Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

Prepared for 

Bureau of Land Management 

Pinedale Field Office 

Pinedale, Wyoming 

Prepared by 

SWCA Environmental Consultants 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

Prepared for: 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

Pinedale Field Office 

432 E. Mill Street 

P.O. Box 768 

Pinedale, WY 82941 

Prepared by: 

SWCA Environmental Consultants 

2120 North Central Ave., Suite 130 

Phoenix, AZ 85004 

602-274-3831 

Project No. 9290-220 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

Table of Contents

Part I: Narrative Summary of the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Public 

Comment Analysis Process 

Introduction...................................................................................................................................................1

The Role of Public Comment in the NEPA Process.....................................................................................1

Distribution of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement..........................................................................2

Distribution of the Air Quality Supplemental Information...........................................................................2

Public Meetings ............................................................................................................................................3

Summary of the Comments Received...........................................................................................................3

Geographic Origin of Comments Received on the JIDP DEIS ............................................................5

Distribution of Comments by Organizational Affiliation .....................................................................5

Comment Analysis Methodology .................................................................................................................9

Public Disclosure of Comments under the Freedom of Information Act ...................................................12

Concern Statements by Issue/Procedural Category ....................................................................................12

Air Quality (Comments on DEIS) ..........................................................................................................13

Air Quality (Comments on Air Quality Supplemental Information)......................................................15

Overestimation of Impacts..................................................................................................................15

Underestimation of Impacts................................................................................................................16

Near-Field Modeling...........................................................................................................................18

Mid-/Far-Field Modeling ....................................................................................................................19

Ozone and VOCs ................................................................................................................................20

PSD Increment-Consumption Analysis..............................................................................................21

Early Project Development Stage (EPDS) Modeling .........................................................................21

Air Quality Health Impacts.................................................................................................................23

Air Quality Impacts Mitigation...........................................................................................................23

Air Quality Regulatory Compliance and Commitments.....................................................................24

Alternatives.............................................................................................................................................25

Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................28

Compensatory Mitigation .......................................................................................................................28

Compliance with Laws (other than NEPA), Agency Policy, and Management Plans............................31

Conditions of Approval...........................................................................................................................31

Cultural Resources..................................................................................................................................32

Economics...............................................................................................................................................32

Editorial...................................................................................................................................................32

Hazardous Materials ...............................................................................................................................33

Health/Safety...........................................................................................................................................33

Land Ownership......................................................................................................................................33

Land Use .................................................................................................................................................33

Livestock/Grazing...................................................................................................................................33

Mineral Resources/Natural Gas Recovery..............................................................................................35

NEPA......................................................................................................................................................35

Noise .......................................................................................................................................................36

On-Site Mitigation ..................................................................................................................................37

Operator-Committed Practices................................................................................................................38

Paleontology ...........................................................................................................................................38

Performance Objectives..........................................................................................................................39

Public Participation.................................................................................................................................40

i January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

Table of Contents (cont'd)

Recreation ...............................................................................................................................................41

Site-Specific Conditions of Approval.....................................................................................................41

Social ......................................................................................................................................................41

Soils ........................................................................................................................................................42

Surface Disturbance/Directional Drilling ...............................................................................................42

Technical Information.............................................................................................................................43

Topography.............................................................................................................................................43

Transportation.........................................................................................................................................44

Vegetation...............................................................................................................................................44

Visual Resources.....................................................................................................................................45

Water Resources .....................................................................................................................................45

Wildlife ...................................................................................................................................................46

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Types of Comment Submittals Received on the JIDP EIS...........................................................4

Figure 2. Distribution of Substantive Issues in Comments on the JIDP DEIS ............................................5

Figure 3. Geographic Distribution of Comment Submittals........................................................................7

Figure 4. Distribution of Comment Submittals Received from Wyoming ..................................................7

List of Tables 

Table 1. Geographic Distribution of Responses by Country and State/ Province .......................................6

Table 2. Geographic Distribution of Comment Submittals by County in Wyoming...................................6

Table 3. Comment Submissions on the JIDP DEIS by Organizational Affiliation .....................................8

Table 4. Comment Submissions on the Air Quality Supplemental Information by Organizational 

Affiliation.......................................................................................................................................9

Table 5. Issue Categories for Comments on the JIDP DEIS......................................................................10

Table 6. Issue Categories for Comments on the Air Quality Supplemental Information ..........................10

Table 7. Category Codes by Type for Comments on the JIDP DEIS ........................................................11

Table 8. Category Codes by Type for Comments on the Air Quality Supplemental Information.............12

List of Appendices 

Appendix A. Federal Register Notices of Availability

Appendix B. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Distribution List 

Appendix C. Air Quality Supplemental Information Distribution List 

Appendix D. Public Notices 

January 2006 ii
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

Table of Contents (cont’d) 

Part II: Substantive Comments Received During Public Comment 

Analysis Process of the Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table II-A: Persons Submitting Comments on the JIDP DEIS 

Table II-B: Substantive Comments on the JIDP DEIS 

Part III: Substantive Comments Related to Air Quality Issues 

Received During Public Comment Analysis Process of the 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table III-A: Persons Submitting Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues 

Table III-B: Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues 

iii January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

To the Reader 

The Public Comment Analysis Report, produced in support of the Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(FEIS) for the Jonah Infill Drilling Project (JIDP) in Sublette County, Wyoming, is divided into three 

major sections. Part I is a narrative summary of the process by which public comments received during 

the 60-day comment period following the February 2005 publication of the JIDP Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (DEIS) and the 60-day comment period following the August 2005 publication of the 

Draft Jonah Infill DEIS Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement and the Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement Air Quality Impact Analysis Supplement were 

collected and analyzed. Part I also includes information on how the DEIS and air quality supplements 

were distributed to agencies and members of the public, how public meetings on the JIDP were 

conducted, and the major issues and concerns that were identified during the process. 

Part II consists of a table that includes all substantive comments received during the DEIS comment 

period, and Part III is a table of all substantive comments related to air quality issues. Each of these tables 

also includes BLM’s formal responses to the substantive comments the agency received. To allow the 

individual reader to quickly locate his or her own comments and BLM’s corresponding response(s), the 

Part II and Part III tables are each preceded by a table showing the submitter ID number that was assigned 

to those persons and/or organizations that submitted comments. 

Thus, to find one’s own comments the reader should first glance through Table II-A or Table III-A to 

locate his or her name and note the corresponding submitter ID number in the left-hand column. The 

reader may then turn to Table II-B, “Substantive Comments on the JIDP DEIS,” or Table III-B, 

“Substantive Comments on JIDP Air Quality Issues,” where all comments appear in numeric order by

submitter ID. It should also be noted that, due to the large number of individual comment submissions on 

the DEIS, comments in Table II-B were also assigned an alphabetic “submittal type” prefix as follows: 

E = email; L = letter, F = form, and FM# = form letter. 

For a detailed explanation of how individual comments were determined to be “substantive,” please refer 

to the “Comment Analysis Methodology” section that begins on page 9 of Part I of this report.

January 2006 iv
Part I: Narrative Summary of the Jonah Infill Drilling 

Project Public Comment Analysis Process
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

Part I: Narrative Summary of the Jonah Infill Drilling 

Project Public Comment Analysis Process 

Introduction 

In February 2005, the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) Pinedale Field Office in Pinedale, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, completed preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the 

proposed Jonah Infill Drilling Project (JIDP). On February 11, 2005, a Notice of Availability (NOA) of 

the DEIS for public review and comment was published in the Federal Register (Volume 70, No. 28, pp. 

7296–7298). A copy of the NOA, which included detailed instructions on how to submit comments on the 

DEIS, is provided in Appendix A. The DEIS was distributed in both paper and electronic formats (on CDROM), and was available for downloading from the BLM’s website at www.wy.blm.gov through April 8, 

2005. Additional copies of these volumes were made available for public inspection at the Pinedale Field 

Office, 432 East Mill Street, Pinedale, and at the BLM Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, 

Cheyenne. The BLM invited public and agency comment on the DEIS and the technical support 

documents for a period of 60 calendar days, until April 12, 2005. 

Subsequent to publication of the DEIS it became apparent that the air quality modeling and analysis that 

had been done for the DEIS was based on data that were insufficient to provide meaningful evaluation of 

the affected environment, largely because new analysis in another document showed emission levels of 

certain pollutants within the regional airshed had increased significantly since the original data had been 

compiled. Following consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ), and BLM Wyoming’s own air quality specialists, the 

BLM determined that supplemental air quality modeling and analysis would need to be conducted, 

published as a supplemental information document, and the results of these studies incorporated into the 

Final JIDP EIS. Therefore, on April 12, 2005, BLM published an NOA in the Federal Register (Vol. 70, 

No. 69, p.19094) to inform the public that additional time would be made available to submit comments, 

but that these comment submissions must be limited to the air quality information presented in the DEIS. 

A copy of this NOA is included in Appendix A. When the supplemental air quality analyses were 

completed, the BLM published a new NOA on August 9, 2005, in the Federal Register (Vol. 70, No. 152, 

pp. 45187–46188), announcing the availability of the supplemental information for a 60-day public 

review period (until October 7, 2005). The new air quality information was made available in two 

documents: the Draft Jonah Infill DEIS Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, and the 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement Air Quality Impact Analysis 

Supplement. 

This narrative summary provides details of the numbers and types of comments that were received during 

the comment period for the DEIS and for the air quality supplemental information, and describes the 

process by which all comments were analyzed to determine their relevance and significance to subsequent 

revision of the DEIS and the air quality technical support document supplement. Comments from the 

public, agencies, and all other interested groups are represented. 

The Role of Public Comment in the NEPA Process 

Solicitation of public comment on draft plans for major federal actions is required under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Specifically, the BLM and other federal agencies must “assess and 

consider [the resulting public] comments both individually and collectively” (Title 40 Code of Federal 

1 January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

Regulations [CFR] 1503.4). The comments that have been received on the JIDP DEIS are viewed as 

critical to helping the BLM modify or clarify, as necessary, the existing alternatives and the preferred 

alternative to best suit the purpose and need for the project in light of public, project sponsor, and 

cooperating agency input; to potentially develop and evaluate new alternatives; to supplement, improve, 

or modify the existing environmental analyses; and to correct factual errors in the DEIS. 

Distribution of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

In February 2005, paper copies of the DEIS were distributed to a total of 581 parties, including elected 

officials, regulatory agencies, Indian tribes, commercial enterprises, media outlets, and members of the 

public. Each copy of the DEIS also contained a CD-ROM of the main text, the appendices, and the air 

quality and socioeconomic analysis technical support documents. Certain individuals or organizations 

also requested paper copies of the two technical support documents, which were sent as requested along 

with the DEIS, while others requested only portions of the DEIS or its associated volumes (for example, 

some wished to receive only the Executive Summary). A number of agencies and organizations requested 

specific numbers of volumes to distribute within their organizations, which were sent as requested. A total 

of 26 paper copies of the DEIS were subsequently returned by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable. 

The distribution list for mailings of the DEIS was derived primarily from the 2003 scoping mail list for 

the Jonah Infill project, which was generated from a combination of the prior Jonah NEPA document lists 

and comments. Those entities not commenting during scoping and not required by law or regulation to 

receive the DEIS were dropped. Additional individuals, groups, and entities were added based on input 

from BLM and State of Wyoming staff and as a result of Operator requests. Other individuals and entities 

not on the original list were added if they commented during the scoping process (i.e., responded based 

upon Federal Register announcements, media, or other sources) or submitted postcard responses (see 

Appendix B). A complete list of all parties to whom the DEIS was sent is provided in Appendix B. 

At the public meetings on the DEIS held in March 2005 (see the “Public Meetings” section below), copies 

of the CD-ROM containing the main text, the appendices, and the air quality and socioeconomic analysis 

technical support documents were made available for distribution by hand to all attendees who requested 

one. In addition, the DEIS and its supporting documents were freely available for downloading from the 

BLM Wyoming website at www.wy.blm.gov. The BLM has no way to ascertain how many copies of the 

DEIS have been distributed via computer downloads. 

Notices of publication of the DEIS were sent to a large number of newspapers, magazines, newsletters, 

and other print media outlets, as well as to television and radio stations in Wyoming and elsewhere in the 

country. A complete list of media sources notified of publication of the DEIS is provided in Appendix B. 

Distribution of the Air Quality Supplemental Information 

In August 2002, postcards announcing the availability of the Draft Jonah Infill DEIS Air Quality 

Technical Support Document Supplement, and the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement Air Quality Impact Analysis Supplement were mailed to 176 individuals, organizations, 

and agencies that had expressed an interest or concern about JIDP-related air quality issues during the 

NEPA process. A total of 47 paper or electronic (CD) copies of the two documents were mailed to those 

requesting them and to public libraries. A complete list of all parties to whom the air quality documents 

were sent is provided in Appendix C. Paper copies were also made available to the public in libraries in 

Big Piney, Kemmerer, La Barge, Pinedale, Rock Springs, Wyoming, and in BLM offices in Pinedale and 

January 2006 2
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

Rock Springs. As with the DEIS, notices of publication of the air quality supplemental documents were 

sent to appropriate media outlets (see the preceding paragraph). 

Public Meetings 

Public Meeting Notices 

BLM-sponsored public meetings to provide an opportunity to discuss the Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

DEIS were held on March 21, 2005, at BLM’s Rock Springs office and March 23, 2005, at Rendezvous 

Pointe in Pinedale. Notices of these meetings, including dates, times, and locations, were distributed to a 

list of newspapers and other print media, television stations, radio stations, and Internet-based media. A 

copy of the press release announcing the public meetings can be found in Appendix D. A total of 38 

individuals attended the March 21 meeting in Rock Springs and 66 attended the March 23 meeting in 

Pinedale. 

No public meetings were held in connection with the air quality supplemental documents issued in 

August 2005. 

Meeting Format 

Agendas, handouts, and sign-in sheets were available at each of the meetings. Upon arrival, attendees 

were asked to sign in and indicate whom they were representing. Each of the two meetings began at 3 

p.m. with an open house. At 4 p.m., BLM made a brief formal presentation at each meeting to introduce 

the topics for discussion. Topics covered included the major environmental issues relevant to the Jonah 

Infill project (e.g., air quality, sage-grouse habitat and pronghorn migration routes, surface water runoff) 

and BLM’s strategies for managing the project based on established performance objectives, continuous 

monitoring, and adaptive management. Attendees were then provided information on whom to contact for 

further information on the DEIS and were furnished with instructions on how to submit comments. 

Exhibits with various visual and informational displays were placed around the meeting room, with 

specialists from BLM available to further explain the DEIS, answer questions, and solicit input during the 

entire 5 hours. The meeting participants were given an opportunity to ask questions and engage in twoway dialogue with the BLM and project proponents after each presentation, in a public format. The public 

was asked to record their comments on comment forms provided at the sign-in table, or to mail or email 

them by April 12, 2005. A few comments sheets were completed the day of the meetings; most were 

mailed at a later date. Copies of the agendas for each meeting, BLM’s PowerPoint presentation, and the 

comment form are provided in Appendix D.

Summary of the Comments Received 

Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

The BLM received 839 written submittals of comments (letters, emails, forms, etc.) on the JIDP DEIS, 

containing a total of 764 individual comments that were identified as “substantive,” or meaningful to 

revision of the DEIS. Throughout the comment analysis process, the BLM made every effort to be 

inclusive rather than restrictive of how comments were considered, and the threshold for what was 

determined to be a “substantive” comment was deliberately set low. The BLM did not, however, consider 

comments that were submitted anonymously, and comments that were judged to be completely unrelated 

to the Jonah Infill project (such as requests for employment) were eliminated from any further 

3 January 2006 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

Figure 2. Distribution of Substantive Issues in Comments on the JIDP DEIS 

Geographic Origin of Comments Received on the JIDP DEIS 

Geographic information for each comment submittal received was entered into a Microsoft® Access 

database. Comment submittals on the JIDP DEIS were received from 19 states, with a single submittal 

originating in Alberta, Canada. A total of 629 responses, or 75%, originated in Wyoming. Another 74 

responses came from Colorado, 24 from Utah, and 20 from Montana. The place of origin was 

unidentifiable for 46 responses (5%), which were received in a format that did not reveal geographic 

origin. Table 1 shows the geographic distribution of comment submissions by state and foreign country. 

Table 2 shows the distribution by county within Wyoming. Figure 3 shows the geographic distribution of 

comment submittals received. Figure 4 shows a more detailed distribution of comment submittals 

received from within Wyoming only. 

Distribution of Comments by Organizational Affiliation 

Comments on the JIDP DEIS were received from unaffiliated individuals, government representatives, 

and various organizations, including environmental, recreational, and ranching groups. Unaffiliated 

individuals accounted for 86% (723 comments) of the total responses. Organization types were tracked 

for each letter, comment form, fax, email, or encountered in the course of the content analysis. The 

distribution of comments by organizational affiliation is shown in Table 3. 

5 January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

Table 1. Geographic Distribution of Responses by Country and State/ Province 

Country State/Province Number of Responses 

United States Arizona 1 

California 2 

Colorado 74 

Idaho 7 

Illinois 1 

Kansas 3 

Michigan 2 

Montana 20 

New Jersey 1 

New Hampshire 1 

New Mexico 3 

Nevada 1 

North Dakota 6 

Oklahoma 3 

Texas 8

Utah 24 

Washington 4 

Wisconsin 2 

Wyoming 629 

Canada Alberta 1 

Unknown Geographic Location 46 

Total 839 

Table 2. Geographic Distribution of Comment Submittals by County in Wyoming 

County Number of Responses 

Albany 4

Big Horn 1

Campbell 1

Carbon 2

Converse 3

Fremont 16

Laramie 7

Lincoln 11

Natrona 35

Park 4

Platte 3

Sheridan 3

Sublette 175

Sweetwater 314

Teton 6

Uinta 34

Unknown Geographic Location 10 

Total 629 

January 2006 6

Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

Table 3. Comment Submissions on the JIDP DEIS by Organizational Affiliation 

Advantage Resources, Inc. 

Amerifox Industries, LLC 

ASCG Inc. 

B&B Oilfield Services 

Baker Hughes, Inc. 

Ballard Petroleum Holdings, LLC 

Bear Cub Energy, LLC 

Bill Barrett Corp 

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance 

BP America Production Company

Brokerage Southwest 

Burns Wall Smith & Mueller, P.C. 

Cameron, Northern Rockies District 

Caza Drilling 

Center for Native Ecosystems 

City of Rock Springs 

Dolar Energy LLC 

Double Eagle Petroleum Co. 

Dugan Production Corp. 

Dynamic Drilling Fluids, Inc. 

EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 

Environomics 

EOG Resources, Inc. 

Equity Brokers GMAC 

Evergreen Energy

EXCO Resources, Inc. 

Fidelity Exploration & Production Company

Flaming Gorge PFUSA 

G & E Livestock, Inc. 

Gene R. George & Associates, Inc. 

Greenhalgh, Beckwith, Lemich, Stith & Cannon 

Greater Yellowstone Coalition 

Hayden-Wing Associates 

Helm Energy Company

Independent Petroleum Assoc. of Mountain States 

Iron Creek Energy Group, LLC 

J.W. Williams, Inc. 

Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance 

Kail Consulting 

Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Corp. 

Kinder Morgan, Inc. 

Lesair Environmental, Inc. 

Lewellen Consulting, Inc. 

Log Inn Supper Club 

Melange International 

Mountain Petroleum Corp 

Mountaintop Consulting, LLC 

National Wildlife Federation 

Nerd Gas Company LLC 

North American Grouse Partnership 

Northwest Mining Association 

Office of State Lands and Investments (WY) 

Office of the Governor 

Oxbow Mining LLC 

Padco, LLC 

Patterson-UTI Drilling Company, LP 

Pechin Engineering 

Petroleum Association of Wyoming 

Pruitt Gushee 

Public Lands Advocacy

Rat Hole Managers, Inc. 

Rock Springs City Council 

Rock Springs Grazing Association 

Rocky Mountain Region PFUSA 

Samson Resources 

Schlumberger Data & Consulting Services 

Schlumberger, US Land Western Region 

Shell Exploration & Production Co. 

Sierra Club - Teton County

Sprinkle & Associates, LLC 

State Senator, Sublette/Lincoln/Sweetwater/Uinta 

Sterling Construction MGT, LLC 

Sublette County Attorney

Sublette County Commissioners 

Sweetwater County Commission 

Sweetwater Economic Development Assoc. 

Sweetwater Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife 

The Wilderness Society

Town of Pinedale 

Trout Unlimited, Public Lands Initiative 

Ultra Resources, Inc. 

Upper Green River Valley Coalition 

Wellogix, Inc. 

Western Watershed Project 

White Eagle Exploration, Inc. 

Wold Oil 

Wyoming Dept of Agriculture 

Wyoming State Geological Survey

Wyoming Business Alliance 

Wyoming Game and Fish Dept. 

Wyoming Legislature 

Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Commission 

Wyoming Outdoor Council 

Wyoming Wildlife Federation 

January 2006 8
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

Comments on the Air Quality Supplemental Information 

The BLM received 21 letters and 17 emails in response for their request for comments on the air quality

supplemental information. These submittals contained 383 individual comments that were identified as 

“substantive,” or meaningful to revision of the DEIS and/or the air quality technical support document. 

Of the total submittals, 24 (63%) came from Wyoming, 10 (26%) came from Colorado, 2 (5%) came from

Utah, and 1 each (<3%) came from the State of Washington and Washington, D.C. Only seven comments 

were submitted by private individuals; the remainder were submitted by persons affiliated with or on 

behalf of the organizations listed in Table 4. 

Table 4. Comment Submissions on the Air Quality Supplemental Information by Organizational 

Affiliation

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance 

BP American Production Company

City of Rock Springs, Wyoming 

EnCana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc. 

Environmental Defense 

Environomics, Inc. 

First Interstate Bank - Casper Office 

Grand Teton National Park 

Greater Yellowstone Coalition 

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

Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States 

Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance 

Petroleum Association of Wyoming 

Questar 

Rock Springs Chamber of Commerce 

Shell Rocky Mountain Production, LLC 

Sublette Board of County Commissioners 

The Wilderness Society

Town of Big Piney, Wyoming 

Town of Jackson, Wyoming 

Town of Marbleton, Wyoming 

Trout Unlimited 

Ultra Resources, Inc. 

Upper Green River Valley Coalition 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 

U.S. Senate 

USDA Forest Service - Rocky Mountain & Intermountain 

Regions 

Western Business Roundtable 

Wyoming Business Alliance, Wyoming Heritage 

Foundation 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Wyoming DEQ - Air Quality Division 

Wyoming Outdoor Council 

Wyoming Public Radio 

Comment Analysis Methodology 

The system used to analyze comments on the JIDP DEIS and the air quality supplemental information has 

three main components: a two-part coding structure and process, a comment database, and this narrative 

report of the results of the analysis. Initially, a coding structure was generated to help sort comments into 

logical groups by issue (in this case, by specific resources and planning processes applicable to the Jonah 

Infill project area). The issue coding structure was derived from an analysis of the range of issues covered 

in relevant past planning documents, legal guidance, and the types of comments received from the public 

for this project. Use of these codes allows for quick access to comments in the database on specific topics. 

Table 5 shows the issue categories that were determined to be most inclusive of the substantive comments 

received on the JIDP EIS. Table 6 lists the issue categories identified for the air quality supplemental 

information. 

9 January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

Table 5. Issue Categories for Comments on the JIDP DEIS

Resource Issues Procedural Issues 

Air Quality (including visibility) Alternatives 

Cultural Resources Analysis 

Economics Compliance with Laws (other than NEPA), Agency

Policy, and Management Plans 

Hazardous Materials Compensatory Mitigation 

Health/Safety Conditions of Approval 

Land Ownership Editorial 

Land Use On-Site Mitigation 

Livestock/Grazing NEPA 

Mineral Resources/Natural Gas Recovery Operator-Committed Practices 

Noise Performance Objectives 

Paleontology Public Participation 

Recreation Site-Specific Conditions of Approval 

Social Technical Information 

Soils 

Surface Disturbance/Directional Drilling 

Topography

Transportation 

Vegetation 

Visual Resources (other than visibility)

Water Resources 

Wildlife 

Table 6. Issue Categories for Comments on the Air Quality Supplemental Information

Agency Recommendations, etc. Mid-/Far-Field Modeling - Meteorological Data 

Background Concentrations Mid-/Far-Field Modeling - Visibility

CALPUFF Mid-/Far-Field Modeling - Inconsistencies with 

Monitoring Data 

Conservative Analysis Mitigation 

Early Project Development Stage Modeling Monitoring Data 

Emissions, Project Near-Field Modeling 

Emissions, Regional Ozone & VOCs 

Health Regulatory Compliance & Commitments 

Mid-/Far-Field Modeling Regulatory Compliance & Commitments - Air Quality

Standards 

Mid-/Far-Field Modeling - Acid Deposition/Sensitive 

Lakes 

January 2006 10
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

The second phase of the analysis involved carefully reading each piece of correspondence, identifying 

and coding the substantive and nonsubstantive comments from each submission, then assigning the 

individual statements to the appropriate resource or procedural issue categories listed in the preceding two 

tables. Substantive comments require a response from BLM in the form of either a modification of the 

DEIS or an explanation of why the comment does not warrant further agency response. Nonsubstantive 

comments do not require a response from BLM, but must be taken into account by the decision-makers. 

The codes used to categorize by type the comments on the JIDP DEIS are shown in Table 7, and codes 

used to categorize by type the comments on the air quality supplemental information are shown in 

Table 8. No non-substantive comments were coded for the air quality material. 

Table 7. Category Codes by Type for Comments on the JIDP DEIS

Substantive Comments

A Identifies a specific flaw in the analysis or inaccuracy or discrepancy in the DEIS 

A1 Calls for specific text changes 

B Provides new information pertaining to an alternative, or indicates that additional specific information is 

needed 

C Identifies a new relevant issue or expands upon an existing issue 

D Identifies a different way (alternative) to meet the underlying need 

E Asks a specific relevant question that can be meaningfully answered or referenced 

F Identifies an additional source of credible research, which, if utilized, could result in different effects 

Non-Substantive Comments

V1 Supports the Proposed Action/Opposes the Preferred Alternative 

V2 Supports the Preferred Alternative/Opposes the Proposed Action 

V3 Supports the No Action Alternative/Opposes other alternatives 

V4 Expresses an opinion regarding other alternative(s) 

W Primarily focuses on personal values or opinion, other than in regard to the alternatives 

X 

Restates existing management direction, laws, or policies that were used in the design and analysis of the 

project (or provides personal interpretation of such), or restates analysis or information documented in the 

DEIS 

Y Lacks sufficient specificity to support a change in the analysis or permit a meaningful response, or is 

composed of general or vague statements not supported by data or research 

Z 

Provides comment that is considered outside the scope of the analysis (not in compliance with current laws

and policies, is not relevant to the specific project proposal, or is outside of the decision-maker’s area of 

authority)

11 January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

Table 8. Category Codes by Type for Comments on the Air Quality Supplemental Information 

A1 Specific changes to Impact Analysis Supplement draft 

A2 Specific changes to Air Quality TSD Supplement draft 

A3 Specific changes to DEIS 

A4 Specific comments (page references) on 2004 Air Quality TDS 

B Criticisms of modeling methodology

C Other substantive comments 

All codes were assigned by one staff person, validated by another, and each discrete comment was 

entered as a verbatim quote, with its assigned code, into the comment database. It is important to note 

that, while an effort has been made to qualify the intensity of the public’s expressions, the comment 

analysis process is not and should not be considered a vote. All comments were treated evenly and were 

not weighted by number, organizational affiliation, “status” of the commenter, or other factors. Emphasis 

was on the content of a comment rather than who wrote it or the number of people who agreed with it. 

The third phase included identifying statements of public concern and preparing this narrative report. The 

statements of concern are a compilation of comments received from the public and various agencies in 

response to the DEIS. The intent of this compilation is to provide representative statements that capture, 

with a minimum of repetition, all major concerns expressed during the public comment period. Minor 

requests for word changes in the EIS that do not affect content or meaning of the text are not included. 

The statements are not necessarily verbatim iterations of comments received but in many cases include 

similar or exact phrasing. 

Public Disclosure of Comments under the 

Freedom of Information Act 

Public comments and information submitted regarding the JIDP DEIS and the air quality supplemental 

information, including names, email addresses, and street addresses of the respondents, have been made 

available for public review at the Pinedale Field Office during regular business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m.) Monday through Friday, except holidays. Individual respondents were given the opportunity to 

request confidentiality, which obligates the BLM, to the extent allowed by the Freedom of Information 

Act and Privacy Act, to withhold their name, email address, and street address from public review or 

disclosure. All information submitted by organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying 

themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, was made available for public 

inspection in its entirety. 

Concern Statements by Issue/Procedural Category 

Concern statements are not intended to replace actual comment letters or sample quotes. Rather, they are 

provided here to help guide the reader to comments on the specific topic in which he or she is interested. 

The statements are presented below in alphabetic order by issue category.

January 2006 12
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

Air Quality (Comments on DEIS) 

The BLM should prevent any additional deterioration of air quality in the region due to JIDP. The BLM 

should establish air quality standards to improve existing air quality, and then enforce these standards 

vigorously. 

The air quality analysis in the DEIS and the Technical Support Document (AQTSD) is misleading and 

inaccurate, and the sheer size of the analysis obscures critical flaws that vitiate the usefulness of the DEIS 

to accurately portray and analyze the air quality impacts of this project. 

The BLM should require Tier II engines on all drilling rigs to reduce air quality impacts, and should 

require air quality monitoring. 

The BLM’s air quality modeling is flawed because the background concentrations used are nonrepresentative of the existing situation in the Pinedale area. As a result, the BLM cannot adequately

analyze whether or not the federal or state ambient levels are being violated. 

The BLM, in cooperation with the state, must ensure air quality monitoring is included in the FEIS as a 

required mitigation measure for all alternatives. The BLM cannot continue to operate without a clear 

understanding of how much degradation has already occurred and how much more degradation the 

projects it is approving is causing. 

The BLM’s air quality modeling is flawed because it assumes 3,100 wells, while the Preferred Alternative 

and Proposed Action inappropriately allow more than 3,100 wells (if more gas is recoverable after 3,100 

wells are completed, more wells would be allowed). A specific limit of wells authorized needs to be 

identified, and modeling must be based on that limit. 

The BLM used inaccurate drill rig assumptions, resulting in drastically underestimated NOX emissions 

contrary to actual NOX emissions in the Pinedale Anticline Field Area. These inaccuracies impact in-field, 

near-field, visibility, and the cumulative air quality analysis. 

The BLM must correct inconsistencies between the DEIS and the Air Quality Technical Support 

Document (AQTSD). 

The BLM should more clearly explain why ozone was treated differently from other criteria pollutants; 

that is, why a lower background level was used instead of the levels reported in Table 3.1 (AQTSD). If 

the Table 3.1 background levels had been used, both 1-hour and 8-hour concentrations of ozone would 

have violated federal and state standards. 

The BLM inappropriately excluded numerous emission sources and improperly accounted for emissions 

that were included; consequently, its cumulative impact analysis underestimated emissions. The BLM 

provided little explanation justifying the excluded sources. 

The BLM failed to delineate an appropriately large geographic scope in its modeling domain resulting in 

flawed air quality far-field, cumulative, and visibility analyses. The BLM did not extend the modeling 

domain far enough to encompass all sources that affect air quality in areas (e.g., Bridger Wilderness Area) 

also potentially affected by the JIDP. 

The BLM inappropriately included only sources permitted between January 1, 2001, and June 30, 2003, 

in its cumulative emissions inventory, thus excluding the maximum drilling in the Pinedale area that has 

13 January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

characterized the last two years, rampant development in the Powder River Basin, and several large coalfired power plants for Wyoming and Utah have been proposed and permits are in process. 

The BLM analyzed only the change in emissions between 2001 and 2003 rather than analyzing actual 

emissions. This method results in many sources that are emitting the same level of emissions from year to 

year to be excluded from the analysis. 

The BLM also excluded hundreds of sources with emissions less than 3 tons per year. The BLM’s air 

quality analysis was deficient because it disregarded the pollutants from each well due to their small 

amount, thus ignoring the significant cumulative effect of multiple wells. 

The BLM arbitrarily excluded all non-Wyoming emission sources in its required reasonable foreseeable 

development (RFD) determination, despite the fact such sources may impact the same areas as the JIDP. 

The BLM’s exclusion of non-Wyoming sources is inconsistent with its “current inventory source” 

determination, which included sources from Utah, Colorado, and Idaho. 

The BLM failed to adequately cite previous air quality analyses and information showing that air quality

in Wyoming is already being significantly affected by current rates of oil and gas development in 

Wyoming. 

The BLM must consider its actions in the context of already impaired air quality. Two years ago, with 

hundreds fewer wells in the Pinedale area than exist now, the BLM was considering closing the Jonah 

Field to the public due to harmful air emissions. 

The BLM must acknowledge that not approving the JIDP (i.e., No Action) would still allow for visibility

impairment of several Class I areas. Recent data, not cited in the DEIS, showed existing visibility

impairment to Class I areas in the Bridger-Teton National Forest. 

The BLM failed to acknowledge and reaffirm its NOX tracking responsibility under the Pinedale Anticline 

Project Area Record of Decision (PAPA ROD), and failed to acknowledge that recently published data 

showed NOX levels nearly triple the caps established in that ROD. 

