Final EIS Appendix 3 

APPENDIX 3—MITIGATION GUIDELINES AND 

OPERATING STANDARDS APPLIED TO SURFACE 

DISTURBING AND DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITIES—

ALTERNATIVES 2, 3, AND 4 

The purposes of the Mitigation Guidelines, Outcomes, and Operating Standards are (1) to reserve, for the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the right to modify the operations of all surface and other human 

presence disturbance activities as part of the statutory requirements for environmental protection, and (2) 

to inform a potential lessee, permittee, or operator of the requirements that must be met when using BLMadministered public lands. These guidelines have been written in a format that will allow for (1) their 

direct use as stipulations and (2) the addition of specific or specialized mitigation following the 

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

Operating standards are given as acceptable methods for mitigating anticipated effects and achieving the 

desired plan outcomes but are not prescribed as the only method for achieving the outcomes. These 

measures will provide the BLM and other land users, including industry, greater adaptability in protecting 

surface resources by emphasizing the intent or outcome of mitigation. This mitigation strategy will help 

the BLM make decisions effectively by using a rigorous combination of management, research, and 

monitoring so that credible information is gained and management activities can be modified, over time, 

based on continuous experience. 

The mitigations are requirements, procedures, management practices, or design features that the BLM, 

through the record of decision (ROD), could adopt as operational requirements. These requirements 

would be addressed through the permitting process. An oil and gas lease does not in itself authorize any 

on-the-ground activity. Seismic operations, drilling, pipeline construction, and other development 

activities require additional land use authorizations. Any applicant requesting such authorization must 

address the operating standards either before submitting the application (e.g., for wildlife surveys) or as 

part of the application proposal. The applicability of the mitigating operating standards goes beyond the 

oil and gas lease to any permitted activity where the requirement is relevant. 

For Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, operating standards are listed that would apply to exploratory oil and gas 

drilling and other operations. When drilling intensity proceeds to the development stage, additional 

environmental analysis would be necessary. The operating standards could be revised at the gas field 

development environmental impact statement (EIS) stage if necessary. 

These guidelines and standards could be applied to surface disturbing and human presence activities such 

as oil and gas development, road or pipeline construction, range improvements, forest management, 

vegetation treatment, and permitted recreation activities. They are designed to protect resources such as 

soils and vegetation, wildlife habitat, or cultural or historic properties. The use and application of specific 

mitigation measures would be made during the environmental process for individual proposals. 

Mitigation measures and operating standards could change or be modified, based on new information. 

The mitigation guidelines are used in two ways in the Resource Management Plan (RMP) and EIS 

process: (1) as part of the planning criteria in developing the RMP alternatives and (2) in the analytical 

processes of developing the alternatives and analyzing the impacts of the alternatives. In the first case, an 

assumption is made that one or more of the mitigations will be included appropriately as conditions of 

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

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

Pinedale RMP A3-1 
Appendix 3 Final EIS 

other actions and alternatives that should be considered, and (3) help determine whether more stringent or 

less stringent mitigations should be considered. 

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

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

for developing specific stipulations for a given activity or program. 

BLM may add additional site-specific restrictions as deemed necessary by further environmental analysis 

and as developed through consultation with other federal, state, and local regulatory and resource 

agencies. Laws or regulations may require other federal, state, and local permits (e.g., Clean Water Act 

Section 404) for an oil and gas or other project to proceed. Specific state permits may be required when 

the state has primary authority, under federal or state law or regulation, to enforce the provision in 

question. Specific permits issued by federal agencies other than the BLM could include permit conditions 

that are more stringent than those presented below. 

PERMITTING AND AUTHORIZATION PROCESS

The operating standards identified in the following sections would not be attached as stipulations on oil 

and gas leases. The oil and gas lease is a binding agreement between BLM and the lessee that does not 

authorize subsequent surface disturbing activity. All surface disturbing activities (e.g., exploratory 

drilling, road/pipeline construction, or seismic operations) require additional authorization(s) issued 

subsequent to leasing. This authorization or permitting process, which includes permits, leases, and 

rights-of-way, is a multistep process as follows: 

• Perform Preapplication Consultation. The BLM meets and consults with the potential 

applicant and other affected parties before submission of any written application(s). At the time 

of the preapplication consultation, the applicant is informed of BLM procedures and operating 

requirements, including any other federal, state, or local permit requirements so that any 

inadequacies and deficiencies in the verbal proposal can be addressed with the submittal of the 

application. Also at this time, the BLM, the applicant, and other affected parties may visit the 

proposed site to identify unknown issues. 

• Review Written Application for Completeness. Based on an initial review of the written 

application, additional information may be requested, or application may be rejected. 

• Evaluate Application. A BLM Interdisciplinary (ID) Team reviews the proposal to— 

– Determine if the proposal complies with the Outcome and Operating Standards; this may 

be accomplished by adhering to the recommended requirements/standards or by the use of 

new techniques/practices that meet the objective(s). 

– Based on additional analysis (e.g., National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] of 1969, 

environmental assessment [EA] or EIS), identify any new mitigations that may be required 

based on site and project-specific information, including any new issues identified throughout 

this process. 

