensure 

proper seeding depths. Seeds would be planted 0.25 to 0.50 inch deep. Fluffy seeds (e.g., 

winterfat) would be broadcast simultaneously with drilled seeding. Broadcast seeding may be 

used, at the Operators' discretion, for other shrub and forb species, utilizing either hand or 

specialized broadcast seeders. 
B-24 Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

When drill-seeding is not practical due to steep slopes, rocky surfaces, or wet soil conditions, 

seeding rates would be doubled, seeds would be broadcast, and the area would be raked or 

chained to cover seeds. Operators may elect to broadcast seed after applying and crimping 

2 tons/acre of certified weed-free mulch. 

Operators may elect to hand-plant bare-root or containerized shrub stock to facilitate shrub 

establishment. It is not required for the first-time attempt at permanent reclamation but may be 

required at a later date by BLM if reclamation success is not achieved. 

B-4.4.4.2 Mulching 

Where mulching is deemed necessary, the reclaimed area would be uniformly mulched (75% 

minimum cover) with certified weed-free native grass, hay, small grain straw, wood fiber, and/or 

live mulch, at a rate of 2 tons/acre. Alternatively, cotton, jute, or synthetic netting would be 

applied. Mulch would be crimped into the soil, tackified, or incorporated into erosion control 

blankets to prevent it from blowing or washing away and from entering waterways. Mulch 

would protect the soil from wind and water erosion, raindrop impact, and surface runoff and 

would help hold seeds in place. Mulching may occur prior to or after broadcast seeding but must 

occur after drill seeding. 

On steep slopes where it is unsafe to operate equipment, at sites where soils have 35% or more 

surface rock content, or on notably unstable areas, hydromulch, biodegradable erosion control 

netting, or matting would be firmly attached to the soil surface. 

B-4.5 EROSION CONTROL 

B-4.5.1 Construction- and Operation-Phase Erosion Control 

Chapter 2.0 in the EIS provides construction procedures, and erosion control practices have been 

designed into these procedures. Operators would also adhere to the following additional erosion 

control measures during construction and operation. 
Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project B-25 

Standard culverts, road ditches, and road design would be used in accordance with typical 

engineering practices to minimize erosion along active roads. Culverts would be sized to pass 

expected flows without causing erosion above, below, or around the culvert. Culvert entrances 

and exits would be protected with energy dissipaters such as riprap or rock aprons as necessary. 

Road ditches would be sized to collect runoff from roads and surrounding areas; energy 

dissipating structures such as straw bales anchored with rebar would be used to prevent ditch 

erosion. Roads would be designed to enable head-on traffic to pass without leaving the surfaced 

travelway. If turnouts are used for this purpose, Operators would instruct field personnel to use 

turnouts to avoid traveling on roadside ditches. Water discharged from culverts, roadside 

ditches, and turnouts would be directed either into undisturbed vegetation or natural drainages. 

Interceptor ditches would be installed above all cut slopes. Interceptor ditches would be 

V-shaped--1 ft deep and 3 ft wide with gently sloping sides--and would empty onto native, 

undisturbed vegetation. Alternatively, energy-dispersing devices (e.g., rock aprons) would be 

placed at each end of the interceptor ditch. 

Sediment control devices would be placed at the base of all fill slopes and stockpiles. 

Where road or pipeline construction occurs on slopes of 3:1 or more, temporary sediment 

barriers such as silt fences and/or staked weed-free straw bales would be installed along contour 

below the road/pipeline corridor. Silt fences or other sediment filtering devices would also be 

installed wherever road or pipeline construction occurs within 100 ft of a drainage or wetland. 

Temporary sediment barriers would remain in place until the surfaces are stable and reclamation 

success standards are met (see Section B-2.2). Sediment filtering devices would be cleaned out 

and maintained in functional condition throughout the LOP. 

Trench plugs would be used during pipeline construction at nonflumed drainage crossings to 

prevent diversion of flows into upland portions of pipeline trenches. Instream protection devices 

(e.g., drop structures) also may be used to prevent erosion in drainages crossed by pipelines. In 

drainages, clean gravel would be used for the upper 1 ft of backfill in pipeline trenches. 

Application of riprap to channel banks would be limited to areas where flow conditions prevent 

stabilization by vegetation. Riprap installation would comply with U.S. Army Corps of 
B-26 Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Engineers' permit requirements. Pipeline trenches would be dewatered so no constructionrelated silty water flows into drainage channels. 

Where roads and pipelines cross a waterbody (i.e., wetlands or drainages), topsoil and spoil 

would be placed at least 10 ft from the edge of the waterbody, and sediment control structures 

would be placed between the topsoil/spoil and the waterbody. Dirt, rock, and brush riprap would 

not be used to stabilize the ROWs at waterbody crossings. 

B-4.5.2 Reclamation-phase Erosion Control 

All reclaimed surfaces would be left rough and would be mulched, if recommended by the BLM, 

as described in Section B-4.4.4.2, to reduce wind and water erosion. Erosion and sediment 

control structures would be installed on reclaimed areas wherever slope gradients exceed 3:1 and 

where monitoring demonstrates that erosion control structures are needed. 

Runoff from reclaimed areas where slopes exceed 3:1 (and where monitoring suggests that it is 

warranted) would be controlled using standard structures including, but not necessarily limited 

to, waterbars, silt fences, geotextile, and energy dissipaters. Areas with concentrated 

development with closely spaced pads (more than 1/40 acres) would be subject to reclamation 

efforts that address cumulative runoff, regardless of slope. Waterbars would be installed in 

accordance with standard BLM specifications and would drain into undisturbed vegetation. 

Waterbars generally will be 12-18 inches in height with a 2% grade. Waterbars would be 

installed after ripping and prior to topsoil placement. Silt fences would be placed downhill from 

reclaimed areas where erosion may impact a waterbody and would be installed according to 

manufacturers' instructions. Energy dissipaters would be used wherever water is channelized 

(e.g., by a waterbar or an interceptor ditch) to slow flows. 

All runoff and erosion control structures would be inspected, maintained, and cleaned-out by 

Operators on a regular basis throughout the LOP. Inspections would occur after runoff events 

(e.g., spring runoff, storm events). Sites and sources of soil movement would be addressed in a 

timely manner and recorded in a way that would allow for erosion pattern tracking. These 

reports would be provided to BLM annually. 
Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project B-27 

B-4.6 WEED CONTROL 

Operators would be responsible for noxious, non-native, and invasive weed control from all 

project activities for the LOP. If use of herbicides is deemed necessary by Operators or BLM, a 

Pesticide Use Permit would need to be submitted for approval to the BLM. All herbicides would 

be used only in the season or growth stage during which they are most effective. Herbicides 

would be applied only by certified personnel using approved precautions and application 

procedures in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Herbicides 

would not be used within 100 ft of open water or during extremely windy conditions. Aerial 

application of herbicides would be prohibited within 0.25 mi of known special status plant 

species locations (i.e., federally listed or BLM-sensitive species) and hand application of 

herbicides would not occur within 500 ft of such occurrences. Certified weed-free seed mixtures 

and mulches would be used, thereby minimizing the potential for noxious weed introduction. 
B-28 Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

This page intentionally left blank 
Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project B-29 

B-5.0 RECLAMATION SUCCESS MONITORING 

This monitoring plan was developed with two primary objectives: 1) to document the condition 

of reclaimed areas relative to the revegetation success criteria provided in Section B-2.2 and 2) to 

provide an expeditious means for monitoring all reclamation sites to document reclamation 

progress. 

B-5.1 MONITORING RESPONSIBILITIES 

Operators would be responsible for the following: 

• monitoring, 

• determining if reclamation success standards are being met, 

• developing and implementing remedial actions if success standards are not being 

met, 

• reporting monitoring results to BLM annually, and 

• requesting concurrence from BLM that success standards have been met and 

monitoring is no longer required. 

BLM would be responsible for the following: 

• evaluating annual monitoring reports, 

• providing concurrence (or not) with the reclamation assessments as to whether or 

not success standards are being met and the rationale for the determination, and 

• providing input on remedial actions to facilitate reclamation success (which may 

include requiring certain actions such as soil testing, soil amendments, irrigation, 

etc. that are not required by this plan). 