The BLM cannot use the Jonah cumulative air quality analysis to satisfy its PAPA ROD responsibility

(because NOX caps have been exceeded) to undergo a new air quality review. 

The BLM failed to comply with NEPA by not adequately describing air quality mitigation measures for 

the JIDP. Mitigation measures are especially important because the BLM is approving the JIDP at a time 

when air quality values in the Pinedale area and beyond are already impaired. 

The BLM could not identify proper mitigation measures because it failed to set a specific limit for well 

numbers. The BLM stated that if more gas is recoverable after 3,100 wells are completed, more wells 

would be allowed. 

The BLM failed to consider mitigation measures such as limiting activities that contribute to emissions, 

requiring emission controls on sources, or requiring the offsetting of emissions to ensure the net 

emissions remain below applicable thresholds. 

The BLM failed to consider the possibility of phased development in Jonah as a potential mitigation 

measure. Because visibility impairment is already occurring in Class I areas that will also be impacted by

the JIDP, the BLM should analyze the possibility of delaying further development until current emission 

sources are completed and cease emitting pollutants. 

January 2006 14
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

The BLM failed to consider the possibility of a cap on certain emissions that would avoid further 

visibility impairment of Class I areas and acid deposition in sensitive watersheds. The cap on emissions 

increases would provide a threshold beyond which only offsets for new emissions would be allowed. 

In order to allow the Wyoming Air Quality Division to provide the necessary management oversight, the 

BLM must incorporate analysis not previously completed within the Pinedale Field Office. This analysis 

must include a current inventory, a cogent monitoring network, a plan for how the monitoring will be 

analyzed, and a plan to modify management practices to adapt to changing circumstances. 

Air Quality (Comments on Air Quality Supplemental Information) 

Overestimation of Impacts 

BLM’s analysis is so overly conservative it is extremely unlikely the described potential air quality

impacts will ever occur. The analysis does not factor in new emission reduction solutions, improving 

technology, acceleration up a learning curve, cooperation between stakeholders, and other key data. BLM 

did not disclose or explain the conservative nature of its analysis or inform the public that the Preferred 

Alternative High Emission Scenario is a “worst case” analysis that overstates the foreseeable impacts. 

The statistical discipline in the report is weak and therefore the description of the potential outcomes is 

equally weak. The use of only conservative factors has a mathematically cumulative impact when they are 

used in sequential computations leading to overestimated impacts. 

The results Operators are attaining in the Pinedale Anticline Project Area (PAPA) are far better than those 

forecasted by the JIDP Air Quality Impact Analysis and are more representative of what the JIDP 

operators will be attaining even without factoring in a number of future, favorable technological and 

economic factors. Improvements in actual versus estimated outcomes deserve more recognition. 

The current EIS portrays a worst-case scenario, assuming that the area’s Class I airshed is at risk. In 

reality, monitoring evidence at both Bridger Wilderness Area and Pinedale shows stable or improving air 

quality in Southwest Wyoming. Nitrogen oxide concentrations are stable or slightly improving and fall 

well below the national ambient air quality standards due to technological improvements and good natural 

gas development practices in the area. These demonstrated improvements indicate that the impacts from

JIDP cannot be as significant as indicated in the DEIS and accompanying documents. 

BLM’s modeling used an exaggerated background ammonia concentration (1.0 ppb). Better data are 

available and should have been used. Monitoring data from the Clean Air Status and Trends Network 

(“CASTNET”) station in Pinedale, Wyoming, indicates a long-term average of between 0.21–0.34 ppb 

for ammonia background levels. Inaccurate ammonia concentrations resulted in an overestimation of the 

impacts to visibility in Bridger Wilderness Area. 

Project Emissions Inventory 

The use of conservative EPA AP-42 emission factors overestimates rig emissions; manufacturers’

emissions factors more accurately reflect drill rig emissions. Even given the use of EPA AP-42, emission 

factors from Section 3.4 of AP-42 (rather than Section 3.3) should have been used for the larger engines 

on the drill rigs. Rig emissions are overestimated by 29% solely as a result of this error. 

The development scenarios do not assume the retirement of existing Tier 0 drilling rig engines in favor of 

Tier 1, 2 and 3 engines, natural gas engines, Selective Catalytic Reduction, or electric engines. Using Tier 

0 emission levels in modeling overestimates NOX emissions and does not reflect current EPA off-road 

diesel rules or the engines currently operating at Jonah Field. Manufacturers no longer produce engines 

15 January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

with Tier 0 and Tier 1 emissions levels, so new Tier 0 engines will not be available for use in 2017. Any

existing Tier 0 engines will likely either have been retrofitted or replaced long before 2017. 

New regulatory initiatives will take effect during the lifetime of the project; off-road engines will become

cleaner from 2005 to 2017, which will result in fewer emissions than predicted, particularly with respect 

to the cumulative analyses. Many of the sources considered in the background concentration and as part 

of the cumulative analyses will be retrofitted with Best Available Retrofit Technology (“BART”) under 

the Regional Haze rule, or retired, and will not be active for the entire life of JIDP. An appropriate 

estimation of these factors would eliminate the number of days of predicted visibility impacts. 

Ultra-low sulfur diesel regulations that will be in effect in 2010 are not included in the modeling of 2017 

emissions. Using the higher sulfur content (500 ppm versus 15 ppm) in modeling for Year 2010 and 

beyond results in overestimating SO2 emissions and Acid Neutralizing Capacity values. 

The analysis overstated engine usage. More representative engine usage data for a single drilling rig 

would reduce annualized emissions from 120.5 tons/year to 48.3 tons/year, and reduce cumulative 

annualized emissions from 640 tons/year to 285 tons/year. Peak visibility impacts from drilling engines 

would be reduced, as would the number of days when projected visibility impacts exceed 1.0 dv. 

The assumption of 60 drilling days per well on the Pinedale Anticline overestimates emissions. SEPCo 

typically requires less than 40 days to drill a well, not 60. The total Pinedale Anticline Project 

contribution to cumulative emissions is thus overstated. 

Flaring emissions appear to be greatly overstated. Extended durations of flaring events, high frequency

rates for flaring, and high volumes of gas flared were assumed in completion flare emission calculations. 

This approach ignores the new restrictions placed by the WDEQ on flaring operations. The emission 

reductions from green (flareless flowback) completions were not taken into account. 

BLM’s Preferred Alternative assumed 50% directional drilling and 50% vertical drilling. BLM’s own 

modeling demonstrates that directional drilling results in greater ambient air impacts than vertical drilling, 

as much as 25% more. Directional drilling results in longer drilling times, larger drilling rig engines, and 

more vehicular traffic. BLM should adopt primarily vertical drilling in the FEIS and ROD. 

The project totals in the Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative are end-of-project emissions and 

inherently assume that the emission totals increase instantly. However, there would realistically be a 

gradual increase in emissions over time. 

Underestimation of Impacts 

There are deficiencies in the JIDP inventory and regional inventories, as well as the modeling done for 

direct project PM10 and NO2 impacts, such that BLM’s analysis underestimates the impacts. A proper 

analysis may show that the level of development allowed under the Preferred Alternative could directly

cause Class II PM10 increment violations within JIDPA under all modeling scenarios. 

A background ammonia concentration of 1.0 ppb was assumed for the CALPUFF modeling of PM and 

visibility impacts, based on IWAQM Phase 2 guidance for arid lands; however, it may have been more 

valid to us the 10.0 ppb value for grasslands. Measured ammonia levels in southwestern Wyoming tend to 

be much higher than those in other parts of the Interior West. Undercounting background ammonia 

concentrations results in understating far-field concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 and visibility impacts to 

Class I and sensitive Class II areas. 

January 2006 16
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

BLM relied on ambient air monitoring data to reflect all sources in existence as of 2001 rather than 

modeling the existing sources to more accurately determine background concentrations. However, BLM 

provided no analysis or verification that the monitoring data used accurately reflect maximum

background concentrations of pollutants in the JIDP region or in the Class I areas of concern. BLM has 

not determined whether more representative and/or more current monitoring data are available. 

Monitoring data collected in Cheyenne, Wyoming, were used to reflect the background concentrations of 

PM10 and PM2.5. This choice is particularly questionable given that a State and Local Air Monitoring Site 

(SLAMS) is located much closer to the JIDPA in Rock Springs, Wyoming. Given that modeling shows 

significantly elevated PM10 impacts, it is imperative that BLM use truly representative data. BLM also 

relied on NO2 and O3 data collected at the Green River monitoring site in 2001 without providing any

information to indicate that this site reflects the maximum NO2 and O3 concentrations for the region. 

Project Emissions Inventory 

The emissions inventory underestimates the total emissions due to JIDP sources alone by failing to 

evaluate the increased size of drill rigs shown to be necessary in nearby natural gas project areas. The 

original Pinedale Anticline EIS assumed only 8 drill rigs would operate at one time; however, 32 drill rigs 

were operating in the summer of 2004. That EIS also assumed a single drill rig would require 1,000 

horsepower (hp); now it is estimated that a single drill rig in the area is 3,000–5,000 hp. In the Jonah II 

field, the drill rig sizes have been 2.5 times the 1,000 hp assumed in the Jonah II EIS. BLM must be 

conservative in its estimate of emissions in the JIDP EIS to avoid making a similar mistake. 

The 2017 emission inventory assumed 50% of the drill rigs would meet Tier 1 emission rates and 50% 

would meet Tier 2 emission rates. However, EPA’s regulations for non-road diesel engines does not 

require that engines manufactured before certain dates meet Tier 1 and, later, Tier 2 emission standards. 

Nothing prohibits the operation of non-road engines that do not meet those standards if they are built 

before those deadlines, unless BLM and/or WDEQ mandate otherwise. 

The modeling analyses assume completion flares on only 20% of wells and that they will all be equipped 

with smokeless flares, but no justification is provided to support that claim. BLM’s assumption is not 

justified without being identified as a mitigation measure enforceable by BLM or the WDEQ. 

No maximum short-term average emission inventory was developed for modeling compliance with 

standards with shorter than annual averaging times, such as the 24-hour PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS, PM10

PSD increments, and the visibility standard. Only summaries of annual emissions are provided, and the 

models were apparently run based on an even distribution of emissions over the year. Because more 

drilling occurs in the summer months than in the winter months, more than the assumed 20 drilling rigs 

are likely to be operating in some months, as well as more road and well pad construction activities. 

Drilling emissions have been underestimated because of the assumption that all drill rigs will operate for 

23 days/well, when well drilling and completion can take as long as 36 days. BLM should have used the 

more conservative estimate of 36 days for drilling in a maximum short-term emissions inventory to assess 

worst-case impacts on the short-term average NAAQS, PSD increments, and visibility standards. 

The 2017 project inventory assumes a 50% control rate (the maximum possible) in fugitive dust 

emissions due to road wetting. It is not a reasonable assumption that the particulate emissions from roads 

will be controlled to the maximum extent possible unless BLM and/or the WDEQ imposes a 50% 

reduction requirement as an enforceable measure. No such commitment has been made to date. 

Separator heater emissions used in production may have been greatly underestimated because it was 

assumed that these heaters only operate for 7.5 minutes every hour during September through April. 

17 January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

Other EIS air analyses have assumed separator heaters would operate for 15.0 minutes per hour. No basis 

was provided by BLM to justify this discrepancy. 

It appears that BLM underestimated compression needed for the JIDP because 48,000 hp of expanded 

compression was used in EPDS modeling beyond that evaluated for the preferred alternative in the JIDPA 

alone (EPDS modeling assumed almost 300 tpy of additional NOX emissions from JIDP compressors). 

Considering that the compressor engines are one of the most significant sources of NOX emissions 

associated with production, BLM should provide more detail on the assumptions used and ensure that 

modeling include the maximum level of increased compression expected. 

Regional Emissions Inventory 

Despite NEPA requirements, the best available data were not used to estimate regional baseline 

emissions. Instead of using 2002 actual emissions, which are available through WDEQ’s Wyoming 

Inventory System for Emissions (WISE), the analysis uses “changes in potential emissions” as reported in 

WDEQ’s Southwest Wyoming Emissions Tracking Report and submitted to the Wyoming BLM. 

The area inventoried was not large enough to encompass all sources that might impact the areas 

potentially affected by JIDP. For assessing near-field impacts, the area inventoried must at least include 

all sources within 50 km of the significant ambient impact area, as well as large sources such as coal-fired 

power plants up to 300 km away, that could have a significant ambient impact on the JIDP area. For the 

far-field analysis, the regional inventory area must extend out to 300 km from all Class I areas that could 

be impacted by the JIDP (all Class I areas in Wyoming). 

The regional inventory did not consider all reasonably foreseeable sources that could significantly impact 

the same areas potentially affected by JIDP sources. Omissions include sources recently permitted (after 

June 30, 2003) or that have recently submitted complete PSD permit applications but which are not yet 

operating. BLM should have included all expected emissions from projects currently being developed in 

Wyoming and from reasonably foreseeable development (RFD) outside Wyoming. Emissions from

projects currently being developed (particularly the Pinedale Anticline Project) were underestimated. 

No emissions data were quantified or emissions data were incomplete for several NEPA projects in 

Wyoming, and the regional inventory failed to include NEPA projects in states other than Wyoming that 

could be impacting the same area as the JIDP sources, such as the Vernal (Utah) sources, the Price (Utah) 

RMP sources, the Roan Plateau (Colorado) RMP sources, projects in the Moffat County, Colorado, area 

(Little Snake Field Office), and the Powder River Basin (Montana) coalbed methane sources. 

All sources with emissions less than 3 tpy (360 sources, mostly production wells and mostly in 

Sweetwater or Sublette Counties) were excluded from the Wyoming inventory. Collectively, these 

facilities represent significant emissions and must not be excluded from the inventory.

The permitted source inventory appears to give credit for recently permitted emission reductions that have 

occurred or will occur in the near future. If BLM has no data on the actual emission reductions that have 

occurred at these sources, then the permitted reductions must not be considered in the RFFA inventory. 

Near-Field Modeling 

Near-field impact modeling of the Preferred Alternative is deficient because of reliance on PM10 and 

PM2.5 data collected in Cheyenne, Wyoming, to represent background concentrations for these pollutants, 

and reliance on data that are more than 20 years old to represent background concentrations of SO2. 

January 2006 18
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

While it is not clear how the near-field modeling was performed for the AQTSD Supplement, the singlewell pad modeling scenarios described could result in a significant underestimate of near-field 

concentrations if plumes from multiple pads overlap. 

The description of the meteorological inputs used with AERMOD is deficient in that it omits discussion 

of data sources or assumptions for the terrain and roughness height data used in the model. Inaccurate 

specification of this parameter can lead to drastic underestimation of concentrations. 

It appears that only emissions from production (well site and compression) were modeled for the nearfield NO2 impacts. However, a review of the emission inventory data for the DEIS generally shows much 

higher NOX emissions from construction than from production. 

BLM should have placed fine-gridded receptors near modeled drill rig emission sources sufficient to 

capture maximum concentrations from a drill rig, including the overlap of emission impacts from other 

drill rigs and compressors in the area. Failure to do this contributed to underestimated ambient air impacts 

in the NO2 near-field assessment. 

Mid-/Far-Field Modeling 

While the 2004 Draft AQTSD provides no information whatsoever on the far-field ozone impacts of 

VOC, NOX, and CO emissions from the JIDP and other existing or reasonably foreseeable sources in the 

region, the analysis of near-field ozone impacts suggests that far-field effects on ozone could also be 

highly significant. Ozone and its precursors can be transported hundreds of miles, so areas far downwind 

of the Jonah Field may be affected by its VOC, NOX, and CO emissions. 

Far-field air quality modeling only used 1 year of meteorological data (from 1995). However, common 

practice and EPA’s Guideline on Air Quality Models requires use of at least 3 years of mesoscale 

meteorological data or 5 years of National Weather Service (or comparable) data when evaluating longrange transport of air emissions. BLM’s far-field air quality analysis does not meet current standards, and 

there is no assurance that BLM’s analysis represents the worst case meteorological conditions. 

The use of the IKINE switch in the CALPUFF model used for far-field modeling distorts wind speeds and 

wind directions, resulting in an unrealistic and significant increase in the predicted project-related 

visibility impairment for the Bridger Wilderness Area and elsewhere. 

A published analysis using meteorological data collected within the Jonah field raises questions regarding 

the accuracy of the CALMET-generated wind field. Winds aloft and attendant mixing dynamics cannot 

be claimed to be receiving accurate model treatment on the basis of values interpolated between Riverton 

and Salt Lake, the two nearest upper atmosphere sounding locations. More representative data for 

regional wind speed and wind direction are needed. Comparison of a modeled wind rose for the Jonah 

Field to a measured wind rose in the Jonah Field indicates substantial differences in both wind speed and 

direction. Inaccuracy in wind direction affects how frequently emissions from the Jonah Field are 

transported to adjacent Class I areas in the model, while inaccuracy in wind speed affects the dilution of 

emissions and the rate of reactions of various chemical species. 

The standard for visibility impairment in Class I areas should be 0.5 deciviews (dv), not 1.0 dv. The U.S. 

Forest Service and National Park Service use a 0.5 dv change as their threshold for identifying visibility

impairment, and the Class I and sensitive Class II areas of concern are under their management. In EPS’s 

regional haze regulations, states must consider a change of 0.5 dv as indicating that a source contributes 

to visibility impairment for purposes of determining Best Available Retrofit Technology applicability. 

19 January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

Use of 1.0 dv change as the just noticeable threshold adds another level of conservatism to the impacts 

predicted by BLM’s modeling because scientific evidences exists indicating that a 1.0 dv change is in fact 

never noticeable. 

BLM modeling did not account for precipitation events such as snow and rain, or other weather events 

that cause significant impacts to visibility on numerous days throughout the year. In effect, BLM 

modeling assumes that days where snow or rain or fog impacts visibility were caused by JIDP, which 

contributes to the “worst case” results. 

The modeling assumptions from the IKINE setting, the ammonia background concentration, and the lack 

of accounting for precipitation events result in a significant overestimation of the visibility impacts from

JIDP. Remodeling of the Proposed Action by CH2Mhill, with each of these assumptions corrected, 

reduces visibility impacts at Bridger Wilderness Area from 9 days above 1.0 dv change to a single day

above 1.0 dv change. Mitigation can eliminate all JIDP potential air quality impacts. 

Previous modeling indicates that oil and gas projects like JIDP are not the primary sources of visibility

impacts in the Bridger-Fitzpatrick Class I areas. Sulfur compounds are the largest component of visibility

impairment, and JIDP mainly emits nitrogen oxides (NOX), which ultimately contribute only 4.5% to haze 

in Bridger Wilderness Area. Sources from outside Wyoming cause most of the haze. 

In modeling visibility impacts to regional communities, BLM used baseline data from Class I areas 

(clean, pristine environments) instead of representing actual visibility levels in areas that have 

considerable mobile source emissions (vehicles), wood-burning stoves, and other locally produced, 

visibility-impacting sources. As a result, BLM significantly underestimated the baseline visibility levels 

in these communities, which in turn caused an overstatement of the visibility impacts of JIDP. 

The use of reported IMPROVE concentrations less than the “natural conditions” defined by Federal Land 

Mangers’ Air Quality-related Values Workgroup (FLAG) serves no practical purpose. The use of these 

lower concentrations ignores the uncertainty associated with the IMPROVE concentration measurements. 

The use of these values simply exaggerates the projected impacts. 

BLM identified acid rain impacts but did not disclose the significance of those impacts. BLM’s modeling 

used outdated criteria now considered inadequate to protect lakes from adverse impacts. 

Ozone and VOCs 

The regional source inventory did not include volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions in the region, 

and those emissions can be quite significant. No analysis of increased VOC emissions or the impacts of 

NOX and VOC emissions on the ozone NAAQS was done as part of the EPDS assessment. Considering 

the already high levels of ozone that have been monitored in the region, this was a major oversight. 

Waiting for the FEIS to report on VOC modeling and corresponding ozone impacts is unacceptable; 

exceedances have occurred at the 8-hour ozone standard at the Farson and Boulder monitoring sites in and 

near the Jonah Field. Failure to report on VOC impacts before the FEIS precludes the public from the 

opportunity to submit meaningful comments on this extremely critical aspect of the air quality analysis. 

The 2004 AQTSD uses outdated and inadequate methodology (Scheffe 1988) to estimate ozone impacts, 

rather than a model (such as CAMx or CAMQ) approved by EPA for this application. Even with BLM’s 

flawed assumptions, the predicted ozone concentration is 98% of the ozone NAAQS. It is imperative that 

BLM conduct a proper assessment of the ozone impacts to fully disclose the extent of likely ozone 

NAAQS violations in the region. 

January 2006 20
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

BLM’s ozone analysis likely underestimated ambient impacts because it excluded NOX and VOC 

emissions from construction and from other sources in the region; the analysis was based only on a 

“patch” of 128 wells and one compressor engine, a fraction of the full development that could be allowed 

under the JIDP; and it seems likely that use of the Green River monitoring site does not reflect maximum

ozone concentrations in the JIDP area. 

If the Draft AQTSD is even close to correct, the VOC emissions associated with JIDP would nearly

double the 66,000 tons/year of VOC emissions that EPA estimates were released from all sources in the 

entire State of Wyoming in 1999. Given this dramatic increase in VOC emissions, BLM cannot claim to 

have done a comprehensive air quality assessment unless cumulative ozone impacts of emissions from

this and other nearby oil and gas projects are modeled using modern approaches and tools. 

PSD Increment-Consumption Analysis 

When WDEQ’s recently released report on NO2 increment consumption in Sublette County is considered 

with the modeled JIDP impacts for both the Preferred Alternative and the EPDS scenario, the result is that 

NO2 increment violations will occur without significant required mitigation measures. There is even 

greater likelihood of NO2 increment violations considering the flaws in BLM’s JIDP emission inventory

and modeling as well as the significant underestimate of remaining Pinedale Anticline air emissions. 

BLM cannot rely on State Implementation Plan (SIP) programs to conduct a full PSD incrementconsumption analysis because BLM is required under FLPMA to ensure compliance with all regulatory

requirements and because PSD increments are separate ambient standards not to be exceeded (as defined 

in §163 of the Clean Air Act). In addition, BLM has no assurance that the State will perform a complete 

increment consumption analysis before BLM revises the RMP and issues other approvals that may cause 

increments to be violated. Where the State has performed an increment consumption analysis, BLM must 

disclose the results and may adopt the analysis as part of the NEPA analysis of increment consumption 

provided that BLM independently determines that the analysis satisfies applicable NEPA requirements. 

BLM’s modeling approach provides only a highly truncated assessment of increment consumption during 

the 3 years (post 2002) for which new emissions sources were considered. BLM must develop a regional 

emissions inventory, separate from the one used in the NAAQS analysis, that includes emissions from all 

new and modified sources added after the regulatory PSD baseline dates (1979 for PM, 1988 for NO2). 

This is needed to assess whether the additional air emissions sources allowed under JIDP would cause or 

contribute to a violation of any PSD increment in any area or cause or contribute to an adverse cumulative 

impact on visibility at any of the Class I areas. A more comprehensive inventory is required to perform

competent modeling of both the near- and far-field impacts of the JIDP and other existing and reasonably

foreseeable development for BLM to fulfill the requirements of NEPA and FLPMA. It is particularly

important if available monitoring data cannot be shown to adequately reflect all existing sources. 

Early Project Development Stage (EPDS) Modeling 

The EPDS Modeling does not appropriately describe the state of affairs for the year 2006. For its EPDS 

modeling, BLM assumed, with no justification, that four uncompleted and unapproved NEPA projects 

(JIDP and the Pinedale Anticline, South Piney, Riley Ridge, and Jack Morrow Hills Projects) will show 

maximum emissions of air pollutants in 2006. This is inconsistent with the 2017 modeling emissions 

inventory, which included NEPA projects only if NEPA analysis had been completed and the project 

approved. The EPDS appears to have almost nothing to do with the JIDP (the nominal purpose and need 

of this NEPA analysis), rather it appears to be part of the NEPA compliance needed for other projects. 

21 January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

Many of the background sources included in the EPDS regional emissions inventory regional, particularly

those recently permitted by the State, will not be operational by 2006 due to procedural and litigation 

delays. Furthermore, regardless of the year chosen for the emissions calculation, many of the operators of 

these projects will have incorporated new technologies and/or in many cases, will be required to meet 

new regulations. Estimated emissions from previously approved projects will be or already have been 

considerably reduced, indicating that impacts from the EPDS modeling are considerably overestimated. 

Whether the EPDS analysis was done as part of the JIDP EIS, or a need to supplement the Pinedale 

Anticline EIS or the Pinedale RMP revision, or all of these, it is deficient. The EPDS emission inventory

underestimated the likely emissions that will occur in the region in 2006. First, it was assumed that only

20 drill rigs would operate each month on the JIDP even though the well development rate would be 

250/year; thus, emissions from 10 wells were left out of the inventory. Second, several assumptions on 

limiting emissions were made that may or may not bear true without an enforceable requirement on such 

emission limitations. Third, BLM assumed that drill rig sizes in the JIDP area would be roughly 2,100–

2,600 hp, probably an underestimate given that, in the adjacent Pinedale Anticline field, significantly

larger drill rig engines have been used. Fourth, the inventory did not include emissions from production 

or from construction/production-related traffic for other gas projects in the region. Last, the permitted 

source inventory was updated to include all sources permitted as of March 31, 2004, although a WDEQ 

report reflecting all emissions changes in the region as of October 31, 2004, was available. 

Several sources listed in the RFFA inventory for the DEIS modeling were not included in the EPDS 

modeling (or lower emissions were listed). This discrepancy was not explained. 

Several deficiencies in the emission inventories assumed for the DEIS and Preferred Alternative modeling 

also apply to the EPDS 2006 inventory, including failure to develop a maximum short-term emissions 

inventory for modeling compliance with short-term ambient air standards and the visibility standard; 

failure to develop a complete PSD increment-consuming inventory; failure to include recently proposed 

and permitted power plants in the region; failure to include VOC emissions from all sources; failure to 

inventory sources with emissions less than 3 tpy; underestimation of emissions from WOGCC sources; 

underestimation of emissions from NEPA projects; and failure to extend the regional inventory far 

enough to encompass all contributing sources. If BLM were to prepare a complete increment-consuming 

inventory and address all other deficiencies in the inventory listed above, the impacts on the PSD 

increment and visibility in Class I areas expected by 2006 would likely be much worse. 

Although BLM chose 2002 as the study base year for the EPDS modeling, they used 2001 monitoring 

data (1982–1983 data for SO2), assuming that emissions from oil and gas development in 2002 were 

reflected in those earlier data. Considering the exponential growth of gas drilling in the area, this is an 

incredibly flawed assumption. If BLM cannot verify that the monitoring data reflect all existing source 

emissions (and surely the 2001 monitoring data does not reflect all emissions existing in 2002), then it 

must model all existing sources in the NAAQS/WAAQS analysis. 

1996 is a much more appropriate year than 2002 to use as a base year for the EPDS modeling. If the 

purpose of this analysis is to serve as a supplemental analysis because regional emissions have exceeded 

the NOX level of concern identified in the Pinedale Anticline ROD, then BLM should have assessed all 

emission increases that have—or will—occur since the monitoring base year date used in the Pinedale 

Anticline air analysis of January 1, 1996. 

The basis for emission calculations used for drill rigs in the TSD is unclear. It would be very helpful for 

the TSD to provide data on the number of drill rigs that were operational so that impacts could be 

correlated with the IMPROVE monitoring data. 

January 2006 22
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

Air Quality Health Impacts 

The JIDP DEIS and support documents appear to say that under some scenarios a recognized acceptable 

level of cancer rates may be exceeded. Any such exceedances need to be clearly disclosed and explained. 

No baseline data for potentially carcinogenic chemicals are provided to determine background exposure 

levels. Cancer risks associated with formaldehyde are underestimated because only primary formaldehyde 

emissions are addressed, not the contribution of other JIDP-generated VOCs to the formation of 

secondary formaldehyde in the atmosphere. Cancer risks associated with diesel exhaust emissions from

oil and gas development, which may be highly significant, were neglected. 

Given the potentially severe adverse health effects associated with fine particle exposures, BLM should 

fully assess the potential adverse public health effects associated with cumulative emissions of fine 

particles and fine particle precursors from the current and proposed sources. 

Air Quality Impacts Mitigation 

Given the conservative nature of the modeling, it is not appropriate for BLM to impose additional 

mitigation strategies at this time. Exaggerated modeling assumptions resulted in a significant 

overestimation of visibility impacts that BLM should discuss, analyze, and resolve in the FEIS before 

implementing or recommending any measures to mitigate the overrated impacts, and before issuing the 

record of decision (ROD). 

Uncertainties in actual concentrations of pollutants and impacts make fixed, final, and restrictive 

mitigation strategies, both short term (2006) and longer term, seem untenable. Performance standards can 

be established in cooperation with operators that will lead to more effective, more meaningful, and more 

realistic emission control. 

BLM modeling, unfortunately, uses the results and assumptions from the “worst case” High Emissions 

Scenario to develop mitigation. This scenario is not “reasonably foreseeable,” so the starting point for 

mitigation is improper. The FEIS should include an array of mitigation approaches to realistic project 

alternatives, i.e. the Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative Low Emissions Scenario. 

WDEQ, not BLM, should be charged with developing and implementing air quality mitigation for the 

project, be it on federal, state, or private lands. Ongoing air quality monitoring in the area and WDEQ’s 

extensive emission inventory process and air quality model should be considered primary components of 

mitigation strategies and should be utilized before other arbitrary mitigation steps are proposed. 

Mitigation must provide a level playing field for all drilling rigs in Southwest Wyoming, be based on cost 

effective analysis of potential control options, and must follow the appropriate regulatory rule 

development process. Mitigation measures should be framed in terms that allow flexibility to the operator 

to meet the requirements in the ROD. 

EPDS modeling does not evidence the need for phased development to mitigate impacts to visibility. The 

benefits would not outweigh the costs. Phased development would significantly delay the ability of the 

Operators to assist in meeting the demands of this nation for a clean, reliable, and domestic energy source 

during a time of high demand. It would hinder employment and growth in the region, harming the 

economy of the West and Wyoming in particular. Smaller and medium-sized producers would be at a 

disadvantage, as the extended costs and delayed benefits of phased development may be too difficult for 

them to overcome. If BLM chooses to phase development below the 16,000 acres full development 

drilling, BLM must prepare a Statement of Adverse Energy Impact pursuant to the Executive Order. 

23 January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

In light of the adverse impacts predicted to occur as a result of JIDP, both alone and in combination with 

other sources, and the fact that the extent and magnitude of the adverse impacts are likely underestimated, 

BLM must develop a mitigation plan that demonstrates compliance with all Clean Air Act (CAA) 

standards. Mitigation is not limited to emission reduction strategies for air emissions sources; it may also 

include avoiding impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action, minimizing impacts 

by limiting the magnitude of an action, and reducing or eliminating the impact over the life of the action. 

BLM did not model any scenario that would “provide for compliance with” all applicable standards under 

the CAA. While the 80% reduction scenario achieves the lowest impacts of any alternative considered, it 

nonetheless predicts 19 or 21 days of visibility impairment in the Bridger class I area. This level of 

impairment fails to satisfy the statutory requirement for “no degradation” of humanly perceptible 

visibility in the Class I area. Additional reductions will be needed, such as those that can be achieved by

reducing the well drilling rate through the implementation of phased development. 

The AQ Supplement is non-definitive about what mitigation will be used to avoid or eliminate adverse air 

quality impacts and who would undertake those measures. The modeled mitigation options are presented 

as “examples” not commitments. BLM claims it may not even be able to implement some mitigation 

measures. The JIDP DEIS itself mentions (but does not analyze) only vague possibilities to mitigate 

impacts, and no definitive regulatory role for the State is described. BLM must adopt measures that are 

both sufficient to provide for compliance with the CAA, and enforceable directly by BLM or by an 

enforceable agreement with the State to meet its obligations under the FLPMA, NEPA and the CAA. 

BLM should mandate use of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) rather than simply suggesting 

its use. The EIS should better detail the steps to be taken, and the penalties if any, in the cases of high 

haze situations at Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks resulting from its permitting actions. 

Air Quality Regulatory Compliance and Commitments 

BLM is preparing to unleash widespread deterioration of the regional environment in violation of 

numerous legal standards through the oil and gas development it proposes to authorize and even promote. 

BLM’s disregard for the adverse air quality effects is at odds with NEPA regulations, which state that 

federal agencies “shall to the fullest extent possible use all practical means. . . [to] avoid or minimize any

possible adverse effects of their actions upon the quality of the human environment.” It also conflicts with 

FLPMA, which requires land use plans to “provide for compliance with applicable pollution control 

laws,” and with BLM’s own planning criteria that actions must comply with federal laws and regulations. 

The DEIS and AQ Supplement fail to implement EPA’s “no degradation” policy under the CAA. 

At a minimum, the JIDP DEIS and AQ Supplement must be revised to provide a specific accounting as to 

what the effects of this project will be on the State of Wyoming’s ability to submit an approvable State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) to EPA, and for the standards specified in EPA regulations (the regional haze 

rule at 40 CFR §§ 51.308 and 309) to actually be met. 