– Identify appropriate monitoring levels to determine the effectiveness of the mitigations. 

• Issue Authorization. Issue authorization with appropriate terms and conditions of approval 

identified or attached. 

A3-2 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 3 

Exception Process 

The permitting process, in conjunction with lease stipulations and operating standards that are focused on 

resource management objectives, should result in the need for few exceptions. However, the need to 

consider exceptions and/or modifications will remain on a case-by-case basis. The following guidelines 

will be used for considering and granting exceptions to the proposed stipulations or operating standards. 

If an exception to a stipulation, condition of approval, or operating standard is requested and before an 

exception may be granted, the lessee and permittee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Authorized 

Officer (AO) that implementation of the stipulation or operating standard: 

• (1) Is technically not feasible, or (2) is economically prohibitive, or (3) is an environmentally 

preferable alternative is available; and 

• The alternative proposed by the lessee/permittee fully satisfies the objective/outcome of the lease 

stipulation or operating standard. 

The lessee/permittee shall notify the AO in a timely manner that an exception will be requested. In 

demonstrating to the AO that the proposal meets the above criteria, the lessee/permittee shall provide 

sufficient documentation (e.g., technical reports, new/revised procedures, results of scientific research) to 

allow for a thorough review and evaluation of the proposal. 

Before consideration or granting of an exception to a stipulation, condition of approval, or operating 

standard, consultation requirements must be met. The AO shall consult with appropriate federal, state, and 

local regulatory and resource agencies before an exception may be granted. The AO’s power to grant 

exceptions to an operating standard is limited to those subjects, uses, and permits over which the BLM 

has authority. Exceptions to this consultation may be granted in emergencies involving human health and 

safety. The granting of an exception would not require a modification/amendment to the land use plan 

because exceptions would be consistent with the land use plan in achievement of the management 

objective. 

The BLM may also initiate an exception to a stipulation, condition of approval, or operating standard 

when information (e.g., technical reports, new/revised procedures, or results of scientific research) 

becomes available that demonstrates that the proposal satisfies the objective of the operating standard and 

meets the management objectives for the area in which the alternative is proposed. Exceptions would be 

considered, evaluated, and processed in accordance with Appendix 8. 

Waiver of, or exception(s) to, the no surface occupancy (NSO) requirement will be subject to the same 

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

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

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

have changed, less restrictive requirements will protect the public interest. An environmental analysis 

must be conducted and documented to provide a basis for a waiver or exception to an NSO planning 

decision. Modification of the NSO requirement will pertain to only refinement or correction of the 

location(s) to which it applied. If the waiver, exception, or modification is found to be consistent with the 

intent of the planning decision, it may be granted. If the waiver, exception, or modification is found 

inconsistent with the intent of the planning decision, a plan amendment would be required before the 

waiver, exception, or modification could be granted. 

Please refer to Appendix 8 for further information on exceptions. 

Pinedale RMP A3-3 
Appendix 3 Final EIS 

MITIGATIONS

General Guidelines 

Proposed project development would require the appropriate level of environmental review in accordance 

with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. 

Removal and disturbance of vegetation would be kept to a minimum through construction site 

management (e.g., using previously disturbed areas and existing easements, limiting equipment/materials 

storage yard and staging area size). 

Where necessary, areas to be disturbed would require inventories or special studies to determine the 

extent of site-specific impacts and appropriate mitigation. Operators would be required to complete 

inventories or short-term special studies under guidelines provided by the BLM or as developed through 

the AM planning process. 

There would be no well location or production facility surface occupancy within one-quarter mile of an 

occupied dwelling to prevent damage to human health and safety and/or other resources. Any surface use 

or occupancy within such special areas would be prohibited or, if absolutely necessary, strictly controlled. 

No surface disturbance would be permitted on slopes in excess of 25 percent unless erosion controls can 

be ensured and adequate revegetation is expected. Engineering proposals and revegetation and restoration 

plans would be required in these areas. 

Unnecessary topographic alterations would be mitigated by avoiding, where possible, steep slopes, 

rugged topography, and perennial and ephemeral/intermittent drainages, and by minimizing the area 

disturbed. Alternative methods of construction to minimize environmental impacts may also be used. 

Construction with frozen material or during periods when the soil material is saturated or when watershed 

damage is likely to occur would be prohibited, unless or until an operator, permittee, or his/her designated 

representative and the surface management agency, prior to development, arrive at an acceptable plan for 

mitigation of anticipated impacts. 

Air Quality 

In accordance with Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations, Chapter 3, Section 2(f), the 

emission of fugitive dust would be limited by all persons handling, transporting, or storing any material to 

prevent unnecessary amounts of particulate matter from becoming airborne to the extent that ambient air 

standards described in these regulations are exceeded. 

Necessary air quality permits to construct, test, and operate facilities would be obtained from the 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality-Air Quality Division (WDEQ-AQD). All internal 

combustion equipment would be kept in good working order. Best available control technology (BACT) 

would be implemented as required by WDEQ-AQD. 