Operators would submit annual reclamation evaluation reports to BLM by December 31 of each 

year and BLM would complete its above-referenced responsibilities by March 31 of the 

following year. This would enable Operators to make adjustments, if needed, prior to the next 

field season (summer) and reclamation season (fall). 
B-30 Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

B-5.2 MONITORING APPROACH 

Monitoring would be largely qualitative because it is reasonably accurate to document the 

condition of a site in the field with a few basic notes and color photographs. The Monitoring 

Form provided as Table B-5.1 is designed to collect the appropriate data. The approach 

described herein is designed to allow reclamation inspectors a tool for evaluating reclamation 

status throughout the Jonah Field during a short period in the growing season, which would 

enable Operators to obtain a field-wide record on the status of reclamation. This record, then, 

would be used to make informed decisions on what actions are needed to obtain field-wide 

reclamation success, decisions that might range from a high-level action such as revising this 

Reclamation Plan to a simple remedial action such as installing a silt fence. The record would be 

key to tracking reclamation progress and initiating appropriate remedial actions for the LOP. 

Field-wide monitoring would include existing and proposed facilities authorized under previous 

NEPA documents for the Jonah Field, as well as all infill operations that may be authorized in 

the future. 

The qualitative evaluation may be supported by quantitative sampling such as the use of quadrats 

or transects to estimate vegetative cover. Quantitative or statistical sampling would only be 

conducted if it is deemed appropriate by the Operators or BLM or to settle any disagreements in 

the interpretation of the qualitative evaluation. The small sizes of the reclaim areas (especially 

on operating well pads and along the narrow linear corridors occupied by access roads and 

pipelines) do not lend themselves to the types of reclamation success studies conducted at the 

coal mines, so these types of studies are not recommended for the Jonah Field. Using a more 

qualitative approach will enable monitoring to be conducted at all reclamation areas within a 

reasonable time frame and for reasonable cost, while providing valuable data on the status of 

reclamation at each location. Thus, the determination of success, or lack thereof, would be based 

largely on the judgement of a suitable professional and would be supported by monitoring forms 

and color photographs. 
Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project B-31 

Table B-5.1 Monitoring Form. 

JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT 

RECLAMATION MONITORING FORM 

Well Name/Number Monitoring Date 

Well Spud Date Inspector 

Circle 1 -- Well Pad, Access Road, Pipeline, Other Facility 

Reclamation Data 

Date Backfilled 

Date Topsoiled 

Topsoil Depth Replaced 

Date Seeded 

Seed Mixture 

Other Reclamation Techniques Used 
B-32 Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table B-5.1 (Continued) 

Monitoring Data 

Answer Questions 1 - 6 to evaluate temporary reclamation 

Answer Questions 1 - 11 to evaluate reclamation on sites that were reclaimed 4 or more years ago. 

Answer Questions 1 - 6 and 12 - 18 to evaluate reclamation on sites that were reclaimed 10 or more years ago or 

where permanent reclamation success is to be documented.

Questions 

Data 

Yes No Comments (include photograph 

information) 

1 Is the area free of undesirable materials 

(construction materials, trash, potentially 

hazardous materials)? 

2 Is the subsurface apparently stable, with no 

indications of subsidence, slumping, and/or 

significant downward movement of surface soil 

materials? 

3 Does the area appear stable (absence of rills or 

gullies that are actively eroding or greater than 2 

inches wide/deep, perceptible soil movement, 

sheet flow, or head cutting in drainages and/or 

slope instability on or adjacent to reclaimed area)? 

4 Are soil surfaces adequately rough to reduce 

runoff and capture rainfall and snowmelt? 

5 Is vegetation helping to stabilize the site? 

6 Are weeds or other undesirable species adequately 

controlled? 

7 Is vegetative canopy cover at least 60% of the 

adjacent native undisturbed vegetative cover? 

8 Is there evidence of vegetative reproduction 

(either spreading by rhizomatous species or seed 

production)? 

9 Is vegetative cover at least 50% by species 

contained in the seed mix and/or present on 

adjacent areas? 

10 Does no single species account for more that 50% 

of total vegetative cover or if so does it make up 

more than 50% of total vegetative cover in 

adjacent undisturbed areas? 

11 Invasive, non-native species (weeds) or other 

undesirable species do not comprise more than 

15% of total vegetative cover? 
Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project B-33 

Table B-5.1 (Continued) 

Questions 

Data 

Yes No Comments (include photograph 

information) 

12 Is vegetative canopy cover at least 80% of cover 

on adjacent native undisturbed vegetation? 

13 Is there evidence of vegetative reproduction 

(either spreading by rhizomatous species or seed 

production)? 

14 Is vegetative cover at least 90% by species 

contained in the seed mix, present on surrounding 

native vegetation, and/or by other desirable 

species? 

15 Does no single species account for more than 25% 

of total vegetative cover or if so does it make up 

more than 25% of total vegetative cover in 

adjacent undisturbed vegetation? 

16 Invasive, non-native species (weeds) or other 

undesirable species do not comprise more than 

5% of total vegetative cover? 

17 Does the reclaimed landscape have characteristics 

that approximate the visual quality of the adjacent 

area? 

18 Does the reclaimed landscape support desired 

post-disturbance land uses? 

Use this worksheet to obtain data to answer questions 7-16. 

Attribute Reclaimed Area Native Undisturbed Vegetation 

Vegetative cover (%) by 

desirable species (note any

species that comprises more than 

25 - 50% of cover). 

Vegetative cover (%) by 

undesirable species 

Species list 

Description of evidence of Not Applicable 

reproduction by desirable species 
B-34 Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table B-5.1 (Continued) 

Additional Field Notes 
Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project B-35 

Table B-5.1 (Continued) 

Photographs of Reclaimed Area (attach additional sheets if needed). 

Photograph 1 

Photograph 2 
B-36 Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

The form presented in Table B-5.1 requires the revegetation success inspector to answer a series 

of questions about the site. The form provides for the monitoring of temporary reclamation, of 

sites where reclamation is 4 or more years old where only partial reclamation success is 

anticipated, and of sites where reclamation is 10 or more years old or for which permanent 

reclamation success is to be documented and monitoring discontinued. Monitoring permanent 

revegetation would commence during Year 2 because the desirable perennials typically would 

begin to dominate these reclaimed areas 1-3 years following reclamation and any erosion 

problems would be detected early. Monitoring Form questions are derived from the revegetation 

success standards described in Section B-2.2. 

B-5.3 MONITORING TEMPORARY RECLAMATION 

Temporary reclamation would be monitored annually and after large rain storms or snow melt 

runoff events. 

Temporary reclamation monitoring would include visual inspection for undesirable materials, 

soil stability, the effectiveness of erosion control practices, vegetation establishment, and weed 

invasion. Monitoring results would be documented on the Monitoring Form (Table B-5.1) and 

color photographs would be taken. Where success Criteria 1-6 (see Section B-2.2) are not met 

(i.e., if any of Table B-5.1 questions 1-6 are answered "no"), Operators would correct the 

problem within 3 weeks of discovery. 

B-5.4 MONITORING PERMANENT RECLAMATION 

For permanent reclamation, reclamation success standards 1-6 (see Section B-2.2) would be 

monitored qualitatively (annually and after large rain storms or snow melt runoff events). 

Monitoring would include visual inspection for undesirable materials, soil stability, effectiveness 

of erosion control practices, and weed invasion. Monitoring results would be documented on the 

Monitoring Form (Table B-5.1) and color photographs would be taken. Where success Criteria 

1-6 are not met (i.e., if any of Table B-5.1 questions 1-6 are answered "no"), Operators would 

correct the problem within 3 weeks of discovery. 
Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project B-37 

Permanent revegetation monitoring (success standards 6a-6i; see Section B-2.2) would occur in 

Year 2 and annually thereafter until permanent reclamation success standards are achieved 

(standards 1-5, 6g, 6h, 6i, and 7). Operators may elect to conduct additional monitoring, and 

BLM may require additional monitoring if it is deemed warranted. 

Permanent revegetation monitoring would include a visual inspection of the site to estimate 

percent cover by desirable and undesirable species and to compare vegetative canopy cover on 

the reclaimed area with that present on adjacent native vegetation. Quadrats or transects may be 

used to assist with cover estimates--if so, representative, rather than random, samples should be 

obtained. The inspector would note whether the desirable plants on the site appear to be 

reproducing. A list of the species present on reclaimed and adjacent vegetation would be 

developed and compared. These data would be recorded on the Monitoring Data Form (see 

Table B-5.1), and color photographs would be taken. 