The NEPA documents appear to intentionally mislead the public and the decision maker by including 

tables that purport to summarize adverse impacts reported in the TSD, but which instead indicate in green 

ink that there will not be violations of PSD increments—in marked conflict with the modeling results 

reported in the TSD. The PSD increments appear to be considered second class CAA requirements by

BLM; yet BLM is required under FLPMA to comply with all CAA requirements (including §163) and 

may not authorize an action that would allow the PSD increments to be exceeded. 

BLM may not rely on prior inadequate EISs. The Final EISs issued for the Pinedale Anticline, 

Continental Divide/Wamsutter, Desolation Flats, Jack Morrow Hills, and Rawlins RMP were all seriously

January 2006 24
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

deficient in their consideration of cumulative air quality impacts, and may not be relied upon as the basis 

for approving further development, including permits issued for drilling pads, road construction, 

compressor stations and other polluting activities reviewed in the earlier environmental documents. 

Alternatives 

[Only comments expressly favoring or opposing an alternative are represented here; concerns over the 

impacts of additional drilling not linked to a specific alternative or alternatives are represented in other 

sections of this document.]

I (we) support the Preferred Alternative because I (we) believe: 

 The Preferred Alternative would result in less surface disturbance and less overall adverse impact to 

natural resources than the Proposed Action. 

 Compared to the Proposed Action, the Preferred Alternative would produce roughly the same tax and 

mineral royalty revenue because mineral royalties are based on total production, not the number of 

vertical wells drilled. 

 Compared to the Proposed Action, the Preferred Alternative would give livestock permittees a better 

chance of maintaining current grazing programs. 

I (we) do not support the Preferred Alternative because I (we) believe: 

 The Preferred Alternative does not provide as many local, regional, and national economic and social 

benefits as the Proposed Action. 

 The Preferred Alternative wastes much-needed natural gas in the JIDPA, while not significantly

reducing adverse impacts. The gas left behind may not be recoverable. Wasting gas contradicts 

BLM's multiple use goals. 

 The Preferred Alternative imposes far too many unnecessary, inappropriate, impractical, and at times 

illegal restrictions on the Operators. 

 The Preferred Alternative requires more directional drilling than is economically or technically

reasonable, or, in some cases, feasible. Directional drilling increases costs for the Operators, wastes 

natural gas, and results in more air pollution and truck traffic than straight-hole wells. 

 The Preferred Alternative allows too many well pads, too much surface disturbance, and too many

adverse impacts to wildlife and habitat. The Preferred Alternative does not incorporate directional 

drilling to the extent it should to reduce surface disturbance impacts. 

 The Preferred Alternative fails to provide adequate mitigation given the extreme density of 

development proposed for the JIDPA and the level of impact that would result. The Preferred 

Alternative fails to make a concrete commitment of resources for compensatory mitigation for 

impacts to wildlife. 

 The Preferred Alternative is inconsistent with state plans and policies regarding wildlife. 

25 January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

I (we) support the Proposed Action because I (we) believe: 

 The Proposed Action benefits the local economy, providing stable, long-term jobs and income for 

workers and their families and other residents in the area. The Proposed Action also benefits the state, 

regional, and national economies. 

 The Proposed Action enhances tax revenues, which improves local tax-supported services such as 

schools. 

 The Proposed Action maximizes royalty revenues for the BLM. 

 The Proposed Action maximizes the recovery of the natural gas resource in the JIDPA, a world-class 

natural gas reserve, while keeping environmental impacts to an acceptable level. Maximizing the 

recovery of natural gas helps to meet the national demand for energy, may help lower energy costs, 

and reduces the United States’ dependence on foreign sources of energy (and all the economic, 

political, and social negatives associated with that, including war). 

 The Proposed Action benefits Wyoming and the nation environmentally by recovering the maximum

amount of clean-burning natural gas. 

 The Proposed Action with compensatory mitigation would result in fewer adverse resource impacts 

(particularly to air quality) than the Preferred Alternative. The land would be reclaimed, and restored 

forage would be superior to predevelopment conditions. 

 While the Proposed Action would result in adverse environmental impacts, these impacts are 

insignificant, taking up only a small part of total sagebrush/sage-grouse habitat in Wyoming, and 

worth the tradeoff for the socioeconomic advantages the Proposed Action would provide. 

 The Proposed Action confines additional impacts to an area already disturbed, and, for the most part, 

the infrastructure to produce and transport the additional gas is already in place. 

 If the Proposed Action is not selected, the energy will have to come from some other place, possibly

more fragile than the Jonah Field. Recovering a comparable amount of gas elsewhere would result in 

five times more surface disturbance because Jonah Field contains 25 times more gas per acre than 

other fields in southwestern Wyoming. 

I (we) do not support the Proposed Action because I (we) believe: 

 The Proposed Action would continue to increase adverse impacts on wildlife from oil and gas 

development in the area. With the extensive loss of habitat, wildlife would be driven from the JIDPA. 

 The Proposed Action would result in well density so high that well pads and associated development 

would be visible from every place within the well field. 

 The Proposed Action would push the limits of BLM’s multiple use policy, as it would be the 

dominant use of public lands in the Jonah area. 

I (we) support Alternative B (Minimize Surface Disturbance) because I (we) believe: 

 Alternative B would allow increased production on the field, while minimizing impact on wildlife 

habitat. 

January 2006 26
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

I (we) do not support Alternative B (Minimize Surface Disturbance) because I (we) believe: 

 Alternative B is economically infeasible and may be technically impossible to drill some of the 

distances required. 

 Alternative B results in the most adverse air quality impacts because directional drilling results in 

significantly more air emissions than will straight-hole drilling. 

I (we) not support Alternatives A, B, C, D, E, and F because I (we) believe: 

 These alternatives are impractical and uneconomic and therefore do not meet the purpose and need 

for the project. 

I (we) support the No Action Alternative because I (we) believe: 

 Additional gas drilling further promotes the boom and bust economic cycling that has afflicted 

western Wyoming; discourages diversification; and impairs the resources and activities, including 

ranching and tourism, vital to a mature, complex economy and the long-term well-being of this area. 

 The gas industry is destroying our rural way of life and our once small ranching community. Taxes 

are increasing, community services and infrastructure are overextended, schools are overcrowded, 

and housing shortages, living costs, heavy traffic, drugs, and crime are growing problems. 

 Additional drilling will turn an already scarred landscape into a well wasteland. The Jonah Field 

should not be allowed to become a national sacrificial area. 

 The No Action Alternative is the best option for the protection of wildlife, air quality, and water 

quality, including water quality in alpine and sub-alpine lakes in the Wind Rivers. The negative 

effects to wildlife and air quality from the existing project are greater than anticipated in previous 

NEPA documents; no additional impacts should be allowed. 

 No additional drilling should be permitted until further research is done to ensure the protection of 

wildlife migration routes. 

 Additional drilling in the Jonah Field will combine with increased development in nearby fields to 

result in unacceptable cumulative impacts in the region. 

The BLM should allow the pace of development to be determined by market conditions, not agency

mandates. 

The BLM should adopt the Proposed Action, enabling Operators to incorporate a quick pace of 

development and corresponding reclamation would more than offset any surface disturbance issues. The 

Proposed Action coincides with the BLM’s dictum: the quicker the project is implemented, the shorter 

the duration of impacts. 

EPA believes that BLM could present additional alternatives that would control the rate of development 

and the geographic focus of additional infill. 

The BLM should slow the development of the Jonah Field and require more protection for the land, 

wildlife, water, and air quality. If the pace is slowed down and the existing well pads are used efficiently

by employing newer technologies for recovery, then Sublette County will be able to rely on the long-term

natural resources, other than gas, for which the area has become famous. 

27 January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

The BLM should slow the development of the Jonah Field so good practices and better science can be 

applied to this project. The BLM is understaffed and does not seem to be able to monitor the existing 

project level, let alone be able to keep a handle on expanded drilling in the Jonah. 

The BLM should keep with the original plan (No Action Alternative) so that drilling can proceed within 

previously well-researched parameters. Then, revisit the whole project in 5 more years when there has 

been time to assess the damage that has been done. By that time, the price of oil will be even higher, and 

gas reserves will stay in storage just fine where they are, for the next generation. 

Analysis 

The BLM has effectively disenfranchised the majority of the public by producing a DEIS that is so 

encyclopedic, complex, and confusing that almost no one will read the entire document, and those who do 

read it won’t fully grasp the analyses or implications of the alternatives, especially the Preferred 

Alternative. 

The BLM should add a chapter in the FEIS dedicated to showing the preliminary research and monitoring 

results the BLM relied upon to reach its conclusion that significant adverse impacts to many area 

resources have already occurred with existing development and mitigation requirements. The BLM 

should incorporate a discussion of other oil and gas developments and include the success of those 

developments with existing standard practices to protect resources and rehabilitate the land. 

The BLM must delete any references to the unquantified “potentially lower” impacts associated with the 

Preferred Alternative throughout the EIS because the BLM has not reasonably justified such assertions. 

The additional mitigation measures applied to the Preferred Alternative to minimize impacts are often 

presented in resource analysis sections (Chapter 4) as a justification for fewer adverse impacts under the 

Preferred Alternative. However, Appendix B (“Operator-Committed Practices”) lists 38 mitigation 

measures applicable to the Proposed Action, and Chapter 5 lists 57 mitigation measures applicable to any

or all alternatives. It appears that these measures, combined with other mitigation (transportation plan, 

reclamation plan, and other provisions in Appendix G), would be equally effective as the incremental 

measures proposed for the Preferred Alternative. 

The BLM must clarify the confusion over the numbers of well pads, acres of disturbance, and well 

spacing throughout the document. It is frequently not clear what is being analyzed or what will be 

permitted. 

The analysis and conclusions in the DEIS concerning reductions in recoverable reserves due to directional 

drilling are grossly inaccurate. The DEIS concludes that each of the Alternatives evaluated would result in 

unrecovered gas volumes proportional to the percentage of directional wells. The claim in the DEIS that 

increased costs of directional drilling and a frequent inability to drill and case the lower 1,000 feet of 

Lance formation would cause a loss of up to 36% of the gas reserves that would otherwise be recoverable 

under the Proposed Action is statistically impossible. In no case could these two factors result in a loss of 

more than about 6.5% and even that number is a significant stretch. 

Compensatory Mitigation 

The BLM should consider providing compensatory mitigation concurrent with development. The 

development should progress in such a way as to look for habitat improvements that could be made 

concurrently with development on nearby land. 

January 2006 28
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

A better approach than the Preferred Alternative would be to incorporate compensatory (off-site) 

mitigation. 

With the existing level of development on the Jonah Field, the impacts should be mitigated through 

compensatory (off-site) mitigation to replace wildlife habitat function currently lost. The additional level 

of development proposed in the DEIS for the JIDP adds considerable support for the need for off-site 

mitigation of wildlife impacts. 

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) recommends an initial off-site mitigation approach 

of habitat improvements adjacent to the project area at a rate of 3:1 (3 acres of mitigation: 1 acre of 

disturbance). The JIDP ROD should allow for adjusting the mitigation ratio through the life of the project 

as the ratio becomes better defined. 

If possible, off-site mitigation should begin prior to foreseeable development impacts, as this would 

reduce the lag time between impacts to habitat and the availability of additional mitigation habitat, thus 

reducing impacts to wildlife through time. 

The concept of compensatory mitigation is undesirable because it could disrupt the traditional processes 

for permitting oil and gas operations on public and private land. If applied to JIDP, it could be applied to 

other areas, with the risk of compensatory mitigation becoming the paramount approach to mitigation. 

The BLM has failed to sufficiently demonstrate in the document that compensatory mitigation is justified 

as a solution for the natural resource conflicts described in the DEIS; however, compensatory mitigation 

could be utilized to assist county agencies and local communities with infrastructure and socioeconomic 

issues. 

Every place in the document where compensatory (off-site) mitigation is mentioned, the BLM should 

explicitly state that it is entirely voluntary. The BLM does not have the authority to require Operators to 

perform off-site mitigation. 

It is not clear in the DEIS if compensatory mitigation is consistently supported among the Jonah 

Operators, although that is implied in several places. The BLM should state that some, but not all, 

Operators have committed to establishing a fund to finance compensatory (off-site) mitigation for impacts 

that cannot be fully mitigated on site, or should identify the Operators who have made this commitment. 

The DEIS states that the Jonah Infill Working Group will “make every effort to develop innovative 

funding sources” and “will not depend solely on the JIDPA oil and gas Operators for funding”; however it 

is unreasonable to assume that significant monitoring and mitigation funding can be “raised” by members 

of working groups. The BLM should make a concrete commitment of resources to fund an independently

supervised compensatory mitigation fund, supplemented with funding from the Operators who are 

causing the need for mitigation in the first place. The BLM should also clearly state that the 

recommended monitoring will be funded by industry. This should include any special studies that may

become necessary during the life of the project. 

The BLM should clarify who is ultimately responsible for meeting mitigation requirements if a mitigation 

fund is utilized (the operator, the BLM, or a third-party operator who actually does the mitigation). 

The BLM should have delayed discussion of a Cumulative Impacts Mitigation Fund until the DEIS was 

completed. The reference to values of $850 per acre is improper in the DEIS, especially in the 

introductory chapters, and prior to analysis of the impacts. There is no obvious basis for these values. 

29 January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

The acreage values for mitigation funding are grossly inadequate and are an insult to all Americans. To 

pretend that pristine habitat for so many amazing animals, especially such a slow-growing, slowregenerating habitat, has such little value in its undisturbed state is outrageous. 

The BLM needs to clarify its reference to a compensatory mitigation fund based on a dollar per acre 

amount “above a threshold of 11,000 acres.” A dollar per acre of new disturbance approach may be a 

mechanism to fund a Cumulative Impacts Mitigation Fund, but not with a threshold based upon approved 

surface disturbance. 

The BLM must revise the DEIS in light of EnCana’s revised Voluntary Compensatory Mitigation 

Proposal. The DEIS contains an inaccurate and incorrect description of EnCana and BP’s proposed offsite or compensatory mitigation proposal. 

The BLM should clarify that specific conditions would apply to compensatory mitigation, including: 

 Compensatory mitigation would apply only to impacts that cannot be mitigated on-site through the 

use of reasonable and economically viable techniques. Once it is recognized that mitigation on-site is 

not possible and will not be effective, and that compensatory mitigation will be implemented, no 

additional on-site mitigation specific to that resource value would be required. 

 Compensatory mitigation would apply only to resource values subject to significant unavoidable 

adverse impacts. Such resource values must be specifically identified. 

 Compensatory mitigation may be brought forward by an operator(s) that does not represent all those 

in a development area; therefore, when the compensatory mitigation passes from voluntary to a 

requirement in a project authorization, the requirement for compensatory mitigation should only

impact the operator(s) that included the commitment for off-site mitigation in their plan of 

development. 

The BLM should confirm that compensatory mitigation by replacing or providing substitute resources or 

environments would also apply to livestock grazing in the JIDP. 

The BLM should invite the permittees in the allotments affected by the JIDP to serve on any independent 

advisory board that deals with the issue of compensation and or mitigation of impacts to current multiple 

uses. 

In addition to the off-site mitigation ideas listed in the DEIS, BLM should select a large area (preferably

unleased for minerals) and identify both grazing strategies and habitat improvement strategies that would 

combine to improve habitat function within that area of BLM lands. There is currently an identified 

unleased area that could serve that purpose. Improvements could be performed that would benefit both 

wildlife and livestock, and the area could feasibly be classified in the RMP revision as a Special 

Management Area for the life of the project. 

The Wyoming Department of Agriculture supports compensatory mitigation discussions between gas 

operators and livestock permittees. Such mitigation strategies and costs could include, but are not limited 

to 1) Moving livestock to an open allotment or pasture; 2) Purchasing hay in lieu of allotment use; 3. 

Monitoring development impacts; 4) Developing water; 5) Purchasing grazing land for Cattlemen's 

Association control; and 6) Reimbursing the producer for AUM loss. 

Mitigation projects performed off-site of the JIDPA will also have a direct impact on livestock grazing. 

Areas surrounding the JIDPA have already been identified for future off-site mitigation, and these areas 

January 2006 30
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

have active grazing permits. It is important that compensation be similarly awarded to these permittees, as 

any off-site mitigation will undoubtedly result in an AUM decrease. 

Compliance with Laws (other than NEPA), Agency Policy, and 

Management Plans 

In all but one alternative, the BLM failed to prevent undue and unnecessary degradation in the DEIS per 

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). The surface disturbance due to the proposed 5-

acre or 10-acre well spacing is much greater than “would normally be expected” from the standard 

amount of surface impact for natural gas production in Wyoming, and therefore constitutes unnecessary

and undue degradation under FLPMA. 

The BLM must fulfill its role as trustee of the environment as required by FLPMA. Given that oil and gas 

leasing, exploration, and development is already occurring on these federal lands, the BLM’s role under 

FLPMA then becomes that of trustee of the environment. It is not the job of BLM to provide for the 

maximum recovery of these resources, nor is it the job of BLM to ensure the maximum profit to private 

commercial interests extracting the resources. It is the job of BLM to protect the environment. 

BLM must require and maximize the use of directional drilling in the JIDPA so as to meet its duty under 

FLPMA, which is to take “any” action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the 

public lands. Operators in the JIDPA will reap very large profits from their operations even if directional 

drilling is used. 

The BLM failed to universally apply its 2004 Best Management Practices policy. The only alternative that 

incorporates any BMPs is the Preferred Alternative. Allowing oil and gas drilling without BMPs, should 

one of the other six alternatives be adopted in the Record of Decision, would create undue and 

unnecessary degradation to the public lands involved. 

The BLM must amend the Pinedale Resource Management Plan (RMP). The surface disturbance of both 

the Proposed Action and the Preferred Alternative appears to exceed the 6,300-acre limit for reasonable 

foreseeable development (RFD) surface disturbance stipulated in the RMP Pinedale Anticline 

amendment. In addition, the DEIS showed significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality values such 

as visibility and sensitive watersheds; therefore, existing RMP objectives would not be met. 

The BLM is charged with managing federal lands for multiple use, and development of the Jonah Field 

under the Proposed Action is a proper application of multiple-use management. That doctrine does not 

mean multiple uses within every township or range, or within even small land units; it means multiple use 

of public lands as a whole. 

The Proposed Action and the Preferred Alternative fail to meet the RMP objectives listed in Section 4.2.2 

of the RMP or to preserve multiple use of resources on the public lands. Oil and gas development cannot 

be the sole use of our public lands at the expense of other resources and other uses. 

Conditions of Approval 

The requirement that all existing well pads and roads be retrofitted to meet zero runoff requirements is not 

possible to meet. There is no area in Sublette County other than the granite peaks of the Wind Rivers that 

are even close to zero runoff even without any added surface disturbance. It is virtually impossible to 

meet zero runoff standards on flat, undisturbed, ground. There are some options to minimize excess 

runoff that are viable, but the zero runoff goal is not attainable if water moves through a site. 

31 January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

These acreage limitations for individual well pads (7.0 acres for parent and multi-well pads, 4.0 acres for 

single-well well pads, and 2.0 acres for satellite well pads) are too small when considering all the 

activities that are being combined. Of particular concern is the inclusion of topsoil and spoil piles as part 

of the disturbance figures. These items should not be included because they are typically stored on the 

perimeter of the cleared pad and do not require vegetation removal. It is also not possible to meet these 

disturbance figures when including pipelines because of the varying length that may be needed. 

The final proposed COA would require the Operators to utilize flareless completions for all wells in the 

JIDPA. As the BLM is aware, the Wyoming DEQ (WDEQ), not the BLM, has jurisdiction over flaring 

procedures and air emissions in Wyoming. In fact, WDEQ has recently issued regulations regarding 

flaring in the Pinedale Anticline and Jonah Project areas. As such, it is neither appropriate nor necessary

for the BLM to impose this requirement. 

The COA requiring new compressor sites to be located away from noise sensitive areas is not well 

defined. The BLM has failed to map or identify noise sensitive areas. This requirement must be clarified 

in the FEIS. 

Cultural Resources 

The text fails to identify whose responsibility it would be to “Develop and implement a research design, 

discovery plan, and/or cultural resource management plan for the combined areas of the Pinedale 

Anticline Project Area and JIDPA, and consult with SHPO pursuant to the effect of these plans on 

affected cultural resources.” This is clearly a BLM-initiated action in consultation with the SHPO if it is 

pursued. As such, the measure should be reworded to state the agencies’ responsibility, not the 

Operators’, for accomplishing this task. 

Economics 

Currently, the BLM’s Jonah (gas field) Infill report concludes that additional socioeconomic impacts will 

not occur. The data do not support this conclusion. 

The BLM should consider scaling back the pace of this development and asking industry to help mitigate 

the socioeconomic impacts to our lovely community. By slowing down the pace of drilling, the BLM can 

help create a sustainable economy for western Wyoming instead of creating another 10-year boom/bust 

cycle that will leave the area scarred, and a number of people without jobs. 

The DEIS states that, “BLM defines a significant change as any change that would result in a 15% or 

greater change of any affected factor.” Why is the 15% figure used here while a 10% change of selected 

socioeconomic indicators is considered significant by the Pinedale Anticline Project Area FEIS? Also, is 

there any timeframe associated with this percent change threshold?

Editorial 

Given that the BLM is under obligation to provide the public with informative explanations of actions 

contemplated which will impact the region’s environment, this document falls far short in fulfilling that 

obligation as an information vehicle. The impacts are indeed addressed but they are spread throughout the 

document in an almost coded form. It would have been far better to summarize them point-by-point in a 

broader summary chapter that opens the document for the reader. 

January 2006 32
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

The maps and figures shown in Chapter 3 provide no references as to the source of the information. BLM 

should provide a reference citation for all maps and figures derived from other published information or 

from personal communications. 

Hazardous Materials 

The first proposed mitigation measure on page 5-6 would require the Operators to provide the BLM with 

copies of all Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs); Spill Prevention, Control and 

Countermeasure plans (SPCCs); and other spill and emergency response plans. The only plans Operators 

submit to BLM are SWPPPs when requested. BLM does not have the authority to either approve or deny

these plans. 

Health/Safety

Requirements to set well pad size limitations to 7.0, 4.0, and 2.0 acres are dangerous and create permitting 

conflicts. Future downhole treatments or drilling operations, as well as future safety regulations, could 

require additional space. 

Land Ownership 

BLM has no need to know the details of surface use agreements between industry and landowners. BLM 

has no authority to discuss acquisition of rights on private land. The amount of private land is negligible 

and not even an issue in the Jonah Field. 

Land Use 

FLPMA requires that public lands be managed on the basis of “multiple use and sustained yield.” The 

current uses for the JIDPA include recreation, hunting, birding, and livestock grazing. Essentially the 

BLM has foreclosed the concept of multiple use in the Jonah Field area, including the JIDPA. For the 

estimated 100 years the development and production will last, plus an additional estimated 90–100 years 

for reclamation to occur to replicate the present conditions, the public lands will be withdrawn from use. 

There will be no multiple use of these lands because there will be nothing left to use. 

Livestock/Grazing 

The BLM has largely ignored the effects of oil and gas development on livestock grazing in the Jonah and 

the Anticline Fields. That is why the Record of Decision (ROD) on this project is so important to grazing 

interests. 

The BLM should recognize cooperation between the permittees and EnCana in a positive light and 

support these efforts. EnCana has shown a willingness to work with permittees to protect grazing 

capability, and the permittees believe they can work with the Operators’ systematic approach to the 

drilling phase to manage the distribution of cattle within the allotments. If the permittees work with the 

Operators to assist the reclamation success, all of the rangeland resources can benefit in the long term. 

The BLM should require all the oil and gas operators involved in the project to mitigate the loss of the 

vegetative resource and the impacts to livestock permittees who are grazing in the Jonah. Currently, only

one operator (EnCana) is interested in the impact the project is having on the range resource and livestock 

permittees. 

33 January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

The BLM should immediately enter into consultations with the permittees in the affected allotments, and 

the FEIS should reflect the results of those consultations. The BLM should include a narrative describing 

the intent of the BLM to enter into a Joint/Cooperative Monitoring program with the permittees to 

evaluate impacts and trends on rangeland resources and economic impacts to ranches that hold the 

grazing permits in affected allotments. 

If there needs to be an adjustment in AUMs, then that should occur as Temporary Non-Use, and not as 

Suspended Non-Use. How the grazing program will be handled during the infill process should be clearly

established in the ROD. 

All affected grazing permit holders should receive compensation if grazing is suspended. Affected 

allotment permittees should be allowed to use other allotments that are being underutilized. 

Following all projects and project impacts in the JIDPA, the Wyoming Department of Agriculture (WDA) 

insists that once reclamation projects are successful and complete, the BLM will restore all active grazing 

to the permittees. The Stud Horse and Sand Draw Allotments should be monitored for the eventual 

reinstatement of suspended AUMs in the allotments. 

The BLM failed to describe the analysis used to conclude there will be a total loss of 1,410 AUMs under 

the Preferred Alternative (Table 4.19 on 4-133). 

The BLM should recalculate lost AUMs in its analysis of grazing impacts to exclude the Blue Rim Desert 

Allotment. Since the total AUMs in this allotment are not included within the JIDPA, they should not be 

counted toward determining surface disturbance impact. With this adjustment, the short-term loss impact 

is then increased from 17.9% to 25%, and the total AUMs present in the three allotments rises from 26% 

to 37%. 

All AUMs in each allotment should be analyzed for discussion of utilization. The AUMs considered 

available for utilization in the two most impacted allotments are 4,465 AUMs for the Sand Draw 

Allotment and 2,303 AUMs for the Stud Horse Allotment, versus the reported 2,324 AUMs and 1,730 

AUMs respectively. These figures include all suspended AUMs, which should be included in the 

discussions. 

The DEIS incorrectly makes the blanket assumption that the Proposed Action or similar levels of 

development would require large-scale reductions in AUMs. It appears that an unscientific approach was 

used to arrive at a predicted loss of 1,410 AUMs. When the surface disturbance for each allotment is 

analyzed on a section-by-section basis for each well spacing, then converted into AUMs and added 

together, the total is 662 AUMs affected under the Preferred Alternative. This differs greatly from the 

1,410 AUMs stated in the DEIS. The BLM should consider recalculating the acres of surface disturbance 

on a section-by-section basis for each allotment. With only 662 AUMs affected, there is no need for a 

reduction in AUMs. Also, when the utilization is in the moderate to low level there is no need for reduced 

grazing. 

The BLM inadequately addressed the potential impacts of the JIDP on the ranching industry and the 

broader community. The BLM desert allotments are essential to ranching operations in this valley

because they are designed for spring grazing of livestock, and there is very little rangeland available for 

spring grazing in Sublette County. These particular allotments have no substitute. To lose the ability to 

use the spring grazing permit will have a ripple effect on the rest of the ranching operations. There is not a 

fair cash compensation program to mitigate that. As ranches lose the ability to graze and are forced to 

change their operation or sell out and subdivide, the potential for losing open spaces is huge. This 

multiplier effect also will increase land prices across Sublette County.

January 2006 34
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

The BLM incorrectly assumes that there is no excess forage available for grazing with the proposed 

increase in surface disturbance due to the drilling activity; however, a voluntary and informal monitoring 

program conducted in the summer of 2004 indicated there is more forage available than is currently being 

grazed. 

In the Glossary, the BLM should clearly state in the definition of “No-Surface Occupancy” that range 

improvements are not included. 

Mineral Resources/Natural Gas Recovery

Claiming that 750 billion to 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas will be “wasted” if the Operators are not 

allowed to develop at the pace and scale they desire is a lot like saying that a bucket of water is useless 

until it's dumped out. 

The BLM should leave a strategic reserve of natural gas in the Jonah Field accessible by valving existing 

infrastructure. 

Restricting development decreases ultimate recovery; on the level of an entire gas field, the gas left 

behind will become unrecoverable. 

The BLM should allow total development of the Jonah Field now, while it has the power to set the 

parameters for environmentally responsible development. Within the next 10 years, demand for domestic 

energy will likely outweigh any concerns for environmental protections. The land will be immune from

future uncontrolled exploitation of that last small percentage left only if the gas is completely depleted 

now. 

Because the Jonah Field contains 25 times more gas per acre than other fields in southwestern Wyoming, 

to obtain the volume of gas that the Preferred Alternative would leave behind would require five times 

more surface disturbance in another field. Leaving this volume of natural gas behind is, therefore, 

environmentally irresponsible. 

NEPA 

The BLM failed to comply with NEPA by not considering impacts on climate. NEPA specifically

requires agencies to “. . . recognize the worldwide and long-range character of environmental problems,” 

and natural gas exploration, development, and production all disgorge vast quantities of pollutants into 

the air, potentially contributing to global climatic problems. 

The BLM should expedite the NEPA process to provide much-needed energy to the nation as soon as 

possible. 

The BLM failed to comply with NEPA by not disclosing all of the environmental impacts resulting from

the proposed action and not providing sufficient mitigation for those impacts that are disclosed. The BLM 

identified multiple potential impacts that could result from the intense level of surface disturbance 

proposed, but the EPA points out that there is also potential for wetlands impacts from surface activities 

located in playas. 

The BLM failed to comply with NEPA by not basing its analysis of the environmental impacts of the 

JIDP on the most up-to-date information in the most consistent and clear way to facilitate public 

comment. Instead, the BLM published an analysis based on already outdated information in a document 

that is confusing and contradicts itself. 

35 January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

The BLM failed to evaluate all alternatives in detail by not modeling air quality impacts for four 

alternatives, including the BLM’s own Preferred Alternative. The BLM must provide for public comment 

on results of the air quality modeling for the Preferred Alternative before the FEIS is completed. 

By not modeling runoff condition before issuing the DEIS, the BLM failed to provide for full public 

scrutiny as required by NEPA and failed to perform the best scientific analysis as required by NEPA. It 

seems unlikely that the required modeling can be done during that period due to limited time; therefore, 

the final EIS may be issued without the necessary and mandatory scientific analysis required by NEPA, 

and the BLM cannot make the best decision regarding the proposed action without the best scientific 

analysis to support it. 

The Executive Summary notes that modeling to quantify soil impacts will also be run during the DEIS 

and results will be reported in the FEIS. Impacts to resources are supposed to be analyzed and presented 

to the public in the DEIS—not afterwards. It appears that the BLM is attempting to end-run the public 

process and simply publish an insufficient Draft document that does not provide the public the intended 

information, and they assume that will be acceptable as long as the impacts are ultimately revealed in the 

FEIS. The BLM seems to misunderstand the intent of NEPA, which is to not only show the impacts but to 

work with the public to attempt to generate means to minimize those impacts. 

The BLM violated NEPA by not modeling soil impacts and not providing a quantitative analysis of soil 

impacts in the DEIS for public review. This is a particularly serious issue given the highly sensitive soils 

in the area and poor revegetation capabilities in the JIDPA. 

NEPA requires analysis of impacts before substantial decisions are made that set development in motion. 

The BLM will fail to comply with this requirement by approving the drilling of some 3,100 wells, 

together with the construction of miles of roads and pipelines, plus ancillary facilities, without knowing 

where the wells and roads will be located, specifically, and what relationship they will have spatially with 

ecologically important habitats (well placement will be left to the discretion of the Operators). It is 

impossible for BLM to provide a meaningful analysis of impact severity without this knowledge. 

Noise 

The DEIS states that residents are concerned over project noise and how it affects their quality of life. The 

DEIS contains no information on which this conclusion is based. If there is no quantitative data to support 

this statement, it should be removed from the FEIS. 

The statement that noise has already contributed to the apparent decrease in wildlife on and adjacent to 

the JIDPA cannot be justified. In order to make the conclusion that wildlife is being impacted from noise, 

incremental noise levels from the JIDPA should have been monitored over time compared to the data on 

wildlife populations. This has not been done. 

The DEIS concludes there will be significant impacts from noise and odor within the JIDPA and vicinity

under all alternatives. We completely disagree with this conclusion. To make this conclusion fails to 

recognize the effectiveness of mitigation that will be used to reduce noise. The DEIS does not include 

quantitative details about the attenuation of noise from mufflers, barriers, and other techniques that will 

reduce noise at the source. Without this information, concluding that significant impacts will occur is 

without merit. 

January 2006 36
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

On-Site Mitigation 

The BLM should make it clear that the increased mitigation requirements proposed under the JIDP only

apply to wells that are truly infill between existing wells and not to extension wells beyond the perimeter 

of existing wells. 

The ability of the BLM to impose mitigation measures on the Operators is unclear. On the one hand, the 

BLM states that it cannot require Operators to do anything in the way of adopting actions or methods to 

minimize environmental consequences, yet in Section 2.0 “requires” and “imposes” Conditions of 

Approval and several other mitigation measures. 

The BLM should include a discussion of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), with particular 

emphasis on the fact that (1) mitigation requirements must be either statutorily required or scientifically

justifiable and (2) they must be the least restrictive means to achieve the desired level of resource 

protection. References to these EPCA requirements should be added everywhere mitigation measures are 

listed. 

Because of the BLM’s poor track record in enforcing mitigation measures from past NEPA processes, the 

BLM must include a review of past mitigation measures and their effectiveness and implementation. 

A comprehensive monitoring plan will be necessary to adequately describe the impacts and effectiveness 

of mitigation for this large, intense, long-term development. Adaptive management reaction to monitoring 

information will need to be assured. 

The unusual intensity of the well spacing for the Proposed Action indicates that the mitigation being 

proposed may not be adequate. Considering all of the significant impacts identified in the DEIS to 

wildlife and surface water, the DEIS is lacking in providing specific approaches for maintaining 

ecosystem viability. 

