Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

1 

DECISION RECORD 

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 

For

LOWER BUSH CREEK COAL BED METHANE 

EXPLORATORY PILOT PROJECT 

INTRODUCTION

On August 15, 2003, the State Director remanded the Decision Record for the Lower Bush Creek 

Coal Bed Methane Exploratory Pilot Project to the Rock Springs Field Office in resolution of a 

request for State Director Review (SDR) on the original Decision Record, Finding of No Significant 

Impact, and Environmental Assessment dated June 24, 2003. Remand of the original decision 

involves the cumulative impact analysis only. All other points brought forth in the SDR were 

affirmed. 

This Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact and Environmental Assessment supercedes 

and replaces the decision of June 24, 2003. 

Kennedy Oil (Kennedy) of Gillette, Wyoming, notified the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 

Rock Springs Field Office (RSFO), that the company proposes an exploratory pilot project to explore 

for and potentially develop coal bed methane (CBM) wells. The proposal would allow the proponent 

to determine whether there is commercial production potential of oil and gas leases issued by the 

BLM. Two 10-well groupings, known as pods, comprise the proposal and are located on public lands 

administered by the BLM within the Great Divide Basin located in south-central Wyoming (see 

Figure 1.1 of the attached Environmental Assessment). The project is within the administrative 

boundary of the Rock Springs Field Office (RSFO) in Townships 24 and 25 North, Range 98 West, 

Sweetwater County, Wyoming. 

Access to the area is by Interstate Highway 80 and Sweetwater County Road 4-21 (Bar X Road). 

Driving directions are as follows: travel approximately 60 miles west from Rawlins, Wyoming, on I80 to Exit 152 access to Sweetwater County Road 4-21 (Bar X Road); travel north on the Bar X 

Road for approximately 33 miles to the project areas. 

The proposal involves drilling and testing commercial CBM production potential of the Big Red 

Coal with two pods of 10 exploratory CBM wells on 160-acre spacing (see Decision Record Map). 

This well number and spacing is believed to be the minimum necessary to sufficiently de-water the 

coal, allow the gas to desorb through reduced pressure in the coal seam, and determine whether 

natural gas production is economically viable in this coal at this location. All produced water would 

be reinjected into a sand formation containing water of lesser or equal quality as compared with the 

injected water. The proposal would require the construction of access roads, well pads, completion 

of injection wells and related production facilities for each pod. The pods are known as the North 

Sweetwater Pilot and the Central Sweetwater Pilot. The project area, here defined as the sections 

directly affected by the Proposed Action, encompasses approximately 3,500 acres. 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

2 

Approved Project Map 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

3 

BLM released a scoping notice to the public on February 28, 2002 (a copy of the scoping notice can 

be found in Appendix E of the attached Environmental Assessment). Sixteen comment letters were 

received. All issues identified during public scoping have been considered. Comments received in 

response to public scoping and the BLM response to those comments can be found in Appendix A of 

this decision. Based on the analysis and review of the regulations contained in 43 CFR 1501.4 (2), 

the BLM is releasing the Decision Record and Finding of No Significant Impact with the 

Environmental Assessment. The action proposed is not or closely similar to one which normally 

requires an environmental impact statement under the procedures adopted by the agency pursuant to 

1507.3 (Department Manual 516 DM 6, Appendix 5: 5.3, Actions Normally Requiring an EIS); nor 

is the proposal one without precedent (oil and gas activity is an approved and on-going activity in the 

general area).

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

The attached Environmental Assessment for the Lower Bush Creek Coal Bed Methane Exploratory 

Pilot Project analyzed two alternatives. The Proposed Action involves drilling wells to the Big Red 

Coal in the Fort Union formation and testing the commercial potential for CBM production of that 

zone. Two proposed pods, each containing 10 exploratory wells on 160-acre spacing and one 

injection well. These pods are known as the North Sweetwater Pilot and the Central Sweetwater 

Pilot. The proposed well number and spacing is believed to be the minimum necessary to 

sufficiently de-water the coal, allow the gas to desorb through reduced pressure in the coal seam, and 

allow the determination of the zone’s commercial production potential in this geographic region. The 

exploratory pilot project is expected to provide additional data about the natural gas resources in this 

area. 

Associated facilities required include use of existing and development of new access roads including 

collector, resource, and special purpose roads, drill pads, water disposal pipelines, injection wells, 

and associated equipment (i.e., tanks if needed, valves) on the well site. 

Regulations contained in 40 CFR 1508.9 states that alternatives as required by Section 102(2)(E) of 

the National Environmental Policy Act directs agencies to study, develop, and describe appropriate 

alternatives for proposals which involve unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available 

resources. One alternative was analyzed in the attached EA. 

The other alternative documented in the attached Environmental Assessment is the No Action 

alternative which analyzed the impacts of denying the proposal. 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated Detailed Study

No Upgrade or Construction of Roads. This alternative was based on the Proposed Action with no 

allowance for upgrading of existing roads or construction of roads. Such an alternative would reduce 

surface disturbance caused by road upgrading or construction. However, the GRRMP requires roads 

to be constructed according to BLM standards (BLM Manual 9113 and BLM Wyoming 

Supplemental Manual 9113) to protect the health and safety of those working on or visiting public 

lands in the area. Since neither a no upgrade nor construction of road alternative would be in 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

4 

conformance with the Green River Resource Management Plan, this alternative was determined to be 

unreasonable. 

Alternative of Ninety-three wells in 2 pods: In September 2001 when Kennedy first 

approached BLM, their tentative proposal consisted of 93 wells, located in two pods, to test the 

viability of CBM production. The two pods included 35 wells including 3 injection wells in T24NR98W 

and 58 wells including 4 injection wells in T25N, R 97/98W. However, bids to write the document were 

considerably higher than the company wanted to pay; thus, Kennedy chose to scale their proposal 

down to the minimum necessary to test CBM production. Hence, the Proposed Action was 

developed. Because Kennedy found the cost to complete the necessary study to be uneconomic 

and modified their proposal, this alternative was drop from detailed study. 

Directional or Horizontal Drilling Method Alternative: Directional drilling refers to a technique 

of drilling on an angle from the vertical that allows the completion of multiple wells from one drill 

pad. The success of this method is dependent on well depth, gas pressure and down-hole pump 

needs. Directional drilling is generally used to gain access to a part of an oil and/or gas reservoir that 

is not directly below the surface well location. It is also generally used in areas where surface 

locations are expensive or prohibitive. Directional drilling is used extensively offshore and in 

remote areas such as the Middle East, Alaska’s North Slope where mobilization and site preparation 

costs are much higher than in the pilot project area. In these remote areas directional drilling is often 

justified from an economic standpoint. 

Horizontal drilling is a method of completing a well with a long horizontal wellbore segment in the 

target formation. This method has been used extensively to increase hydrocarbon recovery from low 

permeability fractured reservoirs. Although the density of horizontal wells may be less than the 

density of vertical wells, usually only one horizontal well is drilled from each surface location. 

Horizontal drilling has been used extensively to develop low permeability fractured oil and gas 

reservoirs in Texas, North Dakota, and southeast Wyoming. In all three of these areas vertical wells 

were drilled initially.

The purpose of a pilot project, such as the one proposed by Kennedy, is to gather data and determine 

the economic feasibility of more extensive development. At this stage, it would be very difficult to 

evaluate the feasibility of directional drilling, or horizontal completion techniques in the project area 

as little data or information is available. Requiring directional drilling or horizontal completions 

would complicate the pilot project in that the purpose of it is to collect reliable information on 

reservoir heterogeneity, coal thickness, coal gas content, gas chemistry, recovery efficiency, coal 

permeability, water quality and quantity, plus drilling, completion, and processing costs. This data 

must be collected before an assessment of the feasibility of drilling directional wells from a central 

location or using horizontal completions can be properly evaluated. Neither directional nor 

horizontal drilling methods are successful in low-pressure coal bed methane wells, as is the character 

of the Big Red Coal. Due to these factors, a directional or horizontal drilling program was 

determined to be unreasonable. 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

5 

DECISION

Based upon the analysis of the potential environmental impacts described in the Environmental 

Assessment for the Lower Bush Creek Coal Bed Methane Exploratory Pilot Project, and in 

consideration of internal, public, industry, and governmental agency comments received during 

public scoping and that no unresolved issues remain after analysis, BLM approves the Proposed 

Action alternative as described in Chapter 2 (and Appendix D) as mitigated in Chapter 4 in the 

attached Environmental Assessment. Approval of the project will allow Kennedy Oil to gain 

authorization of the required permits to drill and rights-of-way to implement project components. 

Project-wide applicant committed measures or conditions of approval required to eliminate or reduce 

impacts are identified in Appendices B and C of this decision. Appendix C of this decision modifies 

the Master Surface Use Plan found in Appendix D of the attached Environmental Assessment. 

Approved Project Components

This decision authorizes processing of applications for permit to drill or right-of-way applications for 

the following project components on BLM-administered public lands and minerals within the project 

area, subject to the requirements identified in Appendices B and C of this decision. Approval of 

component permits is required prior to surface disturbing activities. 

Two 10-well CBM pods located on public lands administered by the BLM within the project 

area and one injection well located adjacent to a well in each pod. Well name, lease, and 

location are identified in Table 1. 

Table 1 

Lower Bush Creek Coal Bed Methane Exploratory Pilot Project 

Project Area Lease No. Well Name Location 

Kennedy North SW Fed 21-25 NENW Sec. 25, T25N R98W 

Kennedy North SW Fed 23-25 NESW Sec. 25, T25N R98W 

Kennedy North SW Fed 43-25 NESE Sec. 25, T25N R98W 

Kennedy North SW Fed 41-26 NENE Sec. 26, T25N R98W 

Kennedy North SW Fed 23-26 NESW Sec. 26, T25N R98W 

Kennedy North SW Fed 43-26 NESE Sec. 26, T25N R98W 

Kennedy North SW Fed 21-35 NENW Sec. 35, T25N R98W 

Kennedy North SW Fed 41-35 NENE Sec. 35, T25N R98W 

Kennedy North SW Fed 23-35 NESW Sec. 35, T25N R98W 

WYW154200 

Kennedy North SW Fed 43-35 NENE Sec. 35, T25N R98W 

North Sweetwater Pilot 

Injection well Kennedy North SW Fed 41-35i NENE Sec. 35, T25N R98W 

Project Area Lease No. Well Name Location 

Central Sweetwater Fed 21-22 NENW Sec. 22, T24N R98W 

Central Sweetwater Fed 23-22 NESW Sec. 22, T24N R98W 

Central Sweetwater Fed 41-22 NENE Sec. 22, T24N R98W 

Central Sweetwater Fed 43-22 NESE Sec. 22, T24N R98W 

Central Sweetwater Fed 21-23 NENW Sec. 23, T24N R98W 

WYW153613 

Central Sweetwater Fed 23-23 NESW Sec. 23, T24N R98W 

Central Sweetwater Fed 21-21 NENW Sec. 21, T24N R98W 

Central Sweetwater Fed 23-21 NESW Sec. 21, T24N R98W 

Central Sweetwater Fed 41-21 NENE Sec. 21, T24N R98W 

Central Sweetwater Pilot 

WYW152180 

Central Sweetwater Fed 43-21 NESE Sec. 21, T24N R98W 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

6 

 Injection well Central Sweetwater Fed 41-21i NENE Sec. 21, T24N R98W 

Use or reconstruction of approximately 7.87 miles of existing access road and construction of 

approximately 8.10 miles of new access road. The BLM will allow Kennedy Oil to test the 

use of special purpose roads to certain wells (as reflected on the map in this decision). All 

other roads within each pod will be constructed to resource road standard (16 ft subgrade 

width, 14 ft surfaced travelway, with borrow ditches) including a 10 ft by 100 ft turnout 

every 1,000 ft and will be designed under the direction of or by a licensed engineer and meet 

the requirements found in Appendix C this decision. All special purpose roads will be 

surveyed. Construction and use of special purpose roads will be closely monitored by BLM. 

Should resource damage become evident, activity will be stopped, the road designed by or 

under the direction of a licensed engineer and constructed accordingly prior to resuming 

operations. 

Construction of buried water injection pipelines (if testing proves viable) will be placed 

adjacent to access roads (no cross-country placement of pipelines). Estimated initial surface 

disturbance from access roads and pipeline rights-of-way is approximately 72.64 acres 

(includes disturbance from existing roads). All pipelines will be reclaimed after construction 

is completed. Access road life-of-project disturbance should production occur would be 

limited to no more than 48.40 acres (includes disturbance from existing roads). 

A portion of the access road leading to the North Sweetwater pod will require maintenance 

(re-establishment of roadbed) prior to use and another portion of the route leading to the pod 

will require construction. All maintenance/construction of this road within the existing 

prairie dog town will be done within the confines of the previously disturbed area. 

A pipeline (compression or other related facilities) right-of-way to market produced gas 

could be required if testing proves successful. Such proposals will be subject to the 

appropriate level of environmental analysis at the time it is proposed. 

Twenty-two (22) wells located in two pods (10 CBM wells and 1 injection well in each pod). 

Initial disturbance of each well pad will be approximately 1.39 acres and 2.14 acres for well 

pads having injection wells for a total initial disturbance from well pad construction of 25.02 

and 4.28 acres respectively. Life-of-project disturbance would be no more than 0.7 acres per 

well except for well pads having injection wells. Such disturbance would be no more than 

0.92 acres per well. Total life-of-project disturbance from well pads should production occur 

would be 12.6 acres and 1.84 acres for well pads having injection wells. 

Any required staging or storage areas will be located on the well site unless an alternative 

location is approved subject to appropriate environmental analysis. 

Disturbance from the project is summarized in Table 2 below. 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

7 

TABLE 2 

SURFACE DISTURBANCE SUMMARY 

Facility Length (feet) 

Estimated 

Width (feet) 

Initial 

Disturbance 

(Acres) 

Production 

Disturbance Should 

Exploratory Drilling 

Prove Successful 

(Acres) 

Special Purpose Roads and 

parallel water gathering line 20,964 30 (initial) 

12 (LOP) 14.44 5.78 

Maintenance of existing access 

road to North Sweetwater pod 17,686 40 (initial/ 

LOP) 16.24 16.24 

Use of existing crowned and 

ditched collector roads and 

construction of adjacent parallel 

water gathering line 

19,119 40 (initial) 

24 (LOP) 17.56 10.53 

Construction of Resource Road 

without parallel water gathering 

pipelines 

4,750 40 (initial/ 

LOP) 4.36 4.36 

Construction of Resource Roads 

and parallel water gathering 

pipeline 

21,826 40 (initial) 

24 ( LOP) 20.04 12.03 

Each Producing Well Pad (18 

pads total) 

295 (init.) 

175 (prod.) 