If any Monitoring Data Form questions 7-11 or 12-18 are answered "no" (i.e., revegetated areas 

do not meet all standards), additional treatments (e.g., discing and reseeding, addition of soil 

amendments, irrigation, herbicide application) and a treatment schedule would be developed in 

consultation with BLM and implemented as scheduled. All treatments would be applied within 

1 year of determining that treatment is required. 

This process will be reiterated as shown on Figure B-4.1. 
B-38 Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

This page intentionally left blank 
Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project B-39 

B-6.0 REFERENCES 

Bureau of Land Management. 1985. Manual 9113: Roads. Engineering, Rel. 9-247. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 

. 1987a. Pinedale Resource Area Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental 

Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rock 

Springs District, Rock Springs, Wyoming, and Pinedale Resource Area, Pinedale, 

Wyoming. 

. 1987b. Pinedale Resource Area Final Management Plan/Environmental Impact 

Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rock Springs 

District, Rock Springs, Wyoming, and Pinedale Resource Area, Pinedale, Wyoming. 

. 1988. Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan for the Pinedale Resource 

Area. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Resource 

Area, Rock Springs District, Rock Springs, Wyoming. 118 pp. 

. 1991a. Wyoming Supplement to the Bureau 9113 Manual. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

16 pp. 

. 1992. Green River Resource Area Resource Management Plan and Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Rock Springs District, Rock Springs, Wyoming. BLM-WY-ES-92-019­

4410. 910 pp. 

______. 1996. Green River Resource Area Resource Management Plan and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Rock Springs District, Rock Springs, Wyoming, and Green River Resource 

Area, Rock Springs, Wyoming. 

. 1997. Record of Decision for the Green River Resource Area Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Rock Springs District, Rock Springs, Wyoming. 

ERO Resources Corporation. 1988. Burma Road Soil Survey. Prepared for the US Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Resource Area, Rock Springs 

District by ERO Resources Corporation, Golden Colorado. February 1988. 

157 pp. + append. 

Gee, G.W., A. Bauer, and R.S. Decker. 1978. Physical Analyses of Overburden Material and 

Mine Land Soils. In: F.W. Schaller and P. Sutton (eds), Reclamation of Drastically 

Disturbed Lands. American Society of Agronomy. Madison, Wisconsin. 742 pp. 

Soil Conservation Service. 1978. Soil Reconstruction Material for Drastically Disturbed Areas. 

National Soil Handbook. Notice 24. Washington, D.C. 
B-40 Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division. 1981. Guideline 

No. 1, Topsoil and Overburden. J.K.W. and D.F./January 1981. 34 pp. 
Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

ADDENDUM B-A: 

SOILS MAP AND TOPSOIL SALVAGE DEPTHS TABLE 
Reclamation Plan, Jonah Infill Drilling Project B-A-1 

Map B-A.1 Soils, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2004 
B-A-2 

Table B-A.1 Soil Salvage Depths and Soil Characteristics for Project Area Soils, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 

Wyoming, 2004.1 

Map TopsoilUnit Salvage Depth2 Depth Salinity Erosion No. (inches) Slope Map Unit Component Range Site (inches) Texture3 Reaction pH (mmhos/cm) Hazard 102 12 1-10% Langspring Variant Loamy 0-10 L 7.9-8.4 <2 Low 

10-22 CL, SCL, L, SL 8.5-9.0 <2 --

22-30 SCL, L, SL 7.9-8.4 <2 --

30+ Sandstone -- -- --

Langspring Loamy 0-9 L 7.9-8.4 <2 Low 

9-26 SCL, L, SL 8.5-9.0 <2 --

26-40 SCL, L, SL 7.9-8.4 <2 --

104 -- 0-2% Chrisman Saline upland 0-2 SIC, C, SICL 7.9-9.0 <2 Low 

2-60 SIC, C, SICL 77.8 >4 Low 

106 12 1-6% Monte Loamy/ 0-2 L 6.6-9.0 <2 Low 

saline upland 2-60 CL, L, SL 7.9-9.0 <2 --

Leckman Loamy/ 0-3 FSL, VFSL 7.9-9.0 <2 Low 

saline upland 3-60 FSL, VFSL 7.9-9.0 <2 --

108 12 0-3% Dines Saline upland 0-4 SIL >7.8 8-16 Low 

4-21 SIL, SICL >8.4 8-16 --

21-60 SIL, SICL >8.4 >16 --

Clowers Loamy 0-1 L 7.9-9.0 4-8 Low 

1-60 CL 7.9-9.0 4-8 --

Quealman Loamy 0-2 FSL, L, CL 7.4-8.4 <2 Low 

2-60 SR-LS-L-FSL 7.9-9.0 <2 --

110 12 1-8% Fraddle Loamy 0-4 SL 6.6-7.8 <2 Low 

4-22 SCL 6.6-7.8 <2 --

22-34 SL, SCL 7.4-8.4 2-4 --

34+ Soft sandstone -- -- --

Tresano Loamy 0-2 SL 6.6-7.8 <2 Low 

2-16 SCL 6.6-9.0 <2 --

16-60 SL 7.4-8.4 2-4 --
B-A-3 

Table B-A.1 (Continued) 

Map TopsoilUnit Salvage Depth2 Depth Salinity Erosion No. (inches) Slope Map Unit Component Range Site (inches) Texture3 Reaction pH (mmhos/cm) Hazard 113 12 1-8% Haterton Shallow loamy 0-3 L 7.9-9.0 2-4 Moderate 

3-12 L 7.9-9.0 2-4 --

12+ Siltstone -- -- --

Garsid Loamy 0-22 L, CL 7.4-9.0 2-4 Moderate 

22+ Shale -- -- --

114 4 1-8% Ouard Shallow loamy 0-1 SL, SCL 6.6-7.8 <2 Low 

1-19 SCL 6.6-7.8 <4 --

19+ Shale-sandstone -- -- --

Ouard Variant Shallow clayey 0-4 CL, L 6.6-7.8 <2 Low 

4-16 CL, C 7.4-9.0 <2 --

16+ Shale -- -- --

Boltus Shale 0-11 C, CL 7.9-9.0 8-16 Moderate 

11+ Shale -- -- --

116 9 6-30% Huguston Shallow loamy 0-9 SL, FSL 7.4-8.4 2-4 Moderate 

9+ Soft sandstone -- -- --

Horsley Shale 0-3 L 7.4-9.0 2-4 Moderate 

3-9 L, CL, SCL 7.4-9.0 <16 --

9+ Shale -- -- --

Terada Loamy 0-7 VFSL, FSL, LS 7.4-8.4 <2 Moderate 

7-34 VFSL, FSL 7.4-9.0 <2 --

34+ Sandstone -- -- --

119 12 1-6% Garsid Loamy 0-22 L, CL 7.4-9.0 2-4 Low 

22+ Shale -- -- --

Monte Loamy 0-2 L 6.6-9.0 <2 Low 

2-60 CL, L, SL 7.9-9.0 <2 --

121 10 1-6% Garsid Loamy 0-22 L, CL 7.4-9.0 2-4 Low 

22+ Shale -- -- --
B-A-4 

Table B-A.1 (Continued) 

Map TopsoilUnit Salvage Depth2 Depth Salinity Erosion No. (inches) Slope Map Unit Component Range Site (inches) Texture3 Reaction pH (mmhos/cm) Hazard 

Terada Loamy/sandy 0-7 VFSL, FSL, LS 7.4-8.4 <2 Low 

7-34 VFSL, FSL 7.4-9.0 <2 --

34+ Sandstone -- -- --

Langspring Variant Loamy 0-10 L 7.9-8.4 <2 Low 

10-22 CL, SCL, L, SL 8.5-9.0 <2 --

22-30 SCL, L, SL 7.9-8.4 <2 --

30+ Sandstone -- -- --

122 0 0-6% Baston Clayey 0-3 FSCL 8.0-9.0 <2 Low 

3-28 C >8.4 <4 -­

28+ Shale -- -- --

Boltus Shale 0-11 C, CL 7.9-9.0 8-16 Moderate 

11+ Shale -- -- --

Chrisman Clayey/ 0-2 SIC, C, SICL 7.9-9.0 <2 Low 

saline upland 2-60 SIC, C, SICL >7.8 <4 --

123 4 4-25% Spool Variant Shallow sandy 0-6 LFS, GR-SL 6.6-7.3 <2 Moderate to 

high 

6-12 LFS, CN-LFS, 6.6-7.8 <2 --

GR-SL, GR-S -- -- --

12+ Sandstone -- -- --

Ouard Variant Shallow clayey 0-4 CL, L 6.6-7.8 <2 Moderate 

4-16 CL, C 7.4-9.0 <2 --

16+ Shale -- -- --

San Arcacio Variant Loamy 0-4 SL 6.6-8.4 <8 Low to 

moderate 

4-14 SCL, SL 6.1-8.4 <2 --

14-25 LCOS, COS, GRV-S 6.6-8.4 <4 --

25+ Soft sandstone -- -- --

124 6 3-8% Fraddle Loamy 0-4 SL 6.6-7.8 <2 Low 
B-A-5 

Table B-A.1 (Continued) 