Prior to implementing the proposed action, BLM should provide more monitoring and analysis on the 

habitat surrounding the Jonah field and consider establishing habitat protection areas and buffers that 

would provide suitable habitat. 

The BLM and other stakeholders must become more aggressive in coordination and funding of 

monitoring activities. The BLM must be vigilant in its management of development such that it always

knows the condition of the various resources within its management authority and the impacts of 

development on those resources. 

Based on the sediment/salt load modeling results that will be addressed in the FEIS, the BLM should 

consider additional mitigation in the FEIS to further reduce runoff, if necessary. 

Once initial drilling has occurred, efforts should be made to reclaim as much as the area immediately,

while continuing to allow access to the wellhead for maintenance. To ensure the completion of 

reclamation, the Wyoming Department of Agriculture suggests bonding be increased to cover reclamation 

costs. This increase in bonding will ensure that reclamation be completed regardless of the gas operator. 

The BLM failed to provide useable information regarding the efficacy of the mitigation measures it relies 

upon. Although NEPA and its implementing regulations do not require quantitative certainty in all cases, 

the BLM is rushing ahead to authorize unique densities of development without understanding the extent 

to which its standard mitigation measures can alleviate impacts even from lesser levels of development. 

37 January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

The BLM is inviting potential challenges to the ROD for the JIDP by admitting that the efficacy of 

several proposed mitigation measures is “unknown.” 

The BLM should not require the extraordinary mitigation measures listed in the DEIS because existing 

BLM lease stipulations and surface use procedures are adequate and proven to prevent and mitigate 

impacts. There is a long history of successful rehabilitation of public land in Wyoming based on standard 

practice of the oil and gas industry, existing lease stipulations, guidelines, and On-Shore Orders. The 

implication in the DEIS that the significance of impacts from the JIDP is far greater than the significance 

of impacts from prior developments is not justified. 

The BLM could supplement the Proposed Action by considering any and all surface disturbance 

mitigation requirements as “additional potential mitigation measures.” This would provide a better 

solution than rejecting the Proposed Action and adopting the Preferred Alternative because the Jonah 

Infill Working Group would make site-specific surface disturbance mitigation recommendations to the 

BLM based on actual field observations rather than the BLM mandating arbitrary Surface Disturbance 

Limitation Areas (SDLAs) up front under the Preferred Alternative. 

The BLM should recognize that reclamation yields high-quality forage for domestic and wild animals as 

well as forbs for sage-grouse. If the BLM were to adopt the Proposed Action, this high-quality forage 

would replace the existing sage brush and other native plant species, thereby offsetting the surface 

disturbance and eliminating the need for surface disturbance mitigation requirements altogether. 

Operator-Committed Practices 

The BLM has included several modifications and amendments to the set of Operator-Committed Practices 

without informing or consulting with the Operators. EnCana has reviewed and modified the set of 

Operator-Committed Practices in Appendix B of the DEIS and submits those changes, as well as 

comments supporting such changes. Because Operator-Committed Practices are voluntary, the BLM must 

accept these changes and incorporate such changes into the FEIS. 

Paleontology

The JIDP DEIS states that: “For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that increases in surface 

disturbance correspond to an increase in the potential for impacts to paleontological resources.” This 

assumption is not entirely accurate as the impacts to paleontological resources are also a function of the 

presence of such resources. Clearly, if paleontological resources are not present, they will not be impacted 

by surface disturbance. 

The JIDP DEIS states: “The recent discovery of Pleistocene horse bones (tentative identification) during 

well pad construction in the JIDPA affects potential future paleontological mitigation procedures for the 

area since Pleistocene paleontologic materials were previously unknown for the JIDPA. Significant 

fossils likely occur in the JIDPA.” The document’s assertion that “significant” fossils are likely to be 

encountered in the JIDPA ignores the fact that only a single, yet unidentified, fossil has been encountered 

in the JIDPA despite the extent of surface disturbance that has occurred to date. The suggestion that 

significant fossils will be encountered is not supported by the discovery of a single unidentified 

Pleistocene-aged fossil. 

January 2006 38
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

Performance Objectives 

Outcome-based performance objectives should be established that allow flexibility for the Operator(s) to 

ensure responsible development of the resource and that hold the Operator(s) responsible to achieve the 

stated objectives. 

Air quality performance objectives should only be based on monitoring data and not predicted modeling 

impacts. These objectives should also be rewritten to acknowledge the Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality’s (WDEQ’s) jurisdiction. 

The performance objective regarding the centralization of facilities, as currently written, is unreasonably

restrictive and impractical. Requiring centralized facilities may actually require greater surface 

disturbance in portions of the JIDPA because of topography and other constraints. Further, the 

requirement is unreasonably vague because it does not clearly state that it applies only to new facilities, 

not existing facilities. The BLM does not have the authority to require modifications to existing facilities 

at this time. 

The DEIS does not demonstrate that soil erosion or salt loading is currently or will be a significant 

problem in the JIDPA. Until the BLM completes the ongoing soil modeling and analysis, it is premature 

for the BLM to create an outcome-based performance objective related to soils and soil erosion. WDEQ’s

jurisdiction over surface water and groundwater quality issues must also be acknowledged. Although it 

may be appropriate for the BLM to identify reasonable mitigation measures even if they are beyond the 

BLM’s authority, the BLM should not attempt to regulate matters that are beyond its jurisdiction. 

One of BLM’s stated performance objectives for its Preferred Alternative is to “maintain or improve 

currently active big game migration routes.” While maintaining is understandable, it is unclear what is 

anticipated for “improving” the routes. We are unaware of any biological criteria in existence for 

“improving” migration routes. 

As currently drafted, the Preferred Alternative’s proposed performance objective relating to reducing the 

degree and extent of human activity within the JIDPA “below current levels” is vague and impractical. 

First, the BLM has not clearly defined the term “human activity” or provided reasonable expectations for 

reducing human activities. Second, it can be difficult to decrease human activities during drilling 

operations without compromising safety. 

Another proposed performance objective would require the Operators to prevent the contamination of all 

surface and groundwater. This performance objective is vague and unreasonably restrictive. First, the 

requirement does not specifically reference potable drinking or potable groundwater supplies or 

formations and is therefore unacceptable. As currently drafted, this performance objective could be 

construed to limit the Operators’ use of water supplies because the Operators use water for drilling 

operations. Second, the BLM has failed to adequately define contamination. 

The final performance objective would encourage the Operators to participate and support peer-reviewed 

research regarding the impacts of oil and gas development. This is not an outcome-based performance 

objective, but rather an attempt to require the Operators to fund additional studies. It is inappropriate for 

the BLM to mandate participation in off-site wildlife studies of any kind. This requirement must be 

removed entirely from the BLM’s list of performance objectives. 

39 January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

Public Participation 

Once the air quality modeling is finished for the Preferred Alternative, the BLM must release the 

modeling results to the public and provide for a sufficient public comment before the project progresses 

further. The BLM cannot simply include the modeling results for the Preferred Alternative in the final 

EIS and not provide for public comment. 

The BLM should convene a stakeholder work group to provide additional explanation regarding the 

forthcoming air quality analysis and solicit stakeholder input that could prove valuable toward the 

supplemental work product.

If the BLM’s Preferred Alternative is chosen, a working group made up of citizens, government experts 

and industry representatives will be established to make recommendations for the Jonah Infill project. 

Before the BLM approves a working group for the Jonah Infill project, however, it must evaluate the 

effectiveness of the Pinedale Anticline Working Group (PAWG). First, funding has been a persistent 

issue with the PAWG as it is unclear who is paying for the mitigation measures the PAWG recommends. 

It is unreasonable to assume that significant monitoring and mitigation funding can be “raised” by

members of working groups. The BLM should have mitigation and monitoring funding available and be 

supplemented with funding from the Operators who are causing the need for mitigation in the first place. 

If an interagency adaptive management group (Jonah Infill Working Group) is created to assist with the 

BLM’s implementation of the Preferred Alternative, the Operators should not be required to fund its 

operations. 

The Jonah Field should not be included in the PAWG’s responsibilities, in part, because Jonah Field and 

the Pinedale Anticline field have different resources that require different mitigations and different 

drilling and exploration techniques. Also, Jonah Field is in an infill development phase while Pinedale is 

still in an exploratory phase. Trying to achieve common plans, programs, monitoring and mitigations is 

not possible. 

The idea of creating an entire new set of working groups and task groups for each field is impractical and 

ineffective. Such small groups are guaranteed to fail, as their purview is not comprehensive enough to 

address the issues at hand. We strongly suggest a Southwestern Wyoming Regional group comprised of 

all of the players. 

The BLM must provide further details regarding the Jonah Infill Working Group in the FEIS, including a 

clarification of the responsibilities of the group. 

Before the PAWG charter is amended to include the Jonah Field, the BLM must determine whether the 

PAWG will be able to handle the additional workload. 

The BLM should not consider having the PAWG charter amended to include the Jonah Field and the 

JIDP. The PAWG is not functioning effectively now, and adding additional operators, additional lands, 

and additional potential issues would worsen existing problems. 

The Jonah Infill Working Group should remain exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(“FACA”). The increased administrative burdens and costs of administering and utilizing a FACA 

chartered committee are not justified by any benefits associated with a FACA chartered advisory

committee. 

January 2006 40
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

While the industry and government agency members of the working groups are being paid to attend the 

meetings, the citizen members are not. In order to avoid an unbalanced advisory committee, the BLM 

must ensure that adequate representation on the task groups and working group can be achieved. 

Recreation 

The assumptions and dollar values given for both hunting and other forms of recreation are unacceptably

low and do not truly reflect the actual value of citizen’s free time and quality of life as related to 

recreation activity. I personally can attest that I and everyone that I know find the value of our 

recreational activity to be at least ten times higher, if not more, than the values listed in Table 3.53 of the 

DEIS. 

The DEIS concludes that unavoidable adverse impact to recreation will occur due to the likely avoidance 

of the JIDPA by recreational users. This conclusion is very subjective without a reference to a survey or 

research regarding these impacts. Concluding that impacts to recreation are adverse also appears 

excessive when based upon such a subjective set of considerations. 

Site-Specific Conditions of Approval 

The JIDP DEIS is not clear how or why the requirements listed in Section 2.14.3 are different from the 

proposed requirements and Conditions of Approval discussed in Section 2.14.2. The BLM should either 

clarify how these requirements are different, or simply include them in the list of potential mitigation 

measures that may be utilized by the Operators. 

Social 

To be an accurate and reputable document, the DEIS should use the very latest socioeconomic and 

demographic data available. This is particularly so owing to the magnitude of recent socioeconomic 

changes in the analysis area. Table 3.24 of the DEIS, for example, presents 2000 data as the most recent, 

however 2004 income and employment data are available through various State departments and should 

be used. Similarly, Table 3.25 ends at 2000 Census figures, but 2004 Wyoming Department of 

Employment figures are available and should be used. Cost of living data presented in Table 3.28 ends 

two years ago, but updated figures are published every few months. This pattern continues throughout the 

socioeconomic portions of the document...Updated statistics should be found and incorporated 

throughout. 

This entire socioeconomic impact analysis section is absurd. No “undue burden on existing 

infrastructure”? Does the writer of this DEIS happen to live in Sublette County? Do they read the 

newspapers? Thirty-two percent of the housing is second homes and therefore to say that these are vacant 

and therefore available is absurd and misleading. “No housing shortages are anticipated.” If there 

currently is no shortage, why are the motels filled with residents? 

The EIS states “This project is not likely to create additional, new significant impacts.” It is hard to find a 

genuine thread of truth in that statement given the BLM proposes to increase drilling rigs by 4 times up to 

250 wells drilled per year. Do they not predict that 4 times the number of workers would be required to 

accomplish this goal, and with that worker population increase, an increase in traffic, crime, drug use and 

abuse and housing shortages that are occurring with the current workforce? To ignore even the possibility

of an increase in these socioeconomic impacts—and the presentation of potential impacts—and instead 

state that the public will be better off because of the increased mineral royalties paid to the state is not 

only laughable but inconsiderate of the public. 

41 January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

Soils 

At any pace of development, the topsoil being removed from one drill pad can immediately be relocated 

to the reclamation site of a prior pad. This “leapfrogging” of topsoil will allow the soil to remain 

productive, viable and present, as less will be removed through pile erosion. Every effort should be made 

to minimize topsoil being removed from a future drill pad site only to be piled and stored for future use. 

Leapfrogging of topsoil imitates immediate reclamation and minimizes the surface impacts of drilling. 

Interim and immediate reclamation protects the natural resource base, predominately forage for wildlife 

and livestock. Invasive and noxious weed infestations will not be allowed to establish and develop a 

stronghold. 

The BLM must quantify impacts to soils before it concludes [in the DEIS] that loss during runoff events 

and loss of productivity are significant impacts to soil. 

The discussion of erosion in Chapter 4 does not illustrate prevention of accelerated erosion (i.e., rilling 

and headcutting). Accelerated erosion is generally the term to describe impact of a development that may

result in erosion events that are in addition to the natural, or preexisting, erosion process. Disturbance that 

may create accelerated erosion should not be allowed if cannot be prevented. The discussion references 

increased erosion but it is not clear how that equates to prevention of accelerated erosion. The topic of 

accelerated erosion needs to be addressed. 

Surface Disturbance/Directional Drilling 

The BLM should not use directional drilling as a panacea, mandating it in a flawed attempt to mitigate 

potential surface effects to JIDPA, while causing other impacts. 

 BLM assumes that directional drilling can be widely used in the Jonah Field despite the technical 

studies and empirical evidence demonstrating the limitations of directional drilling in this particular 

field. 

 Directional drilling in the Jonah Field leads to inadequate resource recovery due to an inability to set 

casing at the bottom of the hole. 

 Directional drilling leads to additional air emissions and truck traffic. 

The BLM fails to recognize that directional drilling is not economically feasible in every situation. The 

Operators’ experience in the Jonah Field, after drilling more than 150 directional wells, demonstrates that 

drilling and completion costs for directionally drilled wells are approximately 15% to 30% greater than a 

conventional vertical well. 

A tax break for directional multi-well pads should be considered. 

Directional drilling decreases the value of well logs due to poor hole conditions not seen in vertical wells. 

BLM should utilize directional drilling to the maximum extent possible, so as to reduce surface 

disturbance, habitat fragmentation, and habitat destruction from well pads, road density, and other 

infrastructure. 

By not sufficiently using directional drilling in the Preferred Alternative, the BLM fails to meet its 

outcome-based performance objective to “Utilize state-of-the-art technologies to avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate impacts.” 

January 2006 42
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

Directional drilling has proven technically and economically feasible in a broad range of geologic 

settings, and has proven to substantially increase producible reserves of oil and gas. Because the increased 

productivity of directional drilling compensates for additional costs, directional drilling is often more 

profitable than vertical drilling. 

The fact that the industry has already drilled and completed 54 (or more) directional wells in the Jonah 

Field argues that operators believe this type of technology is economically feasible. 

Technical Information 

The existing method of utilizing reserve pits for fluids and drill cuttings is working well; there is no 

reason to mandate closed drilling systems. [The BLM would, on a case-by-case basis, allow reserve pits if 

it is proven that a closed drilling system in a particular site would be technologically or economically

infeasible]. In addition, the requirement to vacuum and remove fluids within 60 days from reserve pits is 

unreasonable—pits are frozen at least four months of the year. Finally, it should be noted that transport 

and disposal of the fluids increases environmental liability. 

BLM’s Preferred Alternative states that hard-line fracturing processes would be required for all well pads 

when surface density = 1 well pad/40 acres, and recommended when well pad surface density is < 1 

pad/40 acres. This is not practical at a well spacing of 40 acres. Forty-acre locations would probably not 

be drilled concurrently, making centralized fracing impossible. It would result in additional disturbance—

it is not feasible to follow roads and pipelines on 40-acre well spacings. This should be an operatorcommitted practice where practical, feasible, and economic. We think that the “hub and spoke” concept 

will work on the 10-acre satellite concept. 

The DEIS states: “Operators would begin piping produced water and condensate from all wells in the 

JIDPA to appropriate treatment or disposal facilities beginning no later than January 1, 2008; this would 

supersede previous decisions related to method of condensate disposal.” This requirement must include 

an economic consideration. There are some cases that the amount of water and condensate is so small that 

the justification for including it into a gathering system cannot be justified. At the same time, those 

locations would have low traffic volume from haul trucks due to the low volumes of water and 

condensate produced. In addition, this requirement should only apply to new facilities yet to be built and 

consideration must be given to extend the 1/1/08 deadline. 

Topography

The DEIS states that “significant cumulative impacts to topography are anticipated under the Proposed 

Action and Alternatives A, C, D, F and G.” This conclusion is questionable, considering the mitigation 

measures being proposed in Section 2.14 and in Appendices A, B, and G that would directly apply to 

topography. 

The DEIS states that “Natural gas development in the JIDPA now dominates the landscape, with over 500 

wells and associated roads and pipelines.” This sentence improperly confuses personal visual impacts 

with topographical impacts. The JIDPA covers approximately 30,500 acres, of which only 4,200 acres 

can be disturbed at any one time under existing authorizations. This is approximately less than 14% 

disturbance in the JIDPA. Further, EnCana’s own analysis demonstrates that less than 3,500 acres have 

been disturbed to date in the JIDPA, much of which has already been successfully reclaimed. The BLM 

should delete this sentence and refrain from making potentially misleading and non-objective statements 

in the FEIS. 

43 January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

The DEIS’s description of potential impacts to topography resulting from the Preferred Alternative is 

inaccurate. The BLM has not provided supporting data to indicate that the impacts of the Preferred 

Alternative will be similar to that of the No Action Alternative. The FEIS should disclose the potential 

impacts stemming from the Preferred Alternative in a manner consistent with its description of every

other alternative. 

The JIDP DEIS suggests prohibiting disturbances at rock outcroppings in the JIDPA. The BLM should 

map and identify topography to be avoided by Operators. Once mapped, the Operators will be able to 

respond to this proposal in more detail. 

Transportation 

The DEIS states: “Operators would inventory all roads/trails in the JIDPA not already inventoried by

BLM within one year of the date of the ROD for this project; GIS data would be provided to BLM, 

WGFD, and the Jonah Infill Working Group (JIWG) with FGDC-compliant metadata.” Why is this being 

requested of the companies? BLM should have these data readily available in their road/right-of-way

database or with individual APDs. If not, these data sources should be used by the agency to accomplish 

the task. 

A conclusion is made in the DEIS that “unavoidable adverse impacts to transportation would occur for the 

LOP primarily as a result of increased traffic and the expanded road network.” There are no statements 

that support this conclusion. With all the mitigation being proposed and the transportation plan drafted, 

this conclusion is not supportable. 

The increased traffic in the JIDPA could be mitigated if there is an attempt to include professional 

evaluation of the road networks required. It is inconceivable than only 8 new miles of collector roads are 

envisioned to support 353 new wells. This implies less than adequate input in the transportation planning 

of the network of roads. The BLM and operators must continue to work closely with WYDOT to 

anticipate situations that create safety issues for Highway 191N. It is doubtful that the improvement of the 

Luman and Burma roads will increase the recreational opportunities in Jonah. Eventually, Sublette 

County may have to react to industry and declare the Luman and Burma Roads as county roads. BLM and 

the Operator(s) should conduct a professional engineering evaluation of the traffic density and patterns. If 

additional collector roads are needed, they should be designated and designed to handle the traffic and 

loads. 

The DEIS states: “Operators could jointly develop and submit for BLM approval road maintenance and 

use agreements designating road development, maintenance, and use requirements by each Operator.” 

Road maintenance agreements are usually binding contracts between companies. The BLM generally

does not enter into maintenance agreements with companies and has no authority to dictate the terms and 

conditions of these agreements because the agency is not a party to these contracts. The preferred 

approach is for companies to work together and adjudicate maintenance agreements amongst themselves. 

Vegetation 

The potential for impacts to pronghorn associated with probable changes to the spring/summer/fall habitat 

is not accurate because changes in vegetation are likely to be beneficial to pronghorn, not harmful. Both 

the natural succession that follows disturbance and the revegetation of disturbed areas is likely to improve 

spring/summer/fall pronghorn habitat by increasing the diversity of herbaceous plants. Mature shrubs in 

this habitat are not of great value to pronghorn, but the young regenerating shrubs will add to the forage 

diversity and increase the value of this habitat. Pronghorn are not sagebrush obligates during the spring, 

summer, and fall when then eat a wide variety of herbaceous forage plants and relatively little sagebrush. 

January 2006 44
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

The DEIS implies that disturbed sagebrush may take up to 90 years to be established. This is a grossly

inaccurate. Near the Jonah Field are numerous old sagebrush spray projects completed by BLM in the 

1960s. Many thousands of acres were treated with 2-4D and equivalent chemicals. Large stands of 

sagebrush were eradicated. In the late 1970s, less than 20 years after treatment, dense stands of sagebrush 

reestablished in the treatment areas. Numerous disturbed sites and pipelines exhibit good regeneration of 

sagebrush, in Sublette County and throughout Wyoming. 

The modeling results regarding habitat fragmentation that are presented illustrate the potential reductions 

in largely sagebrush habitats on the JIDPA and the text in Chapter 4 describes the projected loss in 

sagebrush obligate species. What is overlooked in this presentation is the fact that there will be beneficial 

effects to non-sagebrush obligate species associated with each of these scenarios. Prairie dogs, ground 

squirrels, burrowing owls, grassland birds (including mountain plovers), and most medium to small 

mammal species will all benefit from the opening up of the sagebrush monoculture. Also, the prey base 

for raptor species is likely to be increased with the opening up of the sagebrush habitat. 

Visual Resources 

BLM has identified additional visual mitigation measures in the section on Operator Committed Practices 

that are designed to further reduce visual impacts. However, the JIDPA area is classified VRM Class IV, 

which provides for modification of the landscape. The level of visual mitigation stipulated in both Section 

2.14 of the DEIS and in the Operator Committed Practices is not commensurate with VRM Class IV. 

Some of the measures go beyond these criteria, such as piping water and condensate or centralizing 

development and production facilities, and should be removed from the proposal. 

A sentence in the DEIS states that all project alternatives within the JIDPA and its incumbent 

development coupled with other regional developments are visible and may dominate the viewscape from

VRM Class II and III areas, some sections of Highway 191 and nearby wilderness and wilderness study

areas within the Cumulative Impact Assessment Area (CIAA); and concludes that significant cumulative 

impacts to regional visual resources will occur. Considering the distance of the JIDPA off Highway 191 

and the fact that most of the facilities are located out of the viewshed from Highway 191, it is difficult to 

justify this conclusion. Even in cases where smoke or plumes are evident from operations in the JIDPA, 

these are short term and intermittent and would have no permanent visual impact on VRM Class II or 

Class III areas nor along Highway 191. 

If the BLM cannot justify a position for a Visual Resource Management Specialist, then the operator 

should not be influenced into furnishing one. If this resource skill is truly needed, it can be provided from

within the BLM organization. The BLM has a management process to consider and justify new positions, 

and a DEIS is not a part of that process. 

Water Resources 

The DEIS proposes that Operators “File all NPDES permits and associated water quality data with the 

BLM and consult with WDEQ, WGFD, BLM and livestock permittees before any water release.” The 

need for this measure does not exist since there are no plans to file for or acquire an NPDES permit for 

surface discharge of produced water in the JIDPA. 

The DEIS implies that all surface waters in and around the JIDPA will be impacted by increased sediment 

deposition. However, with successful reclamation and the construction of sediment retention/catchment 

areas where needed, only minor amounts of project-related runoff sediments are anticipated to reach 

perennial surface waters. Therefore, not all surface waters in and around the JIDPA will be impacted by

the increased sediment deposition. 

45 January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

The DEIS includes as a “Feature Common to All Alternatives” the following: “A groundwater monitoring 

program for all water wells in or affected by activities in the JIDPA would be implemented, with annual 

reports to BLM, Jonah Infill Working Group (JIWG), Wyoming State Engineer’s Office (WSEO), and 

WDEQ. Water wells would be tested annually for drawdown, general chemical constituents, and total 

petroleum hydrocarbons, using WDEQ-approved methods.” This groundwater monitoring program

mimics the program in the Pinedale Anticline Project Area (PAPA). In the PAPA, the groundwater 

monitoring program was designed and implemented to protect perched water tables on the Mesa and 

domestic wells near Pinedale and along the New Fork River. In contrast, there are no perched water tables 

or domestic wells in the JIDPA. The shallow wells that do exist are used for irrigation, livestock and 

wildlife and are fully protected by the gas well casing program required by both the BLM and the 

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. As a result, no significant impacts to ground water 

resources are anticipated under any alternative. Therefore, there is no basis for requiring a groundwater 

monitoring program in the JIDPA. 

The BLM should incorporate the WDEQ’s rule regarding water quality decline or downgrading (WDEQ 

Water Quality Rules and Regulations, Chapter 8, page 6). An overall decline in water quality within the 

JIDPA would not be a significant impact if the overall water quality within the JIDPA was restored to 

pre-infill drilling water quality or better after infill drilling was complete. 

The BLM does not have the authority to regulate water quality and groundwater will not be impacted by

the Jonah Infill Drilling Project. Therefore, there is no basis for requiring groundwater monitoring. 

The DEIS does not identify the “functioning condition” of the wetlands resource area within the project 

area. This information should be included in the FEIS. 

Wildlife 

The BLM should justify why the north end of the Jonah Field is considered “prime sagebrush habitat” 

when a large part of Wyoming is sagebrush. 

By authorizing extreme levels of disturbance to sagebrush ecosystems, pronghorn migration corridors, 

and sage-grouse crucial habitats, JIDP will impair native ecosystems without any reliable guarantee of 

adequate reclamation, eliminate entirely a significant recreation resource for the foreseeable future, and 

fail entirely to ensure the viability of pronghorn migration corridors and important sage-grouse habitats. 

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) has unequivocally stated that once surface 

disturbance reaches 40-acre well spacing, habitat function is essentially compromised. To attempt to 

minimize any additional surface disturbance or completely mitigate impacts onsite is a futile attempt to 

“perfume the pig.” 

The Preferred Alternative is inconsistent with state plans and policies regarding wildlife. The BLM 

should incorporate, to the maximum extent possible, all WGFD recommendations for preventing or, 

where necessary, alleviating impacts to high-value habitats. 

Contrary to requirements under FLPMA, the JIDP, particularly without guaranteed compensatory

mitigation, violates the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission’s official policy of “no net habitat loss.” 

The JIDP is inconsistent with WGFD’s recent Minimum Recommendations for Development of Oil and 

Gas Resources within Crucial and Important Wildlife Habitats on BLM Lands. The JIDP will affect two 

important categories of priority habitat: (1) identified pronghorn migration corridors; and (2) sage-grouse 

leks, nesting and brood-rearing complexes, and winter habitat. The majority of the alternatives, including 

January 2006 46
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

the Preferred Alternative, fall well above the threshold for “extreme impact” (densities of greater than 16 

wells, or 80 acres of disturbance, per 640-acre section) for sage-grouse habitat. 

The BLM failed to conform to or address WGFD’s additional prescriptions for “high impact” areas in 

sage-grouse habitats (directional drilling, clustered development, removal of condensate by piping, 

remote monitoring, development of a travel plan, and gating and closing of all newly constructed roads to 

public travel). 

The BLM failed to conform to WGFD’s additional prescriptions for “extreme impact” areas, which 

include developing well fields in smaller, incremental phases, and implementing habitat treatments 

outside the well field (the Preferred Alternative rejects any commitment of resources that would ensure 

beneficial habitat preservation or treatment outside the affected well field). 

The BLM failed to conform to WGFD’s recommendation that for migration corridors of more than half a 

mile in width, further constriction should be avoided, and well-field density should not exceed four well 

locations per section. No plan in the DEIS contemplates density of less than 16 wells per section. 

The BLM failed to provide essential information regarding baseline environmental conditions for wildlife 

and wildlife habitat. 

The BLM is requiring inventories of greater sage-grouse seasonal habitats and aerial surveys of winter 

sage-grouse habitat after the JIDP is underway. Under the Council on Environmental Quality’s NEPA 

regulations, the time for gathering baseline information is before the agency decision is made, not after 

sage-grouse habitat is developed at levels of 19% to 34% total ground disturbance. 

BLM failed to adequately analyze impacts to pronghorn and pronghorn habitat, and failed to disclose that 

the addition of 3,100 vertical wells in the JIDPA will likely create an area that is [un]inhabitable by

pronghorns in the future. 

The BLM failed to provide any scientifically credible information as to (a) what proportion of the 

effectiveness of the local pronghorn herd’s crucial habitat has been lost, and (b) what this loss of crucial 

habitat means for the behavior of pronghorn or crucial factors relating to population trends. 

The BLM lacks adequate scientific data to determine with any certainty the probable effect on migration 

corridors, and is embarking on an uncontrolled, unmonitored experiment on the existing pronghorn 

population. 

The BLM failed to discuss the Wyoming Game and Fish Department’s refutation of BLM’s accepted 

myths regarding wildlife “adaptation” to development in migration corridors. 

The BLM failed to provide mitigation (either on-site or off-site) for impacts of JIDP on pronghorn 

migration or on greater sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat. 

The BLM’s approach to the JIDP seems out of step with the promises made in its recent National Plan for 

Sage Grouse and its perceived commitment to recovery. The thin margin affecting the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service decision not to list sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act included, in part, the 

expectation of execution of the BLM National Plan. 

The BLM included no specific future plan for sage-grouse habitat and population restoration in the DEIS. 

With no specific plans or performance dates, it seems likely that another listing proposal may precede 

such restoration if this kind of development continues. 

47 January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

The BLM has failed to incorporate appropriate protection measures into its DEIS for the BLM Wyoming 

Sensitive (BWS) pygmy rabbit and its habitat. 

The BLM failed to address protection measures for the BWS white-tailed prairie dog, with the exception 

of some vague requirements in the BLM Preferred Alternative, and failed to discuss how loss of the Big 

Piney Complex of the white-tailed prairie dog would have implications for any future reintroduction of 

the endangered black-footed ferret into the area. 

January 2006 48
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

APPENDIX A 

FEDERAL REGISTER

NOTICES OF AVAILABILITY 

January 2006 

7296 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 28 / Friday, February 11, 2005 / Notices 

• Updates on the Federal, State, and 

educational components of the NCGMP 

• Strategic Goals 

DATES: March 24–25, 2005 commencing 

at 9 a.m. on March 24 and adjourning 

by 5 p.m. on March 25. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurel Bybell, U.S. Geological Survey, 

908 National Center, Reston, Virginia 

20192 (703) 648–5281. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Meetings 

of the National Cooperative Geologic 

Mapping Program Advisory Committee 

are open to the Public. 

P. Patrick Leahy, 

Associate Director for Geology, U.S. 

Geological Survey. 

[FR Doc. 05–2721 Filed 2–10–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–17–M 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[WY–090–1220–MA] 

Notice of Seasonal Closure of Public 

Lands to Motorized Vehicle Use 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of seasonal closure of 

certain public lands located in Lincoln 

County, Wyoming, to all types of motor 

vehicle use. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 43 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) subpart 8364, 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

announces its intentions to close certain 

BLM-administered public lands to all 

types of motor vehicle use during the 

period of January 1 through April 30, 

annually. This seasonal closure is 

needed to protect public lands and 

resources and to minimize stress to 

wintering elk, moose, pronghorn 

antelope and mule deer. 

This seasonal closure affects public 

lands located within the Raymond 

Mountain Wilderness Study Area 

(WSA), Slate Creek, Rock Creek, and 

Bridger Creek winter ranges. Except for 

travel on highways or county roads, 

motorized vehicle travel within these 

areas will be allowed only by written 

authorization from the Kemmerer Field 

Manager. Personnel of the BLM, 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture-APHIS 

& Forest Service, U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service, and law enforcement personnel 

are exempt from this closure only when 

performing official duties. Operators of 

existing oil and gas facilities may 

perform maintenance and pumping, as 

approved, and livestock operators may 

perform permitted activities. 

DATES: This seasonal closure will be 

effective annually from January 1 

through April 30. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wally Mierzejewski, Outdoor Recreation 

Planner, or Dale Wondercheck, Wildlife 

Biologist, Bureau of Land Management, 

312 Highway 189 North, Kemmerer, 

Wyoming 83101. Mr. Mierzejewski or 

Mr. Wondercheck may also be contacted 

by telephone at 307–828–4500. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Kemmerer Resource Management Plan 

(RMP) Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision 

(ROD) states that big game winter ranges 

may be closed to minimize stress to 

wintering animals. Prior to effecting 

seasonal closures the BLM must consult 

annually with the Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department. If conditions warrant, 

the BLM Kemmerer Field Manager may 

implement a seasonal closure on certain 

BLM-administered lands and travel 

ways including existing roads and twotrack trails, to all types of motorized 

vehicle travel (i.e., snowmobiles, allterrain vehicles, any vehicle including 

trucks, sport utility vehicles and cars, 

motorcycles etc.). Crucial big game 

winter range as identified in the 

Kemmerer RMP may be closed annually 

from January 1 through April 30. Use of 

these areas by non-motorized means is 

still allowed. 