205 (initial) 

175 (LOP) 

1.39 (well) 

25.02 (total)

0.7 (well) 

12.6 (total) 

Each Pad for Producing and 

Injection Well Locations (2 

locations total) 

455 (init.) 

200 (prod.) 

205 (initial) 

200 (LOP) 

2.14 (well) 

4.28 (total)

0.92 (well) 

1.84 (total) 

Total Disturbance (Acres) 101.94 63.38 

Approval of the Proposed Action is conditional upon and subject to applicant-committed 

environmental practices found in Appendix B and additional mitigation measures including 

conditions of approval described in Appendix C of this decision, and adherence to any additional 

conditions of approval attached to the approved application for permit to drill, adherence to oil and 

gas leases, and adherence to right-of-way grant stipulations. 

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATION/RATIONALE FOR THE DECISION

The decision to approve the Proposed Action is based on the following factors. 

1. Consistency with Land Use and Resource Management Plans 

The Proposed Action is in conformance with the Green River Resource Management Plan 

(RMP). The objective for oil and gas management is to “provide consideration for oil and 

gas leasing, exploration, and development of oil and gas while protecting other values.” The 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

8 

objective of the realty program is to “manage the public lands to support the goals and 

objectives of other resource programs” and “to respond to public demand for land use 

authorizations.” In addition, management actions for the Red Desert Watershed Management 

Area allow for surface disturbing activities, including mineral exploration and development 

where acceptable subject to the management guidelines provided in the Minerals section of 

the RMP. All public lands affected by the proposal are leased for oil and gas with 

appropriate mitigation including the requirement for an acceptable plan of which the criteria 

can be found in Appendix A of the attached Environmental Assessment. 

2. National Policy 

Private exploration and development of federal oil and gas leases is an integral part of the 

BLM oil and gas leasing program under the authority of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as 

amended and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended. The 

United States continues to rely on foreign energy sources. The BLM oil and gas program is 

designed to encourage development of domestic oil and gas reserves. This decision is 

consistent with national policy. In addition, analyzing a comprehensive drilling program 

complies with existing policy to utilize one master drilling and surface use plan for a cluster 

of wells [pod], or analyzing proposed development within a geographic area. 

3. Agency Statutory Requirements 

This decision is consistent with all federal, state, and county authorizing actions required to 

implement the Proposed Action. All pertinent statutory requirements applicable to this 

proposal were considered. Informal conferencing for proposed species and formal 

consultation for listed species with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been completed (see 

Appendix D of this decision). Compliance with Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act 

will be completed prior to approval of permits for individual components.

4. Relevant Resource and Economic Issues 

Potential impacts from Kennedy’s proposal to surface and subsurface resources identified in 

the attached Environmental Assessment are considered to be insignificant (necessary and 

due) with mitigation identified in Appendices B and C. The economic benefits derived from 

implementation of the Proposed Action in the form of continuing employment opportunities, 

equipment, services, and potential revenues should production of natural gas ensue are 

considered important. 

5. Application of Measures to Avoid or Minimize Environmental Impacts 

Federal environmental protection laws (e.g., Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, etc.) apply to 

all public lands administered by the BLM and are included as part of the standard oil and gas 

lease terms and the terms and conditions of right-of-way grants. In addition, adoption of 

measures found in Appendices B and C of this decision provide a practicable means to avoid 

or minimize potential impacts to environment. These measures will be attached to approved 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

9 

permits. Should conditions warrant, additional measures could be applied to individual 

permits or rights-of-way subject to additional analysis.

6. Opportunity for Public Involvement 

BLM initiated public scoping on February 28, 2002. Sixteen comment letters were received 

in response. All issues, concerns, and alternatives brought forth during public scoping have 

been considered during the analysis and no unresolved issues remain. BLM has provided 

responses to individual scoping comment letters in Appendix A of this decision. 

7. Acceptable Plan Criteria 

The Proposed Action including measures identified in Appendices B and C of this 

decision meet the acceptable plan criteria (see Appendix A of the attached Environmental 

Assessment) for federal oil and gas lease WYW 153613. 

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Based upon the analysis contained in the attached Lower Bush Creek Coal Bed Methane Exploratory 

Pilot Project Environmental Assessment and with implementation of the protective measures 

identified in Appendices B and C of this decision, the selected alternative will not cause a significant 

impact to the quality of the human, natural, and physical environment. Therefore, an environmental 

impact statement is not necessary. 

APPEAL

Under BLM regulations, this decision is subject to administrative review in accordance with 43 CFR 

3165. Any request for administrative review of this decision must include the information required 

under 43 CFR 3165.3(b) (State Director Review), including all supporting documentation. Such a 

request must be filed in writing to the State Director (920), Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box 

1828, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003, within 20 business days of the date such notice of decision was 

received or considered to have been received. This decision will be considered to have been received 

seven (7) business days after the date it is mailed. 

The decision of the State Director could be appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals in 

accordance with the regulations contained in 43 CFR 3165.4 and 43 CFR Part 4. Each adverse party 

to any such appeal must be provided with all documentation in accordance with 43 CFR 4.413(a). 

The adverse party to any appeal of the decision by the State Director includes: 

Kennedy Oil 

700 West 6th Street 

Gillette, Wyoming 82716 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

10 

SIGNATURE

/s/ Ted A. Murphy August 22, 2003

Acting Field Manager Date
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

1 

APPENDIX A 

COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES 

FROM PUBLIC SCOPING 

BLM conducted public scoping between February 28, 2002 and April 1, 2002. Sixteen comment 

letters were received during the scoping period. Letters received during public scoping and 

responses can be found below. Comment letters are italics, BLM response in normal type. 

Lynn Clark 

I believe the CBM project that Kennedy Oil is undertaking is a worthwhile project. I think that if 

Kennedy Oil is willing to spend the money it will take to explore this project we should allow it 

on federal land. With the injection wells that are proposed the water problem of CBM projects 

will be addressed. I also feel that this type of project is important to our future as a county, state 

and country.

Thank you for your comment. 

Dave Welch 

Although there is no apparent impact on historic trails, please keep us on the mailing list for this 

project.

You remain on the mailing list. 

Steven Warner, Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration 

The Western Area Power Administration (Western) is in receipt of your February 28,2002, 

Scoping Notice for the proposed Kennedy Oil Pilot Exploratory Coal Bed Methane Project on 

Federal oil and gas leases belonging to Kennedy Oil and located in Townships 24 and 25 North, 

Range 98 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Sweetwater County, Wyoming. 

Western is a Federal power marketing administration within the Department of Energy. As such, 

Western is responsible for the construction, operation and maintenance, and reconstruction of 

transmission lines, substations, switch yards, communication sites, and the roads that provide 

access to them. Many of Western's facilities are located on Federal lands administered by the 

Bureau of Land Management within the State of Wyoming. A review of our records indicates 

there are no Western owned and/or operated facilities located on the affected lands. Western, 

therefore, has no comments to offer concerning the coal bed methane proposal described in your 

scoping notice.

Thank you for your comment. 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

2 

Andrew Morris, EOG Resources, Inc. 

In response to your letter to BLM's letter dated February 28, 2002, EOG Resources, Inc. would 

like to remain on the mailing list for the captioned Environmental review.

You remain on the mailing list. 

Patricia Robbins, Sweetwater Economic Development Association 

The Sweetwater Economic Development Association would like to express our support for 

Kennedy Oil's environmental review for a pilot exploratory coal bed methane project in 

Sweetwater County. We understand that they propose to explore two coal bed methane areas 

with ten wells in each area, plus 1 injection well each. 

The Sweetwater Economic Development Association is confident that Kennedy Oil will adhere to 

all health, safety and environmental issues while pursuing the feasibility of this project. We are 

also confident that should this review determine that the project is economically viable, that 

Kennedy Oil will move forward in the same responsible fashion. We believe that responsible 

development of these resources will greatly enhance the economic base of the county, through 

increased employment and additional taxes.

Thank you for your comments. 

Matthew Bilodeau, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers 

This letter is in response to the scoping notice we received on March 7, 2002, concerning the 

Kennedy Oil Pilot Exploratory Coal Bed Methane Project. The notice indicates that the project 

would include two pods with 10 wells and 1 injection well per pod. The project area covers 

10,240 acres in Townships 24 and 25 North, Range 98 West, Sweetwater County, Wyoming. 

The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers regulates the placement of dredged and fill material in 

wetlands and other waters of the United States as authorized primarily by Section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). The term "waters of the United States" has been broadly 

defined by statute, regulation, and judicial interpretation to include all waters that were, are, or 

could be used in interstate commerce such as rivers, streams (including ephemeral streams), 

reservoirs, and lakes as well as wetlands adjacent to those areas. The Corps regulations were 

published in the November 13, 1986, edition of the Federal Register (Vol. 51, No. 219) at 33 

CPR Parts 320 through 330. Copies of the regulations and other important information on 

Section 404 program requirements in Wyoming can be obtained by visiting our website at 

http://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/html/od-rwy/Wyoming.htm. 

In the case of Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corns of Engineers, 

No. 99-1178 (January 9, 2001) (SWANCC), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Corps 

exceeded its statutory authority by asserting jurisdiction over "an abandoned sand and gravel pit 

in northern Illinois which provides habitat for migratory birds." Although the Court held that the 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

3 

Corps' application of §328.3(a)(3) was invalid in SWANCC, the Court did not strike down 

§328.3(a)(3) or any other component of the regulations defining "waters of the United States. " 

However, in light of the Court's ruling, the Corps will no longer rely on the use of waters or 

wetlands as habitat by migratory birds as the sole basis for the assertion of regulatory 

jurisdiction over isolated, non-navigable, intrastate waters. 

Based on the information provided and the court ruling, it has been determined that any 

wetlands or other waters in the project area are isolated and are no longer considered to be 

waters of the United States under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Therefore, Department of 

the Army authorization is not required for this project. This determination does not eliminate the 

requirement to obtain any other applicable federal, state, tribal, or local permits that may be 

required. 

Thank you for your comments. Your comments have been considered in the analysis. 

See Section 3.5.2. 

Thomas Darin, Wyoming Outdoor Council 

Please accept the comments of the Wyoming Outdoor Council (WOC) on the BLM proposal to 

allow a 20 well coalbed methane (CBM) (plus 2 injection wells) project by Kennedy Oil 

(Kennedy) within Sweetwater County in Wyoming's Red Desert. 

WOC is a non-profit conservation group based in Lander, Wyoming and is the largest non-profit, 

non- affiliated conservation group within the state. Our membership totals over 1,500, and many 

of our members work, reside, and recreate in that are proposed for the CBM Red Desert Project. 

WOC stresses that moving forward with the entire project is illegal, as will be more fully 

discussed below, due to the fact that CBM development is not sufficiently analyzed in the Greer 

River RMP and Kennedy's MLA leases are invalid for CBM extraction. Accordingly, the entire 

project is illegal and cannot proceed unless and until the underlying NEP A deficiencies are 

corrected. 

CBM development is spreading faster than wildlife throughout the State of Wyoming. This latest 

proposal is for CBM development in Wyoming’s Red Desert, one of the few places in Wyoming 

where WOC is opposed to oil and gas exploration and development. We understand Kennedy 

may have valid leases for oil and gas exploration, but as highlighted below, those leases are not 

valid for CBM exploration. 

The federal oil and gas leases held by Kennedy allow them to explore for natural gas 

including CBM. See Sections 1.2 and 1.3 of the EA. 

The Red Desert is a wondrous and incredible place: the Desert's vast sand dunes, towering 

buttes and prehistoric rock art define this rich landscape and provide a truly wild habitat for the 

largest migratory game herd in the lower 48 states -over 50,000 pronghorn antelope in addition 

to a rare desert elk herd. Indeed, the Red Desert is the largest unprotected and undeveloped 

high elevation desert left in the United States. 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

4 

The Buffalo Hump Basin area where the project is proposed is a part of the Red Desert that 

remains in a more or less primitive state. As such, it provides important habitat for disturbancesensitive wildlife and plants. Given the increase in developed oil and gas fields and roads in the 

Red Desert and the corresponding decrease in wildlands, all projects that impact wildness and 

pristine habitats are of concern. In particular, the Buffalo Hump Basin area is the site of several 

seasonal lakes and wetlands, and these areas have a high degree of biological importance and 

significance. The proposed project area lies within lands that are under consideration for 

designation as a National Conservation Area. In addition, the historic Brannan Homestead will 

be affected by this project. With gas wells, linked together with a web of surface disturbances 

ranging from roads to pipelines to well pads to compressor facilities, this wild desert landscape, 

and the history, culture, Native American spiritual significance and wide-ranging biodiversity it 

supports, are truly at risk. 

Energy operations occur to the south, southwest, and east of the project area within the 

Red Desert. No seasonal lakes, wetlands, or designated waters of the U.S. are affected by 

the proposal (see Section 3.5.2 of the EA and the letter from Corps of Engineers above). 

The historic Brannan Homestead is located over 4 miles to the north (see Section 1.3 of 

the EA). The BLM is not aware of any recent proposal before Congress to designate the 

Red Desert as a National Conservation Area. 

There are presently over 26,000 permitted coalbed methane (CBM) wells in Wyoming, with 

projected development to reach 51,000 CBM wells in the Powder River Basin in the next decade, 

and 139,000 wells by 2060. Using BLM's own projections, this will result in an astounding 1 

billion gallons of groundwater each and every day carelessly wasted onto the ground surface. 

WOC highlights that all of the current coalbed methane development is occurring despite the 

fact that the associated environmental impacts are severe, irreparable and largely unstudied. 

True, this development is in the PRB, but CBM development is now spreading to other Wyoming 

basins. WOC notes that there are three Rawlins FO CBM projects underway (Atlantic Rim (and 

its 10 PODs), Hanna Draw the Seminoe Reservoir) and it appears as if other basins in Wyoming 

maybe headed to the same number of wells, along with their devastating environmental, societal 

and community impacts, that are now plaguing northeast Wyoming. CBM wells start few in 

number -at one point the PRB only had a few wells -which stresses the utmost caution that Rock 

Springs BLM must exercise in allowing the first twenty. Twenty can lead to a 100-plus POD, and 

then, before we know it, we may have the next multi-thousand well industrial site. That this may 

occur in Wyoming's Red Desert is unthinkable given that 90% of Wyoming public lands are open 

in some way to oil and gas exploitation. WOC asks BLM whether a few areas - particularly those 

with the natural resource values of the Red Desert -are worth protecting? 

The Powder River Basin is located in northeast Wyoming and has no relevance to this 

exploratory project located in southwest Wyoming. The purpose of this exploratory 

project is to test for natural gas in the form of CBM (see Section 1.1 of the EA). 