Operators would comply with all applicable local, state, tribal, and federal air quality laws, statutes, 

regulations, standards, and implementation plans, including Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(WAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 

A3-4 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 3 

To avoid the incremental risk of exposure to carcinogenic toxins from producing wells, no well would be 

located closer than 0.25 mile from a dwelling or residence. At 0.25 mile, the incremental risk increase for 

the most likely exposure scenario is below the designated threshold level of less than 1 additional person 

per million. 

To avoid incremental risk of exposure to carcinogenic toxins from compressor facilities, any compressor 

facility located closer than 4 miles to a dwelling or residence would require additional NEPA analysis 

prior to the final selection of the site and authorization to construct. 

Cultural/Paleontological Resources 

If effects to paleontological values, or objects of historic or scientific interest are observed, the operator 

would be required to immediately contact the BLM and the operator would be required to cease any 

operations that would result in the destruction of or adverse impact to these values. 

In areas of paleontological sensitivity, the BLM would make a determination as to whether a survey by a 

qualified paleontologist is necessary prior to the disturbance. In some cases, construction monitoring, 

project relocation, data recovery, or other mitigation would be required to ensure that significant 

paleontological resources are avoided or recovered during construction. 

If paleontological resources are uncovered during surface-disturbing activities, operators would suspend 

operations at the site that would further disturb such materials and immediately contact the BLM AO, 

who would arrange for a determination of significance, and, if necessary, recommend a recovery or 

avoidance plan. Mitigation of impacts to paleontological resources would be conducted on a case-by-case 

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

Areas underlain by either the Wasatch or Green River formations have a high potential for containing 

vertebrate paleontological resources (fossils) and must be surveyed by a qualified paleontologist before 

surface disturbing activities would be authorized. Based on the results of the paleontological survey, 

additional monitoring and/or mitigation would be necessary. All major pipelines (12” and larger) would 

have paleontological open trench inspections and geologic research to resolve mapping issues discovered 

during the paleontological overview in the Jonah Field. Other actions, such as onsite project monitors by 

professional paleontologists while surface disturbing activities are occurring, and/or spot-checks of spoil 

piles, pits, and trenches prior to backfilling would become more common and would be considered 

standard stipulations within the Blue Rim-Ross Butte Management Area. 

Operators would follow the Section 106 compliance process prior to any surface-disturbing activity and 

would either avoid or protect cultural resource properties as determined through consultation with the 

Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). 

Operators would halt construction activities at the site of previously undetected cultural resources 

discovered during construction. The BLM would be notified immediately, and consultation with SHPO 

and, if necessary, the Advisory Council, would be initiated to determine proper mitigation measures 

pursuant to 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 800.11 or other treatment plans, programmatic 

agreements, or discovery plans that may direct such efforts. Construction would not resume until a Notice 

to Proceed is issued by the BLM. 

In culturally sensitive soils, if cultural resources are located within frozen soils or sediments precluding 

the ability to adequately record or evaluate the find, construction work would cease and the site would be 

protected for the duration of frozen soil conditions. Following natural thaw, recordation, evaluation and 

recommendations concerning further management would be made to the BLM AO, who would consult 

Pinedale RMP A3-5 
Appendix 3 Final EIS 

with affected parties. Construction work would be suspended until management of the threatened site has 

been finalized. 

Should future work identify any traditional Native American religious or sacred sites, consultation among 

the BLM, the affected Native American group, the Wyoming SHPO and the project proponent would 

occur to resolve conflicts. This consultation would occur on a case-by-case basis or in conformance with 

an approved Native American Concerns Agreement Document. 

Operators should inform their employees, contractors, and subcontractors about relevant federal 

regulations intended to protect archaeological and cultural resources. All personnel should be informed 

that collecting artifacts (including arrowheads) is a violation of federal law and that employees engaged in 

this activity may be subject to disciplinary action, which could include dismissal. 

Equipment operators should be informed that a cultural resource could be found anywhere; and if they 

uncover a site during construction, surface disturbing activities at the site must be halted immediately and 

the BLM notified. 

Historic trails would be avoided. Surface disturbing activities would avoid areas within one-quarter mile 

of a trail unless such disturbance would not be visible from the trail or would occur in an existing visual 

intrusion area. Historic trails would not be used as haul roads. Placement of facilities outside one-quarter 

mile that are within view of the Lander Trail would be located to blend the site and facilities in with the 

background. 

The selective use of locked gates, where practicable, could be used to protect any significant cultural sites 

found during inventories. This approach is more commonly used as a seasonal restriction to protect 

wildlife during winter months, but some applications may also present themselves from a cultural 

resources standpoint. 

Fire and Forestry 

Coniferous timber stands should contain a 40-percent or greater post-harvest canopy cover with patch 

sizes between 26 and 60 acres to meet seasonal elk habitat requirements where feasible and compatible 

with other timber management goals (USDA 1981). 

The leaving of dead and dying trees, trees with heart rot, and other standing unmerchantable timber may 

be required to meet the ecological needs of numerous wildlife species, including woodpeckers, owls, and 

many neotropical migrants, in all timber management activities. 