The BLM Kemmerer Field Office is 

responsible for management of crucial 

winter range habitat located on public 

lands within Lincoln County. The 

Raymond Mountain WSA, Slate Creek, 

Rock Creek, and Bridger Creek areas are 

crucial wintering ranges for elk, moose, 

antelope, and mule deer. Reasons for the 

closure include the effects of persistent 

drought and/or severe winter conditions 

which threaten the health of these 

wintering wildlife species. Low forage 

production associated with persistent 

drought conditions causes animals to go 

into winter in poor condition. Losses of 

wintering habitat from development 

activity can reduce the area available to 

the wintering animals. These impacts to 

wintering wildlife are compounded by 

significant human activity, such as day 

and night wildlife observation, still and 

video photography, snowmobiling, and 

antler gathering. Because of the 

increased stress the presence of 

motorized vehicles inflicts on wintering 

big game during difficult winter periods, 

the number of animals that could die 

and the rate of aborting of fetuses on the 

winter range can increase. This 

decreases production of young during 

the following summer. Therefore, 

closing crucial winter range to 

motorized vehicles reduces impacts to 

wintering big game. 

The following BLM-administered 

lands are included in this closure: 

• The Raymond Mountain WSA, 

located approximately 15 miles north of 

Cokeville and contains 32,956 acres. 

• The Slate Creek area including all 

BLM-administered lands south of 

Fontenelle Creek, west and north of 

Route 189, and east of the crest of Slate 

Creek Ridge, and contains 111,100 

acres. 

• The Rock Creek area including all 

BLM-administered lands south of 

County Road 204 (Pine Creek Road), 

west of the crest of Dempsey Ridge, west 

of Fossil Butte National Monument, 

north and east of Highway 30, and 

contains 105,750 acres. 

• The Bridger Creek area including all 

BLM-administered lands south of 

Highway 30, west of Fossil Ridge, west 

of Bear River Divide, north of the 

Uinta—Lincoln County line, east of the 

Utah—Wyoming border, and southeast 

of Highway 89, and contains 98,400 

acres. 

Maps of these areas will be posted 

with this notice at key locations that 

provide access into the closure areas, as 

well as at the Kemmerer Field Office, 

312 Highway 189 North, Kemmerer, 

Wyoming 83101–9710. 

Seasonal closure orders may be 

implemented as provided in 43 CFR, 

subparts 8341.2 and 8364.1. Violations 

of this closure are punishable by a fine 

not to exceed $1000, and/or 

imprisonment not to exceed 12 months. 

Dated: December 21, 2004. 

Robert A. Bennett, 

State Director. 

[FR Doc. 05–2638 Filed 2–10–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[WY–100–04–1310–DB] 

Notice of Availability of a Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Sublette County, WY 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of a Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 

for the proposed Jonah Infill Drilling 

Project and notice of public 

involvement meeting for the purposes of 

providing comment on the DEIS. 

SUMMARY: Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 28 / Friday, February 11, 2005 / Notices 7297 

Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and associated 

regulations, the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) in cooperation with 

the State of Wyoming, announces the 

availability of a DEIS that evaluates, 

analyzes, and discloses to the public 

direct, indirect, and cumulative 

environmental impacts of a proposal to 

continue to develop a natural gas field 

by increasing the density of well 

locations by drilling additional wells. 

This practice is known as ‘‘infill’’ 

drilling. 

The Jonah Infill Drilling Project (JIDP) 

area is located approximately 32 miles 

southeast of Pinedale and 28 miles 

northwest of Farson, Sublette County, 

Wyoming. The JIDP area is 

approximately 30,200 acres in 

Townships 29 and 30 North, Range 114 

West, 6th Principal Meridian. The DEIS 

analyzes a proposal made by EnCana Oil 

& Gas (USA) Inc., (EnCana) and BP 

America Production Company (BP), 

referred to collectively as ‘‘the 

Companies,’’ to increase development of 

Federal natural gas resources in an area 

known as the Jonah Field. The 

Companies’ proposal includes drilling 

up to 3,100 natural gas wells from 

existing and new well pads, at a 

minimum well pad density of 64 well 

pads per aliquot section (1 wellpad/10 

acres), and at a rate of 250 wells per 

year. The infill drilling is expected to be 

concentrated in a 21,000 acre portion of 

the Jonah Field. The proposed life of 

project (LOP) is 70 to 80 years with the 

majority of drilling and development 

activities to occur within the first 8 to 

12 years following approval. The 

proposal also includes constructing or 

upgrading associated ancillary 

transportation and transmission 

facilities within the 30,200 acres project 

area. The total project area is comprised 

of: Approximately 28,280 acres of 

Federal surface and mineral estate 

administered by the BLM; 1,280 acres of 

State of Wyoming surface and minerals; 

and 640 acres of private surface 

ownership with Federal mineral (split 

estate). 

Under the provisions of NEPA, the 

State of Wyoming assisted in the 

preparation of the DEIS as a cooperating 

agency. 

DATES: The DEIS will be available for 

review for 60 calendar days following 

the date that the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) publishes its 

Notice of Availability (NOA) in the 

Federal Register. The BLM can best use 

your comments and resource 

information within the 60 day review 

period provided above. 

The BLM will announce public 

meetings and other opportunities to 

submit comments on this project at least 

15 days prior to the event. 

Announcements will be made through 

local news media and the Pinedale Field 

Office’s Web site; http:// 

www.wy.blm.gov/pfo/info.htm. These 

meetings will provide the public with 

the opportunity to submit oral or 

written comments on the DEIS to the 

BLM. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the DEIS has been 

sent to affected Federal, State and local 

government agencies and to interested 

parties. 

An electronic copy of the DEIS may 

be viewed or downloaded from the BLM 

Web site at http://www.wy.blm.gov/pfo. 

Copies of the DEIS are available for 

public inspection at the following BLM 

office locations: 

• Bureau of Land Management, 

Wyoming State Office, 5353 

Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, 

Wyoming. 

• Bureau of Land Management, 

Pinedale Field Office, 432 East Mill 

Street, Pinedale, Wyoming. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Contact Ms. Carol Kruse, Project 

Manager, BLM Pinedale Field Office, 

432 East Mill Street, Pinedale, Wyoming 

82941. Ms. Kruse may also be reached 

at (307) 367–5352. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

response to a proposal submitted by the 

Companies, the BLM published in the 

March 13, 2003, Federal Register a 

Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

and notice of the potential for 

amendment of the Pinedale Resource 

Management Plan (RMP). 

As described in the NOI, the 

Companies’ original proposal to drill 

450 wells in addition to 47 existing 

wells at the same number of well 

locations was approved by the BLM in 

the Environmental Assessment (EA), 

Finding of No Significant Impact and 

Decision Record for the Modified Jonah 

Field II Natural Gas Project, March 2000 

(Modified Jonah Field II EA). In 

September 2002, the Companies 

submitted a proposal to drill and 

develop an additional 1,250 wells from 

850 well pad locations within the same 

area analyzed in the Modified Jonah 

Field II EA. This proposal was based on 

a well pad spacing of one well pad per 

20 to 10 acres. (32 to 64 wells per 

aliquot section). In November 2003, the 

Companies submitted a revision to their 

proposal; this revised proposal is 

described and analyzed as the 

‘‘Proposed Action’’ alternative. The 

Companies revised their proposal from 

drilling and development of an 

additional 1,250 wells to drilling and 

development of an additional 3,100 

wells. Well location spacing would be 

dictated by the geologic conditions, 

such as geologic formations and the 

location of gas resources. Well pad 

spacing would vary from one well pad 

per 5 acres to one well pad per 20 acres. 

The DEIS describes in detail and 

analyzes the impacts of eight 

alternatives, in addition to the No 

Action Alternative and the Companies’ 

Proposed Action. The following is a 

summary of the alternatives: 

1. No Action Alternative—No 

additional development would be 

authorized beyond what is currently 

authorized as recorded in the March 

2000 decision made for Modified Jonah 

II Project. 

2. Proposed Action—Up to 3,100 new 

wells would be drilled and developed. 

Well pad location spacing would 

depend on geologic conditions. Drilling 

rate would be up to 250 wells per year. 

Operator-committed mitigation 

measures would be applied. 

3. Alternative A—This alternative 

proposes to maximize economic 

recovery of gas resources. Up to 3,100 

new wells would be drilled and 

developed. Well pad location would 

depend on geologic conditions. Drilling 

and well development rates would vary 

between 75 and 250 wells per year. No 

‘‘operator-committed’’ mitigation 

measures would apply, but some BLMstandard mitigation measures would be 

applied. 

4. Alternative B—This alternative 

proposes activities that would minimize 

surface disturbance within the project 

area. No new well pads would be 

constructed and existing well pads 

would be expanded to accommodate 

additional directionally drilled wells as 

appropriate. Drilling and well 

development rates would vary between 

75 and 250 wells per year. The 

Companies would agree to some 

‘‘operator committed’’ mitigation and 

some mitigation measures would be 

required in addition to standard 

mitigation measures. 

5. Alternative C—This alternative 

proposes activities that would allow a 

moderate level of surface disturbance. 

Up to 1,250 new wells would be drilled 

and developed. Drilling and 

development rates would vary between 

75 and 250 wells per year. The 

Companies would agree to some 

‘‘operator committed’’ mitigation and 

some mitigation measures would be 

required in addition to standard 

mitigation measures. 

6. Alternative D—This alternative 

proposes activities that would allow an 

7298 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 28 / Friday, February 11, 2005 / Notices 

intermediate level of surface 

disturbance. Up to 2,200 new well pads 

would be drilled and developed. 

Drilling and development rates would 

vary between 75 and 250 wells per year. 

The Companies would agree to some 

‘‘operator committed’’ mitigation and 

some mitigation measures would be 

required in addition to standard 

mitigation measures. 

7. Alternative E—This alternative 

proposes to restrict well pad spacing to 

16 well pads per aliquot section or 1 

well pad per 40 acres. Up to 3,100 new 

wells and up to 266 new well pads 

would be drilled and developed. 

Drilling and well development rates 

would vary between 75 and 250 wells 

per year. The Companies would agree to 

some ‘‘operator committed’’ mitigation 

and some mitigation measures would be 

required in addition to standard 

mitigation measures. 

8. Alternative F—This alternative 

proposes to restrict well pad spacing to 

32 well pads per aliquot section, or 1 

well pad per 20 acres. Up to 3,100 new 

wells and up to 1,208 well pads would 

be drilled and developed. Drilling and 

well development rates would vary 

between 75 and 250 wells per year. The 

Companies would agree to some 

‘‘operator committed’’ mitigation and 

some mitigation measures would be 

required in addition to standard 

mitigation measures. 

9. Alternative G—This alternative 

proposes to restrict well pad spacing to 

64 well pads per aliquot section, or 1 

well pad per 10 acres. The Companies 

would agree to some ‘‘operator 

committed’’ mitigation and some 

mitigation measures would be required 

in addition to standard mitigation 

measures. 

10. Agency Preferred Alternative— 

This alternative would allow up to 

3,100 new wells from a variable number 

of well pads to be drilled and 

developed. Three drilling density zones 

in the project area would govern surface 

well pad location. The drilling rate is 

250 well per year. In addition to 

‘‘operator committed’’ mitigation onsite, the Companies would agree to 

conduct off-site mitigation and an 

accelerated reclamation schedule. 

Features common to all action 

alternatives: Exploration of unexplored 

formations; inclusion of the north half 

of Section 23, T. 28 N., R. 109 W. as a 

similar action for analysis purposes; 

development of ancillary facilities, 

including but not limited to a new wareyard, expansion of existing compressor 

stations, and new/expanded water 

disposal facilities; some degree of 

upgrade of the Burma Road; and an 

average Life of Field (LOF) of 70 to 80 

years beginning with project 

authorization through reclamation. 

Disposition of Potential for 

Amendment of the Pinedale RMP: Based 

on a review of information and 

comments received in response to the 

NOI and during the preparation of the 

DEIS, the Pinedale Field Manager has 

determined that this proposal is in 

conformance with the Pinedale RMP 

(1988). Postponing this DEIS until the 

Pinedale RMP revisions, that are 

currently underway, are completed, 

would not be in the public interest nor 

a timely agency response to the 

Companies’ proposal made in 2001. 

Therefore, no amendment to the 

Pinedale RMP will be made as a result 

of analyses conducted for this DEIS. 

How To Submit Comments 

The BLM welcomes your comments 

on the JIDP DEIS. The BLM asks that 

those submitting comments make them 

as specific as possible with reference to 

chapters, page numbers, and paragraphs 

in the DEIS document. Comments that 

contain only opinions or preferences 

will not receive a formal response; 

however, they will be considered, and 

included, as part of the BLM decisionmaking process. The most useful 

comments will contain new technical or 

scientific information, identify data gaps 

in the impact analysis, or provide 

technical or scientific rationale for 

opinions or preferences. 

Written comments may be mailed 

directly or delivered to the BLM at: 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project DEIS, 

Project Manager, Bureau of Land 

Management, Pinedale Field Office, 432 

East Mill Street, P.O. Box 768, Pinedale, 

Wyoming 82941. 

You may send comments 

electronically to 

WYMail_Jonah_Infill@blm.gov. Please 

put ‘‘Attention: Carol Kruse’’ in the 

subject line. Comments submitted by 

facsimile will not be accepted or 

considered. 

To receive full consideration by the 

BLM all DEIS comment submittals must 

include the commenter’s name and 

street address. 

Comments, including the names and 

street addresses of each respondent, will 

be available for public review at the 

BLM office listed above during regular 

business hours (8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.), 

Monday through Friday, except for 

Federal holidays. Your comments may 

be published as part of the EIS process. 

Individual respondents may request 

confidentiality. If you wish to withhold 

your name or street address, or both, 

from public review or from disclosure 

under the Freedom of Information Act, 

you must state this prominently at the 

beginning of your written comments. 

Such requests will be honored to the 

extent allowed by law. We will not 

consider anonymous comments. All 

submissions from organizations or 

businesses will be made available for 

public inspection in their entirety. 

Robert A. Bennett, 

State Director. 

[FR Doc. 05–2636 Filed 2–10–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[WY–100–05–1310–DB] 

Notice of Meeting of the Pinedale 

Anticline Working Group’s 

Transportation Task Group 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 


Interior.


ACTION: Notice of public meeting.


SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act (1976) and the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (1972), the U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) Pinedale 

Anticline Working Group (PAWG) 

Transportation Task Group 

(subcommittee) will meet in Pinedale, 

Wyoming, for a business meeting. Task 

Group meetings are open to the public. 

DATES: A PAWG Transportation Task 

Group meeting is scheduled for March 

8, 2005, from 1 p.m. until 5 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting of the PAWG 

Transportation Task Group will be held 

in the Board Room of the Pinedale 

Library at 155 S. Tyler Ave., Pinedale, 

WY. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill 

Wadsworth, BLM/Transportation TG 

Liaison, Bureau of Land Management, 

Pinedale Field Office, 432 E. Mills St., 

PO Box 738, Pinedale, WY, 82941; 307– 

367–5341. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Pinedale Anticline Working Group 

(PAWG) was authorized and established 

with release of the Record of Decision 

(ROD) for the Pinedale Anticline Oil 

and Gas Exploration and Development 

Project on July 27, 2000. The PAWG 

advises the BLM on the development 

and implementation of monitoring plans 

and adaptive management decisions as 

development of the Pinedale Anticline 

Natural Gas Field (PAPA) proceeds for 

the life of the field. 

After the ROD was issued, Interior 

determined that a Federal Advisory 

Committees Act (FACA) charter was 

required for this group. The charter was 

19094 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 12, 2005 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[WY–100–05–1310–DB] 

Notice of Intent To Prepare 

Supplemental Information for the 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Environmental Impact Statement, 

Pinedale, WY 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 


Interior.


ACTION: Notice of intent.


SUMMARY: Under Section 102 (2) (C) of 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969, as amended, the Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) Pinedale 

Field Office announces its intent to 

prepare supplemental information 

regarding the potential impacts to air 

quality of a proposed natural gas 

development project. On February 11, 

2005, the BLM published in the Federal 

Register a Notice of Availability of a 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS) for the Jonah Infill Drilling 

Project (JIDP) for public review and 

comment. The BLM will continue to 

accept comments from the public on 

only the air quality information 

presented in the DEIS. 

DATES: Effective April 12, 2005, this 

notice provides the public additional 

time to continue to submit comments on 

only the air quality information 

presented in the JIDP DEIS. When the 

supplemental information is available 

for public review and comment, the 

BLM will publish a Notice of 

Availability in the Federal Register and 

provide the public with the opportunity 

to review and comment. In addition, 

announcements will be made through 

local media and posted on the BLMWyoming’s Web site: http:// 

www.wy.blm.gov. 

Pinedale, Wyoming 82941. Ms. Kruse 

may also be reached at (307) 367–5352. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Please 

note that public comments and 

information submitted regarding this 

project, including names, e-mail 

addresses, and street addresses of the 

respondents, will be available for public 

review and disclosure at the above 

address during regular business hours 

(7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) Monday through 

Friday, except holidays. Individual 

respondents may request 

confidentiality. If you wish to withhold 

your name, email address, or street 

address from public review or from 

disclosure under the Freedom of 

Information Act, you must state this 

prominently at the beginning of your 

written comment. Such requests will be 

honored to the extent allowed by the 

law. All submissions from organizations 

or businesses, and from individuals 

identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, will be 

made available for public inspection in 

their entirety. 

Dated: April 1, 2005. 

Robert A. Bennett, 

State Director. 

[FR Doc. 05–7418 Filed 4–8–05; 1:51 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4310–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[AZ–910–0777–XP–241A] 

State of Arizona Resource Advisory 

Council Meeting 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior.


ACTION: Arizona Resource Advisory 


Council Meeting notice. 


Guidelines, Recreation, Off-Highway 

Vehicle Use, Public Relations, Land Use 

Planning and Tenure, and Wild Horse 

and Burro Working Groups; Reports 

from RAC members; and Discussion of 

future meetings. A public comment 

period will be provided at 11 a.m. on 

May 3, 2005, for any interested publics 

who wish to address the Council. 

On May 4, the RAC will tour the Pine 

Lake subdivision in the Hualapai 

Mountains. BLM will highlight the fuel 

reduction projects, thinning and 

prescribed fire, it’s jointly conducting 

with the Pine Lake Working Group to 

protect the area from catastrophic 

wildfires. The tour will be conducted 

from approximately 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Deborah Stevens, Bureau of Land 

Management, Arizona State Office, 222 

North Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 

85004–2203, (602) 417–9215. 

Elaine Zielinski, 

Arizona State Director. 

[FR Doc. 05–7279 Filed 4–11–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–32–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–503] 

Certain Automated Mechanical 

Transmission Systems for MediumDuty and Heavy-Duty Trucks and 

Components Thereof; Termination of 

Investigation; Issuance of a Limited 

Exclusion Order and a Cease and 

Desist Order 

AGENCY: International Trade 


Commission.


ACTION: Notice.


SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the DEIS has been 

sent to affected Federal, State and local 

Government agencies and to other 

interested parties. An electronic copy of 

the DEIS may be viewed or downloaded 

from the BLM Web site at http:// 

www.wy.blm.gov/pfo. Copies of the 

DEIS are available for public inspection 

at the following BLM office locations: 

• Bureau of Land Management, 

Wyoming State Office, 5353 

Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, 

Wyoming. 

• Bureau of Land Management, 

Pinedale Field Office, 432 East Mill 

Street, Pinedale, Wyoming. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

BLM Pinedale Field Office, Carol Kruse, 

Project Manager, 432 East Mill Street, 

Pinedale, Wyoming, P.O. Box 768 

SUMMARY: This notice announces a 

meeting and tour of the Arizona 

Resource Advisory Council (RAC). 

The business meeting will be held on 

May 3, 2005, in Kingman, Arizona, at 

the Dambar and Steakhouse banquet 

room located on 1960 E. Andy Devine 

Avenue. It will begin at 9:30 a.m. and 

conclude at 4:30 p.m. The agenda items 

to be covered include: Review of the 

January 25, 2005 Meeting Minutes; BLM 

State Director’s Update on Statewide 

Issues; Presentations on Federal Land 

Recreation Enhancement Act, 

Designated Off-Highway Vehicle Areas, 

and Arizona Land Use Planning 

Updates; RAC Questions on Written 

Reports from BLM Field Managers; 

Field Office Rangeland Resource Team 

Proposals; Reports by the Standards and 

Commission has terminated the abovecaptioned investigation in which it has 

found a violation of section 337 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 and has issued a 

limited exclusion order and a cease and 

desist order. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rodney Maze, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3065. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation are or will be available for 

inspection during official business 

hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone (202) 205–2000. General 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 12, 2005 / Notices 19095 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). 

The public record for this investigation 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 

edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired 

persons are advised that information on 

this matter can be obtained by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on (202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

patent-based section 337 investigation 

was instituted by the Commission on 

January 7, 2004, based on a complaint 

filed by Eaton Corporation (‘‘Eaton’’) of 

Cleveland, Ohio. 69 FR 937 (January 7, 

2004). The complaint, as supplemented, 

alleged violations of section 337 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation 

into the United States, the sale for 

importation, and the sale within the 

United States after importation of 

certain automated mechanical 

transmission systems for medium-duty 

and heavy-duty trucks, and components 

thereof, by reason of infringement of 

claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 4,899,279 

(‘‘the ’279 patent’’); claims 1–20 of U.S. 

Patent No. 5,335,566 (‘‘the ’566 patent’’); 

claims 2–4 and 6–16 of U.S. Patent No. 

5,272,939 (‘‘the ’939 patent’’); claims 1– 

13 of U.S. Patent No. 5,624,350 (‘‘the 

’350 patent’’); claims 1, 3, 4, 6–9, 11, 13, 

14, 16 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 

6,149,545 (‘‘the ’545 patent’’); and 

claims 1–16 of U.S. Patent No. 6,066,071 

(‘‘the ’071 patent’’). 

The complaint and notice of 

investigation named three respondents 

ZF Meritor, LLC of Maxton, North 

Carolina, ZF Friedrichshafen AG of 

Freidrichshafen, Germany, and 

ArvinMeritor, Inc. (‘‘ArvinMeritor’’) of 

Troy, Michigan. 

On July 21, 2004, the Commission 

issued a notice that it had determined 

not to review the ALJ’s initial 

determination (‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 20) 

terminating the investigation as to the 

’071 patent and as to claims 2, 3, and 

5–20 of the ’566 patent, claims 4, 7, and 

12 of the ’350 patent, and claims 4, 8– 

9, and 14 of the ’545 patent. 

On August 11, 2004, the Commission 

issued a notice that it had determined 

not to review the ALJ’s ID (Order No. 

31) terminating the investigation as to 

the ’939 patent and as to claims 10, 11, 

and 13 of the ’350 patent. 

On August 16, 2004, the Commission 

issued a notice that it had determined 

not to review the ALJ’s ID (Order No. 

28) that Eaton has satisfied the 

economic prong of the domestic 

industry requirement as to certain 

articles it alleges practice the patents at 

issue in this investigation. 

On August 23, 2004, the Commission 

issued a notice that it had determined 

not to review the ALJ’s ID (Order No. 

30) that Eaton did not meet the 

technical prong of the domestic industry 

requirement as to the remaining claims, 

claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8, and 9, of the ’350 

patent, thus terminating the 

investigation as to that patent. 

On September 17, 2004, the 

Commission issued a notice that it had 

determined not to review the ALJ’s ID 

(Order No. 38) granting Eaton’s partial 

summary determination that the 

importation requirement has been met. 

On September 23, 2004, the 

Commission issued a notice that it had 

determined not to review the ALJ’s ID 

(Order No. 45) granting Eaton’s motion 

for summary determination that it 

satisfies the economic prong of the 

domestic industry requirement of 

section 337 as to its medium-duty 

automated transmissions. The 

Commission also issued a notice on 

September 23, 2004, that it had 

determined not to review ALJ’s ID 

(Order No. 55) granting Eaton’s motion 

for partial termination of the 

investigation as to claim 1 of the ‘‘566 

patent. 

On January 7, 2005, the ALJ issued his 

final ID on violation and his 

recommended determination on remedy 

and bonding. The ALJ found a violation 

of section 337 by reason of infringement 

of claim 15 of the ’279 patent by 

respondents. He found no violation of 

section 337 regarding the ’566 and the 

’545 patents. Petitions for review were 

filed by Eaton, the respondents, and the 

Commission investigative attorney on 

January 21, 2005. All parties filed 

responses to the petitions on January 28, 

2005. 

On February 24, 2005, the 

Commission issued a notice indicating 

that it had determined not to review the 

ALJ’s final ID on violation, thereby 

finding a violation of section 337. The 

Commission also invited the parties to 

file written submissions regarding the 

issues of remedy, the public interest and 

bonding, and provided a schedule for 

filing such submissions. 

Having reviewed the record in this 

investigation, including the parties’ 

written submissions and responses 

thereto, the Commission determined 

that the appropriate form of relief in this 

investigation is a limited exclusion 

order prohibiting the unlicensed entry 

of automated mechanical transmission 

systems for medium-duty and heavyduty trucks, and components thereof 

covered by claim 15 of the ’279 patent. 

The order covers automated mechanical 

transmission systems for medium-duty 

and heavy-duty trucks, and components 

thereof that are manufactured abroad by 

or on behalf of, or imported by or on 

behalf of the respondents, or any of their 

affiliated companies, parents, 

subsidiaries, or other related business 

entities, or their successors or assigns. 

The limited exclusion order does not 

cover parts necessary to service 

infringing automated mechanical 

transmission systems installed on trucks 

prior to the issuance of the order. 

The Commission also determined to 

issue a cease and desist order 

prohibiting ArvinMeritor from 

importing, selling, marketing, 

advertising, distributing, offering for 

sale, transferring (except for 

exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents 

or distributors for automated 

mechanical transmission systems for 

medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks, 

and components thereof covered by 

claim 15 of the ’279 patent. 

The Commission further determined 

that the public interest factors 

enumerated in sections 337(d)(1) and 

(f)(1), 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1) and (f)(1), do 

not preclude issuance of either the 

limited exclusion order or the cease and 

desist order. In addition, the 

Commission determined that the 

amount of bond to permit temporary 

importation during the Presidential 

review period shall be in the amount of 

100 percent of the entered value of the 

imported articles. Finally, the 

Commission determined to deny both 

the complainant’s motion to strike and 

the respondents’ motion for leave to file 

a surreply. The Commission’s orders 

and opinion in support thereof were 

delivered to the President on the day of 

their issuance. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determination is contained in section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in 

section 210.50 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.50). 

Issued: April 7, 2005. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 05–7298 Filed 4–11–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. TA–2103–1] 

The Impact of Trade Agreements 

Implemented Under Trade Promotion 

Authority 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 9, 2005 / Notices 46187 

CFR 1500–1508) and related applicable 

Federal laws, Executive Orders, and 

regulations. 

Background: The Barton Springs 

Ecosystem is dependent upon adequate 

spring flow from the Barton Springs 

segment of the Edwards Aquifer to 

support endangered species. Cessation 

of spring flow in the Barton Springs 

Ecosystem may result in ‘‘take’’ of listed 

species and an appreciable reduction in 

the likelihood of survival and recovery 

of listed species. Due to the growing 

water use anticipated in the Barton 

Springs segment of the Edwards 

Aquifer, a comprehensive management 

plan may be necessary to assure the 

sustained spring flow in the Barton 

Springs Ecosystem. 

The Service proposes to prepare a 

draft EIS to evaluate the impacts of 

alternatives associated with issuing an 

incidental take permit under section 

10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Section 

9 of the Act prohibits the taking of 

Federally listed species, unless 

authorized under the provisions of 

Section 7 or 10 of the Act. The term 

‘‘take’’ under the Act includes actions 

that may directly kill or injure listed 

species, actions that significantly 

disrupt normal behavioral patterns such 

as feeding and breeding, and actions 

that detrimentally modify habitat to the 

extent that harms individuals of the 

species. 

Section 10(a)(1)(B) allows the Service 

to permit taking of listed species, 

provided that taking is incidental to an 

otherwise legal activity, and that it will 

not jeopardize a listed species. The 

applicant must submit an HCP as part 

of the incidental take permit 

application. 

Proposed Action: The District will 

consider adoption of an HCP consistent 

with the Service’s Barton Springs 

Salamander (Draft) Recovery Plan 

(January 2005) and with Sections 9 and 

10 of the Act. The District’s proposed 

HCP will consider a comprehensive 

approach to protect Federally listed 

species and their habitats that may be 

affected by groundwater withdrawals 

from the aquifer. Activities proposed for 

consideration under the Permit may 

include management and permitting of 

certain water withdrawals from the 

Edwards Aquifer within the jurisdiction 

of the District, and habitat conservation 

measures to mitigate impacts of changes 

in flows of Barton Springs. 

Comments Requested: The Service is 

soliciting information and comments on 

the scope of issues to be addressed in 

the draft EIS. The NEPA process is 

intended to aid public officials to make 

decisions based on the understanding of 

environmental consequences and take 

actions that protect, restore, and 

enhance the human environment. NEPA 

scoping procedures are intended to 

ensure that information on the proposed 

action, alternatives, and impacts are 

solicited from the public and that all 

information is available to public 

officials and citizens before planning 

decisions are made. Accurate scientific 

analysis, expert agency comments, and 

public scrutiny are essential to 

implementing NEPA. NEPA documents 

concentrate on the issues that are 

significant to the action in question. The 

Service invites the public to submit 

information and comments either in 

writing or at the scheduled meeting. The 

Austin meeting is scheduled for 5 p.m. 

on August 23, 2005, at the Lady Bird 

Johnson Wildflower Center, 4801 La 

Crosse Avenue in Travis County, Texas. 

The Service requests that comments be 

as specific as possible. 

Major environmental and species 

concerns in this scoping process include 

the direct, indirect, and cumulative 

impacts that implementation of the 

proposal could have on endangered and 

candidate listed species, other 

environmental resources, and the 

quality of the human environment. 

Other relevant issues include effects of 

aquifer and water withdrawal levels on 

Barton Springs flows, effect of various 

aquifer water use management options, 

and alternative water supply options on 

the environments affected by those 

options. 

The Service is gathering information 

necessary for the preparation of an EIS. 

Information regarding the following 

topics would assist the Service in 

assessing the impacts of the proposed 

issuance of an incidental take permit 

under the provisions of an HCP: The 

hydrogeology of the Barton Springs 

segment of the Edwards Aquifer and the 

effects of aquifer levels on spring flows 

at Barton Springs as they relate to the 

habitat needs of Federally listed species; 

potential water conservation measures 

and strategies to reduce the withdrawal 

demands on the Edwards Aquifer and 

their negative effects on spring flows; 

alternate water supplies and their 

potential effect on reducing Edwards 

Aquifer water withdrawals and 

maintaining spring flows; effects of 

aquifer level management and spring 

flow changes on the quality of the 

issues; the impact of no action; or 

suggestions that would be relevant 

toward the Service’s review and 

development of alternatives. 

In addition to considering impacts on 

listed species and their habitat, the EIS 

must include information on impacts 

from the proposal and alternatives to the 

proposal on other components of the 

human environment. These other 

components include such things as air 

and water quality, cultural resources, 

other fish and wildlife species, social 

resources, and economic resources. 

Joy E. Nicholopoulos, 

Acting Regional Director, Region 2, 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

[FR Doc. 05–15804 Filed 8–8–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[WY–100–05–1310–DB] 

Notice of Availability of Supplemental 

Air Quality Information for the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Pinedale, 

Wyoming 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of 

supplemental information and its public 

review period 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) announces the 

availability of supplemental air quality 

analyses and information prepared for 

the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS) for the Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project (JIDP), Sublette County, 

Wyoming. The supplemental 

information will be available to the 

public for a 60-day review and comment 

period. 

DATES: The supplemental air quality 

information will be available for review 

for 60 calendar days starting on the date 

this notice is published in the Federal 

Register. The BLM can best use your 

comments within this 60-day review 

period. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the supplemental 

air quality information is available for 

public inspection during regular 

business hours (8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday) at the 

following BLM office locations: 

• Bureau of Land Management, 

Wyoming State Office, 5353 

Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, 

Wyoming. 

• Bureau of Land Management, 

Pinedale Field Office, 432 East Mill 

Street, Pinedale, Wyoming. 

The document may be available 

electronically on the following Web site: 

http://www.wy.blm.gov/nepa/ 

nepadocs.htm. If you wish to review the 

information electronically, please check 

with the Pinedale Field Office as to the 

availability of BLM Internet documents. 

46188 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 9, 2005 / Notices 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information regarding the JIDP DEIS, 

contact Carol Kruse, Project Manager, 

Pinedale Field Office, 432 E. Mill Street, 

P.O. Box 768, Pinedale, Wyoming 

82941. For technical air quality 

information contact Susan Caplan, 

Meteorologist, BLM, Wyoming State 

Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009. Ms. Kruse 

and Ms. Caplan may be contacted by 

telephone at (307) 367–5352 and (307) 

775–6113, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

February 11, 2005, the BLM published 

in the Federal Register a Notice of 

Availability of a DEIS for the JIDP for 

public review and comment. On April 

12, 2005, the BLM published 

notification in the Federal Register of 

its intent to prepare supplemental air 

quality information for the JIDP DEIS. 

Until the analyses and supplemental 

information were completed, the public 

was provided with additional time to 

submit comments on the air quality 

information contained in the DEIS. The 

analyses have been completed and the 

supplemental air quality information is 

now available for review. 