Map TopsoilUnit Salvage Depth2 Depth Salinity Erosion No. (inches) Slope Map Unit Component Range Site (inches) Texture3 Reaction pH (mmhos/cm) Hazard 

4-22 SCL 6.6-7.8 <2 --

22-34 SL, SCL 7.4-8.4 2-4 --

34+ Soft sandstone -- -- --

Ouard Shallow loamy 0-1 SL, SCL 6.6-7.8 <2 Low 

1-19 SCL 6.6-7.8 <4 --

19+ Shale-sandstone -- -- --

San Arcacio Variant Loamy 0-4 SL 6.6-8.4 <8 Low 

4-14 SCL, SL 6.1-8.4 <2 --

14-25 LCOS, COS, GRV-S 6.6-8.4 <4 --

25+ Soft sandstone -- -- --

125 6 0-3% San Arcacio Sandy/loamy 0-3 SL, COSL 6.6-8.4 <8 Low 

3-14 SCL, SL 6.6-8.4 <2 --

14-60 GRV-S, GR-SL, 7.4-8.4 <4 --

LCOS 

Saguache Loamy/sandy 0-6 SL, COSL, GR-SL 6.6-9.0 <2 Low 

6-60 GRV-S, COS, GRV- 6.6-9.0 <2 --

LS 

127 3 0-3% Vermillion Variant Shallow loamy 0-3 L 6.6-8.4 <2 Low 

3-8 CN-L, CN-CL 7.4-8.4 <4 --

8-27 FLX-L, FLV-CL, 7.9-8.4 <4 --

FLV-L 

27+ Hard mudstone -- -- --

Seedskadee Shallow loamy 0-14 SCL, L, SL 7.0-8.5 <2 Low 

14+ Hard sandstone -- -- --

Fraddle Loamy 0-4 SL 6.6-7.8 <2 Low 

4-22 SCL 6.6-7.8 <2 --

22-34 SL, SCL 7.4-8.4 2-4 --

34+ Soft sandstone -- -- --
B-A-6 

Table B-A.1 (Continued) 

Map TopsoilUnit Salvage Depth2 Depth Salinity Erosion No. (inches) Slope Map Unit Component Range Site (inches) Texture3 Reaction pH (mmhos/cm) Hazard 128 12 0-3% Fraddle Loamy 0-4 SL 6.6-7.8 <2 Low 

4-22 SCL 6.6-7.8 <2 -­

22-34 SL, SCL 7.4-8.4 2-4 --

34+ Soft sandstone -- -- --

Ouard Shallow loamy 0-1 SL, SCL 6.6-7.8 <2 Low 

1-19 SCL 6.6-7.8 <4 --

19+ Shale-sandstone -- -- --

San Arcacio Variant Loamy 0-4 SL 6.6-8.4 <8 Low 

4-14 SCL, SL 6.1-8.4 <2 --

14-25 LCOS, COS, GRV-S 6.6-8.4 <4 --

25+ Soft sandstone -- -- --

9512/106 -- 0-2%/see Cowestglen Overflow 0-3 CL 7.4-8.4 0 --

106 

3-8 CL 7.4-8.4 0 --

8-60 CL 7.4-8.4 0 --

1 Adapted from ERO Resources Corporation (1988). 2 Criteria used to determine topsoil salvage depth: maximize loamy textures; minimize clayey textures, rock content, and salinity; salvage at least 6 inches 

if possible; salvage greater depths in better soils to a) provide a deeper seedbed and b) compensate for insufficient soils at other locations. 3 U.S. Department of Agriculture Texture. 

C Clay FSL Fine sandy loam SCL Sandy clay loamCL Clay loam

 L Loam SIC 

Silty clay 

COS Coarse sand LCOS Loamy coarse sand SICL Silty clay loamCOSL Coarse sandy loam LFS Loamy fine sand SIL Silt loam

FS Fine sand 

LS 

 Loamy sand 

SL 

Sandy loam

FSCL Fine Sandy clay loam S Sand VFSL Very fine sandy loam

 Texture Modifier: 

CN Channery GR Gravelly 

FLV Very flaggy GRV Very gravelly 

FLX 

Extremely flaggy SR Stratified 
Development Procedures, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

APPENDIX C: 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT SUMMARY, 

JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT 
Hazardous Materials, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

APPENDIX C: 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT SUMMARY, 

JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT

Prepared for 

Bureau of Land Management 

Wyoming State Office 

Cheyenne, Wyoming

Bureau of Land Management 

Pinedale Field Office 

Pinedale, Wyoming 

and 

Bureau of Land Management 

Rock Springs Field Office 

Rock Springs, Wyoming

TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 

Laramie, Wyoming 

MAI Project 35982

February 2005 
Hazardous Materials, Jonah Infill Drilling Project C-i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 

C-1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ C-1 

C-2.0 DRILLING MATERIALS........................................................................................... C-9 

C-3.0 CEMENTING AND PLUGGING MATERIALS...................................................... C-11 

C-4.0 FRACTURING MATERIALS.................................................................................... C-13 

C-5.0 PRODUCTION PRODUCTS...................................................................................... C-15 

C-5.1 NATURAL GAS.............................................................................................. C-15 

C-5.2 LIQUID HYDROCARBONS ......................................................................... C-15 

C-5.3 PRODUCED WATER ..................................................................................... C-15 

C-6.0 FUELS .......................................................................................................................... C-17

C-6.1 GASOLINE ...................................................................................................... C-17 

C-6.2 DIESEL FUEL ................................................................................................. C-17 

C-6.3 NATURAL GAS.............................................................................................. C-18 

C-6.4 PROPANE ........................................................................................................ C-18 

C-7.0 PIPELINE MATERIALS ............................................................................................ C-19 

C-8.0 EMISSIONS ................................................................................................................. C-21 

C-9.0 COMPRESSOR STATIONS....................................................................................... C-23 

C-10.0 MISCELLANEOUS MATERIALS.......................................................................... C-25 

C-11.0 MANAGEMENT POLICY AND PROCEDURE ................................................... C-27 

C-12.0 LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................ C-31 

LIST OF TABLES 

Page 

Table C-1.1 Hazardous and Extremely Hazardous Materials Potentially Utilized or 

Produced During Construction, Drilling, Production, and Reclamation 

Operations by the Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 

Wyoming, 2004 ............................................................................................... C-2 
C-ii Hazardous Materials, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Hazardous Materials, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

C-1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This Hazardous Materials Management Summary is provided pursuant to Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) Instruction Memoranda Numbers WO-93-344 and WY-94-059, which 

require that all National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents list and describe any 

hazardous and/or extremely hazardous materials that would be produced, used, stored, 

transported, or disposed of as a result of a proposed project. The summary serves as a 

supplement to the Jonah Infill Drilling Project environmental impact statement (EIS). 

Materials are considered hazardous if they contain chemicals or substances listed in the 

Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Consolidated List of Chemicals Subject to 

Reporting Under Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 

(SARA). Extremely hazardous materials are those identified in the EPA's List of Extremely 

Hazardous Substances (40 Code of Federal Regulations [C.F.R.] 355). 