Prescribed burning would be conducted when soil moisture is adequate for the regrowth of plants in arid 

regions, provided this requirement is compatible with other prescription burn needs (USDA 2004). 

Roads and Transportation 

Roads created for commercial timber harvesting would be closed and rehabilitated as soon as possible 

after the end of timber harvesting. Areas could be subject to travel exclusions, closures, and/or other 

travel restrictions during sensitive periods. 

The project proponent could be required to develop a coordinated travel management plan before surface 

disturbing activities are authorized. 

A3-6 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 3 

Transportation plans would be required to maintain the largest undisturbed blocks of habitat possible and 

to minimize the acres of disturbance from roads, pipelines, power lines, and other facilities within and/or 

associated with the proposed project area. 

Closure and reclamation of unnecessary roads would be required to reduce fragmentation and restore 

habitat integrity while reducing the potential for wildlife disturbances. 

All new roads would be constructed to meet the design requirements of the BLM Manual 9113. New 

main artery roads would be designed to reduce sediment, salt, and phosphate loading to the Green and 

New Fork Rivers. Where necessary, running surfaces of the roads would be graveled if the base does not 

already contain sufficient aggregate. 

If necessary, roads would be treated to suppress dust. Treatment could include gravel, mag-water, or in 

rare cases, paving of roads. 

The use of existing two-track and unconstructed roads would be encouraged where such roads would 

withstand the proposed access activity, would provide a safe route for ingress and egress, would not result 

in offsite sediment discharge, could be effectively reclaimed, and would result in minimal, if any, new 

surface disturbance. 

The operator would regularly maintain all lease roads in a safe, usable condition. A regular maintenance 

program would include, but not be limited to, blading, ditching, culvert installation, drainage installation, 

surfacing, and cattleguards, as needed. Design, construction, and maintenance of the road would be in 

compliance with the standards contained in BLM Manual, Section 9113 (Roads), and in the latest version 

of the “Gold Book,” Oil and Gas Surface Operating Standards for Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development.

At the discretion of the BLM AO, road construction may be required to be monitored by a qualified 

individual agreed to by the BLM AO and the operator. A certified civil engineer is to submit a statement 

that the road was built as designed within 15 days after the road has been constructed. Compaction of the 

subgrade with water and heavy equipment to a density higher than the surrounding subsurface is required 

during construction. 

Project-related travel would be limited to only that necessary for efficient project operation during periods 

when soils are saturated and excessive rutting could occur. 

Where deemed necessary and effective by the BLM AO, locked gates would be installed on oil field roads 

(with structures added to prevent drive-arounds) to reduce traffic and protect other resources (e.g., 

wildlife, cultural resources) from impacts caused by increased vehicle traffic and human presence. The 

need and location of locked gates would be determined during the transportation planning process. To 

control or reduce sediment from roads, guidance involving proper road placement and buffer strips to 

stream channels, graveling, proper drainage, seasonal closure, and in some cases, redesign or closure of 

old roads would be developed when necessary. Construction may also be prohibited during periods when 

soil material is saturated, frozen, or when watershed damage is likely to occur. 

Available topsoil would be stripped from all road corridors prior to commencement of construction 

activities and would be redistributed and reseeded on backslope areas of the borrow ditch after 

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

season after initial disturbance. 

Pinedale RMP A3-7 
Appendix 3 Final EIS 

On newly constructed roads and permanent roads, the placement of topsoil, seeding, and stabilization 

would be required on all cut and fill slopes unless conditions prohibit this (e.g., rock). No unnecessary 

side-casting of material (e.g., maintenance) on steep slopes would be allowed. Snow removal plans may 

be required so that snow removal does not adversely affect reclamation efforts or resources adjacent to the 

road. 

Reclamation of abandoned roads would include requirements for reshaping, recontouring, resurfacing 

with topsoil, installation of water bars, and seeding on the contour. Road beds, well pads, and other 

compacted areas would be ripped to a 2-foot depth on 1.5-foot centers to reduce compaction prior to 

spreading the topsoil across the disturbed area. Stripped vegetation would be spread over the disturbance 

for nutrient recycling, where practical. Fertilization or fencing of these disturbances would not normally 

be required. Additional erosion control measures (e.g., fiber matting) and road barriers to discourage 

travel may be required. As deemed necessary by the BLM AO, graveled roads, well pads, and other sites 

would be stripped of usable gravel and hauled to new construction sites prior to ripping. The removal of 

structures such as bridges, culverts, cattleguards, and signs usually would be required. 

Road closures may be implemented during crucial periods (e.g., wildlife winter periods, spring runoff, 

calving and fawning seasons, saturated soil conditions). 

Individual road design plans for new and/or improved roads would be submitted for approval as 

components of APDs or ROW permits. Plans must be approved prior to initiation of work. Operators 

would schedule a review of plans with sufficient time to obtain BLM approval prior to commencement of 

work. 

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

Operators would comply with existing federal, state, and county requirements and restrictions to protect 

road networks and the traveling public. 

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

As deemed necessary by the BLM AO, operators and/or their contractors would post appropriate warning 

signs and require project vehicles to adhere to appropriate speed limits on project-required roads. 