Perhaps the most significant impact is water quantity. WOC understands that the intent is for the 

water to be injected by way of two Class V UIC injection wells. What, if, however, the targeted 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

5 

receiving aquifer will not accept the water, as has happened in other injection efforts in 

Wyoming? This may result in other water "handling" options such as dumping 200,000 plus 

gallons of discharged water onto the surface each day by these wells. If injection occurs, the 

byproduct water will still deplete aquifers and seriously compromise the ability of aquifers and 

watertables to recharge. Accordingly, wells or natural springs will run dry -in some instances 

they already have in the PRB -and an area that only receives minimal precipitation will literally 

dry up. The enormous volumes of discharged water will literally rip through and destroy much of 

this fragile desert landscape. As a significant portion of the soils are at best held loosely to the 

ground due to little surface vegetation, there will be severe and devastating soil erosion. 

Your comments have been considered in the EA. See Sections 1.3, 2.1, 3.4, 3.5, 4.3, and 

4.4. 

Equally important is the quality of the CBM well water discharge: The EIS must evaluate the 

contingency that this water will not be able to be injected. In that scenario, of concern is that the 

water is usually high in salt and sodium concentrations and is unsuitable for dumping onto the 

ground, either directly or through infiltration wastewater pits. Due to the shale rock formations 

high in salt and mineral content, the total dissolved solids and salinity of the water will only 

increase as the floodgates open and water is poured over the surface, absorbing these minerals. 

The 10,000 plus gallons of water discharged onto the surface each day, from each well, will 

eventually find their way into creeks, streams, rivers and major watersheds. Untold, and as of 

yet, unstudied consequences will befall on fisheries populations, recreation opportunities, 

wildlife and domestic livestock. Other impacts include methane migration to the ground surface 

(posing a serious health risk to humans as well as wildlife, soils and vegetation), soil erosion 

from the well discharges and the documented risk of underground fires sparked by spontaneous 

combustion. These issues must be fully analyzed in an EIS, not an EA. 

BLM anticipates the quality of water at the depths proposed for exploration of CBM to be 

of insufficient quality to allow any surface discharge in accordance with criteria set forth 

by the State of Wyoming, Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division 

(DEQ-WQD). See Sections 1.3, 2.1, 3.5, and 4.4 of the EA. 

Although WOC has many comments on specific impacts and the cumulative impacts of CBM 

drilling, addressing those first would be putting the cart before the horse. Initially, prior to 

initiating a NEPA scoping process, BLM must first address whether any CBM wells are proper. 

As discussed below, they are not due to NEPA violations. 

The Green River RMP, unlike most in Wyoming, at least mentions coalbed methane. 

Unfortunately, its treatment of the very serious impacts is pitiful. For example, it is now well 

known how serious the ground water discharge impacts can be; under the heading, "Coalbed 

Methane Produced Water Disposal Methods;" reinjection/injection is stated, but there is no 

analysis, environmental or otherwise. Incredibly, the word "reinjection" is typed into the DEIS 

and simply stands alone, with no analysis of feasibility, impacts of discharged water if not 

reinjected, etc. (Green River RMPIDEIS at 478). In the final EIS, it is stated that, "[D]ewatering 

of coal or coalbed methane can adversely affect both quantity and quality of groundwater since 

such large areas are dewatered and the produced water is either re-injected or evaporated." 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

6 

(Green River RMP/FEIS at 435). That is all of the analysis. Put simply, is this the requisite "hard 

look" at this serious impact required by NEPA? Importantly, given NEPA's requirement that 

agency's take a hard look at environmental impacts, the proposed action, tiered off the Green 

River RMP, highlights the NEPA deficiencies with respect to CBM in that document. Prior to 

project approval, the Green River RMP must be amended with a new EIS that thoroughly looks 

at all of the impacts and issues surrounding CBM development, prior to any development taking 

place. 

The EIS prepared for the Green River Resource Management Plan analyzed the potential 

impacts of 300 CBM wells within the Field Office area. Reinjection of produced water is 

a common procedure, when required, for natural gas exploration or production 

operations. 

The second major NEPA violation concerns the validity of the underlying leases themselves. The 

only document that analyzes the necessary pre-leasing considerations (as contained in BLM 

Handbook 1624-1) is the Green River RMP/EIS. That document, as stated above, does not 

adequately assess the widespread environmental impacts of CBM production. Accordingly, BLM 

is provided notice herein that WOC itself is exploring -exploring the legal options and issues 

relating to challenging the validity of these leases for CBM extraction. BLM -and Kennedy for 

that matter -should note that IBLA has already granted an injunction in a recent case, enjoining 

leases within this resource area that would be used for CBM extraction, for the very reasons 

stated herein. See Wyoming Outdoor Council. IBLA 2000-309 at 3, 4 (Order, Feb. 15~ 2001) 

(enjoining a lease within the Green River resource area for CBM use). 

Your comment has been considered in the analysis. See Sections 1.2 and 1.3. 

WOC is pleased to see that some of the impacts of CBM development are being handled by 

injecting this water into a deeper aquifer, one that apparently is of lower quality than the coal 

seam. However, many potential issues must be thoroughly explored in the EIS. These include: 

The capacity of this receiving aquifer to store and contain the massive amounts of water 

from 20 producing CBM wells; 

Hydraulic fracturing (or fracing) is going to occur. Analysis will be required concerning 

the possible contamination of other aquifers (via well casing leaks, aquifer 

communications and naturally occurring fractures). As BLM knows, EPA was 

successfully sued in Alabama (11th Circuit Court of Appeals) for failing require the state 

DEQ to permit the use of fracing fluids. The use of fracing fluids by Kennedy poses risks 

to drinking water supplies, and may violate the Safe Drinking Water Act. These issues 

alone require a thorough analysis in an EIS, as human health and safety may be at risk; 

The amount of water that can be safely stored and contained in the receiving aquifer. 

While reinjection has been recommend by WOC as a key mitigation technique, the issues 

surrounding this process require a full environmental analysis in an EIS. 

Your comments have been considered in the EA. See Sections 1.3, 2.1, 3.5, and 4.4. 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

7 

As injection may fail due to various geologic conditions and the baseline characteristics of the recycling 

aquifer, BLM must fully analyze in the EIS the very real possibility that injection will fail. In that case, the 

water will be discharged onto the surface, which has very serious environmental consequences. These 

include: 

The Clean Water Act mandates that federal agencies, here BLM, shall be subject to and comply 

with all federal, state and local requirements respecting the control and abatement of water 

pollution. 33 V.S.C. § 1323(a). Any adequate NEPA document must analyze, with many samples 

throughout the region, tested from the depth of the actual producing coal seams, salinity and 

SAR values. 

The proposed action complies with all federal, state, local requirements. See EA, 

Sections 1.2 (Table 1.1), 2.1, 3.5, and 4.4. 

Soils. In addition to salinity and SAR values in discharged water, a complete NEP A document must 

thoroughly analyze the effects of these high discharges of water on soils, including dispersal (high sodicity 

impact) and erosion. In particular, WOC is concerned about the discharge of water in playas, closed 

basins, in areas with soils having low reclamation potential and in areas where there are poorly-drained 

soils, in order to prevent the accumulation of salts and other minerals. This will lessen the likelihood for 

invasion of weed and salt-tolerant species and the erosion of bare soils. Apart from water impacts on 

soils, BLM must also consider the fragile soil/sand types in the Desert and analyze possible long-term 

destruction of soils and provide a full, scientifically based disclosure on the feasibility of reclamation. 

No surface water disposal is proposed. See EA, Sections 1.3, 2.1, 3.4, 3.5, 4.3, and 4.4. 

Reservoirs. Due to CWA legal issues, industry is now turning to constructing massive reservoirs to handle 

CBM water, designed to bleed into the water table. BLM must analyze the impacts of these reservoirs to 

soils, historic and cultural sites, wildlife and migratory birds. BLM must also analyze the end-game 

issues: will these reservoirs be able to be reclaimed; what will happen with salt-laden soils that 

accumulate over the years. Further, BLM must require full compliance with reservoirs and the CWA, as 

bleeding into the water table, which is hydrologically connected to surface waters is a point source of 

water pollution. In addition, these infiltration pits are most likely injection wells that need permits 

pursuant to the UIC program under the Safe Drinking Water Act. 

No reservoirs are proposed. See EA, Sections 1.3 and 2.1. 

A problem that goes hand-in-hand with mitigation of surface impacts due to water discharge is 

the answer to the following very important question: how long, and in what fashion, will aquifers 

recharge? It has already been well documented in the other Wyoming regions that local 

landowners' wells have run dry as a direct result of aquifer depletion. Long-term studies are 

needed, unique to each coal seam, that address permeability issues, time and nature of recharge 

and the potential sub-strata subsidence (meaning an entire collapse of an aquifer once the 

stabilizing water is withdrawn). BLM must also analyze communication between aquifers, the 

chances of cross-aquifer contamination and how the proposed 22 wells will affect these issues. 

In short, BLM must know, not merely hope for, answers to these questions that clearly indicate 

long-term water needs (10 to 200 years) in Wyoming will not be held hostage to short-term 

industry profits. 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

8 

Your comment on water aquifers have been considered in the EA. See Sections 1.3, 3.5, 

and 4.4. 

BLM has a mandatory duty in the NEPA process to explore all reasonable mitigation 

alternatives to lessen impacts to other natural resources. Two that are particularly relevant in 

CBM development include desalinization water treatment options (should surface discharge 

occur) and the use of renewable energy sources (e.g., fuel cell, solar) to supply power for 

submersible pumps, generators and compressor stations. These alternatives would severely 

ameliorate water, fisheries and wildlife impacts, as well as reducing noise and air pollution and 

preserving open space). Another emerging technology is the elimination of drilling reserve pits 

through a closed- loop drilling and recycling system. WOC has read and hereby incorporates the 

scoping comments of Biodiversity Associates for this project with respect to directional drilling.

Your comments have been considered in the analysis. Surface disposal of produced water 

is not an option; hence, desalinization of such water is irrelevant. No submersible pumps, 

generators, or compressor stations are proposed under this action. Pump jacks would be 

fueled by propane until production is evaluated. Should production ensue, pump jacks 

would be powered by produced gas. See Section 2.1 and additional mitigation identified 

in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. 

CBM gas migration and the potentially lethal impacts to human health, vegetation and wildlife 

(partic:ularly burrowing mammals) must be thoroughly studied and assessed by BLM. 

Your comment has been considered in the EA. See Section 1.3. The Big Red Coal zone 

is at least 3,800 feet below the surface. Any methane would need to migrate through 

more than 3,000 feet of layered rock to reach the surface, an unlikely event since well 

bores would be cemented to prevent any gas migration. There are over 500 shallow (less 

than 4,500 feet) gas wells in Wyoming. Many of those wells produce from gas reservoirs 

that are much shallower than the Big Red Coal zone found in the project area. 

BLM must also analyze the very real possibility of spontaneous combustion within the coal seems 

if – now it seems that when is the operative word given the explosive growth of CBM 

development – coals seems are dewatered. These underground fires have been documented in 

other CBM extraction sites – BLM in Colorado, for example, has at least addressed this issue – 

and the possibility of uncontrollable fires burning within a hundred feet of ground surface must 

be studied and addressed. The most base-level concern for human health and the communities of 

Wyoming commands heightened levels of attention to this issue. 

Your comment has been considered in the EA. See Section 1.3. 

BLM Instruction Memorandum 99-178 recognizes that, "weeds frequently thrive when the land is 

disturbed." Accordingly, "All NEPA documents must include an analysis of the potential for 

weed spread and establishment as an environmental consequence of proposed actions. Measures 

and stipulations to minimize or avoid the spread of weed[s] must be provided." (BLM I-M 99- 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

9 

178 at 2-3 (1999) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the EIS in this case must analyze CBM well 

water discharge and infrastructure development impacts to native plant species.

Your comment has been considered in the EA. See Sections 2.1.9.7, 3.6, and 4.5. 

FLPMA and the Clean Air Act both mandate the protection of air and atmospheric values. Air 

quality, as it affects wildlife, vegetation, human health, and visibility impairment in sensitive 

Class I and Class II areas, must be sufficiently addressed. 

Your comment has been considered in the EA. See Sections 3.3 and 4.2. No Class I or 

Class II airsheds are affected by the proposed action which is to test economic feasibility 

of CBM extraction. 

The EIS must also address import impacts to wildlife, sensitive, threatened and endangered 

species -both plant and animal, game and non-game. WOC hereby adopts and incorporates the 

excellent and very specific comments that need to be addressed concerning wildlife as stated by 

Biodiversity Associates. 

Your comment has been considered in the EA. See Sections 3.6, 3.8, 4.5, and 4.7. 

Just because the water may be injected, not all of the dewatering impacts disappear. In addition 

to belowground aquifer considerations discussed above, BLM must also inventory existing 

natural springs in the area, and consider the impacts that dewatering belowground resources 

may have on spring hydrology. These are a very critical water resource – particularly in a 

desert ecosystem – and impacts to springs including baseline data must be included in the EIS. 

Your comments have been considered in the EA. See Sections 3.5, 3.6, 4.4, and 4.5. 

There are no known springs in the Kennedy project area. If there were springs, based on 

the geological information available, they would most likely be tied to sandstone layers in 

contact with the surface which are separated by over 3,000 feet of rock strata from the Big 

Red Coal bed. Depletion and reinjection of water would not affect any unknown springs 

that might possibly exist in the area. 

Historically, BLM, particularly in the area of CBM drilling, often defers the bulk of the required 

environmental analyses to the APD level. This is unacceptable and in direct contravention of 

both he spirit and letter of NEPA's mandates. NEPA simply requires that all of the potential 

environmental impacts be studied prior to, and not after, the full commitment of resources is 

made by granting approval to a multi-well project.

This environmental document serves as a site-specific analysis of the potential 

environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives to determine whether any of 

the potential impacts are considered significant. 

Any project in the Rock Springs resource area must consider the impacts to reasonably 

foreseeable development in the area, including state and private wells. Other traditional oil and 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

10 

gas development must also be considered, in terms of the effects of roads, power lines, 

compressor stations, pipelines and other surface disturbances.

The purpose of this proposal is to determine whether or not there is potential for 

economically feasible natural gas production. It is not possible to determine future CBM 

development until such information is gathered. Cumulative impacts have been 

considered in the EA due to other activities including other natural gas exploration and 

production. See Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, for cumulative impacts for 

each resource value. 

In Wyoming’s Red Desert, the above categories of multiple uses must be carefully examined in 

the EIS. What will impacts be to recreational interests, including hiking, wildlife viewing, 

enjoying open spaces and solitude. These will all be disturbed by air pollution, surface 

disturbance, permanent soil destruction, invasive weeds and year-round noise.

Your comment has been considered in the EA. See Sections 3.10 and 4.9. 