Project proponents (Encana Oil & Gas [U.S.A.], Inc. [EnCana] and BP America Production 

Company [BP America]; referred to as “Operators”) have reviewed the EPA's Consolidated List 

of Chemicals Subject to Reporting Under Title III of SARA (as amended) to identify any 

hazardous substances proposed for production, use, storage, transport, or disposal by this project, 

as well as the EPA's List of Extremely Hazardous Substances as defined in 40 C.F.R. 355 (as 

amended) and have determined that various materials listed as hazardous and/or extremely 

hazardous would be used or generated by this project. All known hazardous and extremely 

hazardous materials potentially produced, used, stored, transported, and/or disposed of as a 

result of the project are presented in Table C-1.1. 

Hazardous materials anticipated to be used or produced during implementation of the 

proposed project generally can be included in the following categories: drilling materials, 

cementing and plugging materials, fracturing materials, production products, fuels, pipeline 

materials, emissions, compressor station materials, and miscellaneous materials. Where 

possible, the quantities of these products or materials have been estimated on a per-well 

basis (Table C-1.1). 
C-2 Hazardous Materials, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table C-1.1 Hazardous and Extremely Hazardous Materials Potentially Utilized or Produced 

During Construction, Drilling, Production, and Reclamation Operations by the Jonah 

Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2004. 

Extremely 

Source 

Approximate Quantities 

Used or Produced Per Well1 Hazardous Substances2 

Hazardous 

Substances3

 CAS No. 

Drilling Materials 

Anionic 20 lbs Acrylamide 79-06-1 

polyacrylamide 

Barite 16,000 lbs Barium compounds --

Fine mineral fibers --

Bentonite 45,000 lbs Fine mineral fibers -- 

Caustic soda 750 lbs Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 

Glutaraldehyde 20 gal Isopropyl alcohol 67-63-0 

Lime 3,500 lbs Calcium hydroxide 1305-62-0 

Mica 600 lbs Fine mineral fibers -- 

Modified tannin 250 lbs Ferrous sulfate 7720-78-7 

Fine mineral fibers --

Phosphate esters 100 gal Methanol 67-56-1 

Polyacrylamides 100 gal 

PAHs4 

Acrylamide 79-06-1 

--

Petroleum distillates 64742-47-8 

POM5 --

Polyanionic cellulose 600 lbs Fine mineral fibers 

Retarder 400 lbs Fine mineral fibers -- 

Cementing and Plugging Materials 

Bentonite 15,000 lbs Fine mineral fibers 

Anti-foamer 100 lbs Glycol ethers -- 

Calcium chloride flake 2,500 lbs Fine mineral fibers -- 

Cellophane flake 300 lbs Fine mineral fibers -- 

Cements 77,000 lbs Aluminum oxide 1344-28-1 

Fine mineral fibers --

Chemical wash 850 gal Ammonium hydroxide 1336-21-6 

Glycol ethers --

Diatomaceous earth 1,000 lbs Fine mineral fibers -- 

Extenders 17,500 lbs Aluminum oxide 1344-28-1 

Fine mineral fibers --

Fluid loss additive 900 lbs Acrylamide 79-06-1 

Fine mineral fibers --

Napthalene 91-20-3 

Friction reducer 160 lbs Fine mineral fibers --

Napthalene 91-20-3 

PAHs --

POM --

Mud flash 250 lbs Fine mineral fibers -- 

Retarder 100 lbs Fine mineral fibers -- 

Salt 2,570 lbs Fine mineral fibers -- 

Silica flour 4,800 lbs Fine mineral fibers -- 

Fracturing Materials 

Biocides 6 gal Fine mineral fibers --

PAHs --

POM --
Hazardous Materials, Jonah Infill Drilling Project C-3 

Table C-1.1 (Continued) 

Source 

Approximate Quantities 

Used or Produced Per Well1 Hazardous Substances2 

Extremely 

Hazardous 

Substances3 CAS No. 

Fracturing Materials (cont.) 

Breakers 145 lbs Ammonium persulphate 

Ammonium sulphate 

Copper compounds 

Ethylene glycol 

Fine mineral fibers 

7727-54-0 

7783-20-2 

107-21-1 

--

--

Glycol ethers --

Clay stabilizer 50 gal Fine mineral fibers 

Glycol ethers 

Isopropyl alcohol 

Methanol 

--

67-63-0 

67-56-1 

--

PAHs --

POM --

Crosslinkers 60 gal Ammonium chloride 

Methanol 

12125-02-9 

67-56-1 

Potassium hydroxide 

Zirconium nitrate 

1310-58-3 

13746-89-9 

Zirconium sulfate 14644-61-2 

Foaming agent 120 gal Glycol ethers -- 

Gelling agent 950 gal Benzene 

Ethylbenzene 

Methyl tert-butyl ether 

Napthalene 

PAHs 

71-43-2 

100-41-4 

1634-04-4 

91-20-3 

--

POM --

Sodium hydroxide 

Toluene 

1310-73-2 

108-88-3 

m-Xylene 

o-Xylene 

p-Xylene 

108-38-3 

95-47-6 

106-42-3 

pH buffers 60 gal Acetic acid 

Benzoic acid 

64-19-7 

65-85-0 

Fumaric acid 110-17-8 

Hydrochloric acid 

Sodium hydroxide 

7647-01-0 

1310-73-2 

Sands 2,000,000 lbs Fine mineral fibers -- 

Solvents 50 gal Glycol ethers -- 

Surfactants 15 gal Glycol ethers 

Isopropyl alcohol 

Methanol 

--

67-63-0 

67-56-1 

PAHs --

POM --

Production Products 

Liquid hydrocarbons <5-36 bpd Benzene 

Ethyl benzene 

n-Hexane 

71-43-2 

100-41-4 

110-54-3 

PAHs --

POM --

Toluene 108-88-3 

m-Xylene 

o-Xylene 

p-Xylene 

108-38-3 

95-47-6 

106-42-3 
C-4 Hazardous Materials, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table C-1.1 (Continued) 

Extremely 

Source 

Approximate Quantities 

Used or Produced Per Well1 Hazardous Substances2 

Hazardous 

Substances3 CAS No. 

Production Products (cont.) 

Natural gas 0.5->4.0 mmcfd n-Hexane 110-54-3 

PAHs --

POM --

 Produced 1.0-20.0 bpd water and an Arsenic 7440-38-2 

water/cuttings unknown quantity of Barium 7440-39-3 

cuttings Cadmium 7440-43-9 

Chromium 7440-47-3 

Lead 7439-92-1 

Manganese 7439-96-5 

Mercury 7439-97-6 

Radium 226 --

Selenium 7782-49-2 

Uranium --

Other radionuclides --

Fuels 

Diesel fuel >36,300 gal Benzene 71-43-2 

Cumene 98-82-8 

Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 

Methyl tert-butyl ether 1634-04-4 

Naphthalene 91-20-3 

PAHs --

POM --

Toluene 108-88-3 

m-Xylene 108-38-3 

o-Xylene 95-47-6 

p-Xylene 106-42-3

 Gasoline Unk Benzene 71-43-2 

Cumene 98-82-8 

Cyclohexane 110-82-7 

Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 

n-Hexane 110-54-3 

Methyl tert-butyl ether 1634-04-4 

Naphthalene 91-20-3 

PAHs --

POM --

Tetraethyl lead 78-00-2 

Toluene 108-88-3 

m-Xylene 108-38-3 

o-Xylene 95-47-6 

p-Xylene 106-42-3

 Natural gas Unk n-Hexane 110-54-3 

PAHs --

POM --

 Propane Unk Propylene 115-07-1 

Pipeline Materials 

Coating Unk Aluminum oxide 1334-28-1 

Cupric sulfate solution Unk Cupric sulfate 7758-98-7 

Sulfuric acid 7664-93-9 

Diethanolamine Unk Diethanolamine 111-42-2 

LP Gas Unk Benzene 71-43-2 

n-Hexane 110-54-3 

Propylene 115-07-1 

Molecular sieves Unk Aluminum oxide 1344-28-1 
Hazardous Materials, Jonah Infill Drilling Project C-5 

Table C-1.1 (Continued) 

Extremely 

Source 

Approximate Quantities 

Used or Produced Per Well1 Hazardous Substances2 

Hazardous 

Substances3 CAS No. 

Pipeline Materials (cont.) 