The application of produced water on roads for use in dust suppression activities on BLM-administered 

public lands would not be allowed unless total dissolved solids (TDS) are less than 400 mg/l (state 

standard for the Colorado River drainage), the water does not contain hazardous material, and prior 

approval is obtained from BLM and WDEQ. 

Appropriate dust suppressants would be applied to oil and gas field and other roads as necessary. 

Depending on the site and amount of traffic, suppressants could include water or mag water. In some 

cases, paving of roads could be required to control dust, provide all-weather access, and reduce road 

maintenance. 

Pipelines 

Channel crossings by pipelines would be constructed so that the pipe is buried at a depth sufficient to 

ensure the pipeline does not become exposed. 

Channel crossings by roads and pipelines would be constructed perpendicular to flow. Streams/channels 

crossed by roads would have culverts installed at all appropriate locations as specified in the BLM 

A3-8 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 3 

Manual 9112-Bridges and Major Culverts (BLM 1990) and Manual 9113-Roads (BLM 1985). All stream 

crossing structures would be designed to carry the 25-year discharge event or other capacities as directed 

by the BLM. 

Wetland areas would be crossed during dry conditions (i.e., late summer, fall, or dry winters); winter 

construction activities would occur only prior to soil freezing or after soils have thawed. 

On ditches exceeding 24 inches in width, 6 to 12 inches of surface soil would be salvaged where possible 

on the entire right-of-way. When pipelines and communication lines are buried, at least 30 inches of 

backfill would be on top of the pipe. Backfill should not extend above the original ground level after the 

fill has settled. Guides for construction and water bar placement are found in “Surface Operating 

Standards for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development” (USDI 1978). Bladed surface materials would 

be re-spread on the cleared route once construction is completed. Disturbed areas that have been 

reclaimed may need to be fenced when the route is near livestock watering areas. 

Pipeline ROWs would be located to minimize soil disturbance. Mitigation would include locating 

pipeline ROWs adjacent to access roads to minimize ROW disturbance widths, or routing pipeline ROWs 

directly to minimize disturbance lengths. In some cases, it may be appropriate to place pipelines directly 

on the surface. 

Existing crowned and ditched roads would be used for access where possible to minimize surface 

disturbances. Clearing of pipeline and communication line rights-of-way would be accomplished with the 

least degree of disturbance to topsoil. Where topsoil removal is necessary, it would be stockpiled (windrowed) and re-spread over the disturbance after construction and backfilling are completed. Vegetation 

removed from the right-of-way would also be re-spread to provide protection, nutrient recycling, and a 

seed source. 

Temporary disturbances that do not require major excavation (e.g., small pipelines and communication 

lines) may be stripped of vegetation to ground level using mechanical treatment, leaving topsoil intact and 

root mass relatively undisturbed. 

Trees, shrubs, and ground cover (not to be cleared from rights-of-way) would require protection from 

construction damage. Backfilling to preconstruction condition (in a similar sequence and density) would 

be required. The restoration of normal surface drainage also would be required. 

To promote soil stability, the compaction of backfill over the trench would be required (not to extend 

above the original ground level after the fill has settled). Wheel or other method of compacting the 

pipeline trench backfill would be required at two levels to reduce trench settling and water channeling; 

once after 3 feet of fill has been replaced and once within 6 to 12 inches of the surface. Water bars, 

mulching, and terracing would be required, as needed, to minimize erosion. In-stream protection 

structures (e.g., drop structures) may be required in drainages crossed by a pipeline to prevent erosion. 

The fencing of linear disturbances near livestock watering areas may be required. 

During saturated soil conditions vehicular activity would be confined to roads designed and constructed 

for all-weather access (e.g., paved, graveled, and “mag-water” surfaced roads). 

Crossings of ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams associated with road and utility line 

construction would generally be restricted until after spring runoff, when normal flows are established. 

Pinedale RMP A3-9 
Appendix 3 Final EIS 

Pipeline projects should be conducted to allow natural movement of livestock through the field. Gaps 

should be provided in the trenching process to allow cows to move, or get pipeline projects completed 

while cattle are not on the allotment. 

Livestock Grazing 

Livestock grazing management would be conducted to meet the Standards for Healthy Rangelands. 

Improvements for livestock grazing management would be constructed and managed to meet the 

Standards for Healthy Rangelands. 

Springs and seeps used for livestock water sources would be fenced to protect these water sources and to 

maintain unrestricted flow rates. 

Livestock grazing Best Management Practices (BMP) would be implemented to maintain or restore 

habitat conditions for various fish and wildlife species. 

Rangeland and vegetation monitoring would be conducted to detect changes in grazing use, trend, and 

range conditions. These data would be used to support and direct grazing management decisions 

consistent with national policy. These efforts would help ensure that livestock grazing meets objectives 

for rangeland health and resolves conflicts with wildlife habitats or may provide a benefit to wildlife 

habitats. 

Existing fences would be reconstructed or modified to meet BLM “wildlife friendly” standards to reduce 

or offset impacts to wildlife where determined necessary. 