NEPA requires an EIS when a major federal action will significantly affect the human 

environment. We are now at the infancy stage of the hottest gas play in the United States, with 

CBM development expected to grow exponentially in Wyoming's backyard in the next decade. As 

illustrated by the above categories of impacts, this project proposal will undoubtedly have 

significant impacts on the human environment. An EA is simply not an option. 

The Wyoming Outdoor Council appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Kennedy CBM 

Project within the Red Desert. It simply cannot be overstated that BLM proceeds with this 

project at its own peril: FLPMA and NEPA mandate that the Green River RMP be amended 

prior to any CBM development in the area. In addition, the leases are invalid for CBM 

extraction. However, if BLM chooses once again to proceed down what is certainly a litigious 

path (and not amend the RMP and then re-sell leases that would be valid for CBM extraction), 

WOC urges injection, aquifer recharge, surface disturbance issues, impacts to wildlife, 

underground fires and the other certain impacts outlined herein be very carefully studied, 

analyzed, and assessed in an EIS. 

The proposal is in conformance with the Green River RMP and all affected resources 

have been adequately protected. 

Erik Molvar, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance (formerly Biodiversity Associates) 

With this letter Biodiversity Associates submit our comments on the Kennedy Oil coalbed 

methane project. We incorporate by reference Biodiversity Associates' letter of 8, 2002 

concerning the Vermillion Basin Natural Gas Project. We have some major concerns about this 

project that will need to be addressed through the NEPA process. 

The Buffalo Hump Basin area is a part of the Red Desert that remains in a more or less primitive 

state. As such, it provides important habitat for disturbance-sensitive wildlife and plants. Given 

the increase in developed oil and gas fields and roads in the Red Desert and the corresponding 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

11 

decrease in wildlands, all projects that impact wildness and pristine habitats are of concern. In 

particular, the Buffalo Hump Basin area is the site of several seasonal lakes and wetlands, and 

these areas have a high degree of biological importance and significance. The proposed project 

area lies within lands that are under consideration for designation as a National Conservation 

Area. 

All of the current coalbed methane development is occurring despite the fact that the associated 

environmental impacts can be severe and irreparable and are largely unstudied. Perhaps the 

most significant impacts are water quantity and quality. It difficult to overstate how serious the 

impacts could be from 20 CBM wells. Each well may produce up to 20 gallons of discharge 

water per minute per day, and the amount of CBM water discharged will exceed 13 million 

gallons per day, withdrawn from aquifers that may feed springs, seeps, and surface streams in 

this fragile desert ecosystem. This water will first and foremost deplete aquifers and seriously 

compromise the ability of aquifers and water tables to recharge. Importantly, the water tables in 

important floodplains vital to the biodiversity of the region may be seriously compromised in 

terms of their ability to provide water in times of drought. Thus, a complete analysis [sic] 

Your comments have been considered in the EA. See Sections 1.3, 2.1, 3.5, and 4.4. 

Also see response to section of Wyoming Outdoor Council’s letter regarding water seeps, 

springs, etc. 

If these produced waters were discharged at the surface, the enormous volumes of discharged 

water will literally rip through and destroy much of the landscape of these deserts. Soil erosion 

will be severe, as well as the loss of native desert species due to the invasion of exotic weeds due 

to the sodium and mineral deposits left behind by this water. Thus, reinjection of produced 

waters is an absolute necessity, and should be retained for this project.

Your comments have been considered in the EA. See Sections 1.3, 2.1, 3.5, and 4.4. 

Also see response to section of Wyoming Outdoor Council’s letter regarding produced 

water discharge. 

Equally important is the quality of the CBM well water discharge. The groundwater found here 

is usually high in salt concentration and sodicity and would compromise the integrity of the 

area's delicate soils and waters. Untold, and as of yet, unstudied consequences would befall 

soils, plants, and wildlife populations. The potential loss of native vegetation to soil erosion, 

washout, stream bank erosion and high salt concentration in the soils would be severe if 

reinjection is not practiced. Other impacts include methane migration to the ground surface 

(posing a serious health risk to humans as well as wildlife, soils and vegetation), ground surface 

subsidence, soil erosion from the well discharges and the documented risk of underground fires 

sparked by spontaneous combustion. These issues must be fully analyzed in the upcoming EIS, as 

this is a project that will undoubtedly significantly affect the human environment. 

Your comments have been considered in the EA. See Sections 1.3, 2.1, 3.5, and 4.4. 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

12 

Biodiversity Associates a number of concerns about the potential impacts of the proposed 

Kennedy Oil Coalbed Methane Project. In order to satisfy NEPA "hard look" requirements, the 

forthcoming NEPA document must satisfy these concerns. 

1. The NEPA document should address not only the impacts specific to the project but also 

evaluate cumulative impacts taking into consideration the oil and gas developments on 

surrounding lands. This analysis should address habitat fragmentation on a landscape scale. 

2. The project would have a number of impacts on wildlife. Notably, the construction of new 

roads and well pads will drive off native wildlife during the construction period, and the 

resulting vehicle traffic, with associated noise and dust, will have serious impacts on the habitat 

use of native wildlife throughout the life of the project. 

Sage grouse are of particular concern, because this species is declining nationally. The BLM 

should survey the project area for sage grouse leks, which are used traditionally year after year. 

Because nesting and brood-rearing habitat occurs in the immediate vicinity of lek sites, no 

construction activities should be allowed within 2 miles of a lek site. In addition, the area should 

be surveyed for sage grouse wintering habitats. Any such habitats should trigger strict 

stipulations prohibiting all human activities and noise (such as working pumps) during the 

wintering season. 

Population data must be gathered on other rare and sensitive species. Buffalo Hump provides 

potential nesting habitat for ferruginous hawks. Raptor nests of all kinds need to be documented, 

and human activities must not occur within 2 miles of active nests during the nesting season. 

White-tailed prairie dogs are also of concern? not only because this species is declining, but also 

because it is a keystone species which creates habitat for other rare and declining wildlife. 

Impacts to prairie dog colonies would also impact ferruginous hawks, burrowing owls, and 

mountain plovers. The impacts of the proposed project on prairie dogs and direct effects on the 

latter species must be studied. In addition, the BLM must consider impacts to other wildlife that 

may be found in the project area, such as the eastern short-homed lizard, pygmy rabbit, and rare 

and declining shorebirds. 

Effects of the project on wild horses must be studied, as this area is inhabited by a large herd of 

these animals.

Effects on game animals, particularly mule deer and antelope, must be studied. Ungulates are 

highly sensitive to increases in roads and vehicle traffic which would be an inevitable outcome of 

this proposed project. Crucial winter ranges must be identified, and all human activities must be 

prohibited on such lands between November 15 and April 15. 

Your comments have been considered in the EA. See Sections 3.8 and 4.7. 

3. Potential increases in salinity and sodicity associated with well-water discharge could wreak 

havoc on the delicate balance of plant and animal life in the area. Thus, no surface discharge 

must be allowed in conjunction with the proposed project.
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

13 

Your comments have been considered in the EA. See Sections 1.3, 2.1, 3.5, and 4.4. 

4. Effects of the dewatering of aquifers must be adequately addressed. Will this project cause 

springs in the area to dry up, particularly those that feed seasonal playa lakes? If so, measures 

must be taken to ensure that water levels in playa lakes and wetlands remain identical 

throughout the year to natural, pre-project levels. 

Your comments have been considered in the EA. See Sections 3.5 and 4.4. Also see 

response to Wyoming Outdoor Council’s letter with regard to seeps and springs. 

5. The area should be surveyed for rare native plants, and mitigation measures should be 

adopted to prevent damage to rare or declining populations. 

Your comments have been considered in the EA. See Sections 3.6 and 4.5. 

6. Shoshone and Ute tribes should be consulted regarding the potential cultural and/or sacred 

significance of Buffalo Hump and the playa lakes that surround it. 

Cultural resources including Native American religious concerns have been considered in 

the EA. See Sections 3.12 and 4.11. 

7. The EA should include all possible measures to prevent adverse environmental impacts due to 

toxic substances used and/or disposed of during the drilling and production processes. For 

example, all reserve pits should be lined, regardless of soil permeability, and absolutely NO 

construction of any kind should take place within 500 feet of surface water or riparian areas to 

prevent sedimentation. 

Your comments have been considered in the EA. See Sections 2.1, 3.16, and 4.15. 

8. The NEP A document must provide adequate analysis of the possibility of subsidence and 

earthquakes due to ground water drawdown and degasification at the coal seam. 

Your remaining comments have been considered in the EA. See Sections 1.3, 3.1, and 

4.1. 

9. The NEPA document must disclose the extent of hydraulic fracturing inherent to the project, 

nor the effects of toxic fracing fluids on groundwater or other resources. It is well-known that 

fracturing is a common practice in CBM extraction, and that fracing fluids include a number of 

highly toxic substances. This information is needed to satisfy NEPA "hard look" requirements.

Formation fracing is common in oil and gas production. Your comments have been 

considered in the EA. See Sections 1.3 and 2.1. 

10. It is imperative that the reclamation requirements include stipulations that clearly mandate 

the use of native species for reseeding purposes. Exotic species such as crested wheatgrass and 

kosha are especially deleterious and must be excluded from reseeded lands. 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

14 

Your comment has been considered in the EA. See Section 2.1. 

11. The effects of the project on biological soil crusts must be examined. These soil crusts, 

consisting of bryophytes, cyanobactieria, fungi and lichens, and mosses, fulfill an important role 

in desert ecosystems, effectively increasing soil temperature and rainfall absorption while 

preventing runoff and attendant erosion. Even after reclamation efforts, biological soil crusts 

will take decades to recolonize disturbed sites. The BLM needs to take the "hard look" required 

by NEPA at the status and trends of this important ecological component before proceeding 

farther with this project.

Your comment has been considered in the EA. See Section 1.3. 

12. The NEPA document should require that a 500-foot buffer of vegetation will be maintained 

between surface disturbances and drainage channels, playas, and wetlands, without exception. 

Requirements to avoid stream channels and riparian vegetation need to be ironclad. 

The approved Green River RMP states “[s]urface disturbing activities (e.g., mineral 

exploration...) that could adversely affect water quality, and wetland and riparian habitat, 

will avoid the area within 500 feet of or on 100-year floodplains, wetlands, or perennial 

streams and within 100 feet of an inner gorge of intermittent and large ephemeral 

drainages. Proposals for linear crossing in these areas will be considered on a case-bycase basis...if a site specific analysis determines that no adverse impacts will occur...” 

No known playa lakes or wetlands would be affected by the proposed action. 

13. Reserve pits must always be lined with impermeable fabric, because they will contain 

hazardous chemicals. It is not sufficient to assume that some soils and bedrocks will prevent 

leakage from reserve pits; the BLM has no way of guaranteeing that no leakage will occur. Thus, 

all reserve pits must be lined. In addition, the subsequent backfilling of reserve pits is absolutely 

unacceptable. All toxic products must be removed from the site at the time of well abandonment, 

not buried and forgotten to leak out over time and poison soils, water, and wildlife. All reserve 

pit contents should be carefully removed by the operator at the operator's expense and disposed 

of at a site built specifically to handle toxic wastes.

Kennedy proposes to line all reserve pits (see Section 2.1). There are no toxic products in 

drilling fluids. Materials used exclusively for drilling exploratory oil and gas wells are 

exempt form Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements. Thus, 

your comment to remove toxic products is irrelevant. 

14. [sic] 

15. The soil potential for revegetation must evaluated, and steps must be taken to ensure that 

impacts which are reclaimed are erased swiftly from the landscape. 

Your comment has been considered in the EA. See Sections 2.1, 3.4, and 4.3. 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

15 

In the forthcoming NEPA document, the BLM must develop a full range of reasonable 

alternatives including a minimum footprint directional drilling alternative. The need to employ 

directional drilling technologies to reduce environmental impacts of mineral development is a 

high priority of the Bush administration. The President's National Energy Policy contains a 

section titled, "21st Century Technology: The Key to Environmental Protection and New Energy 

Production," which states: 

"Producing oil and gas from geologically challenging areas while protecting the environment is 

important to Americans and to the future of our nation's energy security. New technology and 

management techniques will allow for sophisticated energy production as well as enhanced 

environmental protection... Smaller, lighter drilling rigs coupled with advances in directional 

and extended-reach drilling significantly increase protection of the environment...Modular 

drilling rigs, "slimhole" drilling, directional drilling, and other advances enable: [...] 

* production of oil and gas with increased protection to wetlands and other sensitive 

environments; 

Other examples of advanced technology include: [...] 

* highly sophisticated directional drilling that enables wells to be drilled long horizontal 

distances from the drilling site[. ]" 

National Energy Policy, May 2001, "Reliable, Affordable, and Environmentally Sound Energy 

for America's Future: Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group," p. 5.5. 

Likewise, the Secretary of the Interior has emphasized the need to begin utilizing directional 

drilling technology: 

We must also harness 21st Century technology to help our environment. Where we once needed 

scores of wells to tap underground reserves, today in some areas we can use one hole on the 

surface to drill for oil in a circle extending seven miles. We can use the resources below ground 

while we preserve the landscape and habitat above. 

Presentation of Gale Norton, Secretary of Interior, to the National Newspaper Association 

(Washington, DC, March 23,2001). 

Directional drilling is the most environmentally responsible way to develop oil, gas, and coalbed 

methane fields, is practical from a geologic standpoint, is economically feasible, and produces 

equal or even superior results when compared to vertical drilling. It is manifestly obvious that 

gas development is appropriate only for some lands; critical wildlife ranges, alluvial 

floodplains, and other ecologically sensitive areas should be excluded from all surface 

developments. But there is every reason for the superior technology of minimum-footprint 

directional drilling to be mandated for use in all federal subsurface leasing situations where 

development is deemed appropriate, including exploration, infill, and full-field development of 

new geologic formations. 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

16 

The reduced environmental impacts of directional drilling are well-documented. Cluster drilling 

from a single well pad (French Oil and Gas Association 1990) can reduce the footprint of oil and 

gas development on the landscape by concentrating the activity and impacts of many wells at a 

few widely dispersed sites. Because fewer directional wells are required to drain a subsurface 

reservoir, well spacing is always greater for directional wells (Fritz et al. 1991). Indeed, Joshi 

(1991, p.4) stated that "to achieve larger producible reserves, horizontal wells will have to be 

drilled with a larger well spacing than vertical wells." Horizontal drilling can now reach 

subsurface reservoirs up to 29,000 feet away from the drilling site in horizontal distance (AlBlehed et al. 2000). Thus, by requiring directional drilling for the Kennedy Oil CBM Project, the 

BLM can allow subsurface minerals to be extracted without sacrificing the ecological, roadless, 

wilderness, and recreational values found within the project area. 