Pipeline primer Unk Naphthalene 91-20-3 

Toluene 108-88-3 

Potassium hydroxide Unk Potassium hydroxide 1310-58-3 

solution 

Rubber resin coatings Unk Acetone 67-64-1 

Coal tar pitch 68187-57-5 

Ethyl acetate 141-78-6 

Methyl ethyl ketone 78-93-3 

Toluene 108-88-3 

Xylene 1330-20-7 

Emissions

 Gases Unk Formaldehyde 50-00-0 

Nitrogen dioxide 10102-44-0 

Ozone 10028-15-6 

Sulfur dioxide 7446-09-5 

Sulfur trioxide 7446-11-9

 Hydrocarbons Unk Benzene 71-43-2 

Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 

n-Hexane 100-54-3 

PAHs --

Toluene 108-88-3 

m-Xylene 108-38-3 

o-Xylene 95-47-6 

p-Xylene 106-42-3

 Particulate matter Unk Barium 7440-39-3 

Cadmium 7440-43-9 

Copper 7440-50-8 

Fine mineral fibers --

Lead 7439-92-1 

Manganese 7439-96-5 

Nickel 7440-02-0 

POM --

Zinc 7440-66-6 

Compressor Station Materials 

Coolants Unk Ethylene glycol 107-21-1 

Crude Oil Unk Benzene 71-43-2 

PAHs --

POM --

Grease Unk Zinc compounds --

Heat Transfer Fluid Unk Benzene 71-43-2 

Lubricants Unk 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene 95-63-6 

Barium 7440-39-3 

Cadmium 7440-43-9 

Copper 7440-50-8 

n-Hexane 110-54-3 

Lead 7439-92-1 

Manganese 7439-96-5 

Nickel 7440-02-0 

PAHs --

POM --

Zinc 7440-66-6 

Methanol Unk Methanol 67-56-1 
C-6 Hazardous Materials, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table C-1.1 (Continued) 

Extremely 

Source 

Approximate Quantities 

Used or Produced Per Well1 Hazardous Substances2 

Hazardous 

Substances3 CAS No. 

Compressor Station Materials (cont.) 

Natural Gas Liquids Unk Benzene 71-43-2 

Hexane 110-54-3 

Hydrogen Sulfide6 7783-06-4 

Marking Paints Unk Hexane 110-54-3 

Naphthalene 91-20-3 

Toluene 108-88-3 

Xylene 1330-20-7 

Acetone 67-64-1 

Cyclohexane 110-82-7 

Primers Unk Acetone 67-64-1 

Methanol 67-56-1 

Methyl Ethyl Ketone 78-93-3 

Napthalene 91-20-3 

Toluene 108-88-3 

Xylene 1330-20-7 

Zinc 7440-66-6 

Plant Condensate Unk Benzene 71-43-2 

Ethyl benzene 100-41-4 

n-Hexane 110-54-3 

PAHs --

POM --

Toluene 108-88-3 

m-Xylene 108-38-3 

o-Xylene 95-47-6 

p-Xylene 106-42-3 

Silicone Seal Unk Silane 3037-72-7 

Miscellaneous Materials 

Acids Unk Acetic anhydride 108-24-7 

Formic acid 64-18-6 

Sodium chromate 777-11-3 

Sulfuric acid 7664-93-9

 Antifreeze, heat 300 gal Acrolein 107-02-8 

control, Cupric sulfate 7758-38-7 

and dehydration Ethylene glycol 107-21-1 

agents Freon 76-13-1 

Phosphoric acid 766-38-2 

Potassium hydroxide 1310-58-3 

Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 

Triethylene glycol 112-27-6 

Batteries Unk Cadmium 7440-43-9 

Cadmium oxide 1306-19-0 

Lead 7439-92-1 

Nickel hydroxide 7440-02-0 

Potassium hydroxide 1310-58-3 

Sulfuric acid 7664-93-9

 Biocides Unk Formaldehyde 50-00-0 

Isopropyl alcohol 67-63-0 

Methanol 67-56-1

 Cleaners Unk Hydrochloric acid 7647-01-0 
Hazardous Materials, Jonah Infill Drilling Project C-7 

Table C-1.1 (Continued) 

Source 

Approximate Quantities 

Used or Produced Per Well1 Hazardous Substances2 

Extremely 

Hazardous 

Substances3 CAS No. 

Miscellaneous Materials (cont.) 

Corrosion inhibitors Unk 4-4' methylene dianiline 

Acetic acid 

101-77-9 

64-19-7 

Ammonium bisulfite 10192-30-0 

Basic zinc carbonate 3486-35-9 

Diethylamine 

Dodecylbenzenesulfonic 

acid 

109-89-7 

27176-87-0 

Ethylene glycol 

Isobutyl alcohol 

Isopropyl alcohol 

Methanol 

107-21-1 

78-83-1 

67-63-0 

67-56-1 

Napthalene 

Sodium nitrite 

91-20-3 

7632-00-0 

Toluene 108-88-3 

Xylene 1330-20-7 

Emulsion breakers Unk Acetic acid 64-19-7 

Acetone 67-64-1 

Ammonium chloride 12125-02-9 

Benzoic acid 65-85-0 

Isopropyl alcohol 

Methanol 

67-63-0 

67-56-1 

Napthalene 

Toluene 

91-20-3 

108-88-3 

Xylene 

Zinc chloride 

1330-20-7 

7646-85-7

 Fertilizers Unk Unk -- 

Herbicides Unk Unk -- 

Lead-free thread 

compound 

25 gal Copper 

Zinc

 7440-50-8 

7440-66-6

 Lubricants Unk 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene 

Barium 

95-63-6 

7440-39-3 

Cadmium 7440-43-9 

Copper 

n-Hexane 

7440-50-8 

110-54-3 

Lead 7439-92-1 

Manganese 

Nickel 

7439-96-5 

7440-02-0 

PAHs --

POM --

Zinc 7440-66-6

 Methanol 200 gal Methanol 67-56-1 

Motor oil 220 gal Zinc compounds -- 
C-8 Hazardous Materials, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table C-1.1 (Continued) 

Source 

Approximate Quantities 

Used or Produced Per Well1 Hazardous Substances2 

Extremely 

Hazardous 

Substances3 CAS No. 

Miscellaneous Materials (cont.)

 Paints Unk Aluminum 7429-90-5 

Barium 7440-39-3 

n-Butyl alcohol 

Cobalt 

71-36-3 

7440-48-4 

Lead 7439-92-1 

Manganese 

PAHs 

7439-96-5 

--

POM --

Sulfuric acid 7664-93-9 

Toluene 108-88-3 

Triethylamine 

Xylene 

121-44-8 

1330-20-7 

Paraffin control Unk Carbon disulfide 75-15-0 

Ethylbenzene 

Methanol 

100-41-4 

67-56-1 

Toluene 108-88-3 

Xylene 1330-20-7 

Photoreceptors Unk Selenium 7782-49-2 

Scale inhibitors Unk Acetic acid 64-19-7 

Ethylene diamine tetra 

Ethylene glycol 

Formaldehyde 

Hydrochloric acid 

Isopropyl alcohol 

Methanol 

60-00-4 

107-21-1 

50-00-0 

7647-01-0 

67-63-1 

67-56-1 

Nitrilotriacetic acid 139-13-9

 Sealants Unk 1,1,1-trichloroethane 71-55-6 

n-Hexane 110-54-3 

PAHs --

POM --

 Solvents Unk 1,1,1-trichloroethane 71-55-6 

Acetone 67-64-1 

t-Butyl alcohol 

Carbontetrachloride 

75-65-0 

56-23-5 

Isopropyl alcohol 

Methyl ethyl ketone 

Methanol 

67-63-0 

108-10-1 

67-56-1 

PAHs --

POM --

Toluene 108-88-3 

Xylene 1330-20-7 

Starting fluid Unk Ethyl ether 60-29-7 

Surfactants Unk Ethylene diamine 

Isopropyl alcohol 

Petroleum naphtha 

107-15-3 

67-56-1 

8030-30-6 

1 lbs = pounds; gal = gallons; bpd = barrels per day; mmcfd = million cubic feet per day; Unk = quantity unknown. 2 Hazardous substances are those constituents listed under the Consolidated List of Chemicals Subject to Reporting 

Under Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), as amended. 3 Extremely hazardous substances are those defined in 40 C.F.R. 355. 4 PAHs = polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. 5 POM = polycyclic organic matter. 6 If hydrogen sulfide is present, it occurs at 5% or less of liquid gas component. 
Hazardous Materials, Jonah Infill Drilling Project C-9 