All water development activities for livestock grazing use that exceed the minimum depletion level 

established by USFWS must comply with all USFWS fees and prescribed mitigations to offset water 

depletion in the Colorado River. 

Surface disturbing activities will be coordinated with livestock grazing permittees to minimize the effects 

of the surface disturbance on other approved operations. To the maximum extent practicable, this effort 

would include consulting on scheduling of operations to mutually minimize effects. 

Any damage to the function of range improvements (e.g., fence damage, cattle guard cleaning, livestock 

loss) from other approved operations would be repaired immediately or remedied by the operator causing 

the damage. 

All range improvements (stock water tanks, pipelines, corrals, etc.) would be avoided by 500 feet unless 

no other alternative is available and impacts can be mitigated as per the BLM AO. 

When industrial use dominates an allotment to the point of making it unsuitable for livestock grazing, 

BLM would consider granting special non-use so that livestock could be removed without penalty for a 

specified amount of time. 

Where development is intense, operators would hold semi-annual or annual operator meetings with 

grazing permittees. Operators would identify an employee to coordinate with grazing permittees on these 

issues. 

Compensation would be provided by operators for cattle lost to oil and gas activities (includes deaths 

from pits and animals struck on roads). This would be addressed in the same manner as a road 

A3-10 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 3 

maintenance agreement, with operators making payment based on their level of activity, not on the 

proximity to the dead animal. 

Oil and gas or other operations would be conducted so as to retain access to cattle movement corridors 

(trails) so that livestock can be managed. 

Pipeline projects would be conducted to allow natural movement of livestock through the field. Gaps 

would be provided in the trenching process to allow cows to move or get pipeline projects completed 

while cattle are not on the allotment. 

Well pads, pits, and other facilities that could be hazardous to livestock would be fenced to keep livestock 

out and the fences maintained in functioning condition. 

Operators would mitigate all energy development related impacts to agricultural operations, in order to 

maintain the viability of working landscapes. 

Grazing management decisions would be based on monitoring data, both short-term and long-term, 

which would be jointly developed by grazing permittees and the appropriate federal land management 

agency. Protocols for monitoring would be consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding in place 

between the National Public Lands Council and the BLM. 

A menu of incentive based mitigation and conservation measures would be developed that will encourage 

local, private land owners to participate. 

A program would be developed for local landowners to participate in conservation efforts including a 

local initiative to develop and implement Contracts for Environmental Services as a means to preserve 

Sublette County’s working landscapes, working ranches, and open space values. 

Acceptable levels of grazing would be maintained to benefit both sage grouse and agricultural operations. 

Effective communication and cooperation with grazing permittees would be maintained. 

Meet with permittees, at minimum twice annually, before turnout to schedule maintenance activities and 

after the grazing season to discuss monitoring. 

A mitigation plan would be developed with state and local representatives to maintain existing ranch 

lands. 

Loss of ranches due to impacts from energy development would be monitored. 

A fund would be established to develop range improvement projects away from individual oil and gas 

developments. 

All pads would be completely fenced and existing range improvements would be monitored and 

maintained. All new fences would adhere to standards provided by BLM Handbook H-1742-1. Fences 

would be maintained. 

Minerals 

Drilling of multiple well bores from a single well pad would be required, unless it were shown to be 

infeasible. 

Pinedale RMP A3-11 
Appendix 3 Final EIS 

Well locations and associated disturbances that are dry holes or abandoned producers would be reclaimed 

as soon as practicable.

Reserve pits, evaporation ponds, or other oil and gas related pits shall be designed and operated in a 

manner that deters or prevents access to birds, waterfowl, livestock and wildlife. Pit netting is an example 

of a measure to accomplish this requirement. 

Project Siting and Operation 

In conformance with Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1, operators would prepare and submit individual 

comprehensive drill site design plans for BLM approval. These plans would show the drill location layout 

over the existing topography, dimension of the location, volumes and cross-sections of cut and fill, 

location and dimensions of reserve pits, existing drainage patterns, and access road egress and ingress. 

Plans would be submitted and approved prior to initiation of construction. 

The operator would submit to the BLM AO within 30 days of pad construction a digital as-built file of the 

following: the perimeter of the pad measured at the base of fill slopes and at the head of cut slopes, 

including all associated soil pile locations and the centerline of the access road. The operator would also 

submit to the BLM AO within 30 days of drilling, a digital file of the surface location of the well head(s). 

The digital depiction would be in one of the following file formats: shapefile format (*.shp), geodatabase 

(*.gdb), or AutoCADD (*.dwg), and should come with defined projections in NAD83 UTM Zone 12 N. 

Operators would contact the BLM AO’s field representative no earlier than 15 days and no later than 

3 working days prior to commencement of construction activities. Construction under adverse conditions 

may require additional mitigation measures. 