 

Not only is directional drilling more environmentally responsible, it is also more effective at 

removing oil and gas from geologic formations than conventional vertical wells. Thakur (1999) 

reported that because horizontal drilling is a more efficient extraction method, it can increase 

the recoverable reserves for a given reservoir. Fritz et al. (1991) reported that directional 

drilling has had a higher percent success that vertical drilling in both the Austin Chalk and 

Williston Basin fields. Joshi (1991) asserted that for natural gas production, horizontal wells 

improve drainage area per well for low-permeability geologic formations, reduced nearwellbore turbulence and increased delivery efficiency for high-permeability formations. 

Horizontal drilling technology is so effective that it has become the benchmark for the industry: 

Miller and Steiger (1999) boasted that their array of vertical and directional wells had 

production that equaled high benchmark projections from horizontal drilling. Furthermore, 

directional drilling reduces "coning," the mixture of oil with gas and water that reduces 

production efficiency for oil and gas (Joshi 1991, Thakur 1999). 

Directional drilling is a universally practical solution to oil and gas recovery. It is suitable for 

both exploration and full-field development (French Oil and Gas Association 1990). Aguilera et 

al. (1991) lauded the potential of horizontal drilling in infill situations. In 1991, Fritz et al. 

(p.36) noted that, "If the cost of drilling a horizontal well was equal to that of drilling a vertical 

well, most reservoirs would be candidates for horizontal drilling." These costs have in fact 

equalized in modem times. Aguilera et al. (1991, p.l.) stated that, "Theoretically, all reservoirs 

can benefit from horizontal wells." AI-Blehed et al. (2000) asserted that horizontal drilling is 

superior to vertical drilling for a variety of conditions including for naturally fractured 

reservoirs, thin reservoirs, heterogeneous reservoirs, vertical permeability homogeneous 

reservoirs, reefs or isolated sand bodies, and faulted reservoirs. Thus far, horizontal drilling has 

been proven applicable in a variety of geological settings, and we know of no examples of cases 

where vertical drilling offers superior results. 

The economic feasibility of directional drilling has been well demonstrated. Baker et al. (1984) 

performed an economic analysis on coalbed methane recovery via directional drilling, and found 

it to be economically feasible. Cluster development of many wells on a single pad offers 

minimizes the capital investments of lessees (French Oil and Gas Association 1990), and reduces 

costs for an expensive and ecologically damaging network of improved roadways. In 1991, Joshi 

(p.7) noted that costs for directional wells were 1.4 to 3 times higher than costs for vertical 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

17 

wells, but further noted that "In some cases, with extensive drilling experiences, the horizontal 

well costs are reported to be almost the same or even lower than vertical well costs." But 

because directional drilling requires fewer wells and yields more production per well, overall 

oilfield development costs may have been lower even with the older technology available in the 

early 1990s. Because each directional well drains a greater reservoir volume than a 

corresponding vertical well, fewer wells are required to drain a reservoir, reducing up-front 

project costs (Fritz et al. 1991). These researchers further compared the costs of oldertechnology directional drilling with vertical drilling, and found that oil production costs per 

barrel were lower for directional drilling in the Austin Chalk, but higher in the Williston Basin 

of North Dakota. In modem times, the technology continues to improve and efficiencies rise. AIBlehed et al. (2000) stated that their use of horizontal wells reduced drilling, flowline, and 

facilities costs by 20-25% over vertical drilling. 

Directional drilling, in its several forms, has been shown to be remarkably versatile as an 

alternative to conventional vertical drilling in recovery. Directional drilling has been shown to 

increase rate of gas production and overall recoverable quantity for tight gas sands (e.g., 

Cassetta 1998). Directional drilling is also applicable to coalbed methane production, but 

drilling rig placement may be constrained by rock jointing and fracture patterns (Moore and 

Moore 1999). O'Rourke et al. (1997) found horizontal drilling of paired wells to be effective in 

gas production using steam injection techniques. For heavy oil recovery, Shirif (2000, p. 894) 

noted that, "For a given pattern, there is a horizontal well configuration maximizes the total 

production rate." In all cases, directional drilling has resulted in superior economic yields when 

compared to conventional vertical drilling. 

Directional drilling is proven as an effective alternative to vertical drilling in Wyoming. The first 

directional well in Wyoming was completed in 1987, and as of 1994, 80 producing wells were 

completed out of 117 attempts (Stewart 1995). As of October 2001, Wyoming has 504 horizontal 

or directional wells on-line, according to State of Wyoming data. According to Krystinik (2001), 

a horizontal well drilled in the Green River Basin's Frontier formation reached a depth greater 

than 15,000 feet in tight-gas sandstone, was drilled at a cost that was reduced to 50% of the 

industry average, and achieved economic production of greater than 14 mmcf/day. Iverson et al. 

(1995) found that even without hydraulic fracturing, a horizontal well tapping into the Almond 

formation produced as much gas as a conventional well that used hydraulic fracturing. 

Even if the costs of directional drilling are higher for this project, the BLM should require 

Kennedy Oil to employ this method. Part of the cost of doing business on public lands is taking 

sometimes-costly measures that protect the public's interest in its lands, waters, and wildlife. 

Kennedy Oil should expect as much, and the BLM has the responsibility to carry this message 

from the public to the private corporations that reap their profits from our public lands. 

Your comments on directional and horizontal drilling have been considered in the EA. 

See Section 1.3 and 2.3. Most of the references cited in your comment letter apply to 

wells drilled offshore, in remote onshore locations, or to wells drilled to control bottom 

water influx in oil reservoirs or develop low permeability fractured oil and gas reservoirs. 

 Some citations could not be verified (see Vermillion Basin Decision Record of August 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

18 

15, 2002, Appendix D, Letter of May 10, 2002, from Reservoir Management Services, 

Inc. Document can be downloaded from the internet at http://www.wy.blm.gov/nepa/ 

nepadocs.htm ). 

Only one reference in the comment letter (Baker et al, 1984) specifically addressed the 

feasibility of directional drilling for coalbed methane. The study, done by U.S. Bureau of 

Mines, involved drilling three lateral drains in anthracite coal in the Emerald Mine area in 

Pennsylvania. Anthracite coal is much denser and probably has substantially higher gas 

content than the subbituminous coal in the Kennedy project area. The well drilled by the 

Bureau of Mines had serious mechanical problems and as the author of the report states 

“[l]ittle has been produced from the Emerald Mine directional hole because of caving of 

the horizontal holes drilled in shale near the bottom of the casing.” Another factor of the 

Baker et al report assumed a gas production rate and price. A 25% rate of return after 

taxes was calculated. The economic analysis done did not include severance and ad 

valorem taxes, or landowner royalty. In Wyoming, such taxes and royalties total 

approximately 25% of gross revenue. Gas compression costs in Wyoming would also 

likely be higher (assuming $0.15/MCFG or 7.5% of the gross sale price at $2.00/MCFG). 

 The evaluation prepared by Baker et al. (1984) has little relevance to the geologic or 

economic conditions found in the Kennedy project area. The Baker et al. study does not 

indicate that directional or horizontal drilling would be technically or economically 

feasible in the Kennedy project area. 

The purpose of the Kennedy Oil’s CBM Exploratory Pilot project is to gather and 

evaluate data to determine the feasibility of development. Reliable information on 

reservoir heterogeneity, coal thickness, coal gas content, gas chemistry, recovery 

efficiency, coal permeability, water quality and quantity must be acquired. 

Given the colossal amount of mineral development across BLM lands throughout Wyoming that 

has degraded huge amounts of wildlife habitat and has developed vast quantities of wild and 

previously undeveloped land; the BLM must carefully evaluate and consider the trade-offs in 

losing wildlife habitat, recreation opportunities, and open country in its upcoming NEPA 

document, and also evaluate alternatives that minimize environmental impacts in addition to 

alternatives that maximize corporate profits. 

LITERATURE CITED 

Aguilera, R., I.S. Artindale, G.M. Cordell, M.C. Ng, G.W. Nicholl, and G.A. Runions. 1991 Horizontal wells. 

Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing, 401 pp. 

Al-Blehed, M.S., G.M. Hamada, M.N.J. Al-Awad, and M.A. Al-Saddique. 2000. Horizontal wells find varied 

applications in Saudi fields. Oil and Gas J. 98.19:47-52. 

Baker, E.C., D.C. Oyler, I.H. Perry, and G.L. Finfinger. 1984. Economic evaluation of directional drilling for 

methane drainage from coalbeds. U.S. Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations RI-8842, 11 pp. 

Cassetta, D. 1998. The 3D seismic rejuvenation of Roleta Field, Zapata County, TX. AAPG Bull. 82(9): 1778. 

French Oil and Gas Association. 1990. Directional drilling and deviation control technology. Houston, TX: Gulf 

Publishing Co., 142 pp. 

Fritz, R.D., M.K. Horn, and S.D. Joshi. 1991. Geological aspects of horizontal drilling. Tulsa, OK: AAPG, 563 pp. 

Inglefinger, F .M. 2001. The effects of natural gas development on sagebrush steppe passerines in Sublette County, 

Wyoming. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Wyoming, 110 pp. 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

19 

Iverson, W.P., T.L. Dunn, and R.C. Surdam. 1995. Improvements to formation evaluation, Almond Formation, 

Green River Basin, Wyoming. Wyo. Gool. Assoc. Guidebook 46:271-280. 

Johnson, B.K., and D. Lockman, 1979. Response of elk during calving to oil/gas drilling activity in Snider Basin, 

Wyoming. WDGF report, 14 pp. 

Johnson, B., and L. Wollrab, 1987. Response of elk to development on a natural gas field in western Wyoming 1979-

1987. WDGF Report, 28 pp. 

Joshi, S.D. 1991. Horizontal well technology. Tulsa, OK: PennWell Books, 535 pp. 

Knick, S. T., and J. T. Rotenberry. 1995. Landscape characteristics of fragmented shrubsteppe habitats and 

breeding passerine birds. Conserv. BioI. 9:1059-1071. 

Krystinik, L.F. 2001. Big bucks or a money disposal project? New perspectives on basin-centered gas from 

horizontal drilling, deep Frontier fIn., Green River Basin, SW Wyoming. AAPG Bull. 85(13):supplement. 

Moore, B.R., and P.R. Moore. 1999. Low altitude airborne multispectral microfracture analysis in the control of oil 

and gas production, coalbed methane and site location of directional drilling. AAPGBull.83(8):1371. 

O'Rourke, J.C., A.G. Begley, H.A. Boyle, C.T. Yee, J.I. Chambers, andR.W. Luhning. 1999. UTF Project status 

update, May 1997. J. Can. Pet. Tech. 38(9):44-53. 

Shirif, E. 2000. How new horizontal wells affect the perfonnance of existing vertical wells. AAPG Bull. 84(6):894. 

Stewart, W.W. 1995. Horizontal wells in Wyoming through 1994. Wyo. GooI. Assoc. Guidebook 46:283-295. 

Thakur, G.C. 1999. Horizontal well technology--A key to improving reserves. J. Can. Pet. Tech. 38(10): 55-60. 

Larry Di Brito 

The Wyoming Red Desert is like Grand Teton and Yellowstone when it comes to nature and 

wilderness. Why tear apart? The number two Sand Dunes in the world. The Oregon Trail, the 

California Trail, Red Desert flat and basin, Boars Tusk, Steamboat Mountain, Green Mountains, 

White Mountains, cave paintings and Chain Lakes. Land of the eagle, antelope, mule deer, 

coyotes. You can use this place for war games, for grazing cattle, sheep, and wildlife. Why 

[does] Wyoming have to do it all? Please save just this Red Desert, Adobe Town, Devils 

Playground, and Jackson Hole. 

Thank you for your comments. However, with the exception of Red Desert Basin, the 

geological features mentioned in your letter are not affected by the Proposed Action. 

Tracy Williams, Office of Federal Land Policy 

The Office of Federal Land Policy has reviewed the referenced scoping statement on behalf of 

the State of Wyoming. This Office also distributed the referenced document to all affected state 

agencies for their review, in accordance with State Clearinghouse procedures. Attached are 

comments from the State Historic Preservation Office, Wyoming Game and Fish Department and 

the Wyoming Business Council-Minerals, Energy and Transportation and the State Engineer's 

Office. : While the State defers to its agencies' technical expertise in developing the State's 

position, the responsibility to articulate balanced official, unified State policies and positions lies 

with the Governor or the Office of Federal Land Policy. 

At this time in the initial scoping stage, this office has no official position. However, we do ask 

that the attached comments receive your favorable consideration.

Thank you for your comments. 

 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

20 

Judy Wolf, Department of State Parks & Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation

Office 

Our staff has received information concerning the aforementioned. Thank you for allowing us 

the opportunity to comment. 

Management of cultural resources on Bureau of Land Management projects is conducted in 

accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Advisory Council 

regulations 36 CFR Part 800. These regulations call for survey, evaluation and protection of 

significant historic and archeological sites prior to any disturbance. Provided the BLM follows 

the procedures established in the regulations, we have no objections to the project. Specific 

comments on the project's effect on cultural resource sites will be provided to the BLM when we 

review the cultural resource documentation called for in 36 CFR Part 800. Please refer to SHPO 

project control number 0302TLGO27 on any future correspondence dealing with this project.

Regulations pertaining to cultural resources will be adhered to. See Sections 2.1, 3.12, 

and 4.11 of the EA. 

John Robitaille, Wyoming Business Council 

These comments regarding the Kennedy Oil Pilot Exploratory Coal Bed Methane Project have 

been approved by the Director of the Wyoming Business Council's Minerals, Energy and 

Transportation Division and are specific to this agency's statutory mission within state 

government which is to be directly involved in state and federal policy work to assure reasonable 

access to public lands. In that regard these comments are meant to, in association with all other 

agency comments, assist in defining the Official State Position. These comments defer to and are 

subordinate to the Official State Position. 

The Wyoming Business Council's Minerals, Energy and Transportation Division has reviewed 

the above referenced scoping statement and feels it is in Wyoming's best interest to continue to 

pursue the proposed project. We look forward to reviewing the appropriate National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document, in order to gain a much broader understanding, 

and review of the specifics of the proposed action. In addition, we stand ready to provide any 

technical expertise or technical comments to assist in the formulation of a state position.

Thank you for your comment. 

Richard G. Stockdale, State Engineer’s Office 

The State Engineer's Office review of the subject project revealed the following. The project 

proponents did not acknowledge the necessity for obtaining pern1its to appropriate ground 

water from the State Engineer's Office. A check of the records of this office revealed that no 

permits to appropriate ground water for each of the proposed coalbed methane wells have been 

obtained from the State Engineer's Office at this time. 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

21 

Approved permits to appropriate ground water obtained from the State Engineer's Office will be 

required for each CBM well prior to the construction of the well. Permits from the State 

Engineer may also be required to beneficially use the produced CBM water for various other 

project purposes, such as hydrostatic testing of pipelines, well drilling, dust abatement, etc. In 

addition, the project document was not very clear as to where the water to drill the CBM wells 

would be obtained. Permits from the State Engineer may be required for use of the water from 

whatever source is identified as supplying the water for drilling the project wells. 