A summary of the supplemental air 

quality information has been sent to 

affected Federal, State, and local 

government agencies and to interested 

parties. A copy of the full report is 

available from the Pinedale Field Office 

upon request. 

How To Submit Comments 

The BLM welcomes your comments 

on the supplemental air quality 

information prepared for the JIDP DEIS. 

The BLM asks that your comments 

specifically reference page number and 

paragraph in the report, where possible. 

Comments that contain only opinions or 

preferences will not receive a formal 

response; they will, however, be 

considered and included as part of the 

BLM decisionmaking process. 

Written comments may be mailed 

directly or delivered to the BLM at: 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project DEIS, 

Project Manager, Bureau of Land 

Management, Pinedale Field Office, 432 

East Mill Street, P.O. Box 768, Pinedale, 

Wyoming 82941. 

You may also send your comments 

electronically to 

WYMail_Jonah_Infill@blm.gov. Please 

write ‘‘Attention: Carol Kruse’’ in the 

subject line. 

To ensure full consideration by the 

BLM, all comment submittals must 

include the commenter’s name and 

street address. 

Comments, including the names and 

street addresses of each respondent, will 

be available for public review at the 

Pinedale Field Office during regular 

business hours, Monday through Friday, 

except for Federal holidays. You 

comments may be published as part of 

the EIS process. Individual respondents 

may request confidentiality. If you wish 

to withhold your name or street address, 

or both, from public review or from 

disclosure under the Freedom of 

Information Act, you must state this 

prominently at the beginning of your 

written comments. Such requests will 

be honored to the extent allowed by 

law. We will not consider anonymous 

comments. All submissions from 

organizations or businesses will be 

made available for public inspection in 

their entirety. 

Dated: June 21, 2005. 

Alan L. Kesterke, 

Associate State Director. 

[FR Doc. 05–15808 Filed 8–8–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–22–M 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[CO–200–0777–XZ–241A] 

Notice of Meeting, Front Range 

Resource Advisory Council (Colorado)


AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 


Interior.


ACTION: Notice of public meeting.


SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) Front Range 

Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will 

meet as indicated below. 

DATES: The meeting will be held 

September 7, 2005 from 9:15 a.m. to 4 

p.m. 

ADDRESSES: Holy Cross Abbey 

Community Center, 2951 E. Highway 

50, Canon City, Colorado 81212. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken 

Smith, (719) 269–8500. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 15 

member Council advises the Secretary 

of the Interior, through the Bureau of 

Land Management, on a variety of 

planning and management issues 

associated with public land 

management in the Royal Gorge Field 

Office and San Luis Valley, Colorado. 

Planned agenda topics include: Manager 

updates on current land management 

issues; current realty actions and travel 

management planning. All meetings are 

open to the public. The public is 

encouraged to make oral comments to 

the Council at 9:30 a.m. or written 

statements may be submitted for the 

Councils consideration. Depending on 

the number of persons wishing to 

comment and time available, the time 

for individual oral comments may be 

limited. Summary minutes for the 

Council Meeting will be maintained in 

the Royal Gorge Field Office and will be 

available for public inspection and 

reproduction during regular business 

hours within thirty (30) days following 

the meeting. Meeting Minutes and 

agenda (10 days prior to each meeting) 

are also available at: http:// 

www.blm.gov/rac/co/frrac/co_fr.htm. 

Dated: August 2, 2005. 

Roy L. Masinton, 

Royal Gorge Field Manager. 

[FR Doc. 05–15702 Filed 8–8–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–JB–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[ID–300–1020–PH] 

Notice of Public Meeting, Idaho Falls 

District Resource Advisory Council 

Meeting 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 


Interior.


ACTION: Notice of public meeting.


SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) Idaho Falls 

District Resource Advisory Council 

(RAC), will meet as indicated below. 

DATES: The meeting will be held 

September 7 and 8, 2005 at the BLM 

Salmon Field Office, 50 U.S. Highway 

93 South in Salmon, Idaho. The meeting 

will start at 1 p.m. September 7, with 

the public comment period as the first 

agenda item. The meeting will adjourn 

at or before 3 p.m. on the following day. 

This will be the final meeting of the 

2004–05 session. The first meeting of 

the new session will be held in 

November or December. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 15­

member Council advises the Secretary 

of the Interior, through the Bureau of 

Land Management, on a variety of 

planning and management issues 

associated with public land 

management in the BLM Idaho Falls 

District (IFD), which covers eastern 

Idaho. At this meeting, topics we plan 

to discuss include: 

• Sage Grouse Conservation strategies 

for the State of Idaho, if completed and 

released for public review. 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

APPENDIX B 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

DISTRIBUTION LIST 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

DEIS DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A.J. & MARY WARNER 

P.O. BOX 1861 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

LORRIE RAMOS 

RESPOND 1ST DIV 

P.O. BOX 69 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

AARON ALPERN 

WYOMING PUBLIC RADIO 

P.O. BOX 3984 

LARAMIE, WY 82071 

LYDIA L. CRESSALL 

P.O. BOX 2714 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82901-2714 

PROGRAM DIRECTOR 

WYOMING CHAPTER OF THE SIERRA CLUB 

247 COFFEEN 

SHERIDAN, WY 82801 

LYLE WOELICH (Exec Summ)

1110 KENTUCKY ST. 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

AARON MCCALLISTER 

P.O. BOX 48 

FARSON, WY 83932 

LYNN PIERCE 

45 PURPLE SAGE #128 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

WESTERN OFFICE

12136 W BAYAUD AVE., SUITE 330 

DENVER, CO 80228 

M.J. WRIGHT 

2000 MINERAL DRIVE 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

1100 PENNSYLVANIA AVE SUITE 809 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004 

MACHELLE GOSSETT 

3102 DEWAR DRIVE, #21 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

ALICE STEPHENS 

30 CLEARVIEW DRIVE #3 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

MARIO S.

1426 ELK ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

MARGIE SMITH 

ROCK SPRINGS REALTY 

1413-A DEWAR DRIVE 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

MARK COTRELL (undeliverable)

P.O. BOX 618 

FARSON, WY 82932 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

ALPINE GAS COMPANY 

DAVE HILL 

P.O. BOX 1616 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

MARK EATINGER 

P.O. BOX 642 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

ANDERSON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 

P.O. BOX 3586 

CASPER, WY 82602 

MARK LEFAIVRE 

SWEETWATER SPORTSMEN FOR FISH & 

WILDLIFE

P.O. BOX 6016 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901-6106 

ANDREA DEAN 

45 PURPLE SAGE RD., #55 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

MARK RENEAU 

P.O. BOX 1148 

BIG PINEY, WY 83113 

ANDY BOYAK 

SSFW 

280 CEDAR ST. 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

MARLIS BRUNSON 

249 PINION 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

ANGELINA PRYICH 

108 SECOND ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

MARTIN 

FMC 

P.O. BOX 872 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

ANNA LEE CLARK 

1409 CARBON ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

MARTIN WARDELL, et al. 

P.O. BOX 98 

BIG PINEY, WY 83113 

ANNE SHIPMAN 

P.O. BOX 1046 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82902 

PAUL JENSEN 

P.O. BOX 216 

DANIEL, WY 83115 

ANSCHUTZ EXPLORATION CORP.

ERIC ROOT 

555 17TH ST., SUITE 2400 

DENVER, CO 80202 

MARY CARLSON (undeliverable)

D.C. PROD. SERV. INC. 

P.O. BOX 1127 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82902 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

ANTONE GEAR 

BOX 201 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

MARY J. KERSHISNIK 

210 ASPEN WAY 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

ARAPAHO WIND RIVER TRADITIONAL ELDERS 

MR. FRANCIS BROWN (ret recpt)

P.O. BOX 601 

RIVERTON, WY 82501 

MARY MANATOS 

ROCK SPRINGS REALTY 

1413-A DEWAR DRIVE 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

ARAPAHOE BUSINESS COUNCIL (ret recpt) 

HARVEY SPOONHUNTER, SR.

P.O. BOX 217 

FORT WASHAKIE, WY 82514 

MATT & KAREN O’HARE 

RESPOND 1ST AID 

P.O. BOX 69 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

ASHLEY ANNE CLARK 

303 SOUTHFIELD RD. 

BOX 285 

CALVERTON, NY 11933 

MATT LYE 

142 VICTOR DRIVE 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

AUSTIN RIDER 

2620 HAWAII COURT 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

MATT NIEMERSKI 

PUBLIC LANDS ASSOCIATE 

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE 

1130 17TH ST. NW 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 

BANKO PETROLEUM MANAGEMENT, INC.

385 INVERNESS PARKWAY 

SUITE 420 

ENGLEWOOD, CO 80112-5849 

MATT RIDENOUR 

1200 SWANSON #120 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

BARBARA E. RUGOTZKE 

418 E. 25TH ST. 

CHEYENNE, WY 8200 

EIS

MAXINE LECKIE 

P.O. BOX 122 

CORA, WY 82925 

BARBARA MCKINLEY 

BOX 88 

DANIEL, WY 83115 

MAYOR OF BIG PINEY 

P.O. BOX 70 

BIG PINEY, WY 83113 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

BARBARA WARNER, SECRETARY 

MARION COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY, INC.

1955 TATUM LANE 

LEBANON, KY 40033 

MAYOR OF LABARGE 

P.O. BOX 327 

LABARGE, WY 83123 

BARLOW & HAUN INC.

139 W. 2ND ST., SUITE 1C 

CASPER, WY 82601 

MAYOR OF MARBLETON 

P.O. BOX 4160 

MARBLETON, WY 83113 

BARNEY R. GADDA 

LE BUS

506 “A” ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

MELANIE SILCOX 

635 E 1750 S 

VERNAL, UT 84078 

BARRY JOHNSON 

P.O. BOX 2057 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

MELISSA BINNING 

P.O. BOX 2144 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

BETTY FEAR 

P.O. BOX 340 

BIG PINEY, WY 83113 

MICHAEL F. COONEY 

P.O. BOX 966 

195 EHMAN LANE 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

BETTY WILKINSON 

1931 YELLOWSTONE RD. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

MICHAEL J. MCGINNIS 

P.O. BOX 354 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

BETTY WILKINSON, PRESIDENT 

FLAMING GORGE PFUSA 

P.O. BOX 1063 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82902 

MICHAEL MASER 

BLUE FOREST, INC. 

420 CENTENNIAL DRIVE 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

BIG SANDY CONSERVATION DISTRICT 

P.O. BOX 360 

FARSON, WY 82932 

MICHAEL NORMINGTON 

2012 JOHNSON AVE. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

BILL BARNEY 

P.O. BOX 10 

BIG PINEY, WY 83113 

MICHELLE J. BIGGINS

358 DOUGLAS DRIVE 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

BILL BLAZICH 

C/O RP OILFIELD SERVICES

308 TURRET DRIVE 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

MIKE NARRAMORE 

312 LOCUST ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

BILL CURRENT 

3200 FIR DRIVE 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

MOE MORROW 

MORCON INDUSTRIAL SPECIALTY 

P.O. BOX 1823 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

BILL MCCURTAIN 

MCCURTAIN MOTORS 

1900 FOOTHILL 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

MOUNTAIN TOP CONSULTING, LLC 

ROBIN M. SMITH 

P.O. BOX 2030 

CASPER, WY 82602 (EIS, AQ, Socio)

BILL WICHERS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR 

WYOMING GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT 

OFFICE OF FEDERAL LAND POLICY 

HERSCHLER BLDG., 1W 

122 W. 25TH ST. 

CHEYENNE, WY 82002 

MURDOCK LAND AND LIVESTOCK 

COMPANY 

BIG PINEY, WY 83113 (undeliverable)

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ALLIANCE 

P.O. BOX 1512 

LARAMIE, WY 82073 

NATHAN EBINGER 

45 PURPLE SAGE RD. #128 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

BJORK, LINDLEY, DANIELSON, & LITTLE, P.C. 

LAURA LINDLEY 

1600 STOUT ST., SUITE 1400 

DENVER, CO 80202 (EIS, AQ, Socio)

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

LONG DISTANCE TRAILS OFFICE SUP’T.

P.O. BOX 45155 

SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84145 

BLM LANDS FOUNDATION 

G. EARLY 

3774 PIONEER PL. 

SAN DIEGO, CA 92103 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION 

2260 BASELINE RD., SUITE 100 

BOULDER, CO 80302 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

BOB MAXAM 

RESIDENT ENGINEER 

WYOMING DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION 

P.O. BOX 763 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE 

COUNCIL 

JOHANNA H. WALD (Exec Summ)

71 STEVENSON ST., SUITE 1825 

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 

BOB SMITH 

CARDWELL/HUTCHINSON OIL 

836 PILOT BUTTE AVE. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE 

COUNCIL 

CRAIG DYLAN WYATT 

1200 NEW YORK AVE. NW, 

SUITE 400 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 

BOB SMITH 

4084 SPRINGS DRIVE, #3 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

NELLE JOHNSON 

P.O. BOX 1343 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

BOYD SMILEY 

303 WINTERHAWK #18 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

NERD ENTERPRISES, INC. (undeliverable)

P.O. BOX 949 

CASPER, WY 82602 

BP AMERICA (EIS, AQ, Socio)

KIRK STEINLE 

501 WESTLAKE PARK BLVD. 

WESTLAKE 1, ROOM 2.470 

HOUSTON, TX 77079 

NICK DOWNEY 

B.J. SERVICES 

BOX 1669 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

BRANDON JONES, OPERATIONS MANAGER 

SCHLUMBERGER 

93 RELIANCE RD. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

NICK F. TABLER 

321 POLK ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

BRENDA BRAY 

SCHLUMBERGER 

93 RELIANCE RD. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

NORMAN GILLESPIE 

1525 9TH ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

BRET KINGSBURY 

P.O. BOX 607 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

NORTHERN ARAPAHO BUSINESS 

COUNCIL (ret recpt)

RICK BRANNON 

P.O. BOX 396 

FORT WASHAKIE, WY 82514 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

BRIAN KETTERING 

1184 PALISADES COURT 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

OAKLEY INGERSOLL 

P.O. BOX 583 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

BRIAN THOMSON 

504 E. ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

OCTA - WYOMING 

DON HARTLEY 

2087 FIR DRIVE 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

BRUCE PAYNE (undeliverable)

CARDWELL DISTRIBUTION 

P.O. BOX 235 

8137 S. STATE 

MIDVALE, WY 82501 

OCTA PRESERVATION OFFICER 

P.O. BOX 1019 

INDEPENDENCE, MO 64051 (Exec Summ)

BRYCE BAY 

UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING 

2917 COLINA DRIVE 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

PAT & ERIC FAIRBANK 

STAR ROUTE 

BOULDER, WY 82923 

BRYCE C. ALLEN 

1314 KIMBERLY AVE. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

PAT BOWEN 

3275 ROOSEVELT WAY #C 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82902 

BUCKY WALKER 

1420 LINDA VISTA 

CASPER, WY 82609 

PAT HICKERSON, PRESIDENT 

PEOPLE FOR WYOMING 

P.O. BOX 785 

LANDER, WY 82520 

BURLEIGH BINNING JR 

P.O. BOX 767 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

PAT MEHLE 

2206 UPLAND 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82009 

C.C. PARSONS (undeliverable)

DIVISION OPERATIONS MANAGER 

EOG RESOURCES, INC. 

1540 BELCO DRIVE 

BIG PINEY, WY 83113 

PAT SCHMID 

SCHMID ENERGY SERVICES, INC. 

240 FAIRVIEW LANE 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

CAITLIN HAKIEL 

95 ANTELOPE TRAIL 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

PAUL DEBONIS 

9711 TALL GRASS CIRCLE 

LONE TREE, CO 80124 

CALLY MCKEE (EIS, AQ, Socio)

ENCANA OIL & GAS 

P.O. BOX 2060 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

PAUL MAHAFFEY 

591 LOGAN 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

CALVIN COOLEY 

30 CLEARVIEW #4 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

PAUL MARSING 

916 MCCARTY 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

CARL DALY/CINDY CODY/JOE DELWICHE/ 

ROBERT EDGAR/RICHARD LONG/LARRY SVOBODA 

WYOMING COORDINATOR (6 EIS, 6 AQ)

EPA - REGION 8 (8P-AR) 

999 18TH ST., SUITE 300 

DENVER, CO 80202-2466 

PAUL N. SCHERBEL 

SURVEYOR SCHERBEL, LTD. 

PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS 

BOX 4296, 283 MAIN ST. 

BIG PINEY-MARBLETON, WY 83113 

CAROL J. LEVITT 

1804 ELK ST., #229 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

PAUL ZUBATCH 

829 ASH ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

CAROLE "KNIFFY" HAMILTON, FOREST 

SUPERVISOR 

USDA, FOREST SERVICE

BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST 

340 N. CACHE P.O. BOX 1888 

JACKSON, WY 83001-1888 

PEOPLE FOR THE USA 

ROBIN A. SHERWOOD 

P.O. BOX 950 

BIG PINEY, WY 83113 

CARY E. BRUS 

3210 BELLA VISTA 

CASPER, WY 82601 

PEOPLE FOR WYOMING 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

P.O. BOX 785 

LANDER, WY 82520 

CASEY FISHER (undeliverable)

701 ANTELOPE #31 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION OF WYOMING 

DRU BOWER 

951 WERNER CT., SUITE 100 

CASPER, WY 82601 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

CASPER STAR-TRIBUNE (Exec Summ) 

JEFF GEARINO 

2155 PENNSYLVANIA BLVD. 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

PHIL CARR 

P.O. BOX 451 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

CASPER STAR-TRIBUNE (Exec Summ)

DAN NEAL & JEFF TOLLEFSON 

P.O. BOX 80 

CASPER, WY 82602 

PINEDALE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

P.O. BOX 176 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

CAT URBIGKIT 

SUBLETTE EXAMINER 

P.O. BOX 1539 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

PINEDALE ROUNDUP (Exec Summ) 

EDITOR 

P.O. BOX 100 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

PEOPLE FOR THE USA 

LEO SCHUELER 

P.O. BOX 251 

BIG PINEY, WY 83113 

RANDY BOLGIANO, PRESIDENT 

GREEN RIVER VALLEY 

CATTLEMEN’S ASSOCIATION 

P.O. BOX 579 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

CATHY MCMILLEN 

502 EAST 5TH ST. 

MARBLETON, WY 83113 

RANDY SHIPMAN (EIS, 2 Socio)

PEOPLE FOR THE USA 

1961 YELLOWSTONE RD. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

CATHY PURVES, WESTERN FIELD DIRECTOR 

WYOMING WILDLIFE FEDERATION 

PO BOX 1387 

LANDER, WY 82520 

RAY CLARK 

P.O. BOX 711 

BIG PINEY, WY 83113 

CHAD RUTHERFORD 

1004 DAVEY CROCKETT 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

RAY RICHARDSON 

RICHARDSON CONSULTING 

420 EVANS DRIVE 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

CHARLES S. ROBERTS 

B.J. SERVICES 

P.O. BOX 11669 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

REGINA DEAN 

108 LOCUST ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

CHRIS & TINA HOUSE 

P.O. BOX 1681 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

REGINA LEE 

328 2ND ST. 

EVANSTON, WY 82930 

CHRIS SCHULTZ 

ELKHORA FIELD SERVICES 

607 CENTRAL ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

RENDEZVOUS RANCH & GROS VENTRE 

CATTLE CO 

PAUL VON GONTARD 

P.O. BOX 949 

JACKSON, WY 83001 

CINDY RICHARDSON (undeliverable)

MARMC TRANSPORTATION, INC. 

2900 E. 6TH ST. 

CASPER, WY 82604 

REP. MARTY MARTIN 

PONDEROSA WAY 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

CIRCLE NINE RANCH INC. (Exec Summ)

PHELPS H. SWIFT JR.

P.O. BOX 715 

WILSON, WY 83014 

REPRESENTATIVE ELECT STAN COOPER 

HOUSE DISTRICT #20 

417 AGATE ST. 

KEMMERER, WY 83101 

CLAIT E. BRAUN, PHD 

GROUSE INC.

5572 NO VENTANA VISTA RD. 

TUCSON, AZ 85750-7204 

RESIDENT 

50 SOUTH RELIANCE RD. #3 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

CLIFFORD DUNCAN (ret recpt)

P.O. BOX 1892 

ROOSEVELT, UT 84066 

RESIDENT 

2000 MINERAL DRIVE 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

CLINT A. PHILLIPS

313 I ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

REVEREND CAROLE SHELBY 

487 N. ADAMS AVE. 

BUFFALO, WY 82834 

COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY (EIS, AQ, Socio)

DOCUMENTS DEPT. - LIBRARY 

COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY 

FORT COLLINS, CO 80523 

RICH MUNIZ 

35 E 4TH ST. 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

CONLY PRITCHARD 

HELMERICH & PAYNE 

341 EAST “E” ST. 

CASPER, WY 82601 

RICHARD L. CURRIT 

STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 

2301 CENTRAL AVE. 

BARRETT BLDG., 3RD FLOOR 

CHEYENNE, WY 82002 

CORY MUNTER 

510 IOWA AVENUE 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

RITA DONHAM 

BOX 33 

CORA, WY 82925 

CRAIG BARBER 

800 SARATOGA 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

ROB SHAUL 

PINEDALE ROUNDUP 

58 S. TYLER AVE. 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

CRAIG ROMERO 

249 PINION 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

ROBERT BYERS (undeliverable)

1804 ELK ST. #53 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

C.W. SHERTZ 

P.O. BOX 485 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

ROBERT F. ANDERSON (undeliverable)

1409 ELK ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

D.L. MATHEWS (undeliverable)

201 PINION 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

ROBERT L. KAY 

85 SOUTH 200 EAST 

VERNAL, UT 84078 

D.R. FLACK 

P.O. BOX 1626 

CASPER, WY 82602 

ROBERT TARNSELL 

HUNTERS RIDGE 

1257 PALISADES WAY 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

DALAN HAASE 

P.O. BOX 1679 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

ROBERT WHARFF 

SPORTSMEN 

P.O. BOX 1635 

EVANSTON, WY 82932 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

DALE FETZER (undeliverable)

45 PURPLE SAGE RD. #134 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

ROCK SPRINGS LIBRARY (EIS, AQ, Socio)

REFERENCE SECTION 

400 C ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

DALLAS CLARK 

443 VALLEY VIEW #55 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

ROCKY MOUNTAIN CASING CREWS INC.

JERRY DEPOYSTER 

P.O. BOX 3029 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82902 

RICHARD MARSING 

1125 GEORGIA WAY 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

ROD BENNETT 

R.S. BENNETT CONSTRUCTION 

P.O. BOX 38 

BIG PINEY, WY 83113 

DAN BOUDREAULT 

700 HICKORY ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

RODNEY PETERSON 

BOX 400 

RELIANCE, WY 82943 

DAN DELLS, DISTRICT MANAGER 

BJ SERVICES COMPANY 

P.O. BOX 1669 

1965 BLAIRTOWN RD. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

ROGER KRUSE 

1032 OAKWAY 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

DAN JOHNSON 

CHEVRON PRODUCTS COMPANY 

2351 N. 1100 W 

SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116 

RON GILES 

1109 SPRUCEWOOD 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

DAN SCHEER 

735 YATES ST. 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

RON ROY 

1426 ELK ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

DAN SULLIVAN 

1730 CALIFORNIA DRIVE 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

RONALD P. WALKER (EIS, AQ)

P.O. BOX 224 

5 VICTORIA RD.

DANIEL, WY 83115 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

DANNER BOONE 

P.O. BOX 2144 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

ROSE BUNNING 

RED HORSE OIL 

1341 SAGE COURT 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

DANNY MORGAN 

166 FOOTHILL #13 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

ROSE SKINNER 

MAYOR OF PINEDALE 

P.O. BOX 709 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

DARON L. RAINES 

45 PURPLE SAGE RD. #143 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

ROSS HOCKER 

P.O. BOX 848 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

DARRELL PRICE 

HALIBURTON 

1709 ELK ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

SALLY PEDERSEN 

811 VALLEY 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82941 

DARRELL T. PRICE 

1700 SWANSON DR. #92 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

SANDRA PIERCE 

701 ANTELOPE DRIVE #25 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

DARRYL HOOD 

SCHLUMBERGER 

93 RELIANCE RD. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

SANDY CROSSING ENTERPRISES INC.

CURTIS C. MARTIN 

P.O. BOX 239 

FARSON, WY 82932 

DAVE & PEGGY BELL 

P.O. BOX 1738 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

SARAH HIXSON 

P.O. BOX 181 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

DAVE HATFIELD 

WESTERN GAS RESOURCES 

20 SHOSHONE AVE.

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

SCHMID OILFIELD SERVICES INC. 

MICHAEL D. SCHMID 

P.O. BOX 37 

LABARGE, WY 83123 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

DAVE PETRIE (15+ EIS, 5+ AQ, 5+ Socio) 

ENCANA OIL & GAS 

370 17TH ST., SUITE 1700 

DENVER, CO 80202 

SCOTT STEPHENS

301 THELMA DR. #430 

CASPER, WY 82609 

DAVID BUNNING 

P.O. BOX 128 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82902 

SENATOR LARRY CALLER 

SENATE DISTRICT #14 

P.O. BOX 2202 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

DAVID L. SMITH, II 

P.O. BOX 273 

BIG PINEY, WY 83113 

SETH LEININGER 

360 LOGAN 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

DAVID PITT 

121 VICTOR DRIVE 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

SHANE SANCHEZ 

1709 ELK ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

DAVID R. DEAN, SR.

108 LOCUST ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

SHANNON MARSING 

916 MCCARTY AVE. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

DEBRA NISHIDA 

1027 S. HIGH ST. 

DENVER, CO 80209 

SHARON WALES 

1030 THORPE 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

DEE FINDLAY 

QUESTAR GAS MANAGEMENT 

P.O. BOX 458 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82902 

SHARON WALES 

DAN’S TIRE SERVICE 

1164 DEWAR DRIVE 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE 

BRUCE PENDERY 

P.O. BOX 543 

LOGAN, UT 84323 

SHAWN STEED (undeliverable)

3502 MADISON DR., APT. C 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

DENNIS J. BRABEC 

6041 S. WALNUT ST. 

CASPER, WY 82601 

SHELL E&P COMPANY 

AIMEE DAVISON 

P.O. BOX 1666 

225 E. MAGNOLIA 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

DENNIS URBATSCH 

2744 SANTA CRUZ 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

SHOSHONE TRIBAL BUSINESS COUNCIL 

JUAN POSEY (ret recpt)

P.O. BOX 217 

FORT WASHAKIE, WY 82514 

DERYLE WILMES

1301 OVERLAND DRIVE 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

SHOSHONE TRIBAL CULTURAL CENTER 

EDITH GRISWALD (ret recpt)

P.O. BOX 1008 

FORT WASHAKIE, WY 82514 

DEVEN OR SHERRIL JO DELAP 

P.O. BOX 2154 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

SHOSHONE-ARAPAHOE (ret recpt)

JOINT TRIBAL COUNCIL 

P.O. BOX 217 

FORT WASHAKIE, WY 82514 

DIANA JONES 

1258 ELM DRIVE 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

SHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBAL OFFICE 

DIANA K. YUPE (ret recpt)

P.O. BOX 306 

FORT HALL, ID 83293 

DON HARTLEY 

SWIA 

P.O. BOX 1665 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

SHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBES (ret recpt)

DUANE THOMPSON 

P.O. BOX 306 

FORT HALL, ID 83293 

DON SCHEER 

BROKERAGE SOUTHWEST 

601 BROADWAY 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

SOL EDEN 

573 YELLOWSTONE RD. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

DON SCHRAMM 

BOX 247 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

SOMMERS RANCH PARTNERSHIP 

ALBERT SOMMERS 

P.O. BOX 266 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

DONALD A. CARLSON (undeliverable)

D.C. PROD. SERV. INC. 

P.O. BOX 1127 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82902 

SOUTHERN UTE TRIBAL COUNCIL 

NEIL B. CLOUD, NAGPRA (ret recpt)

P.O. BOX 737 

IGNACIO, CO 81137 

DONALD G. ROMERO 

249 PINION 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

SOUTHWEST WY MULE DEER 

FOUNDATION 

DAVE MCCORMICK 

228 VAN BUREN ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

DONALD KINDER 

406 HAY 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

SOUTHWEST WYOMING INDUSTRIAL 

ASSOCIATION (SWIA) (Exec Summ)

P.O. BOX 1665 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82902 

DONALD KLEBENOW 

STIM TECH, INC. 

1719 IMPERIAL DRIVE # E-31 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

SOUTHWEST WYOMING MINERAL 

ASSOCIATION 

P.O. BOX 2783 (Exec Summ)

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82902 

DOROTHY BARTHOLOMEW 

PRESIDENT, WYOMING PFUSA 

40 CAZIER LN 

LANDER, WY 82520 

STAN LABBE 

P.O. BOX 281 

FARSON, WY 82932 

DOROTHY POWELL 

298 S 3290 W 

VERNAL, UT 84078 

STATE REPRESENTATIVE (22) 

MONTE OLSEN 

P.O. BOX 186 

DANIEL, WY 83115 

DOROTHY ROBERTS 

1760 ARIZONA ST. 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

STATE SENATOR (16) 

DELAINE ROBERTS 

P.O. BOX 5173 

ETNA, WY 83118 

DOUGLAS W. ALLEN 

P.O. BOX 715 

141 SMITH AVE. 

BIG PINEY, WY 83113 

STEINAKER TRUCKING L.L.C.

104 MORNING GLORY WAY 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

STEVE SHORT 

7522 BANTRY CT 

LITTLETON, CO 80124 

ED GOLNITZ 

127 MESA DRIVE 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

STUART & BARBARA MCKINLEY 

P.O. BOX 88 

DANIEL, WY 82901 

ED KAUTZ, VP/COO AND 

TOM SCHLEDWITZ, GENERAL MANAGER 

CAZA DRILLING INC. 

P.O. BOX 17805 

DENVER, CO 80217 

SUBLETTE COUNTY 

EXTENSION AGENT 

P.O. BOX 579 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

EDITH LEEPER 

101A RANCHVIEW DRIVE 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

SUBLETTE COUNTY 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 

P.O. BOX 506 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

ELI BEBOUT 

P.O. BOX 112 

RIVERTON, WY 82501 

SUBLETTE COUNTY 

CONSERVATION DISTRICT 

P.O. BOX 36 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

DUANE GRIMES 

202 N. AVE. 

GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501 

STEPHANIE HABERKORN 

215 D ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

DUKE & KAY EARLY 

P.O. BOX 1209 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

STEVE HEIFNER 

WGPC 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

EASTERN SHOSHONE NATION (ret recpt)

ZELDA TILLMAN 

P.O. BOX 1008 

FORT WASHAKIE, WY 82514 

STEVE HITSHEW (undeliverable)

106A HILLVIEW 

ED DOLINAR 

1799 CARSON ST. 

DAILY ROCKET MINER 

28 PURPLE SAGE RD. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

ELLEN MCCALLISTER 

P.O. BOX 48 

16 M&M AVE.

EDEN, WY 82932 

SUBLETTE COUNTY 

COMMISSIONERS 

P.O. BOX 250 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

ENERGY ANALYSTS 

STEVE FILLINGHAM 

12000 N PECOS ST., SUITE 310 

WESTMINSTER, CO 80234 

SUBLETTE COUNTY 

ROAD & BRIDGE 

P.O. BOX 766 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

EOG 

JIM SCHAEFER 

P.O. BOX 1382 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

SUBLETTE COUNTY 

COURTHOUSE, MARY LANKFORD 

P.O. BOX 250 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

EOG 

DENNIS BRABEC & CURT PARSONS 

P.O. BOX 250 

BIG PINEY, WY 83113 

SUBLETTE COUNTY LIBRARY 

(EIS, AQ, Socio)

P.O. BOX 489 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

ERIC ADAMS 

SSFW 

606 BRAMWELL 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

SUBLETTE COUNTY LIBRARY 

(EIS, AQ, Socio)

P.O. BOX 768 

BIG PINEY, WY 83113 

FED ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

BILL HOCHHEISER (MS FE33) 

1000 INDEPENDENCE AVE. SW 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20585 

SUBLETTE COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE 

P.O. BOX 506 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

MC (HL21.3) 

825 N CAPITOL ST. NE 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426 

SUBLETTE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT #9 

P.O. BOX 769 

BIG PINEY, WY 83113 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF PIPELINE & PRODUCER REG.

825 N CAPITOL ST. NE 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426 

SUE THORNTON 

P.O. BOX 1608 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

L.J. SAUTER JR. 