Prior to the onset of drilling, a “stock tight” fence would be installed on three sides of the reserve pit. This 

fence would be woven wire at least 28 inches high and within 4 inches of ground surface, with two 

strands of barbed wire above the woven wire with 10-inch spacing. The fence corners would be double Hbrace panels constructed with treated wood corner posts or steel pipe posts of at least 4-inch outside 

diameter (see Gold Book, pgs 16-18). The corner brace posts would securely set a minimum of 30 inches 

in the ground. Metal T-posts are not allowed for corner panel construction, but they may be used between 

corner panels. The fourth side of the reserve pit would be fenced after the drilling rig moves off the 

location. The fence would be located a maximum of 5 feet from the edge of the reserve pit. The double Hbraces would be used on all corners of the pit area. The operator would implement measures to prevent 

wildlife and livestock from entering the reserve area during drilling and well completion operations 

before the fourth side of the fence has been constructed. 

All reserve pits must be lined. Reserve pit liners must have a mullen burst strength that is equal to or 

exceeds 300 pounds, a puncture strength that is equal to or exceeds 160 pounds, and grab tensile strengths 

that are equal to or exceed 150 pounds. Verified test results would be conducted according to ASTM test 

standards. The liner must be totally resistant to deterioration by hydrocarbons. 

Liners must be installed over smooth fill subgrade that is free of pockets, loose rocks, or other materials 

that could damage the liner. Sand, sifted dirt, or bentonite are suggested. 

Reserve pit side slopes would not exceed a 1:1 ratio. End slopes would not exceed a 3:1 ratio. 

Oil-based muds used for drilling operations should be environmentally acceptable. 

A3-12 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 3 

All oil-based mud drilling operations would be completed through a closed mud system, and all oil-based 

mud would be contained in the closed system. 

The closed drilling system would be equipped with appropriate drip pans, liners, and catchments under 

probable leak sources as needed to prevent the oil-based drilling mud and cuttings from reaching the 

reserve pit and/or ground surface of the drill pad. 

Any cuttings dropped or mud spilled would be cleaned up immediately and placed in the approved 

containment device. All spills exceeding one barrel outside the containment devices would be reported to 

the BLM within 8 hours. 

All BPO equipment, as well as all elastomers in the mud system, would be suitable for oil-based mud. 

Well control training of the rig crews would include coverage of the additional hazards associated with 

oil-based mud. 

The operator would exercise extreme caution to avoid discharging oil-based drilling mud into the reserve 

pit. Should an event occur in which it is necessary for oil-based mud to be discharged to the reserve pit, 

the operator would immediately initiate the following actions: 

• The reserve pit would be secured to prevent birds and other wildlife from getting into the oilcontaminated cuttings, fluids, and mud. 

• The operator would submit a plan to the BLM-PFO describing how the contaminated pit would 

be managed (i.e., would the contaminated material/fluids be treated in place, and if so by what 

method; or would the contaminants be removed to a WDEQ-approved disposal facility). 

Operators would submit a Sundry Notice describing how the oil contaminated drill cuttings would be 

treated to assure the oil stays contained in the cuttings and where the cuttings would be ultimately be 

stored (i.e., buried in the flare pit, buried in a separate “on-location” pit, or removed to a WDEQapproved disposal site. Any on location disposal sites for the oil contaminated drill would be lined with a 

12-mil or stronger impervious liner compatible with oils. A liner meeting this specification also would be 

placed under any temporary storage area for the oil contaminated cuttings. 

Oil-based mud drilling system shall not be used for drilling through formations containing fresh water 

aquifers. Prior to drilling surface casing with a rig that has been using oil-based mud, the pumps, pump 

lines and tanks would be cleaned to ensure that NO oil-based mud is in the system during surface drilling 

operations of the new well. 

Surface casing shall be set to a depth below all potential sources of usable or potable drinking water. All 

surface casing shall be cemented from total depth back to surface. In the event surface casing cannot be 

set to this depth, the subsequent casing string shall be cemented from its total depth to at least 100 feet 

above the surface casing shoe. In the event surface casing cementing does not reach the surface, that 

casing shall be remedially cemented by squeeze or top cementing as approved by the BLM FO. 

If drilling fluids are transferred from one well to the next well in the drilling plan, then the fluids would 

be tested immediately before transfer or at the time following last pit usage based on WDEQ Guideline 8 

parameters. This water analysis standard is incorporated in a packet submitted by Western Environmental 

Services and Testing, Inc., as part of its water analysis packages. Any other company conducting water 

testing also would need to test for the elements listed in the WDEQ Guideline 8 parameters. 

Pinedale RMP A3-13 
Appendix 3 Final EIS 

To ensure the timely review of the water quality data, the operator is required to have a WDEQ approved 

firm contracted to conduct water samples and to send a copy of water quality test results to the BLM PFO 

at the same time that they are sent to the operator. 

Operators would construct reserve pits with 2 feet of freeboard in cut areas or in compacted and stabilized 

fill. Reserve pits would not be located in areas in which groundwater is less than 50 feet from the surface. 

A closed system would be required if water shows in the conductor hole. 

Produced water from oil and gas operations would be disposed of in accordance with the requirements of 

Onshore Oil and Gas Order #7. 

Any drilling fluids pit that shows indications of containing hazardous wastes would be tested for the 

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure constituents. If analysis proves positive, the fluids would be 

disposed of in an approved manner. The cost of the testing and disposal would be borne by the potentially 

responsible party. 