Due to the relatively deep CBM production interval, the State Engineer's Office does not 

anticipate interference to develop between the CBM wells and other existing wells in the area. 

However, if interference were to develop between CBM wells and existing water wells as a result 

of ground water production associated with CBM production, State water law has provisions to 

deal with such an event. 

Your comments have been considered in the EA. See Sections 1.2 (Table 1.1). All 

required state water permits will be acquired prior to initiating the project components. 

Bill Wichers, Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

These comments regarding the scoping statement for the Kennedy Oil Pilot Exploratory Coal 

Bed Methane Project have been approved by the Director and are specific to this agency's 

statutory mission within State government which is "Conserving Wildlife, Serving People". In 

that regard, these comments are meant to, in association with all other agency comments, assist 

in de rung the Official State Position. These comments defer to and are subordinate to the 

official state position. 

There is no mention of big game species as an issue in the scoping document. The project area 

serves as spring/summer/fall range for the Red Desert pronghorn herd and winter!yearlong 

range for the Steamboat elk herd. Numerous bull groups have been observed wintering in the 

Buffalo Hump area in recent years. The BLM is aware of, and participated in, the recent update 

to the Steamboat elk distribution map. Potential impacts to big game should be addressed in the 

Environmental Assessment (EA). 

The scoping document correctly identifies sage grouse, raptors, mountain plover, and prairie 

dog towns as issues. Specifically, there are three known sage grouse lek locations, with 

associated nesting habitat, in the vicinity of the project that should be identified in the EA. These 

leks are located in NESW section 16 and NENWSE of section 25, T24N, R98W, and in NWSE of 

section 11, T25N, R98W. The numbers of birds observed on these leks declined in the late 1990's, 

in contrast to many other leks in the region that showed significant increases during that time. 

The EA should address this decline in terms of increased levels of human activity related to 

development in the area. Well road density and water disposal should be specifically addressed 

relative to effects on wildlife. The EA should discuss the mitigation of expected impacts. 

Your comments have been considered in the EA. See Sections 3.8 and 4.7. 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

22 

Dru Bower, Petroleum Association of Wyoming 

The Petroleum Association of Wyoming (PAW) would like to thank BLM for the opportunity to 

comment on the referenced document. PAW is Wyoming's largest and oldest oil and gas trade 

organization, the members of which account for over ninety percent of the natural gas and over 

seventy percent of the crude oil produced in the State. 

PAW has the following comments regarding the Scoping Notice for the above referenced 

document: 

Currently the Applicant is bound by the mitigation measures in the Resource Management Plan, 

along with existing terms, conditions, and lease stipulations. The mandatory mitigation in effect 

is more than adequate for this proposed exploratory project and additional concerns can be 

analyzed in the Environmental Assessment (EA). At this time, there is nothing present to indicate 

that an Environmental Impact Statement is necessary for the exploratory phase of the project. 

Should a discovery be made through the exploratory phase and the Applicant desires to proceed 

with additional development, appropriate NEPA analysis would be conducted at that time and 

adequate mitigation measures would be applied. This project should not be delayed based on the 

concern that 'potential development' may occur. Proper analysis can and will be adequately 

addressed in the NEPA analysis required for full field development and at the site-specific phase 

of the project. 

Socio-economic impacts to the Counties and State should be addressed in the EA. A section 

should be added to the environmental consequences chapter to describe "local economy" 

significance criteria. PAW recognizes that the social and economic opportunities generated from 

the project would benefit the residents of Wyoming and the participating counties by directly 

creating new jobs and producing additional revenues, particularly if further development is 

conducted after the exploratory phase. 

 

Wyoming has the opportunity to provide much needed natural resources to markets throughout 

the nation and this exploratory proposal has the potential to assist in that effort. At the same 

time, industry recognizes the importance of protecting the environment and will work to 

adequately address those concerns during the appropriate level of NEPA analysis. In conclusion, 

PAW supports the proposal to explore and potentially develop a coal bed methane project on 

valid, existing oil and gas leases as described in this project.

Thank you for your comments. The proposal is appropriately mitigated. Socio-economic 

impacts have been considered in the EA. See Sections 3.13 and 4.12. 

Michael Long, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Thank you for the scoping notice for the Kennedy Coal Bed Methane pilot project in Sweetwater 

County, Wyoming. Kennedy Oil is proposing developing two pods, with a total of 20 wells, plus 

2 water injection wells. Well spacing would be 160 acres. The analysis area for this project 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

23 

contains 10,240 acres, with surface and mineral ownership by the Federal government and the 

State of Wyoming. 

In accordance with section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), my 

staff has determined that the following threatened or endangered species, or species proposed 

for listing under the Act, may be present in the project area.

Listed and Proposed Species 

Species Status Expected Occurrence

Black-footed ferret 

(Mustela migripes) Endangered Potential resident in prairie dog (Cynomys sp.) colonies. 

Bald eagle 

(Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus) 

Threatened Nesting. Winter resident, Migrant 

Mountain Plover 

(Charadrius montanus) Proposed Grasslands statewide 

Ute ladies’-tresses 

(Spiranthes diluvialis) Threatened Seasonally moist soils and wet meadows of drainages below 7,000 feet elevation 

Whooping crane 

(Grus Americana) Experimental Resident, migrant (Rocky Mtn. Pop. Only) 

A disturbance-free buffer zone of 1 mile should be maintained around eagle nests and winter 

roost locations. Activity within 1 mile of these locations may disturb the eagles and result in 

“take.” If a disturbance-free buffer zone of 1 mile is not practicable, then the activity should be 

conducted outside of the nesting season (Feb 15 -Aug 15) or winter roosting season (Dec 1 - 

Apri1 15). 

Black-footed ferrets may be affected if prairie dog colonies are impacted. If white-tail prairie 

dog (Cynomys leucurus) colonies or complexes greater than 200 acres will be disturbed, surveys 

for ferrets should be conducted even if only a portion of the colony or complex will be disturbed. 

 If a field check indicates that prairie dog towns may be affected, you should contact this office 

for guidance on ferret surveys. 

Mountain plover breeding habitats are known to include grasslands, mixed grasslands, mixed 

grassland areas and short-grass prairie, shrub-steppe, plains, alkali flats, agricultural lands, 

cultivated lands, sod farms, and prairie dog towns. Plovers may nest on sites where vegetation 

is sparse or absent, or near closely cropped areas, manure piles or rocky areas. Mountain 

plovers are rarely found near water and show a preference for previously disturbed areas or 

modified habitat. They may be found on heavily grazed pastures throughout their breeding range 

and may selectively nest in or near prairie dog towns. 

The Service recommends surveys for mountain plovers in all suitable habitat as well as 

avoidance of nesting areas to minimize impact to plovers in a site planned for development. 

While the Service believes that plover surveys, avoidance of nesting and brood rearing areas, 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

24 

and timing restrictions (avoidance of important areas during nesting) will lessen the chance of 

direct impacts to and mortality of individual mountain plovers in the area, these restrictions do 

nothing to mitigate indirect effects including changes in habitat suitability and habitat loss. 

Surveys are, however, a necessary starting point. In soma cases, activities can be conducted 

between August 15 and March 15 to avoid affecting this species. 

The Ute ladies’-tresses is endemic to moist soils near wetland meadows, springs, lakes, and 

perennial streams. It occurs generally in alluvial substrates along riparian edges, gravel bars, 

old oxbows, and wet meadows at elevations from 4.200 to 7,000 feet. The orchid colonizes early 

successional riparian habitats such point bars, sand bars, and low lying gravelly, sandy, or 

cobbly edges, persisting n those areas where the hydrology provides continual dampness in the 

root zone through the growing season. Ute ladies'-tresses seems generally intolerant of shade 

and is found primarily in open grass and forb-dominated sites where vegetation is relatively 

open and not dense or overgrown. The plants usually occur as small scattered groups. Ute 

ladies’-tresses orchid can only be reliably located and identified when it is flowering which 

typically occurs sometime during the period from mid-July through mid-September. Surveys are 

conducted by walking or otherwise closely scrutinizing areas of potential habitat looking for 

flowering stalks. Surveys conducted at other times of the year are not reliable and are therefore 

not acceptable to the Service for purposes of clearance under section 7 of the Act. Surveys 

should be conducted by knowledgeable botanists trained in conducting rare plant surveys. 

The species identified by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have been considered in the EA. 

 See Sections 3.8 and 4.7. 

Colorado River Water Depletions 

Where projects may lead to depletions of water to the Colorado river system, formal consultation 

is required. Federal agency actions resulting in water depletions to the Colorado River System 

may affect endangered Bonytail (Gila elegans), Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), 

Humpback chub (Gila cypha), and Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) downstream of the 

Green and Colorado river systems. 

In general, depletions include evaporative losses and/or consumptive use of surface or 

groundwater within the affected basin, often characterized as diversions less return flows. 

Project elements that could be associated with depletions include, but are not limited to ponds 

(detention/recreation/irrigation storage/stock watering), lakes (recreation/irrigation storage/ 

municipal storage/power generation), reservoirs (recreation/irrigation storage/municipal 

storage/power generation), pipelines, wells, diversion structures, and water treatment facilities. 

Any actions that may result in water- depletion should be identified. The document shou1d also 

include an estimate of the amount and timing (by month) of average annual water depletion 

(both existing and new depletions), and describe methods of arriving at such estimates. 

Platte River Depletions 

 

Since 1978, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has consistently taken the position in its 

section 7 consultations that Federal agency actions resulting in water depletions to the Platte 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

25 

River system may affect the endangered whooping crane (Grus Americana), endangered interior 

least tern (Sterna antillarum), threatened piping plover (Charadrius melodus), and endangered 

pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus), the threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), 

the endangered eskimo curlew (Nunienius borealis), and threatened western prairie fringed 

orchid (Platanthera praeclara). 

In general, depletions include evaporative losses and/or consumptive use, often characterized as 

diverstions from the Platte River or its tributaries less return flows. Project elements that could 

be associated with depletions include, but are not limited to ponds 

(detention/recreation/irrigation storage/stock watering), lakes (recreation/irrigation storage/ 

municipal storage/power generation), reservoirs (recreation/irrigation storage/municipal 

storage/power generation), created or enhanced wetlands, pipelines, wells, diversion structures, 

and water treatment facilities. 

Any actions that may result in water depletions to the Platte River system should be identified. 

The document should also include an estimate of the amount and timing (by month) of average 

annual water depletion (both existing and new depletions), and describe methods of arriving at 

such estimates. 

Water depletions have been considered in the EA. See sections 3.8. and 4.7 

Consultation 

Section 7(c) of the Act requires that a biological assessment be prepared for any Federal action 

that is a major construction activity to determine the effects of the proposed action on listed and 

proposed species. If a biological assessment is not required (i.e., all other actions), the lead 

Federal agency is responsible for review of proposed activities to determine whether listed 

species will be affected. We would appreciate the opportunity to review any such determination 

document. If it is determined that the proposed activities may affect a listed species, you should 

contact this office to discuss consultation requirements. If it is determined that any Federal 

agency program or project "is likely to adversely affect" any listed species, formal consultation 

should be initiated with this office. Alternatively, informal consultation can be continued so we 

can work together to determine how the project could be modified to reduce impacts to listed 

species to the "not likely to adversely affect" threshold. If it is concluded that the project “is not 

likely to adversely affect” listed species, we should be asked to review the assessment and concur 

with the determination of not likely to adversely affect. 

Section 7(d) of the Act requires that the Federal agency and permit or license applicant shall not 

make any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources which would preclude the 

formulation of reasonable and prudent alternative until consultation on listed species is 

completed. 

Regarding species proposed for listing, Federal agencies must determine whether any of their 

proposed activities are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. If jeopardy is 

likely, that agency must confer with the Fish and Wildlife Service. 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

26 

We will work with the lead Federal agency in the section 7 consultation process. The analysis of 

project impacts must assess direct impacts of the project, as well as those impacts that are 

interrelated to or interdependent with the proposed action. Impacts to listed species on nonFederal lands must be evaluated along with such impacts on Federal lands. Any measures that 

are ultimately required to avoid or reduce impacts to listed species will apply to Federal as well 

as non-Federal lands. 

BLM has prepared and submitted a consultation document to your agency. 

Migratory Birds 

 

Please recognize that consultation on listed species may not remove your obligation to protect 

the many species of migratory birds, including eagles and other raptors protected under the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). 

The MBTA, 16 U.S.C. 703, enacted in 1918, prohibits the taking of any migratory birds, their 

parts. Nests, or eggs except as permitted by regulations and does not require intent to be proven. 

Section 703 of the Act states, “Unless and except as permitted by regulations...it shall be 

unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner to...take, capture, kill, attempt to take, 

capture, or kill, or possess...any migratory bird, any part, nest, or eggs of any such bird..." The 

BGEPA, 16 U.S.C. 668, prohibits knowingly taking, or taking with wanton disregard for the 

consequences of an activity, any bald or golden eagles or their body parts, nests, or eggs, which 

includes collection, molestation, disturbance, or killing. 

Work that could lead to the take of a migratory bird including an eagle, their young, eggs, or 

nests (for example, if you are going to erect new well sites, roads, or power lines in the vicinity 

of a nest) should be coordinated with our office before any actions are taken. Removal or 

destruction of such nests, or causing abandonment of; a nest could constitute violation of one or 

both of the above statutes. Removal of any active migratory bird nest or nest tree is prohibited. 

Permits for nest manipulation, including removal or relocation may, under certain 

circumstances, be issued for inactive nests only. For golden eagles, inactive nest permits are 

limited to activities involving resource extraction, and human health and safety. Mitigation, as 

determined by the local U.S Fish and Wildlife Service field office, may be required for loss of 

these nests. No permits will be issued for an active nest of any migratory bird species, unless 

removal of an active nest is necessary for reasons of human health and safety. Therefore, if 

nesting migratory birds are present on, or near the project area, timing is it significant 

consideration and needs to be addressed in project planning. 

Your comment has been considered in the EA. See Sections 3.8 and 4.7. 

Other Fish and Wildlife Resources 

 

Sage grouse are declining throughout their range, and concern for this species has led us to 

believe we will receive a listing petition for listing sage grouse pursuant to the Act in the near 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

27 

future. The cause of sage grouse decline is not known and may be a combination of several 

factors which affect habitat and reproductive abilities. However, anecdotal information, from 

several sources in Wyoming, suggests that sage grouse populations are negatively affected by the 

activities associated with oil and gas development, even when mitigative measures are 

implemented. We encourage the Bureau to take all necessary measures allowable to protect sage 

grouse in the project area to ensure this project does not exacerbate factors contributing to sage 

grouse decline and thus give support to a listing petition. 