888 FIRST ST. NE 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426 

SUSAN CHILD (10 EIS, 2AQ, 2 Socio)

OFFICE OF STATE LANDS AND 

INVESTMENTS 

OFFICE OF FEDERAL LAND POLICY 

HERSCHLER BUILDING, 1W 

122 WEST 25TH ST. 

CHEYENNE, WY 82002 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

MIKE BOYLE (RM 7312) 

825 N CAPITOL ST. NE 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426 

SWEETWATER COUNTY LIBRARY 

(EIS, AQ, Socio)

300 NORTH 1ST EAST ST. 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

FERNANDO ROMAN, AIR QUALITY COORDINATOR 

WIND RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMM 

SHOSHONE & ARAPAHOE TRIBES (EIS, AQ)

P.O. BOX 217 

FORT WASHAKIE, WY 82514 

SWEETWATER TELEVISION (Exec Summ)

PAULA WONNACOTT 

602 BROADWAY ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

FLOYD A. OGLE 

P.O. BOX 374 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

T. BALL 

29 VAN DYKE 

CODY, WY 82414 

FLOYD SCHNEIDER 

1787 BROADWAY 

GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81503 

TAHER BATMAZ 

SCHLUMBERGER 

93 RELIANCE RD. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

FOREST OIL CORPORATION 

ATTN: MS. PEGGY GOSS 

1600 BROADWAY, SUITE 2200 

DENVER, CO 80202 

TAMI MCKENDRICK 

P.O. BOX 1751 

ROCK SPRINGS, 82902 

FRANK & NANCY VIRDEN 

P.O. BOX 1972 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82902 

TAMMIE MCCALLISTER 

P.O. BOX 48 

16 M&M AVE.

EDEN, WY 82932 

FRED BAUGHMAN 

193 PYRAMID DRIVE 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

TANYA HAANPAA 

1905 W. TETON 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

FREDDY SALGADO 

1120 THORPE ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

TARA WHITTAKER 

222 GATEWAY BLVD. #56 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

G. MICHAEL MYERS

BROTHERS GRIMM TRUCKING 

734 1ST AVE W. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

TEXACO EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION 

INC. 

OWEN & JEANNIE SLACK 

P.O. BOX 1062 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

GARY & BILLIE BINGHAM 

P.O. BOX 1038 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

THE NATURE CONSERVANCY 

 (Remove per recipient req) 

PUBLIC LANDS PROGRAM 

655 N CEDAR 

LARAMIE, WY 82070 

GENE R. GEORGE & ASSOCIATES INC. / YATES 

 PETROLEUM 

GENE R. GEORGE 

P.O. BOX 2775 

CASPER, WY 82602 

THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY 

NORTHERN ROCKIES REGIONAL OFFICE 

PETER AENGST 

105 W MAIN ST., SUITE E 

BOZEMAN, MT 59715 

GEORGE TWIBELL 

MAMTC 

P.O. BOX 727 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

TIM BLOSSOM (undeliverable)

1010 SPRUCEWOOD DRIVE 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

GERRY FEDRIZZI 

RESOURCE ENGINEERING, INC.

1901 YELLOWSTONE RD. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

TIM RIDER 

2620 HAWAII COURT 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

GERRY HOWE 

1165 PARK VIEW 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

TIMOTHY A. KAUMO, MAYOR 

SURVEYORS & JFC ENGINEERS 

1515 9TH ST., SUITE A 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

GILBERT KINNEY 

BROTHERS GRIMM TRUCKING 

734 1ST AVE. W 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

TODD LIEBELT 

CAMERON 

1402 PALISADES WAY 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

GLYDA R. GADDA 

506 “A” ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

TODD SASSE 

809 MAPLE 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

GORDON JOHNSON 

217 MESA DRIVE 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

TOM KERSHISNIK 

GATEWAY REALTY 

79 WINSTON DRIVE, SUITE 100 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

GORMAN FINDLAY 

P.O. BOX 4086 

MARBLETON, WY 83113 

TONY GOODMAN 

400 MOUNTAINVIEW 

ROCK SPRINGS, WT 82901 

GOVERNOR 

STATE OF WYOMING 

CAPITOL BUILDING 

CHEYENNE, WY 82002 

TONY GOSAR 

CONSULTANT 

P.O. BOX 201 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

GREATER YELLOWSTONE COALITION 

SCOTT GROENE 

P.O. BOX 4857 

JACKSON, WY 83001 

TRACY J. WILLIAMS 

POLICY ANALYST 

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

STATE CAPITAL 

CHEYENNE, WY 82002 

GRECHEN DAWN YOST 

P.O. BOX 2247 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

TRINNI & PAUL JENSEN 

P.O. BOX 218 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

GREG SIMCAKOSKI 

615 GOBEL ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

TROUT UNLIMITED 

UPPER GREEN RIVER CHAPTER 

DAN ABERNATHY 

P.O. BOX 1546 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

GUY HULSEY 

710 SARATOGA 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

TROY CLARK 

568 TURRET DRIVE 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

HALLIBURTON 

TOM ALLEN 

P.O. BOX 369 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82902 

TROY HOUSEHOLDER 

1208 N. ST. 

RELIANCE, WY

HOLMES P. MCLISH (Exec Summ) 

633 17TH ST., SUITE 1650 

DENVER, CO 80202 

TROY PETERSON 

407 SHORT ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

HOWARD WESTON 

736 5TH AVE. WEST 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

TROY SUDLIER 

2653 S 500 W 

VERNAL, WY 84078 

IPAMS 

DEENA MCMULLEN 

518 17TH ST., SUITE 620 

DENVER, CO 80202 

TY WALKER 

1159 PALISADES CT. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

ISACC & MIRIAM SOTO 

305 “H” ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

U.S. AIR FORCE 

DET CHIEF

635 HIGHWAY 353 

BOULDER, WY 82923 

J.R. GODDARD 

FRANK’S CONSTRUCTION CO.

3409 SANTA ANNA DR. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

MATT BILODEAU 

2232 DELL RANGE BLVD. 

SUITE 210 

CHEYENNE, WY 82009 

JACKSON HOLE CONSERVATION ALLIANCE 

FRANZ CAMENZIND 

P.O. BOX 2728 

JACKSON, WY 83001 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

COMPLIANCE (EH-23) 

1000 INDEPENDENCE AVE. SW 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20585 

JACKSON HOLE CONSERVATION ALLIANCE 

PAM LICHTMAN 

P.O. BOX 2728 

JACKSON, WY 83001 

U.S. EPA, OFFICE OF FEDERAL ACTIVITIES 

ELAINE SURIANO (2252A) 

401 M ST. SW 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

JACKSON HOLE NEWS (Exec Summ) 

ANGUS M. THUERMER JR.

P.O. BOX 7445 

JACKSON, WY 83001 

U.S. EPA, REGION 8 (5 E1S, 1 AQ, 1 Socio) 

CHIEF, WM-EA 

999 18TH ST., SUITE 500 

DENVER, CO 80202 

JACKSON SCHWABACHER 

P.O. BOX 1970 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

ECOLOGICAL SERVICES

4000 AIRPORT PARKWAY 

CHEYENNE, WY 82001 

JACOB KETTERING 

1229 HILL ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

GRADY TOWNS 

P.O. BOX 25486 

FEDERAL CENTER 

DENVER, CO 80225 

JACOB L OVERY (undeliverable)

239 K ST. #2 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

SEEDSKADEE REFUGE MANAGER 

P.O. BOX 700 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

JACOB L. OVERY (undeliverable)

P.O. BOX 81 

SUPERIOR, WY 82945 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (Exec Summ) 

RICK HUTCHINSON 

4147 AUDUBON WAY 

BILLINGS, MT 59106 

JAKE RIBORDY 

929 MONROE DRIVE 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

CATHY OGLE 

2615 E LINCOLNWAY 

CHEYENNE, WY 82001 

JAMES ANSELMI 

P.O. BOX 6444 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

U.S. NATURAL RESOURCES 

CONSERVATION SERVICE 

DISTRICT OFFICE 

P.O. BOX 360 

FARSON, WY 82932 

JAMES DILLON 

801 HICKORY ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

U.S. NATURAL RESOURCES 

CONSERVATION SERVICE 

PINEDALE OFFICE 

P.O. BOX 36 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

JAMES H. KING 

1660 BLAIR #28 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

U.S. NATURAL RESOURCES 

CONSERVATION SERVICE 

STATE OFFICE (Exec Summ) 

100 EAST B ST., ROOM 3124 

CASPER, WY 82601. 

JAMES HENLEY 

391 JENSEN ST. 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

USDA/BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL 

FOREST

RICK ANDERSON & MICHAEL SEHROTZ 

(2 EIS, 2 AQ) 

P.O. BOX 1888 

JACKSON, WY 83001 

JAMES J. WRIGHT 

1795 ALABAMA ST. 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA CUBIN 

(Exec Summ) 

BONNIE CANNON, REPR.

2515 FOOTHILL BLVD SUITE 204 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

JAMES L. BURNETT 

1804 ELK ST. #126 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

U.S. SENATOR CRAIG THOMAS

(Exec Summ) 

PATI L. SMITH, REPR.

2632 FOOTHILL BLVD., SUITE 101 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

JAMES R. GODDARD 

2931 SANTA CRUZ DRIVE 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

U.S. SENATOR MIKE ENZI 

(Exec Summ) 

LYN SHANAGHY, REPR.

P.O. BOX 12470 

JACKSON, WY 83002 

JAMES WILKINS 

1301 RAINDANCE DRIVE 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

ULTRA RESOURCES, INC. 

BRIAN AULT 

304 INVERNESS WAY, SUITE 295 

DENVER, CO 80112 

JAMIE ROSE (undeliverable)

187 MESA DRIVE 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING

(EIS, AQ, Socio) 

COLLECTION DEV. OFFICE T. HERT 

P.O. BOX 3334 

LARAMIE, WY 82071 

JANE SEILER 

QUESTAR 

1050 17TH ST. 

DENVER, CO 80202 

UPPER GREEN RIVER CATTLE ASSOC. 

BOB KLAREN 

P.O. BOX 571 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

JAY ANDERSON 

616 MAIN 

MARBLETON, WY 83113 

UPPER GREEN RIVER CATTLE ASSOC. 

CHARLES PRICE 

P.O. BOX 375 

DANIEL, WY 83115 

JAY MCGINNIS 

P.O. BOX 280 

BIG PINEY, WY 83113 

UPPER GREEN RIVER VALLEY COALITION 

LINDA BAKER 

P.O. BOX 1262 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

JEANNE SIEGEL (undeliverable)

222 GATEWAY BLVD. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82941 

USDA/BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL 

FOREST

FOREST SUPERVISOR 

P.O. BOX 1888 

JACKSON, WY 83001 

JEFF DAVIS 

P.O. BOX 623 

BIG PINEY, WY 83113 

USDA/BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL 

FOREST (EIS, AQ) 

TERRY SVALBERG 

P.O. BOX 220 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

JEREMY ALLEN 

1700 VIRGINIA DRIVE 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

USDA/FOREST SERVICE (EIS, AQ) 

ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION (TAMARA 

BLETT) 

P.O. BOX 25127 

LAKEWOOD, CO 80225 

JEREMY WHEATLEY (undeliverable)

1709 AUTUMN HILL DRIVE 

VERONA, WI 53593 

USDA/BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL 

FOREST

BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT 

P.O. BOX 218 

BIG PINEY, WY 83113 

JERRY MITCHELL 

416 MONARCH 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

USDA/FOREST SERVICE

ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION (MELODY 

HOLM) 

P.O. BOX 25127 

LAKEWOOD, CO 80225 

JFC (Exec Summ) 

JOE MANATOS 

1515 9TH ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

USDA/FOREST SERVICE

INTERMOUNTAIN REGION 

324 25TH ST. 

OGDEN, UT 84401 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

JIM ANSELMI 

425 BRIDGER AVE. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

USDA/SHOSHONE NATIONAL FOREST 

MINERALS STAFF OFFICER 

808 MEADOW LANE AVE. 

CODY, WY 82414 

JIM HORNER 

1706 KENNEDY AVE. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

USDA/SHOSHONE NATIONAL FOREST 

808 MEADOW LANE AVE. 

CODY, WY 82414 

JIM HUTCHINSON 

P.O. BOX 1122 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

USDA/WASHAKIE RANGER DISTRICT 

333 E MAIN ST. 

LANDER, WY 82520 

JIM LAYBOURN 

P.O. BOX 11951 

JACKSON, WY 

USDI/BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

STATE DIRECTOR (WSO 912) 

P.O. BOX 1828 

CHEYENNE, WY 82003 

JIM MONTUORO 

DISTRICT TRAFFIC ENGINEER 

WYOMING DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION 

P.O. BOX 1260 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82902 

USDI/BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

PUBLIC ROOM (WSO 921) 

(EIS, AQ, Socio, Exec Summ) 

P.O. BOX 1828 

CHEYENNE, WY 82003 

JIM ORIET 

P.O. BOX 2193 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

USDI/BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

CENTRAL FILES (WSO 951) 

P.O. BOX 1828 

CHEYENNE, WY 82003 

JIM R. ROGERS 

104 LOCUST ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

USDI/BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

(NRSC RS-1400) (EIS, AQ, Socio) 

DENVER FEDERAL CENTER BUILDING 50 

DENVER, CO 80225 

JIM & CAT URBIGKIT 

P.O. BOX 1663 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

USDI/BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

PINEDALE FIELD OFFICE

P.O. BOX 768 

(40+ EIS, 10+ AQ, 10+ Socio, 40+ Exec Summ)

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

JIM VONREMBOW 

1700 SWANSON DRIVE #73 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

USDI/BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

STATE DIRECTOR (WSO 920) 

P.O. BOX 1828 

CHEYENNE, WY 82003 

JOAN BAILEY 

9601 NW LEAHY RD. #209 

PORTLAND, OR 97229 

USDI/BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

STATE DIRECTOR (WSO 930) 

P.O. BOX 1828 

CHEYENNE, WY 82003 

JOE KRULJAC 

NORWOOD 

2917 CAMPBELL LANE 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

USDI/BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

JANET KURMAN 

 (19 EIS, 5 AQ, 5 Socio, 20 Exec Summ)

P.O. BOX 1828 

CHEYENNE, WY 82009 

JOE SHUBERT 

910 6TH ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

USDI/MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERIVCE 

OFFSHORE ENVIRONMENTAL 

ASSESSMENT DIV.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 

JOEL A. NORBERG 

KENNEDY OIL 

700 W. SIXTH ST. 

GILLETTE, WY 82716 

USDI/NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

JERE KRAKOW 

P.O. BOX 45155 

SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84145-0155 

JOHN AND CHRIS BOOKLESS 

P.O. BOX 232 

BIG PINEY, WY 83113 

USDI/BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES GROUP 

(UC-320) (2 EIS)

125 S STATE ST., ROOM 6107 

SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84138 

JOHN ETCHEPARE 

DIRECTOR WYOMING 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

2219 CAREY AVE. 

CHEYENNE, WY 82002 

USDI/NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGIONAL DIRECTOR 

P.O. BOX 25287 

DENVER, CO 80225 

JOHN GEDDIE 

8040 BELLAMAH COURT NE 

ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87110 

USDI/NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (2310) 

1849 C ST. NW, ROOM 2749 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

JOHN P. MENAPACE 

903 VALLEY ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

USDI/OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

POLICY AND COMPLIANCE 

(5 EIS, 5 AQ, 5 Socio; early submission)

GWENDOLYN WILDER 

1849 C ST. NW, ROOM 2340 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20242 

JOSEPH R. BOLINGER 

134 E. B ST. 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

USDI/OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING 

DIV OF ENVIRONMENTAL & ECONOMIC 

ANALYSIS 

INTERIOR BUILDING SOUTH, RM 134 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 

JOSEPH W MANATOS 

321 COLLEGE DRIVE 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

UTE MOUNTAIN UTE TRIBAL COUNCIL 

JUDY KNIGHT-FRANK (ret recpt)

GENERAL DELIVERY 

TOWAOC, CO 81344 

JOSEPHINE B. ALLEN 

141 SMITH AVE. 

P.O. BOX 715 

BIG PINEY, WY 83113 

UTE TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

BETSY CHAPOOSE (ret recpt)

P.O. BOX 190 

FORT DUCHESNE, UT 84026 

JUSTIN C. ROGERS 

104 LOCUST ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

UTE TRIBE BUSINESS COMMITTEE 

CHAIRMAN (ret recpt)

P.O. BOX 190 

FORT DUCHESNE, UT 84026 

JUSTIN ROGHAIR 

811 RIDGE AVE. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

VAUGHN BROWN 

1709 ELK ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

JUSTIN SANTHUFF 

1400 BRIDGER #12 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

VERN PLANTENBERG (undeliverable)

102 HILL ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

KAIL CONSULTING (undeliverable)

P.O. BOX 193 

DEAVER, WY 82421 

VIC DANA 

RED DESERET OUTFITTERS

BOX 2324 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

KATHY REBESCHER 

P.O. BOX 31 

BOULDER, WY 82923 

VIC MCMURRY 

P.O. BOX 1519 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

KAY & JIM MALKOWSKI 

P.O. BOX 132 

DANIEL, WY 83115 

VICTOR GARCIA 

HELMERICH & PAYNE 

341 EAST “E” ST. 

CASPER, WY 82601 

KEITH POTTER 

532 5TH AVE., WEST 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

VIRGINIA MAES 

BUNNING TRANSFER 

125 A 

SUPERIOR, WY 82945 

KELLY BROWN

560 LOGAN 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

VIRGINIA MAES 

P.O. BOX 43 

SUPERIOR, WY 82945 

KELLY F.

FEED BARN INC. 

71 REES RD. 

LIMON, WY 82937 

WALTER D. LOWRY, P.C. 

PRESIDENT, KMG CONSULTING INC.

3190 SOUTH HOLLY ST. 

DENVER, CO 80222 

KELLY MATHESON 

GREATER YELLOWSTONE PROGRAM 

COORDINATOR 

WYOMING OUTDOOR COUNCIL 

262 LINCOLN ST. 

LANDER, WY 82520 

WESTERN WYOMING COMMUNITY 

COLLEGE 

COLLEGE LIBRARY 

P.O. BOX 428 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82902 

KELLY POWERS

BOX 922 

LYMON, WY 82937 

WESTERN WYOMING COMMUNITY 

COLLEGE 

ARCHEOLOGICAL SERVICES (D-512) 

P.O. BOX 428 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82902 

KELVIN B. SEILLER 

550 HILLCREST WAY 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

WHITE MOUNTAIN LIBRARY 

(EIS, AQ, Socio)

2935 SWEETWATER DRIVE 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

KEMMERER GAZETTE (Exec Summ)

P.O. BOX 30 

KEMMERER, WY 83101 

WHITNEY MERLAU 

WOOD GROUP 

28 PURPLE SAGE RD. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

KEN A. KONICEK 

P.O. BOX 910 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE 

LEN CARPENTER 

4015 CHENEY DRIVE 

FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 

KENNETH ROUSE 

630 LUDWIG 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE 

(undeliverable)

ROLLIN D. SPARROWE 

1101 14TH ST. NW, SUITE 801 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 

KENNY BECKER 

P.O. BOX 1335 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

WILLIAM AND BETTY MORROW 

164 LIMBERPINE CR 

PARACHUTE, CO 81635 

KENT JORDAN 

1700 SWANSON #39 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

WILLIAM HOUGHTON 

509 RAILROAD 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

KEVIN RAMAGE 

101A RANCHVIEW 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

WILLIAM MAYO 

STAR ROUTE 

BOULDER, WY 82923 

KEVIN RANTA 

P.O. BOX 2664 

ROCK SPRINGS WY, 82902 

WILLIAMS ENERGY SERVICES

ONE WILLIAMS CENTER, MD 37 

P.O. BOX 3102 

TULSA, OK 74101 

KIRK CROFTS 

1605 DONALYNN DRIVE #60 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

WILLIAMS FIELD SERVICES

STAR ROUTE 2, BOX 260 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

KMER (Exec Summ)

P.O. BOX 432 

KEMMERER, WY 83101 

WIND RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

COMM (EIS, AQ)

DON ARAGON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

P.O. BOX 217 

FORT WASHAKIE, WY 82514 

KRIS BACHELLER 

P.O. BOX 264 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

WOLD TRONA (Exec Summ)

139 W SECOND ST., SUITE 200 

CASPER, WY 82601 

KUGR 

NEWS DIRECTOR 

40 SHOSHONE AVE.

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

WYOMING ASSOCIATION OF 

MUNICIPALITIES

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

P.O. BOX 3110 

CHEYENNE, WY 82003 

KURT 

P.O. BOX 951 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

WY ASSOC. OF PROFESSIONAL 

ARCHEOLOGISTS 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE 

P.O. BOX 3431 

LARAMIE, WY 82071 

LABARGE BRANCH LIBRARY (EIS, AQ, Socio) 

HIGHWAY 89 

LABARGE, WY 83123 

WY OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION 

COMMISSION 

P.O. BOX 2640 

CASPER, WY 82602 

LANCE HERMAN 

CAZA 

359 DOUGLAS DRIVE 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

WY STATE BOARD OF OUTFITTERS & 

GUIDES 

JANE FLAGG (Exec Summ)

1700 WESTLAND ROAD 

CHEYENNE, WY 82002 

LARRY & LAVETA PENNOCK 

156 LESTER DRIVE 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

WYOMING ASSOC. OF PROFESSIONAL 

HISTORIANS 

TODD THIBODEAUX (C/O SHPO) 

2301 CENTRAL AVE., 3RD FLOOR 

CHEYENNE, WY 82002 

LARRY CROWELL 

1900 IOWA CIRCLE 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

WYOMING CHAPTER OF THE SIERRA 

CLUB 

PAGE MCNEILL 

P.O. BOX 263 

JACKSON, WY 83001 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

LARRY DOWNS 

140 LESTER 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

WYOMING DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 

DON CHRISTIANSON 

2219 CAREY AVE. 

CHEYENNE, WY 82001 

LARRY KAML 

P.O. BOX 923 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82902 

WYOMING DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

QUALITY 

CHUCK ROFFELSON 

HERSCHLER BLDG., 4 WEST 

122 W 25TH ST. 

CHEYENNE, WY 82002 

LAURIE LATTA 

P.O. BOX 69 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

WYOMING DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

QUALITY (2 EIS, 2 AQ)

DARLA POTTER / CARA CASTEN 

HERSCHLER BLDG., 4 WEST 

122 W 25TH ST. 

CHEYENNE, WY 82002 

LAVETA PENNOCK 

B.J. SERVICES 

P.O. BOX 1669 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

WYOMING DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

QUALITY 

LEE GRIBOVICZ 

250 LINCOLN ST. 

LANDER, WY 82520 

LEE KREUTZER 

NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM OFFICE 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

324 S. STATE, SUITE 250 

P.O. BOX 45155 

SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84145-0155 

WYOMING DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION 

DIRECTOR 

5300 BISHOP BLVD. 

CHEYENNE, WY 82003 

LEE SCHAFER 

INTEGRITY PRODUCTION, INC.

P.O. BOX 731 

BIG PINEY, WY 83113 

WYOMING DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION 

DISTRICT ENGINEER 

P.O. BOX 1260 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82902 

LEE SPLETT 

113 VALLEY VIEW DRIVE 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

WYOMING DIVISION OF STATE PARKS & 

 HISTORIC SITES

KIM RAAP 

HERSCHLER BLDG., 1E 

122 W 25TH ST. 

CHEYENNE, WY 82002 

LELA HARRIS

LELA’S BARBER SHOP

1695 SUNSET, SUITE 118 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

WYOMING GAME AND FISH DEPT.

DISTRICT IV SUPERVISOR 

351 ASTLE AVE. 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

LEO & ROSEMARY BENSON (Exec Summ)

P.O. BOX 350 

BONDURANT, WY 82922 

WYOMING GAME AND FISH DEPT.

ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR 

5400 BISHOP BLVD 

CHEYENNE, WY 82006 

LEONARD LOVELL 

811 MAPLE ST. 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

WYOMING GAME AND FISH DEPT.

FISHERIES SUPERVISOR 

P.O. BOX 850 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

LESLIE SHELDON 

919 WOODHAVEN 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

WYOMING GAME AND FISH DEPT.

SCOTT SMITH 

P.O. BOX 850 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

LEW HAGENLOCK 

DUKE ENERGY 

1324 N 7TH AVE. 

GREELEY, CO 80631 

WYOMING MINING ASSOCIATION 

P.O. BOX 866 

CHEYENNE, WY 82001 

LILLIAN MCCALLISTER 

P.O. BOX 48 

16 M&M AVE.

EDEN, WY 82932 

WYOMING NATURAL DIVERSITY 

DATABASE 

P.O. BOX 3381 

LARAMIE, WY 82071 

LINCOLN COUNTY LIBRARY (EIS, AQ, Socio)

519 EMERALD 

KEMMERER, WY 83101 

WYOMING OFFICE OF FEDERAL LAND 

POLICY (17 EIS, 3 AQ, 3 Socio)

HERSCHLER BUILDING, 1 WEST 

122 W 25TH ST. 

CHEYENNE, WY 82002 

LINDA & RICHARD TANNER 

P.O. BOX 100 

BIG PINEY, WY 83113 

WYOMING OUTDOOR COUNCIL 

FIELD DIRECTOR 

262 LINCOLN ST. 

LANDER, WY 82520 

LISA PERSINGER 

P.O. BOX 1003 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82902 

WYOMING SHPO 

WENDY BREDEHOFT 

2301 CENTRAL AVE., 3RD FLOOR 

CHEYENNE, WY 82002 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

LON MAYHEW 

2540 PEBBLE ACRES DRIVE 

VERNAL, UT 84078-9288 

WYOMING STATE GRAZING BOARD 

DICK LOPER 

P.O. BOX 1202 

LANDER, WY 82520 

LONDA LAMPER (undeliverable)

1101 NORTH 

RELIANCE, WY 82943 

WYOMING TRANSPORTATION 

COMMISSION 

P.O. BOX 1708 

CHEYENNE, WY 82003 

LONETTA M. COOLEY 

30 CLEARVIEW #4 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

WYOMING WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION 

LIZ HOWELL 

P.O. BOX 280 

STORY, WY 82842 

LONNIE MOFFITT 

460 S. 4TH E. 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

WYOMING WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION 

MEREDITH TAYLOR 

6360 HWY 26 

DUBOIS, WY 82513 

LORNA AND NEIL ANDERSON 

180 POLLUX DRIVE 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

WYOMING WILDLIFE CONSULTANTS 

JOHN DAHLKE 

P.O. BOX 893 

PINEDALE, WY 82941 

YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION 

105 S FOURTH ST. 

ARTEISA, NM 88120 

WYOMING WILDLIFE FEDERATON 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

P.O. BOX 106 

CHEYENNE, WY 82003 

AMERICAN COMETRA, INC.

1460 MAIN ST., SUITE 245 

SOUTHLAKE, TX 76092 

JUDY & JERRY ARNOLD 

418 AIKEN RD. 

SHELBYVILLE, KY 40065 

CHEYENNE AUDUBON SOCIETY 

P.O. BOX 6402 

CHEYENNE, WY 82003 

KEN HEMPHILL 

HEMPHILL TRUCKING 

P.O. BOX 1863 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82902 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

CRAIG NICHOLLS 

BLM NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECH. CENTER 

MAIL STOP-180 

DENVER FEDERAL CENTER, BLDG. 50 

DENVER, CO 80225 

KEVIN GOLDEN 

EPA 

999 18TH ST. 

SUITE 500 (EPR-PS) 

DENVER, CO 80202 

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE 

1130 17TH ST. NW 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036-4604 

LESLIE HENDERSON 

317 COLLEGE LANE 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

DESERT MINING, INC.

4328 HWY 66 

LONGMONT, CO 80504 

LIANA REILLY (EIS, AQ)

NRPC-ARD 

7333 WEST JEFFERSON, 4TH FLOOR 

LAKEWOOD, CO 80235 

DOUG BLEWITT (EIS, AQ)

5401 SOUTH GENEVA ST. 

ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111 

(303) 741-8647 

RAY NATION (EIS, AQ)

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

FIRST & WASHAKIE STREETS 

FORT WASHAKIE, WY 82514 

EPA, OFFICE OF FEDERAL ACTIVITIES 

EIS FILING SECTION

(5 EIS, 5 AQ, 5 Socio; early submission)

PEARL YOUNG BOOKER 

MAIL COADE 2252-A, ROOM 7241 

ARIEL RIOS BLDG, SOUTH OVAL LOBBY 

1200 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. NW 

ROGER ALEXANDER 

BLM WSO (WY 951) 

5353 YELLOWSTONE ROAD 

CHEYENNE, WY 82009 

ERIC WILLIAMS (EIS, AQ, Socio)

203 1ST ST. 

CHENEY, WA 99044 

ROGER & JENNIFER JENSEN 

P.O. BOX 272 

BONDURANT, WY 82922 

EDNA KENNELL, DIRECTOR 

OREGON-CALIFORNIA TRAILS ASSOCIATION 

1661 NOTTINGHAM DRIVE 

CASPER, WY 82609-3553 

ROSS SHELTON 

1124 EVENSTAR COURT 

FORT COLLINS, CO 80526 

GENE BALL 

29 VAN DYKE RD.

CODY, WY 82414-3601 

STEVE REYNOLDS (EIS, AQ, Socio)

427 SIOUX DRIVE 

CHEYENNE, WY 82009 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

JOHN BUNYAK, SUAN JOHNSON, & JOHN NOTAR 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (3 EIS, 3 AQ)

AIR RESOURCES DIVISION 

12795 WEST ALAMEDA PARKWAY 

LAKEWOOD, CO 80228 

USDI/BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

ROCK SPRINGS FIELD OFFICE

(10+ EIS, 3+ AQ, 3+ Socio)

280 HIGHWAY 191 N 

ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

BARARA KLASSEN (EIS, AQ, SOCIO) 

CATALOGING/LIBRARY SYSTEMS

BLM LIBRARY 

DENVER FEDERAL CENTER, BUILDING 50 

P.O. BOX 25047 

DENVER, CO 80225-0047 

FOREST OIL CORPORATION 

ATTN: GARTH BERKELAND 

1600 BROADWAY, SUITE 2200 

DENVER, CO 80202-4921 

BILL BATTERMAN 

105 HOMESTEAD TERRACE 

ITHACA, NY 14850 

FRANK BAIN (EIS, AQ, Socio) 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

MOAB FIELD OFFICE

82 EAST DOGWOOD, SUITE M 

MOAB, UT 84501 

BKS ENVIRONMENTAL (EIS, AQ, Socio) 

612 N. HIGHWAY 14-16, SUITE F 

GILLETTE, WY 82716 

JOE FRANK 

HYDROGEO, INC.

427 BELLEVIEW, SUITE 200 

P.O. BOX 2979 

CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224-2979 

BURLINGTON RESOURCES (EIS, AQ, Socio) 

ATTN: EILEEN DEY 

330 N. A ST. 

BUILDING 6-100 

MIDLAND, TX 79705 

JONATHAN RATNER (EIS, AQ) 

P.O. BOX 551 

DUBOIS, WY 82513 

BURLINTON RESOURCES 

ATTN: KURT FROISTAD 

1801 BROADWAY, SUITE 800 

DENVER, CO 80202 

LANCE OIL AND GAS COMPANY 

(undeliverable)

ATTN: BOB WILSON 

12200 PECOS 

WESTMINSTER, CO 80234 

CATHY SIMMONS (17 EIS) 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

WYOMING STATE OFFICE 

5353 YELLOWSTONE RD. 

CHEYENNE, WY 82009 

MARISA MARTIN (EIS, AQ, Socio) 

5114 PACIFIC AVE. 

MARINA DEL REY, CA 90292 

DAVE BROWN 

BP AMERICA 

1660 LINCOLN ST., SUITE 3000 

DENVER, CO 80264 

MIKE TODD (EIS, AQ) 

217 N. 1ST WEST 

GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

DEVON SFS OPERATING COMPANY 

ATTN: SCOTT PRATHER / KATHY HINCKLE 

20 N. BROADWAY, SUITE 1500 

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102-8260 

PAUL SUMMERS 

HYDROGEOLOGIST 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

NATIONAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 

CENTER 

P.O. BOX 25047 

LAKEWOOD, CO 80225 

DOMINION EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INC.

ATTN: RUSTY WATERS

14000 QUAIL SPRINGS PARKWAY, SUITE 600 

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73134 

TOM RINKES 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

LANDER FIELD OFFICE 

BOX 589, 125 SUNFLOWER 

LANDER, WY 82520 

DON DAVIS (EIS, Socio) 

1815 BEAUFORT ST. 

LARAMIE, WY 82072 

January 2006 
Public 

The Bureau of Land Management is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed expansion to the Jonah/natural gas development project in Sublette County, Wyoming. In order to receive additional information on the proje

Summaries), you must submit this postcard or a written response to the scoping notice. Please indicate whether you wentire EIS text or Executive Summaries. Thank you for your assistance with the NEPA process. 

[Mailing Label Here]

*** Please indicate any corrections on this mailing label. Thank you.***  I would like to receive the entire EIS.  I would like to receive only the Executive Summaries. 

The Bureau of Land Management is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed expansion to the Jonah/natural gas development project in Sublette County, Wyoming. In order to receive additional information on the proje

Summaries), you must submit this postcard or a written response to the scoping notice. Please indicate whether you wentire EIS text or Executive Summaries. Thank you for your assistance with the NEPA process. 

[Mailing Label Here]

*** Please indicate any corrections on this mailing label. Thank you.*** 

 I would like to receive the entire EIS.  I would like to receive only the Executive Summaries. 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report The Bureau of Land Management is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed expansion to the Jonah/natural gas development project in Sublette County, Wyoming. In order to receive additional information on the proje

Summaries), you must submit this postcard or a written response to the scoping notice. Please indicate whether you wentire EIS text or Executive Summaries. Thank you for your assistance with the NEPA process. 

[Mailing Label Here]

*** Please indicate any corrections on this mailing label. Thank you.***  I would like to receive the entire EIS.  I would like to receive only the Executive Summaries. 