C-2.0 DRILLING MATERIALS 

Water-based drilling fluids consisting of clays and other additives would be utilized by 

drilling companies for drilling each well; however, although not currently proposed for use, 

oil-based drilling fluids may be proposed for use at some wells. Drilling fluid additives 

potentially containing hazardous materials are listed in Table C-1.1. The polyacrilamides 

used in drilling may contain the extremely hazardous substance acrylamide. Drilling fluid 

additives would be transported to well pads during drilling operations in appropriate sacks 

and containers. Water-based drilling fluids, cuttings, and water would be stored in reserve 

pits located on-site, and reserve pits would be lined as directed by the BLM to conserve 

water and to protect near-surface aquifers. When the reserve pit is no longer required, its 

contents would be evaporated or solidified in place, and the pit would be backfilled as 

approved by the BLM. 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. Oil-based 

drilling fluids would be reused for drilling other wells or, as for other potentially hazardous 

materials, removed from the field for disposal at an authorized off-site facility (e.g., the 

R&G Oil Field Waste Disposal-Shute Creek Site and/or the R&G Piney Co. Field Waste 

Disposal Facility). 
C-10 Hazardous Materials, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Hazardous Materials, Jonah Infill Drilling Project C-11 

C-3.0 CEMENTING AND PLUGGING MATERIALS 

Well completion and abandonment operations include cementing and plugging various 

segments of the well bore to protect freshwater aquifers and other down-hole resources. 

Wells would be cased and cemented as approved by the BLM (for federal minerals) and 

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC) (for state minerals). 

Cementing and plugging materials potentially containing hazardous materials are listed in 

Table C-1.1. The extremely hazardous material acrylamide may be present in fluid loss 

additives. All casing and plugging materials would be transported in bulk to each well site. 

Small quantities may be transported and stored on-site in appropriate containers. 
C-12 Hazardous Materials, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Hazardous Materials, Jonah Infill Drilling Project C-13 

C-4.0 FRACTURING MATERIALS 

Hydraulic fracturing would be performed at all proposed wells to enhance gas flow rates. 

Fracturing fluids consist primarily of fresh water but would contain some additives with 

hazardous constituents as shown in Table C-1.1. Fracturing materials would be transported 

to well locations in bulk or in manufacturer's containers. Waste fracturing fluids would be 

collected in aboveground tanks and/or reserve pits and evaporated, hauled away from the 

well pad and reused at another well, or disposed of at an authorized facility. 
C-14 Hazardous Materials, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Hazardous Materials, Jonah Infill Drilling Project C-15 

C-5.0 PRODUCTION PRODUCTS 

C-5.1 NATURAL GAS 

Produced natural gas primarily would contain methane, ethane, and carbon dioxide. 

Hazardous substances potentially present in the gas stream are listed in Table C-1.1. No 

extremely hazardous materials are anticipated to be present. Small quantities of natural gas 

may be flared into a flare pit during well testing operations, pursuant to BLM/WOGCC 

rules and regulations (Notice to Lessees [NTL]-4A); however, with the use of high pressure 

separators, these emissions would be dramatically reduced from levels previously released 

at the Jonah Field. BLM and WOGCC approval would be necessary prior to flaring 

operations. No natural gas would be stored on-site. 

C-5.2 LIQUID HYDROCARBONS 

Condensates would be produced in association with the gas stream from productive wells. 

Hazardous materials potentially present in the liquid hydrocarbons are listed in Table C-1.1. 

No extremely hazardous materials are known to be present in these liquid hydrocarbons. 

Liquid hydrocarbons would be stored in tanks at well pads, and all tanks would be bermed 

to contain 110% of the entire storage capacity of the largest tank. Liquid hydrocarbons 

periodically would be removed from storage tanks and transported by truck off the project 

area for sale to refineries. All necessary authorizing actions for the production, storage, and 

transport of liquid hydrocarbons would be addressed prior to the initiation of production 

activities. 

C-5.3 PRODUCED WATER 

Hazardous materials potentially present in trace amounts in produced water are listed in 

Table C-1.1. No extremely hazardous materials are expected in the produced water. 
C-16 Hazardous Materials, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Produced water would be stored in tanks at well locations and periodically would be 

removed and transported to Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ)- or 

WOGCC-permitted water disposal facilities (e.g., treatment/evaporation facilities, 

underground injection wells). Produced water quality from wells and in-field treatment 

facilities would be monitored periodically, and water that meets applicable standards would 

be discharged to the surface at appropriate locations. Further detail on existing and 

proposed produced water disposal methodologies is provided in EIS Section 2.6.8 

(Production Operations). 

Necessary authorizing actions that must be met prior to the disposal of produced water 

include the following: 

• BLM approval of disposal methodologies; 

• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act compliance, as necessary; 

• WDEQ Water Quality Division approval of wastewater disposal (e.g., 

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits); 

• WOGCC evaporation pond permits; and 

• Wyoming State Engineer's Office dewatering permits (Form U.W. 5). 
Hazardous Materials, Jonah Infill Drilling Project C-17 

C-6.0 FUELS 

Diesel fuel, gasoline, natural gas, and propane would be used for the project. All contain 

hazardous materials (see Table C-1.1). Gasoline and diesel would be used by vehicles 

providing transport to and from the project area. Diesel fuel also be used in drilling 

operations and construction equipment and as a minor component of fracturing fluids and 

may be used in oil-based drilling fluids. Natural gas produced by the proposed project 

would be used to power production equipment burners, gas-activated valves, pipeline 

compressor stations, and other ancillary facilities. Propane would be utilized for 

miscellaneous heating purposes. 

C-6.1 GASOLINE 

Gasoline is known to contain hazardous materials (see Table C-1.1). Gasoline for this 

project would be purchased from regional vendors and primarily would be stored and 

transported in vehicle gas tanks. Some additional gasoline storage may be provided in 

appropriately designed and labeled 1- to 5-gal containers for supplemental use as vehicle 

fuel. No large-scale storage of gasoline is anticipated. Tetraethyl lead, an extremely 

hazardous material, is present in leaded gasoline (regular). 

C-6.2 DIESEL FUEL 

Diesel fuel for use as a fuel would be similar to that described for gasoline. Each well 

location would have aboveground storage tanks containing diesel fuel during drilling 

operations. Tanks would be filled by a local fuel supplier. The use, transport, and storage 

of diesel fuel would be conducted in accordance with all relevant state and/or federal rules, 

regulations, and guidelines. 
C-18 Hazardous Materials, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

C-6.3 NATURAL GAS 

Natural gas produced on-site would be burned to provide power for compressor stations and 

other ancillary facilities. Hazardous materials are known to be present in natural gas (see 

Table C-1.1). No extremely hazardous materials are known to exist in the natural gas from 

the project area. 

C-6.4 PROPANE 

The only hazardous material known to be present in propane is propylene. No extremely 

hazardous materials are known to be present. Propane would be purchased from regional 

vendors and would be stored and transported in appropriate propane tanks. No large-scale 

storage of propane is anticipated. 
Hazardous Materials, Jonah Infill Drilling Project C-19 

C-7.0 PIPELINE MATERIALS 

Gas produced from wells would be transported from each well through pipelines linking 

wells with existing natural gas gathering systems. Industry-standard pipeline equipment, 

materials, techniques, and procedures in conformance with all applicable regulatory 

requirements would be employed during construction, testing, operation, and maintenance 

of the project to ensure pipeline safety and efficiency. All necessary authorizing actions for 

natural gas pipelines would be addressed prior to installation. These actions may include 

the following: 

• Sublette County special use permits; 

• BLM right-of-way (ROW) grants; 

• BLM Sundry Notices; 

• conformance with Department of Transportation pipeline regulations 

(49 C.F.R. 191-192); and 

• Wyoming Public Service Commission Certificates to act as common carrier 

for natural gas. 