No oil or gas activity is exists in the project area. Your comments have been considered 

in the EA. See section 2.1 and 4.7 for mitigation to protect the Greater sage-grouse. 

Coalbed methane development poses a serious threat to wildlife habitat. Habitat fragmentation, 

disruption of seasonal migration routes and disruption of breeding activity is caused by access 

roads, drill pads, pipelines, power lines, transmission stations, compressors, and increased 

traffic that accompany coalbed methane development. State and Federal agencies have 

estimated that these activities associated with dril1ing and operating each coalbed methane well 

disturbs 3 to 4 acres of land and results in the construction of 1⁄4 to 1/3 of a mile of new roads 

(Frykman 2001). With predictions of up to 70,000 new wells in Wyoming over the next several 

years, coalbed methane development could disturb hundreds of thousands of acres of 

irreplaceable wildlife habitat. 

Measures to protect wildlife have been identified in the EA (see sections 2.1.9.8 and 4.7). 

Air pollution is a serious environmental concern associated witt1 CBM development. 

Generators supply electricity to pump methane and provide power to compressor stations that 

compress methane prior to transport to market. Toxic emissions from generators include sulfur 

dioxide, nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde (Frykman 2001). Dust generated from 

increased traffic on unpaved roads and noise produced by compressors may pose serious threats 

to the health of wildlife. 

Generators used for pumping produced water will be powered by natural gas. No 

compressor stations are proposed; thus, no emissions associated with compression will 

occur. 

Coalbed methane well operators should cluster pipelines, access roads and compressor stations 

and bury powerlines within existing lights-or-way as much as possible. Because gas from wells 

is normally measured at the well site, sharing flow lines and compressor stations among 

operators is logistically feasible and would reduce costs of operation (Frykman 2001). 

Generators should be powered by natural gas to reduce toxic emissions, and compressors should 

be fitted with high quality mufflers to keep noise to a minimum. The above measures would 

reduce dramatically habitat fragmentation and the acreage of land disturbed, reduce health risks 

to wildlife associated with dust and toxic compressor station emissions, and reduce noise 

pollution associated with compressor stations. 

Your comments have been considered in the EA. See Section 2.1. 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

28 

Fish, wildlife and plant inventories should be conducted in each CBM field prior to development. 

Sensitive species and their habitats should be identified, and adequate buffer zones established to 

protect habitat from degradation associated with development and operating activities over the 

years. Development should be phased in over time in any given area, reducing intensity of 

impacts to fish and wildlife populations and their habitat. A land management plan should be 

implemented upon CBM development to control noxious weeds on all disturbed lands. Areas 

disturbed during CBM development should reclaimed with native soils and restored with native 

plants immediately after cessation of methane production. 

This is an exploratory pilot project, not a full field development proposal. Thus, phasing 

of development is inappropriate. Appropriate measures have been adopted. See EA, 

sections 2.1, 4.5, and 4.7. 

In order for the Service to address potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources resulting from 

hydrogeological processes affected by coalbed methane development, a stratigraphic profile of 

the proposed well field should be provided containing information on well depth and major 

geological formations that would be penetrated during drilling. For example, a well drilled into 

the Rawlins Uplift, Great Divide-Washakie Basin, Wyoming, may involve dril1ing to a depth of 

10,000 feet below sea level. Major geological layers penetrated may include the "Upper 

Cretaceous (Kuu) including the Lewis Shale layer on top of the Mesa Verde layer which is 

composed of the Almond, Ericson, Rock Springs, and Blair formations. Any other major 

geological features associated with the well field shou1d be identified- for example, major faults 

or aquifer confining layers. 

The purpose of the Kennedy Oil’s CBM Exploratory Pilot project is to gather and 

evaluate data to determine the feasibility of development. Reliable information on 

reservoir heterogeneity, coal thickness, coal gas content, gas chemistry, recovery 

efficiency, coal permeability, water quality and quantity must be acquired. 

Data should be provided concerning the potential water quality of the coalbed methane 

produced water. Composition of major geological layers penetrated also should be provided. 

For example, limestone, dolomite, gypsum, calcium sulfate, basalt, unconsolidated grave1s, and 

fractured plutonic deposits may comprise specific geological layers mentioned above. This 

information is important because water moves through different earth material according to the 

properties of porosity, intrinsic permeability, and hydraulic conductivity. For instance, 

sedimentary rocks of chemical or biochemical origin (e.g., limestone, dolomite, gypsum) are 

chemical precipitates that redissolve relatively easily (Fetter 1994), enabling produced water to 

migrate through them readily and potentially contaminate other aquifers. Aquifers that are 

contaminated may provide the water source of important fish and wildlife habitat (e.g., riparian 

areas or wetlands), and may be connected hydrologically to major river basins. 

See response above. 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

29 

Wetlands 

The Service recommends measures be taken to avoid any wetland losses in accordance with 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Executive Order 11990 (wetland protection) and Executive 

Order 11988 (floodplain management) as well as the goal of “no net loss of wetlands.” If 

wetlands may be destroyed or degraded by the proposed action, those (wetlands) in the project 

area should be inventoried and fully described in terms of functions and values. Acreage of 

wetlands, by type, should be disclosed and specific actions outlined to minimize impacts and 

compensate for all unavoidable wetland impacts. 

See comment letter from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. No wetlands or riparian areas 

are affected by the proposal. 

These preliminary scoping comments are made pursuant to the National Environmental Policy 

Act, the Endangered Species Act and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Please keep this office 

informed of any developments or decisions concerning this project. 

 The BLM has coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

30 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

31 

APPENDIX B 

APPLICANT COMMITTED PRACTICES 

 

The proponent commits to the following practices. 

Air Quality 

1. Kennedy would adhere to all applicable local, state, and federal air quality regulations and 

standards. Kennedy would adhere to all applicable ambient air quality standards, permit 

requirements (including preconstruction, testing, and operating permits), motorized equipment 

and other regulations, as required by the State of Wyoming, Department of Environmental 

Quality, Air Quality Division (WDEQ-AQD). 

2. Kennedy would not allow burning garbage or refuse at well locations or other facilities. Any 

flaring would be conducted under the permitting provisions of Section 13 of the Wyoming Air 

Quality Standards and Regulations. 

Soils 

1. Implement established BLM road standards practice to minimize offsite impacts and provide for 

the safety of operations. 

2. Locate pipelines immediately adjacent to roads to avoid creating separate areas of disturbance 

and to reduce the total area of disturbance. 

3. Frozen soils will not used as construction material. 

4. Minimize construction activities in areas of steep slopes. 

5. Design cut slopes in a manner that will allow retention of topsoil, use of surface treatment such 

as mulch, and subsequent revegetation. 

6. Six inches of topsoil will be salvaged from all disturbed areas. 

7. Where possible, minimize disturbance to vegetated cuts and fills on existing improved roads. 

8. Install runoff and erosion control measures such as water bars, berms, and interceptor ditches if 

needed. 

9. Install culverts for ephemeral and intermittent drainage crossings. 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

32 

10. Upon completion of construction activities not specifically required for production 

operations, restore topography to near pre-existing contours at the well sites, along access 

roads and pipelines, and other facilities sites; replace up to six inches of topsoil or suitable 

plant growth material over all disturbed surfaces; apply fertilizer as required; seed; and 

mulch. 

Water Resources 

Mitigation measures listed in the Soils, and Vegetation and Wetlands sections of this also apply to 

Water Resources. 

1. Limit construction of all drainage crossings to no-flow periods or low-flow periods. 

2. Minimize the area of disturbance within drainage channel environments. 

3. Prohibit construction of well sites and other non-linear features within 500 feet of surface water 

and/or riparian areas. Possible exceptions to this will be granted by the BLM for linear features 

based on an environmental analysis and site-specific mitigation plans. 

4. Construct channel crossings by pipelines such that the pipe is buried a minimum of four feet 

below the channel bottom. 

5. Case wells during drilling, and case and cement all wells in accordance with Onshore Order No. 

2 to protect all high quality water aquifers. High quality water aquifers are aquifers with known 

water quality of 10,000 TDS or less. Include well casing and welding of sufficient integrity to 

contain all fluids under high pressure during drilling and well completion. Wells will adhere to 

the appropriate BLM cementing policy. 

6. Construct the reserve pits in cut rather than fill materials. Compact and stabilize fill material, as 

needed. Inspect the subsoil material of the pit to be constructed in order to assess soil stability 

and permeability and determine whether reinforcement is required. The reserve pit will be lined 

with reinforced synthetic liner at least 12 mils in thickness with a bursting strength of 175 x 175 

pounds per inch (ASTMD 75179) or according to stipulation. 

7. Maintain one foot of freeboard on all reserve pits to minimize the risk of overflowing. Shut 

down drilling operations until the problem is corrected if leakage is found outside the pit. 

8. Extract hydrostatic test water used in conjunction with pipeline testing and all water used during 

construction activities from sources having sufficient quantities and appropriation permits 

approved by the State of Wyoming. 

9. No crossings or encroachments of waters of the U.S., as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (COE), is planned in association with this project. The Great Divide Basin is 

hydrographically closed and has been determined by the COE not to contain any waters of the 

U.S. that will fall under their jurisdiction. The COE has reviewed the scoping notice for the 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

33 

Proposed Action. Based on the information provided and the Court ruling, it has been 

determined that any wetlands or other waters in the Project area are isolated and are no longer 

considered to be ‘waters of the U.S.’ under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (COE March 22, 

2002 response to T Deakins, re scoping notice for Kennedy Oil Pilot Exploratory Coal Bed 

Methane Project). 

Any changes in the produced water disposal method or location must have written approval from 

the BLM before the changes take place. 

Noise 

1. Muffle and maintain all motorized equipment according to manufacturers' specifications. 

2. In any area of operations (drill site, etc.) where noise levels may exceed federal OSHA safe 

limits, Kennedy will provide and require the use of proper personnel protective equipment by 

employees. No compression facilities are proposed for this Project. 

Transportation 

1. Existing roads will be used whenever possible. Standards for road design will be consistent with 

BLM guidance.

2. Roads not required for routine operation and maintenance of producing wells and ancillary 

facilities will be reclaimed and revegetated. 

3. Areas with important resource values, steep slopes, and fragile soils will be avoided. 

4. Kennedy will be responsible for preventive and corrective maintenance of roads in the project 

area throughout the duration of the Proposed Action. This may include shallow grading, 

cleaning ditches and drainage facilities, dust abatement, noxious weed control, or other 

requirements as directed by the BLM or the Sweetwater County Road and Bridge Department. 

5. Except in emergency situations, access will be limited to drier conditions to prevent severe 

rutting (creation of ruts in excess of 4” deep) of the road surface. Culverts will be installed 

where needed to allow drainage in all draws and natural drainage areas. Onsite reviews will be 

conducted with BLM personnel for approval of proposed access prior to any construction. 

Health and Safety 

Measures listed under Air Quality and Water Quality also apply to Health and Safety. 

1. Sanitation facilities installed on the drill sites and any resident campsite locations will be 

approved by the WDEQ and Authorized Officer. 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

34 

2. To minimize undue exposure to hazardous situations, the operator will comply with all existing 

applicable rules and regulations (i.e., Onshore Orders, OSHA requirements, etc.) that will 

preclude the public from entering hazardous areas and place warning signs alerting the public of 

truck traffic, if required by the BLM. 

3. Haul all garbage and rubbish from the drill site to a state-approved sanitary landfill for disposal. 

Collect and store any garbage or refuse materials on location prior to transport in containers 

approved by the BLM. 

4. Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans will be written and implemented as 

necessary, in accordance with 40 CFR 112. 

Spills of oil, gas, or any other potentially hazardous substance will be reported immediately to 

the BLM, and will be mitigated immediately, as appropriate, through cleanup or removal to an 

approved disposal site. 

Vegetation/Wetlands/Noxious Weeds 

Other mitigation measures under Soils and Water Resources also apply. 

1. File noxious weed monitoring forms with the BLM and implement, if necessary, a weed control 

and eradication program. 

2. Evaluate all project facility sites for occurrence and distribution of waters of the U.S., special 

aquatic sites, and jurisdictional wetlands. All project facilities will be located out of these 

sensitive areas. If complete avoidance is not possible, minimize impacts through modification 

and minor relocations. 

3. On BLM lands, an approved Pesticide Use Proposal will be obtained before the application of 

herbicides or other pesticides for the control of noxious weeds. 

4. Disturbed areas will be seeded and stabilized in accordance with BLM-approved reclamation 

guidelines. 

Wildlife and Fisheries 

No fisheries mitigation is needed beyond that indicated under Water Resources and Special Status 

Species. 

1. During reclamation, establish a variety of forage species that will return the land to a condition 

approximate or equal to that which existed prior to disturbance. 

2. Prohibit unnecessary off-site activities of operational personnel in the vicinity of the drill sites. 

Inform all project employees of applicable wildlife laws and penalties associated with unlawful 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

35 

take and harassment. Minimize surface disturbance. 

3. No construction is planned in big game crucial winter range at any time. No crucial winter range 

is identified in the project area. 

4. Conduct a raptor survey within 1 mile of the project activity areas prior to construction if 

activities will be conducted between February 1 and July 31. No permanent above ground 

structures will be constructed within 825 feet of an active raptor nest (NSO). 

5. Surface-disturbing activities will be seasonally restricted from February 1 through July 31 within 

a 0.5-mile radius of all active raptor nests, except for ferruginous hawk nests, which will have a 

1.0-mile seasonal buffer. Active nests are described as any active within the past 3 years. Such 

restriction will not apply to routine maintenance activities. When an “active” raptor nest is 

within 1⁄2 to 1 mile (depending on species and line of sight) of a proposed well site, restrict 

construction during the critical nesting season for that species. For listed and BLM sensitive 

species the distance should be increased to within one mile of a proposed well site. See Chapters 

3 and 4 for details. No above ground structures or roads are allowed to be constructed within 

825 feet of any raptor nest (Wyoming BLM State Guidelines). 

6. Protection for breeding Greater Sage-grouse will include No Surface Occupancy within 0.25 mile 

of a lek. Construction of low profile facilities or performance of temporary disruptive activities 

will be avoided where possible, but exceptions may be requested from the authorizing officer, in 

accordance with the GRRMP ROD.

 Protection for greater sage-grouse nesting habitat within appropriate distances from leks will 

include avoidance of such habitat and/or restriction of seasonal activities within those areas. 

Such restrictions may apply to suitable nesting habitat up to two miles from the lek from 

February 1 through July 31. The time frames will be assessed on a case-by-case basis by the 

RSFO, in accordance with the GRRMP ROD. Exceptions may be granted if the activity will 

occur in unsuitable nesting habitat. 