The Bureau of Land Management is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed expansion to the Jonah/natural gas development project in Sublette County, Wyoming. In order to receive additional information on the proje

Summaries), you must submit this postcard or a written response to the scoping notice. Please indicate whether you wentire EIS text or Executive Summaries. Thank you for your assistance with the NEPA process. 

[Mailing Label Here]

*** Please indicate any corrections on this mailing label. Thank you.*** 

 I would like to receive the entire EIS.  I would like to receive only the Executive Summaries. January 2006







Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

APPENDIX C 

AIR QUALITY SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 

DISTRIBUTION LIST 

 January 2006 
Public 

AARON ALPERN (PC) WYOMING PUBLIC RADIO P.O. BOX 3984 LARAMIE, WY 82071 

MOUNTAIN TOP CONSULTING, LLC 

ROBIN M. SMITH 1701 EAST E ST. CASPER, WY 82602 

PROGRAM DIRECTOR (PC) WYOMING CHAPTER OF THE SIERRA CLUB 247 COFFEEN SHERIDAN, WY 82801 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

LONG DISTANCE TRAILS OFFICE SUP’T. P.O. BOX 45155 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84145 

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION WESTERN OFFICE (PC)12136 W BAYAUD AVE., SUITE 330 DENVER, CO 80228 

NORTHERN ARAPAHO BUSINESS COUNCIL RICK BRANNON (PC / reP.O. BOX 396 FORT WASHAKIE, WY 82514 

ANSCHUTZ EXPLORATION CORP. (PC)ERIC ROOT 555 17TH ST., SUITE 2400 DENVER, CO 80202 

PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION OF WYOMING (AQ DRU BOWER 951 WERNER CT., SUITE 100 CASPER, WY 82601 

ARAPAHO WIND RIVER TRADITIONAL ELDERS MR. FRANCIS BROWN (PC / ret recpt)P.O. BOX 601 RIVERTON, WY 82501 

PINEDALE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

P.O. BOX 176 PINEDALE, WY 82941 

SUPPLEMENTARY AIR QUALITY DOCUMENTS DISTRIBUTION LIST 

PC = Postcard notification of availabilityAQ = Air quality supplemental documents sent (paper copies) CD = Air quality supplemental documents sent (electronic copies on CD) 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

ARAPAHOE BUSINESS COUNCIL (PC / ret recpt) HARVEY SPOONHUNTER, SR. P.O. BOX 217 FORT WASHAKIE, WY 82514 

PINEDALE ROUNDUP EDITOR P.O. BOX 100 PINEDALE, WY 82941 

BANKO PETROLEUM MANAGEMENT, INC. (PC)385 INVERNESS PARKWAY SUITE 420 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80112-5849 

RANDY SHIPMAN 

PEOPLE FOR THE USA 1961 YELLOWSTONE RD. ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

BARLOW & HAUN INC. (AQ) (PC)139 W. 2ND ST., SUITE 1CCASPER, WY 82601 

REP. MARTY MARTIN 

PONDEROSA WAY ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

BILL WICHERS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR (PC)WYOMING GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF FEDERAL LAND POLICY HERSCHLER BLDG., 1W122 W. 25TH ST. CHEYENNE, WY 82002 

REPRESENTATIVE ELECT STAN COOPER 

HOUSE DISTRICT #20 417 AGATE ST. KEMMERER, WY 83101 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ALLIANCE (PC)P.O. BOX 1512 LARAMIE, WY 82073 

RICHARD L. CURRIT STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 2301 CENTRAL AVE. BARRETT BLDG., 3RD FLOOR CHEYENNE, WY 82002 

BJORK, LINDLEY, DANIELSON, & LITTLE, P.C. LAURA LINDLEY / ROB MATHES (AQ)1600 STOUT ST., SUITE 1400 DENVER, CO 80202 

RITA DONHAM 

BOX 33 CORA, WY 82925 

January 2006
Public 

BOB MAXAM (PC)RESIDENT ENGINEER WYOMING DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION P.O. BOX 763 PINEDALE, WY 82941 

ROB SHAUL 

PINEDALE ROUNDUP 58 S. TYLER AVE. PINEDALE, WY 82941 

BP AMERICA (AQ)KIRK STEINLE 501 WESTLAKE PARK BLVD. WESTLAKE 1, ROOM 2.470 HOUSTON, TX 77079 

ROCK SPRINGS LIBRARY 

REFERENCE SECTION 400 C ST. ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

CALLY MCKEE (AQ)ENCANA OIL & GAS P.O. BOX 2060 PINEDALE, WY 82941 

RONALD P. WALKER 

P.O. BOX 224 5 VICTORIA RD. DANIEL, WY 83115 

CARL DALY/CINDY CODY/JOE DELWICHE/ ROBERT EDGAR/RICHARD LONG/LARRY SVOBODA WYOMING COORDINATOR (AQ)EPA - REGION 8 (8P-AR) 999 18TH ST., SUITE 300 DENVER, CO 80202-2466 

ROSE SKINNER 

MAYOR OF PINEDALE P.O. BOX 709 PINEDALE, WY 82941 

CAROLE "KNIFFY" HAMILTON, FOREST SUPERVISOR USDA, FOREST SERVICE (PC) BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST 340 N. CACHE P.O. BOX 1888 JACKSON, WY 83001-1888 

SENATOR LARRY CALLER 

SENATE DISTRICT #14 P.O. BOX 2202 ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

CASPER STAR-TRIBUNE (PC) JEFF GEARINO 2155 PENNSYLVANIA BLVD. GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

SHELL E&P COMPANY 

AIMEE DAVISON P.O. BOX 1666 225 E. MAGNOLIA PINEDALE, WY 82941 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

CASPER STAR-TRIBUNE (PC)DAN NEAL & JEFF TOLLEFSON P.O. BOX 80 CASPER, WY 82602 

SHOSHONE TRIBAL BUSINESS COUNCIL (PC / reJUAN POSEY P.O. BOX 217 FORT WASHAKIE, WY 82514 

CAT URBIGKIT (PC)SUBLETTE EXAMINER P.O. BOX 1539 PINEDALE, WY 82941 

SHOSHONE TRIBAL CULTURAL CENTER (PC / reEDITH GRISWALD P.O. BOX 1008 FORT WASHAKIE, WY 82514 

CATHY PURVES, WESTERN FIELD DIRECTOR (PC)WYOMING WILDLIFE FEDERATION PO BOX 1387 LANDER, WY 82520 

SHOSHONE-ARAPAHOE (PC / reJOINT TRIBAL COUNCIL P.O. BOX 217 FORT WASHAKIE, WY 82514 

CLIFFORD DUNCAN (PC / ret recpt)P.O. BOX 1892 ROOSEVELT, UT 84066 

SHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBAL OFFICE (PC / reDIANA K. YUPE P.O. BOX 306 FORT HALL, ID 83293 

COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY (AQ)DOCUMENTS DEPT. - LIBRARY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FORT COLLINS, CO 80523 

SHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBES (PC / reDUANE THOMPSON P.O. BOX 306 FORT HALL, ID 83293 

DAVE PETRIE (AQ) ENCANA OIL & GAS 370 17TH ST., SUITE 1700 DENVER, CO 80202 

SOUTHERN UTE TRIBAL COUNCIL (PC / reNEIL B. CLOUD, NAGPRA P.O. BOX 737 IGNACIO, CO 81137 

January 2006
Public 

EASTERN SHOSHONE NATION (PC / ret recpt)ZELDA TILLMAN P.O. BOX 1008 FORT WASHAKIE, WY 82514 

STATE REPRESENTATIVE (22) 

MONTE OLSEN P.O. BOX 186 DANIEL, WY 83115 

FED ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (PC)BILL HOCHHEISER (MS FE33) 1000 INDEPENDENCE AVE. SWWASHINGTON, D.C. 20585 

STATE SENATOR (16) 

DELAINE ROBERTS P.O. BOX 5173 ETNA, WY 83118 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (PC)MC (HL21.3) 825 N. CAPITOL ST. NE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426 

STEPHANIE HABERKORN 

DAILY ROCKET MINER 215 D ST. ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (PC)OFFICE OF PIPELINE & PRODUCER REG. 825 N. CAPITOL ST. NE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426 

SUBLETTE COUNTY 

EXTENSION AGENT P.O. BOX 579 PINEDALE, WY 82941 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (PC)L.J. SAUTER JR. 888 FIRST ST. NE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426 

SUBLETTE COUNTY 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR P.O. BOX 506 PINEDALE, WY 82941 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (PC)MIKE BOYLE (RM 7312) 825 N CAPITOL ST. NE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426 

SUBLETTE COUNTY 

CONSERVATION DISTRICT P.O. BOX 36 PINEDALE, WY 82941 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

FERNANDO ROMAN, AIR QUALITY COORDINATOR WIND RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMSHOSHONE & ARAPAHOE TRIBES (PC)P.O. BOX 217 FORT WASHAKIE, WY 82514 

SUBLETTE COUNTY 

COMMISSIONERS P.O. BOX 250 PINEDALE, WY 82941 

FOREST OIL CORPORATION (PC)ATTN: MS. PEGGY GOSS 1600 BROADWAY, SUITE 2200 DENVER, CO 80202 

SUBLETTE COUNTY 

COURTHOUSE, MARY LANKFORD P.O. BOX 250 PINEDALE, WY 82941 

GENE R. GEORGE & ASSOCIATES INC. / (PC) YATES PETROLEUM GENE R. GEORGE P.O. BOX 2775 CASPER, WY 82602 

SUBLETTE COUNTY LIBRARY 

P.O. BOX 489 PINEDALE, WY 82941 

GOVERNOR (PC)STATE OF WYOMING CAPITOL BUILDING CHEYENNE, WY 82002 

SUBLETTE COUNTY LIBRARY 

P.O. BOX 768 BIG PINEY, WY 83113 

IPAMS (PC)DEENA MCMULLEN 518 17TH ST., SUITE 620 DENVER, CO 80202 

SUBLETTE COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE P.O. BOX 506 PINEDALE, WY 82941 

JACKSON HOLE NEWS (PC) ANGUS M. THUERMER JR. P.O. BOX 7445 JACKSON, WY 83001 

SUSAN CHILD OFFICE OF STATE LANDS AND INVESTMENTS OFFICE OF FEDERAL LAND POLICY HERSCHLER BUILDING, 1W122 WEST 25TH ST. CHEYENNE, WY 82002 

January 2006
Public 

JANE SEILER (PC)QUESTAR 1050 17TH ST. DENVER, CO 80202 

SWEETWATER COUNTY LIBRARY 

300 NORTH 1ST EAST ST. GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

JIM MONTUORO (PC)DISTRICT TRAFFIC ENGINEER WYOMING DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION P.O. BOX 1260 ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82902 

SWEETWATER TELEVISION 

PAULA WONNACOTT 602 BROADWAY ST. ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

JIM & CAT URBIGKIT (PC)P.O. BOX 1663 PINEDALE, WY 82941 

THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY 

NORTHERN ROCKIES REGIONAL OFFICE PETER AENGST 105 W MAIN ST., SUITE E BOZEMAN, MT 59715 

JOHN ETCHEPARE (PC)DIRECTOR WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 2219 CAREY AVE. CHEYENNE, WY 82002 

TIMOTHY A. KAUMO, MAYOR 

SURVEYORS & JFC ENGINEERS 1515 9TH ST., SUITE A ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

KELLY MATHESON (PC)GREATER YELLOWSTONE PROGRAM COORDINATOR WYOMING OUTDOOR COUNCIL 262 LINCOLN ST. LANDER, WY 82520 

TRACY J. WILLIAMS 

POLICY ANALYST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR STATE CAPITAL CHEYENNE, WY 82002 

KEMMERER GAZETTE (PC)P.O. BOX 30 KEMMERER, WY 83101 

U.S. AIR FORCE 

DET CHIEF 635 HIGHWAY 353 BOULDER, WY 82923 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

KMER (PC)P.O. BOX 432 KEMMERER, WY 83101 

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

MATT BILODEAU 2232 DELL RANGE BLVD. SUITE 210 CHEYENNE, WY 82009 

KUGR (PC) NEWS DIRECTOR 40 SHOSHONE AVE. GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE (EH-1000 INDEPENDENCE AVE. SWWASHINGTON, D.C. 20585 

KURT (PC)P.O. BOX 951 PINEDALE, WY 82941 

U.S. EPA, OFFICE OF FEDERAL ACTIVITIES 

ELAINE SURIANO (2252A) 401 M ST. SWWASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

LABARGE BRANCH LIBRARY (AQ) HIGHWAY 89 LABARGE, WY 83123 

U.S. EPA, REGION 8 CHIEF, WM-EA 999 18TH ST., SUITE 500 DENVER, CO 80202 

LEE KREUTZER (PC)

NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM OFFICE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 324 S. STATE, SUITE 250 P.O. BOX 45155 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84145-0155 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

ECOLOGICAL SERVICES 4000 AIRPORT PARKWAY CHEYENNE, WY 82001 

LEW HAGENLOCK (PC)DUKE ENERGY 1324 N. 7TH AVE. GREELEY, CO 80631 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

GRADY TOWNS P.O. BOX 25486 FEDERAL CENTER DENVER, CO 80225 

January 2006
Public 

LINCOLN COUNTY LIBRARY (AQ)519 EMERALD KEMMERER, WY 83101 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY RICK HUTCHINSON 4147 AUDUBON WAY BILLINGS, MT 59106 

YATES PETROLEUM CORPORATION (PC)105 S FOURTH ST. ARTESIA, NM 88120 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

CATHY OGLE 2615 E. LINCOLNWAY CHEYENNE, WY 82001 

CRAIG NICHOLLS (AQ)BLM NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECH. CENTER MAIL STOP-180 DENVER FEDERAL CENTER, BLDG. 50 DENVER, CO 80225 

U.S. NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERDISTRICT OFFICE 

P.O. BOX 360 FARSON, WY 82932 

DOUG BLEWITT (PC)5401 SOUTH GENEVA ST. ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111 

U.S. NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERPINEDALE OFFICE 

P.O. BOX 36 PINEDALE, WY 82941 

EPA, OFFICE OF FEDERAL ACTIVITIES (PC)  EIS FILING SECTION PEARL YOUNG BOOKER MAIL COADE 2252-A, ROOM 7241 ARIEL RIOS BLDG, SOUTH OVAL LOBBY 1200 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. NWWASHINGTON, D.C. 20004 

U.S. NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERSTATE OFFICE 100 EAST B ST., ROOM 3124 CASPER, WY 82601 

ERIC WILLIAMS (PC)ENVIRONOMICS 203 FIRST ST. CHENEY, WA 99004 

USDA/BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST RICK ANDERSON & MICHAEL SEHROTZ P.O. BOX 1888 JACKSON, WY 83001 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

JOHN BUNYAK, SUSAN JOHNSON, & JOHN NOTAR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (PC)AIR RESOURCES DIVISION 12795 WEST ALAMEDA PARKWAY LAKEWOOD, CO 80228 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA CUBIN 

BONNIE CANNON, REPR. 2515 FOOTHILL BLVD SUITE 204 ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

BARARA KLASSEN (AQ) CATALOGING/LIBRARY SYSTEMS BLM LIBRARY DENVER FEDERAL CENTER, BUILDING 50 P.O. BOX 25047 DENVER, CO 80225-0047 

U.S. SENATOR CRAIG THOMAS PATI L. SMITH, REPR. 2632 FOOTHILL BLVD., SUITE 101 ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

BKS ENVIRONMENTAL (PC) 612 N. HIGHWAY 14-16, SUITE F GILLETTE, WY 82716 

U.S. SENATOR MIKE ENZI LYN SHANAGHY, REPR. P.O. BOX 12470 JACKSON, WY 83002 

BURLINGTON RESOURCES (PC) ATTN: EILEEN DEY 330 N. A ST. BUILDING 6-100 MIDLAND, TX 79705 

ULTRA RESOURCES, INC. 

BRIAN AULT 304 INVERNESS WAY, SUITE 295 DENVER, CO 80112 

BURLINTON RESOURCES (PC)ATTN: KURT FROISTAD 1801 BROADWAY, SUITE 800 DENVER, CO 80202 

UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING COLLECTION DEV. OFFICE T. HERT P.O. BOX 3334 LARAMIE, WY 82071 

CATHY SIMMONS (AQ) BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT WYOMING STATE OFFICE 5353 YELLOWSTONE RD. CHEYENNE, WY 82009 

UPPER GREEN RIVER VALLEY COALITION 

LINDA BAKER P.O. BOX 1262 PINEDALE, WY 82941 

January 2006
Public 

DAVE BROWN (AQ / PC)BP AMERICA 1660 LINCOLN ST., SUITE 3000 DENVER, CO 80264 

USDA/BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST 

FOREST SUPERVISOR P.O. BOX 1888 JACKSON, WY 83001 

DEVON SFS OPERATING COMPANY (PC)ATTN: SCOTT PRATHER / KATHY HINCKLE 20 N. BROADWAY, SUITE 1500 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102-8260 

USDA/BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST TERRY SVALBERG P.O. BOX 220 PINEDALE, WY 82941 

DOMINION EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INC. ATTN: RUSTY WATERS (PC)14000 QUAIL SPRINGS PARKWAY, SUITE 600 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73134 

USDA/FOREST SERVICE ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION (TAMARA BLETT) P.O. BOX 25127 LAKEWOOD, CO 80225 

BRUCE PENDERY (PC / AQ)WYOMING OUTDOOR COUNCIL  - UTAH OFFICE 444 EAST 800 NORTH LOGAN, UT 84321 

USDA/BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST 

BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT P.O. BOX 218 BIG PINEY, WY 83113 

VICKI STAMPER (AQ)PO BOX 1805 LARAMIE, WY 82073 

USDA/FOREST SERVICE 

ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION (MELODY HOLM)P.O. BOX 25127 LAKEWOOD, CO 80225 

ROBERT YUHNKE (AQ) 2910-B CO. RD. 67 BOULDER, CO 80303 

USDA/FOREST SERVICE 

INTERMOUNTAIN REGION 324 25TH ST. OGDEN, UT 84401 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

ELAINE SURIANO (AQ)OFFICE OF FEDERAL ACTIVITIES GENERAL MAIL DELIVERY US EPA (2252-A) 1200 PENNSYLVANIA AVE., NWWASHINGTON, D.C. 20460-0001 

USDA/SHOSHONE NATIONAL FOREST 

MINERALS STAFF OFFICER 808 MEADOW LANE AVE. CODY, WY 82414 

FOREST OIL CORPORATION (PC)ATTN: GARTH BERKELAND 1600 BROADWAY, SUITE 2200 DENVER, CO 80202-4921 

USDA/WASHAKIE RANGER DISTRICT 

333 E MAIN ST. LANDER, WY 82520 

FRANK BAIN (PC) BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT MOAB FIELD OFFICE 82 EAST DOGWOOD, SUITE MMOAB, UT 84501 

USDA/SHOSHONE NATIONAL FOREST 

808 MEADOW LANE AVE. CODY, WY 82414 

JONATHAN RATNER (AQ / PC) P.O. BOX 551 DUBOIS, WY 82513 

USDI/BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT PUBLIC ROOM (WSO 921) P.O. BOX 1828 CHEYENNE, WY 82003 

LIANA REILLY (PC)NRPC-ARD 7333 WEST JEFFERSON, 4TH FLOORLAKEWOOD, CO 80235 

USDI/BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

STATE DIRECTOR (WSO 912) P.O. BOX 1828 CHEYENNE, WY 82003 

MARISA MARTIN (PC) 5114 PACIFIC AVE. MARINA DEL REY, CA 90292 

USDI/BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

CENTRAL FILES (WSO 951) P.O. BOX 1828 CHEYENNE, WY 82003 

January 2006
Public 

MIKE TODD (PC) 217 N. 1ST WEST GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

USDI/BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (NRSC RS-1400)DENVER FEDERAL CENTER BUILDING 50 DENVER, CO 80225 

RAY NATION (PC)BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS FIRST & WASHAKIE STREETS FORT WASHAKIE, WY 82514 

USDI/BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT PINEDALE FIELD OFFICE P.O. BOX 768 PINEDALE, WY 82941 

ROGER ALEXANDER (PC)BLM WSO (WY 951) 5353 YELLOWSTONE ROAD CHEYENNE, WY 82009 

USDI/BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

STATE DIRECTOR (WSO 920) P.O. BOX 1828 CHEYENNE, WY 82003 

STEVE REYNOLDS (PC)427 SIOUX DRIVE CHEYENNE, WY 82009 

USDI/BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

STATE DIRECTOR (WSO 930) P.O. BOX 1828 CHEYENNE, WY 82003 

USDI/BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (AQ)JANET KURMAN P.O. BOX 1828 CHEYENNE, WY 82009 

USDI/BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

ROCK SPRINGS FIELD OFFICE 280 HIGHWAY 191 N ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

USDI/MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERIVCE (PC)OFFSHORE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DIV. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240

USDI/NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

JERE KRAKOWP.O. BOX 45155 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84145-0155 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

USDI/BUREAU OF RECLAMATION (PC) ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES GROUP (UC-320) 125 S STATE ST., ROOM 6107 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84138

USDI/NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGIONAL DIRECTOR P.O. BOX 25287 DENVER, CO 80225 

USDI/NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (2310) (PC)1849 C ST. NW, ROOM 2749 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240

USDI/OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND  COMPLIANCE 

GWENDOLYN WILDER 1849 C ST. NW, ROOM 2340 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20242 

USDI/OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING (PC)DIV OF ENVIRONMENTAL & ECONOMIC ANALYSIS INTERIOR BUILDING SOUTH, RM 134 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240

UTE MOUNTAIN UTE TRIBAL COUNCIL (PC / reJUDY KNIGHT-FRANK GENERAL DELIVERY TOWAOC, CO 81344 

UTE TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES BETSY CHAPOOSE (PC / ret recpt)P.O. BOX 190 FORT DUCHESNE, UT 84026

UTE TRIBE BUSINESS COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN P.O. BOX 190 (PC / reFORT DUCHESNE, UT 84026 

WESTERN WYOMING COMMUNITY COLLEGE (AQ)COLLEGE LIBRARY P.O. BOX 428 ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82902

WHITE MOUNTAIN LIBRARY 

2935 SWEETWATER DRIVE ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

WIND RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMDON ARAGON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (PC)P.O. BOX 217 FORT WASHAKIE, WY 82514

WY OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION P.O. BOX 2640 

CASPER, WY 82602 

January 2006
Public 

DUBOIS, WY 82513

WYOMING WILDLIFE FEDERATON 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR P.O. BOX 106 

JAMIE BALLARD (PC)P.O. BOX 1101 

KEN BERSHEIT 

P.O. BOX 1487 

WHITEHALL, MT 59759 

CHEYENNE, WY 82003 

EVANSTON, WY 82930 

WYOMING DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY LEE GRIBOVICZ 

LANDER, WY 82520 250 LINCOLN ST. 

WYOMING DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY DARLA POTTER / CARA CASTEN (AQ)HERSCHLER BLDG., 4 WEST 122 W 25TH ST. CHEYENNE, WY 82002WYOMING DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION (PC)DIRECTOR CHEYENNE, WY 820035300 BISHOP BLVD. 

WYOMING GAME AND FISH DEPT. 

P.O. BOX 850 PINEDALE, WY 82941 SCOTT SMITH 

WYOMING OFFICE OF FEDERAL LAND POLICY 122 W 25TH ST. CHEYENNE, WY 82002HERSCHLER BUILDING, 1 WEST (PC)

WYOMING OUTDOOR COUNCIL 

262 LINCOLN ST. LANDER, WY 82520 FIELD DIRECTOR 

MEREDITH TAYLOR 6360 HWY 26 WYOMING WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION (PC)

WYOMING DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE (PC)DON CHRISTIANSON 2219 CAREY AVE. CHEYENNE, WY 82001

WYOMING DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CHUCK ROFFELSON 

HERSCHLER BLDG., 4 WEST 122 W 25TH ST. CHEYENNE, WY 82002 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

JAMES BLAKE (PC)P.O. BOX 1671 PINEDALE, WY 82941 

JENNIFER CHIDESTER 

145 DEL RIO DR. EVANSTON, WY 82930 

RON CLARK (PC)P.O. BOX 1964 PINEDALE, WY 82941 

KENNY COOPER 

1134 MORSLEE EVANSTON, WY 82930 

STEPHEN GRIMES (PC)P.O. BOX 17805 DENVER, CO 80202 

GARY GROSS 

190 MESA DR. ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

RYAN HALE (PC)P.O. BOX 432 LYMAN, WY 82937 

BARBARA HERZ 

SIERRA CLUB - TETON COUNTY P.O. BOX 211 MOOSE, WY 83012 

MARY JENKINS (PC)2924 SUNDANCE LANE ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

D.M. JOHNSON 

1801 BROADWAY, SUITE 310 DENVER, CO 80202 

J.R. JUSTUS (PC) SHELL EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION CO. 4582 S. ULSTER ST. PARKWAY SUITE 500 DENVER, CO 80237 

SCOTT KELLEY 

351 EAST 4TH S. GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

January 2006
Public 

SUZANNE LEWIS (AQ / PC)BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ALLIANCE P.O. BOX 1512 LARAMIE, WY 82073 

MICHAEL MAGAGNA 

1612 OVERLAND ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

CLIFFORD McGOWAN (PC)P.O. BOX 85 FARSON, WY 82932 

DANNY MORTENSEN 

2552 N.N. 500 E. VERNAL, UT 84078 

PHILLIP PUTNAM (PC)118 BELLVIEW DR. ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

JONATHAN RATNER 

WESTERN WATERSHED PROJECT P.O. BOX 1160 PINEDALE, WY 82941 

RAUL SAAVEDRA, JR. (PC)110 COLONIAL EVANSTON, WY 82930 

JOHN SCHOPP 

ENCANA OIL & GAS (USA) 370 17TH ST., SUITE 1700 DENVER, CO 80202 

BLAINE SIDDOWAY (PC)355 BIRCH ST. GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

TY SMITH 

LESAIR ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. 10394 W. CHATFIELD AVE., SUITE 100 LITTLETON, CO 80127 

DAVID STALLING (PC)TROUT UNLIMITED PUBLIC LANDS INITIATIVE 401 E. SPRUCE ST. MISSOULA, MT 59802 

DANA STEFFEN 

206 MARBLE EVANSTON, WY 82930 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

BRETT STEVENSON (PC)136 S. 4TH W.GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

CHRIS THORNHILL 

P.O. BOX 2141 PINEDALE, WY 82941 

DAVID VANNORMAN (PC)380 HACKBERRY GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

TROY VAVRA 

311 VAN BUREN, #1 ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

PATTI VINCENT (PC)5957 CHAMPION RD. LIBBY, MT 59923 

ERIC WILLIAMS 

ENVIRONOMICS 203 FIRST ST. CHENEY, WA 99004 

RICHARD ZIMMERMAN (PC)1660 BLAIR AVE., #11 ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

ROBERT ZUMBRENNEN 

500 S. 5TH E. GREEN RIVER, WY 82935 

PAM ROTH / DAVE PETRIE (AQ) ENCANA OIL & GAS 370 17TH ST., SUITE 1700 DENVER, CO 80202 

ARUN NAIK 

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS 3333 HIGHWAY 6 S. WTC EC 129 HOUSTON, TX 77082-3101

LAURIE GOODMAN (AQ) P.O. BOX 2136 PINEDALE, WY

RENEE DANA BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT ROCK SPRINGS FIELD OFFICE 280 HIGHWAY 191 N. ROCK SPRINGS, WY 82901 

January 2006
Public 

MICHELLE EASLEY (AQ) BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT KEMMERER FIELD OFFICE 312 HIGHWAY 189 N. KEMMERER, WY 83101 

SUE OSBORN 

EMIT TECHNOLOGIES INC. DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING P.O. BOX 6785 SHERIDAN, WY 82801

GERALD P. BERBLING, JR., PE (AQ)REG. DEVEL. COORD., EP AMERICAS EXTERNAL & GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS SHELL EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION COMPANY ONE SHELL PLAZA, P.O. BOX 61933 NEW ORLEANS, LA 70161-1933

CHARLES COYLE 

SWCA 2120 N. CENTRAL AVE., SUITE 130 PHOENIX, AZ 85004 

PETE GUERNSEY (AQ) MAXIM TECHNOLOGIES 605 N. WAREHOUSE RD. CASPER, WY 82601 

35982\supplemental distribution\mail list 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

APPENDIX D 

PUBLIC MEETINGS 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

Pinedale BLM Schedules Public Meetings to Discuss Feb. 24, 2005 

Draft EIS for Jonah Infill Drilling Project Proposal Release no. 05-02-07 

Contact: Carol Kruse (307) 367-5352 

 For Immediate Release 

PINEDALE, Wyo. -- The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Pinedale has scheduled 

two public meetings in late March to discuss its Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 

for the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Proposal. Availability of the document was announced in the 

Federal Register on Feb. 11, 2005. That announcement opened a 60-day public review and 

comment period that concludes on April 12, 2005. 

“These meetings will provide the public with a forum to gather information, ask clarifying 

questions, and provide substantive input in writing on the Jonah Infill Draft EIS,” said project 

lead Carol Kruse. The public meetings will be at the Rock Springs BLM Office on March 21st and 

at Rendezvous Pointe in Pinedale on March 23rd. Both meetings begin at 3:00 p.m. each day 

with an open house format. We will have short presentations on the BLM Preferred Alternative 

at 4:00 p.m. and at 7:00 p.m.” Kruse added. 

“We need to hear from the citizens most affected by this project – the people of Sublette 

and surrounding areas,” said Prill Mecham, field manager for the Pinedale BLM. The project 

proposes to expand natural gas drilling and development operations within the existing 

boundaries of the Jonah Field in south-central Sublette County, Wyo. Operations are proposed 

for that portion of the Jonah Field referred to as the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area (JIDPA), 

located approximately 32 miles southeast of Pinedale and 28 miles northwest of Farson, Wyo. 

“One of our biggest concerns is protection of air quality, greater sage-grouse habitats, 

and antelope migration routes within the public lands that we manage in the Jonah Field,” 

Mecham said. 

The Draft EIS identifies nine key issues for consideration: 

• amount of surface disturbance 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

• socioeconomics and boom/bust avoidance 

• regional visibility effects 

• greater sage-grouse/greater sage-grouse habitat protection 

• pronghorn antelope migration corridor protection 

• direct and indirect habitat fragmentation and loss for all wildlife species 

• maximizing natural gas recovery 

• loss of livestock forage and 

• BLM monitoring and enforcement capacity. 

The document can be viewed or downloaded from the internet at 

www.wy.blm.gov/nepa/pfodocs/jonah/index.htm. 

The JIDPA encompasses approximately 30,500 acres of mixed surface and mineral 

estate controlled by federal and state governments and private landowners. 

The proposed project is in conformance with the BLM Pinedale and Green River 

Resource Area Resource Management Plans, the Sublette County Land Use Plan, and the 

State of Wyoming Land Use Plan. In those Plans, the BLM determined that JIDPA lands are 

available for natural gas leasing and development. 

BLM can best use comments submitted by close of business on Monday, April 12, 2005. 

Comments should be mailed to: Jonah Infill Drilling Project, BLM-Pinedale Field Office, P.O. 

Box 768, Pinedale, WY 82941. E-mail comments may be submitted to: 

WYMail_Jonah_Infill@blm.gov. 

-- http://www.wy.blm.gov -- 

January 2006
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project DEIS 

Open House/Public Meeting 

Rock Springs, WY March 21, 2005 

3:00pm Open house – view posters, visit with individual BLM staff 

4:00pm Brief presentation on BLM Preferred Alternative 

4:20pm Question and answer period 

4:45pm Open house – view posters, visit with individual BLM staff 

7:00pm Brief presentation on BLM Preferred Alternative 

(same presentation as at 4:00pm) 

7:20pm Question and answer period 

7:45pm Open house – view posters, visit with individual BLM staff 

8:00pm Close 

January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project DEIS 

Open House/Public Meeting 

Pinedale, WY March 23, 2005 

3:00pm Open house – view posters, visit with individual BLM staff 

4:00pm Brief presentation on BLM Preferred Alternative 

4:20pm Question and answer period 

4:45pm Open house – view posters, visit with individual BLM staff 

7:00pm Brief presentation on BLM Preferred Alternative 

(same presentation as at 4:00pm) 

7:20pm Question and answer period 

7:45pm Open house – view posters, visit with individual BLM staff 

8:00pm Close 

January 2006 












Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Pinedale Field Office 

Pinedale, Wyoming 

Open House for Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

3/23/2005 

Please Read Carefully

LEAVE COMMENTS AT REGISTRATION TABLE OR MAIL THEM TO: Bureau of Land Management; 

Carol Kruse, Project Manager; Pinedale Field Office; P.O. Box 768, Pinedale, Wyoming 82941. 

Comments may be emailed to WYMail_Jonah_Infill@blm.gov. Comments must be postmarked or 

emailed by midnight, April 12, 2005. 

Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents will be available for public review at the , 

Wyoming during regular business hours (7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) Monday through Friday, except holidays. 

Individual respondents may request confidentiality. If you wish to withhold your name or address from public 

review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this prominently at the 

beginning of your comments. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by law. All submissions 

from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials 

of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public inspection in their entirety.

Name/Organization:

Address: Zip Code:

Comments:

 January 2006 
Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Public Comment Analysis Report 

Signature: 

January 2006