Materials utilized for pipeline construction, operation, and maintenance that may contain 

hazardous materials are listed in Table C-1.1. Hazardous materials associated with pipeline 

construction, operation, and maintenance would be handled in accordance with applicable 

state and federal regulations. 
C-20 Hazardous Materials, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Hazardous Materials, Jonah Infill Drilling Project C-21 

C-8.0 EMISSIONS 

Emissions from combustion engines and condensate flashing; well construction, completion, 

and production; and pipeline construction, operation, and maintenance would occur as a 

result of this project. Hazardous and extremely hazardous materials are known to be 

released directly or formed secondarily (i.e., ozone) from the construction and operation of 

natural gas wells and associated pipelines (Table C-1.1). Extremely hazardous emission 

materials include nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, and sulfur trioxide. No releases of 

these hazardous and extremely hazardous materials are anticipated to exceed quantities 

allowed for in Prevention of Significant Deterioration Class II areas of the WDEQ-Air 

Quality Division Implementation Plan, nor are combustion emissions expected to exceed 

Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards or National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

Particulate matter emissions and larger unburned hydrocarbons eventually would settle out 

on the ground surface, whereas gaseous emissions would react with other air constituents as 

components of the nitrogen, sulfur, and carbon cycles. 
C-22 Hazardous Materials, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Hazardous Materials, Jonah Infill Drilling Project C-23 

C-9.0 COMPRESSOR STATIONS 

Materials potentially containing hazardous substances that are used at compressor stations 

are listed in Table C-1.1. Quantities of these materials are unknown but consist of fuels, 

lubricants, paints, primers, and combustion products. The extremely hazardous material 

hydrogen sulfide may be present as a minor component in natural gas liquids. Natural gas 

liquids are burnt as a secondary fuel source at compressor stations. 
C-24 Hazardous Materials, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Hazardous Materials, Jonah Infill Drilling Project C-25 

C-10.0 MISCELLANEOUS MATERIALS 

Miscellaneous materials potentially containing hazardous substances that may be used for 

the proposed project are listed in Table C-1.1. Quantities of these materials are unknown; 

however, no extremely hazardous substances are known to be present in any of these 

materials. Miscellaneous materials would be used during well construction and production 

operations; for well, pipeline, and equipment maintenance; and during reclamation 

activities. 
C-26 Hazardous Materials, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Hazardous Materials, Jonah Infill Drilling Project C-27 

C-11.0 MANAGEMENT POLICY AND PROCEDURE 

Each individual Operator would be responsible for ensuring that all production, use, storage, 

transport, and disposal of hazardous and extremely hazardous materials as a result of the 

proposed project would be in accordance with all applicable existing or hereafter 

promulgated federal, state, and local government rules, regulations, and guidelines. All 

project-related activities involving the production, use, and/or disposal of hazardous or 

extremely hazardous materials would be conducted to minimize potential environmental 

impacts (Amoco Production Company [now BP America] 1993, 1995; EnCana 2002a). 

Each Operator would comply with emergency reporting requirements for releases of 

hazardous materials. Any release of hazardous or extremely hazardous substances (leaks, 

spills, etc.) in excess of the reportable quantity, as established in 40 C.F.R. 117, would be 

reported as required by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] 9601 et seq.). 

The materials for which such notification must be given are the extremely hazardous 

substances listed under the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, 

Section 302, and the hazardous substances designated under Section 102 of CERCLA, as 

amended. If the release of a hazardous/extremely hazardous substance in a reportable 

quantity does occur, immediate notice and reporting must be given to the BLM and to all 

other appropriate federal and state agencies as defined in BLM NTL-3A. Incidents 

requiring verbal notification would be given as soon as possible but no later than 24 hours 

after discovery. Verbal notification would be confirmed in writing within 15 days or other 

such time required by the appropriate regulatory agency. 

Each Operator would prepare and implement, as necessary, the following plans and/or 

policies: 

• pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 112, Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure 

Plans (SPCCPs) for those sites where SPCCPs are applicable (see EnCana 

2002b); 

• spill response plans (EnCana 2002b); 
C-28 Hazardous Materials, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

• plans and inventories of hazardous chemical categories pursuant to Section 

312 of SARA, as amended; 

• Emergency Response Plans (see EnCana 2002b); and 

• Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) (see McMurry Oil 

Company 2003). 

Copies of the above would be maintained with the Operators, as required by regulation, and 

would be made available upon request. 

During the course of routine oil and gas production operations, minor leaks, spills, and other 

accidental releases of crude oil and condensate may occur, thereby creating 

hydrocarbon-impacted soils. While the surface use lease may allow for the temporary storage 

and treatment of oil-contaminated soils on well pads, some Operators discourage this practice in 

an effort to maintain environmental integrity. As a Best Management Practice (BMP), one 

Operator plans to transport, accumulate, and treat these contaminated soils at a new 

bioremediation facility dedicated solely to the remediation of these soils (EnCana 2003). 

This proposed ancillary facility would be located on state surface in the SW1⁄4 NE1⁄4, Section 36, 

T29N, R108W. The dimensions of the facility would be 200 x 200 ft. Containment berm walls 

2 ft high x 4 ft wide would be located on the east, south, and west perimeters of the pad to 

contain storm water runoff. Erosion controls would be installed on the soil berms and pad 

shoulders to maintain their integrity, and walls and shoulders would be revegetated during 

operations. 

All weather year-round access to the facility would be maintained, and the facility would be 

gated and locked. 

Point sources for hydrocarbon-impacted soils are wellhead and production battery spills and 

releases, as well as gas and flow line leaks. The typical range of hydrocarbon contamination, 

expressed as total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH), is from <500 parts per million 

(ppm) to >20,000 ppm depending on such factors as spill volume, exposure time, and weather. 
Hazardous Materials, Jonah Infill Drilling Project C-29 

Hydrocarbon-impacted soils would be treated at the facility by enhancing hydrocarbon 

degradation with indigenous bacteria. Impacted soils would be placed in windrows 

approximately 10 ft wide x 120 ft long and 24 inches deep. On a scheduled basis, the soil mass 

in each windrow would be turned to continually expose soil mass layers to oxygen, moisture, and 

sunlight. No tillage of the soils would occur during periods of high winds or when surface 

conditions would create fugitive dust emissions. 

Impacted soils received at the facility that reflect hydrocarbon concentrations in excess of 

20,000 ppm TRPH would be blended with soils exhibiting lower hydrocarbon concentrations to 

avoid pockets of high hydrocarbon concentrations in soil masses. 

When an individual windrow is filled to designated dimensions and volumes, hydrocarbon 

concentrations would be periodically measured using an organic vapor meter (OVM). When 

OVM readings indicate that hydrocarbon concentrations have dropped to <1,000 ppm, a 

composite sample of the soil mass would be collected for TRPH analysis. When TRPH 

concentrations have dropped below WOGCC TRPH-concentration limits, the soil mass would 

be removed from the facility for recycling under a variety of beneficial uses approved and 

stipulated by the WOGCC. The primary use of remediated soils from this facility would be 

construction related (e.g., road grades). 

As necessary, development operations would also be in compliance with regulations 

promulgated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act (the Clean Water Act), Safe Drinking Water Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, 

Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Federal Clean Air Act. In addition, project 

operations would comply with all attendant state rules and regulations relating to hazardous 

material reporting, transportation, management, and disposal. 
C-30 Hazardous Materials, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Hazardous Materials, Jonah Infill Drilling Project C-31 

C-12.0 LITERATURE CITED 

Amoco Production Company. 1993. Environmental, Occupational Health and Safety Policy. 

Mimeo. 2 pp. 

. 1995. Safety Manuel, U.S. Operations, 1995 edition. Mimeo. 

EnCana Oil & Gas (U.S.A.), Inc. 2002a. Contractor Expectations for Environment, Health and 

Safety. U.S. Rockies Region Booklet. 

. 2002b. Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan for Yellow Point Area, 

Jonah Field, Sublette County, Wyoming. Prepared for EnCana Oil & Gas (U.S.A.), Inc., 

Denver, Colorado, by LESAIR Environmental, Inc., Littleton, Colorado. 22 pp. 

. 2003. An Application for a Bio Remediation Cell Pad Facility to be Located in the 

Jonah Field Adjacent and Contiguous to McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte #7-36 

Production Battery Which is Located in the SWNE/4, Section 36, T29N, R108W Sublette 

County, Wyoming. Submitted by EnCana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc., Denver, Colorado, to 

the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Committee, Casper. Prepared by L.C. Roberts, 

ASCE #320326. 8 pp. + append. 

McMurry Oil Company. 2003. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, Jonah Field. Prepared 

for McMurry Oil Company, an affiliate of EnCana Oil & Gas (U.S.A.), Inc., Denver, 

Colorado, by Lesair Environmental, Inc., Littleton, Colorado. 7 pp. + append. 
C-32 Hazardous Materials, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

This page intentionally left blank.