7. Mountain plover will be protected by restricting or avoiding construction activities in mountain 

plover nesting and brood-rearing habitat during breeding periods (April 10 through July 10). 

Seed mixes for plants 6 inches high or less will be used in mountain plover habitat, or as 

otherwise directed by an Authorized Officer. Sightings of mountain plover will be reported to 

the BLM. Observances of mountain plover nest, eggs, or chick will be immediately reported to 

the BLM and USFWS. Entire project area will be considered suitable mountain plover habitat. 

All surveys will be in accordance with USFWS guidelines. 

8. If sodium levels reach 17,000 ppm or more, reserve pits will be netted to protect migratory birds. 

9. If threatened, endangered, candidate, or proposed species are discovered at any time during 

construction, all construction activities will halt and the BLM will be immediately notified. 

Work will not resume until a Notice to Proceed is issued by the BLM. 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

36 

Cultural and Historic Resources 

Kennedy has completed Class III cultural inventories of all previously uninventoried parcels of land 

that will have surface disturbance associated with the action. 

1. If cultural resources are discovered at any time during construction, all construction activities 

will halt and the BLM will be immediately notified. Work will not resume until a Notice to 

Proceed is issued by the BLM. 

Socioeconomics 

1. Implement hiring policies that will encourage the use of local or regional workers who will not 

have to relocate to the area. 

2. Coordinate project activities with ranching operations to minimize conflicts involving livestock 

movement or other ranch operations. Establish effective and frequent communication with 

affected ranchers to monitor and correct problems and coordinate scheduling. 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

37 

APPENDIX C 

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 

Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 13, 14, and 16 of the Master Surface Use Plan (see Appendix D of the 

attached Environmental Assessment) have no changes. 

6. Pads and Pits/Construction/Operations 

D. The foreslope will be no steeper than 1.5:1 

G. A pit liner shall be required. The pit liner permeability will be less than 10-7 cm/sec and have 

a burst strength equal to or exceeding 300 pounds per square inch (psi), a puncture strength of 

160 psi or greater and grab tensile strength of 150 psi or greater. The liner will be resistant to 

deterioration by hydrocarbons. Liners will not be installed directly on rock. The pit will first 

receive a layer of bedding material (e.g., sand or geotextile fiber liner) sufficient to prevent 

contact between the liner and any exposed rock. The pad will be designed so that runoff from 

adjacent slopes will not flow into the reserve pit. 

 

J. The reserve pit will be fenced on the fourth side immediately after rig removal. 

8. Location and Type of Water Supply

C. A right-of-way will be required for the water haul route located outside the project area.

9. Methods of Handling Waste Materials

D. A portable chemically treated, self-contained latrine will be placed at each well location 

while drilling. 

H. A Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan will be available on site for use in 

case of a release of hazardous materials. 

11. Location of Existing and/or Proposed Facilities (For Production) 

Production facilities will be placed on 0.7 acre maximum surface area. The remainder of the pad 

will be shaped to original contour and seeded in accordance with the specified seed mixture. 

 B. The pipeline routes will follow road corridors. 

12. Plans for Reclamation of the Surface:

 

B. Producer 

4. The production equipment color will be Carlsbad Canyon Munsell standard color No: 

2.5Y 6/2). 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

38 

15. Additional Stipulations.

E. Correct the typo ERCL to read CERCLA. 

Miscellaneous: The Operator of these wells is responsible for complying with the Wyoming 

DEQ Notice dated February 4, 1997 regarding "Installation of Production Equipment Air Quality 

Permit Requirements. The notice advises "all oil and gas producers, including operators, 

subcontractors, rental equipment suppliers and oil and gas production service companies, that 

prior to installation of any oil and gas well production equipment which has the potential to emit 

air contaminants into the air of the state, the owner or operator of the equipment must notify the 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division to determine permit 

requirements. The Air Quality Division will provide the owner/operator with forms and 

guidelines for permitting and controlling air contaminant emissions from this equipment." 

"Virtually all well production equipment, including fuel fired equipment, separators, storage 

tanks, engines, and dehydrators has the potential to emit air contaminates. Failure to notify the 

Division pursuant to the above could result in enforcement actions and appropriate penalties." 

Lease Stipulations: 

WYW 153613 

TLS (1) Mar 1 to Jun 30; (2) as mapped on the Rock Springs Field Office GIS Database; 

protecting sage grouse nesting habitat. 

CSU (1) Surface occupancy or use within the Red Desert Watershed will be restricted or 

prohibited unless the operator and surface management agency arrive at an acceptable plan for 

mitigation of anticipated impacts; (2) entire lease; (3) protecting watershed, visual, wildlife, and 

soils. 

WYW152180 and WYW 154200 

TLS(1) Mar 1 to Jun 30; (2) as mapped on the Green River Resource Area GIS database; (3) 

protecting sage grouse nesting habitat. 

Special conditions: 

The following measures are required to eliminate or minimize impacts. The special conditions 

identified below may add to, duplicate, modify, or clarify measures contained in Appendix B 

(Applicant Committed Measures) and Appendix D (Master Surface Use and Operations Plan and 

Addendum to Master Surface Use Plan) of the attached Environmental Assessment. 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

39 

1. The proponent shall seek appropriate permits and/or follow state protocol for approval 

of all on-site temporary or permanent equipment used in association with this project 

including required permits from the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, 

Air Quality Division. 

2. If injection wells are not drilled first, wells will be capped when the reserved pit 

capacity (including 2 ft of freeboard) is reached. No hauling of produced water will be 

permitted. 

3. All equipment will be washed prior to entering the project area in order to prevent or 

minimize the spread of invasive species. 

4. Wild horses will be given the right of way and reduced speed limits will be 

implemented especially if work is done at night. 

5. The proponent shall immediately contact the BLM Field Manager (Authorized Officer) 

if any paleontological resources or fossils are discovered as a result of operations. All 

activities will be suspended in the vicinity of such discovery until notified to proceed 

by the Authorized Officer. The Authorized Officer will evaluate, or will have 

evaluated, such discoveries not later than 5 working days after being notified, and will 

determine what action shall be taken with respect to such discoveries. The decision as 

to the appropriate measures to mitigate adverse affects to significant paleontological 

resources will be made by the Authorized Officer after consulting with BLM’s regional 

Paleontologist. The proponent will be responsible for the cost of any investigation 

necessary for the evaluation and for any mitigative measures. 

6. Should paleontological materials be found during project implementation, all activities 

within a 100 ft radius shall cease and BLM’s authorized office notified immediately. 

7. During the processing of APDs or ROWs, BLM shall determine whether a 

paleontological survey is required. 

8. The proponent shall initiate a worker education of important fossil remains and 

restrictions on collection of paleontological resources without a permit. The proponent 

shall be responsible for informing all persons associated with the project that they 

could be subject to prosecution for damaging, altering, excavating, or removing any 

vertebrate fossil objects on site. Should vertebrate fossil materials be discovered, the 

operator is to suspend all operations that further disturb such materials and contact the 

Authorized Officer immediately. Operations will not resume until written 

authorization to proceed is issued by the Authorized Officer. 

9. The proponent shall be responsible for the cost of any mitigation required by the 

Authorized Officer. The Authorized Officer would provide technical and procedural 

guidelines for the conduct of mitigation. Upon verification from the Authorized 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

40 

Officer that the required mitigation has been completed, the operator should be 

allowed to resume operations. 

10. All individual cultural clearances will be approved prior to authorizing individual well 

APDs. 

11. All surface or vegetative disturbing activities associated with individual actions will be 

monitored by a professional archaeologist. 

12. The proponent shall initiate a worker education of cultural resources and restrictions 

on collection of such resources. The proponent shall be responsible for informing all 

persons associated with the project that they could be subject to prosecution for 

damaging, altering, defacing, excavating, removing, selling or offering to sell any 

cultural resource of archaeological importance. 

13. If at any time during construction, maintenance, or use of in the project area, 

previously unanticipated or unknown cultural resources are discovered, all activities 

would be suspended in the area of discovery. Continued operation would be 

conducted in such a fashion as to permit no further damage to the discovered cultural 

resource. Protective measures could be implemented in consultation with BLM and 

the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office. Work would not resume in the area 

of discovery until a written Notice to Proceed is issued by BLM’s Authorized Officer. 

14. If at any time during construction, maintenance, or use of in the project area, 

previously unanticipated or unknown cultural resources are discovered, all activities 

will be suspended in the area of discovery. Continued operations will be conducted in 

such a fashion as to permit no further damage to the discovered cultural resource. 

Protective measures will be implemented in consultation with BLM and the Wyoming 

State Historic Preservation Office. Work will not resume in the area of discovery until 

a written Notice to Proceed is issued by BLM’s Authorized Officer. 

15. Mitigation of effects to cultural resources will be determined through consultation 

between the BLM and the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Officer and affected 

Tribes as appropriate. Protective measures may be required to preserve significant 

cultural resources outside the direct impact zones as well. 

16. Any work camps needed by the proponent will be permitted separately. 

17. In the event drilling is non-productive at any given site, all disturbed areas associated 

with that site, including the well site and access road, will be reclaimed to the 

approximate landform existing prior to construction. Following construction, all areas 

not occupied by project features will be reclaimed in the next growing season, or as 

directed by the BLM. Remaining disturbed areas would be reclaimed following 

abandonment of project components. The seed mix to be used is found below. 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

41 

Lower Bush Creek Project Seed Mixtures 

Species Variety Drill Seeding Rate 

(lbs. Per acre pure live seed) 

General Seed Mixture 

Thickspike wheatgrass Critana 3.0 

Western wheatgrass Rosanna 3.0 

Indian ricegrass 3.0 

Sandberg bluegrass 3.0 

Blue flax 0.25 

Winterfat 1.0 

TOTAL 13.25 

Sandy Sites Seed Mixture 

Thickspike wheatgrass Critana 4.0 

Sandberg bluegrass 4.0 

Indian ricegrass 4.0 

Rocky Mountain penstemon 1.0 

Shadscale 2.0 

TOTAL 15.0 

Saline/Sodic Soils Seed Mixture 

Western wheatgrass Rosanna 3.0 

Sandberg bluegrass 3.0 

Indian ricegrass 3.0 

Bottlebrush squirreltail 3.0 

Rocky Mountain beeplant 1.0 

Gardner saltbush 2.0 

TOTAL 15.0 

18. Standard success criteria would be based on attainment of total vegetation cover. 

Standard success criteria would be based on attainment of 50% of predisturbance cover 

in three years and 80% of predisturbance cover in five years. These identified seed 

mixes could be modified or added to by the BLM, as needed or required to meet the 

RSFO objectives for reclamation. 

19. If seeding the first fall can not be completed, seeding shall be done in the early spring 

prior to April 15th. 

20. Any snow removal shall be done in a manner that will not preclude movement by big 

game. 

21. The GRRMP contains mitigating practices that protect the breeding, nesting and 

brood-rearing activities of sage grouse from February 1 to July 31. “No surface 

occupancy” stipulations apply within a one-quarter mile buffer around active leks. 

Road use will be limited within 1/4 mile of an active lek between 6 pm and 9am 

February 1 through May 15. 

22. Construction of structures that could be used for raptor perches will be avoided or 

mitigated to prevent raptor perching. Exceptions may be granted if the activity would 

occur in unsuitable nesting habitat. 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

42 

23. If construction activities are planned during breeding, nesting and brood rearing 

seasons (February 1 through July 31), surface disturbing activities would not occur 

within one mile of an active ferruginous hawk nest, and one-half mile of all other 

raptors. Construction of structures that could be used for raptor perches would have 

“anti-perch” devices or would be constructed in such a manner as to restrict perching 

by birds-of -prey. Surveys should be conducted prior to construction if construction 

activities are planned to occur between February 1 and July 31. 

24. Entire project area will be treated as suitable mountain plover habitat. If construction 

activities are planned to occur during mountain plover breeding, nesting, or rearing 

seasons (April 10 to July 10), surveys must be conducted according to USFWS 

guidelines prior to the activities to determine the presence or absence of the species in 

the project area. If this species is found, the BLM shall be notified so formal 

conferencing with USFWS can be initiated. 

25. Should a mountain plover nest, chick, or egg be observed during construction, all work 

would be stopped within 1/4 mile and BLM notified immediately. In mountain plover 

habitat, reclamation seed mixes would include species that would not exceed 6 inches 

in height. 

26. Roads and pipelines will be designed to minimize the amount of disturbance to 

suitable plover habitat. 

27. No stopping and getting out of vehicles along roadways will be allowed in suitable 

mountain plover habitat during the breeding and nesting period (April 10 to July 10) 

except in an emergency situation. 

28. Produced water will be fully tested and if analysis proves the water is toxic to 

migratory birds, reserve pits will be netted. Toxicity thresholds will be determined 

using FWS’ guidelines (i.e., selenium thresholds). Netting will have a weave 

sufficiently small enough to prevent small migratory birds from entering the pits. 

29. Water quality testing of injection wells will be conducted and submitted to BLM. 

30. BLM will allow the proponent to test use of special purpose roads as shown on the map 

contained in the Decision Record. These special purpose roads will be surveyed and 

surveys submitted to the BLM. The BLM will monitor construction and use of these 

roads. If during monitoring, damage to soils or other resource values becomes evident, the 

proponent will be required to stop activity, engineer the roadway, and construct the road 

accordingly prior to resuming operations. If resource damage occurs and rectifying the 

damage necessitated disturbing an area greater than that analyzed or approved, the project 

or component of the project will be halted while further environmental study occurs. 

31. Road maintenance on the access road leading to the North Sweetwater pod will not 

occur outside the area previously disturbed within the existing white-tail prairie dog 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

43 

town. 

32. The proposed special purpose road, located between the existing upgraded road and 

the Federal 23-22 (Central Sweetwater pod) will be upgraded to a resource road 

standard with turnout every 1000 ft as this area will serve as a loop road for the pod. 

33. All resource roads will be surveyed and designed by or under the direction of a 

licensed engineer. These road plans will be submitted to BLM RSFO for review and 

approval prior to approval of the APD. 

34. If development of ruts results in unnecessary or undue damage to soils or other 

resources, the proponent will be required to re-construct the special purpose road to a 

higher road standard. 

35. Drilling mud will not be used for road plating, surfacing, or development. 

36. All rights-of-way issued will include a joint road maintenance standard stipulation. 

37. The proponent will notify holders of existing rights-of-way or other permits of planned 

construction, operations, or maintenance activities. 

38. Monitoring of groundwater conditions will be required and findings shall be analyzed 

prior to any expansion of activities in the area. 

Mitigating Opportunities 

To prevent harassment of wildlife, Kennedy could adopt a policy restricting firearms and 

dogs at work locations. 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

44 

APPENDIX D 

CONCURRENCE LETTER FROM U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

45 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

46 
Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, Lower Bush Creek CBM Exploratory Pilot Project 

47