Wells, pipelines, and ancillary facilities would be designed and constructed such that they would not be 

damaged by moderate earthquakes. Any facilities defined as critical according to the Uniform Building 

Code would be constructed in accordance with applicable Uniform Building Code Standards for Seismic 

Risk Zone 2B. 

Before conducting any reserve pit evaporation, by means other than natural evaporation, the operator 

would submit a Sundry Notice for Authorized Officer approval. The Sundry Notice would provide a 

detailed description of the drying method. The operator is required to obtain authorization from the 

WOGCC for pit fluid treatment by means other than natural evaporation. 

Sewage disposal facilities would be in accordance with state and local regulations. 

Trash would be contained in a portable trash cage. The trash cage would be emptied in a WDEQ 

approved sanitary landfill. 

Slope, grade, and other construction control stakes (e.g., exterior boundary centerline) would be placed, as 

necessary, to ensure construction in accordance with the surface use plan. The cut and fill slopes and spoil 

storage areas would be marked with a stake and/or lath at a minimum of 50-foot intervals. The tops of the 

stakes or laths would be painted or flagged in a distinctive color. All boundary stakes and/or laths would 

be maintained in place until final construction cleanup is completed. If stakes are disturbed, they would be 

replaced before proceeding with construction. 

Drilling, well completion, and workover lights would be shrouded and directed on to the drilling platform 

and/or well pad, to the extent allowed by safety requirements, so that lights/glare are not directed away 

from the well pad. 

Production Facilities 

All storage tank batteries, including drain sumps and sludge holdings at compressor facilities, installed on 

location and designed to contain any oil, glycol, produced water, or other fluid that may constitute a 

hazard to public health or safety, would be surrounded by a secondary means of containment for the entire 

contents of the largest single tank in use plus 1 foot of freeboard for precipitation or 110 percent of the 

capacity of the largest vessel. The appropriate containment and/or diversionary structures or equipment, 

including walls and floor, to prevent discharged fluid from reaching ground, surface, or navigable waters, 

would be impervious to any oil, glycol, produced water, or other fluid for 72 hours and would be 

A3-14 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 3 

constructed so that any discharge from a primary containment system (e.g., tank or pipe) would not drain, 

infiltrate, or otherwise escape to ground, surface, or navigable waters before cleanup is completed. 

Treaters, dehydrators, and other production facilities installed on location that have the potential to leak or 

spill oil, glycol, produced water, or other fluid that may constitute a hazard to public health or safety, 

would be placed on or within an appropriate containment and/or diversionary structure to prevent spilled 

or leaking fluid from reaching ground, surface, or navigable waters. The appropriate containment and/or 

diversionary structure would be sufficiently impervious to oil, glycol, produced water, or other fluid and 

would be installed so that any spill or leakage would not drain, infiltrate, or otherwise escape to ground, 

surface, or navigable waters before cleanup is completed. 

All aboveground permanent structures (permanent means onsite for longer than 90 days) not subject to 

safety requirements would be painted by the operator to blend with the natural color of the landscape. 

New production facilities would be painted a noncontrasting color that is harmonious with the 

surrounding landscape as specified and approved by the BLM on a case-specific basis. 

Stream sediment, phosphate, and salinity load would be reduced where possible. In areas in which 

groundwater exists 50 feet or less from the surface (WOGCC), produced water from oil and gas 

operations would be disposed of in an approved closed storage system or by other acceptable means 

complying with Onshore Order #7. 

Where the depth to groundwater is less than 100 feet and soil permeability is more than 0.1 foot/day, 

plants, mills, or associated tailings ponds and sewage lagoons would not be allowed. 

Proper containment of oil and produced water in tanks, drilling fluids in reserve pits, and locating staging 

areas for storage of equipment away from drainages would prevent potential contaminants from entering 

surface waters. 

All new production facilities construction that has open-vent exhaust stacks would be equipped to prevent 

bird and bat entry or perching on the stack. 

A sundry notice must be submitted and approved prior to any pit closures or reclamation work. 

In the event that any hydrocarbon material is released into the reserve or production pits, it would be 

removed within 24 hours of the discharge event. Any pits that have or ever have had hydrocarbons shall 

be netted or otherwise secured to prevent birds or wildlife from entering them. 

All secondary containment structures would be designed to prevent bird, animal, or livestock entry. 

If directional drilling is not possible, facilities will be co-located on a centralized pad as much as possible 

to decrease truck trips and human disturbance during wildlife sensitive time periods. 

Recreation 

Operators would restrict off-road vehicle (OHV) activity by employees and contract workers to the 

immediate area of authorized activity or existing roads and trails. 

Socioeconomics 

Mitigate negative effects from growth; it will be necessary to calculate net costs and/or benefits. The 

BLM/operators will use the population projections developed in Chapter 4, and estimate effects to the 

Pinedale RMP A3-15 
Appendix 3 Final EIS 

counties based on current service and housing levels identified in Chapter 3. Where net effects are 

negative, the BLM/operators shall identify potential solutions to avoid such effects, or to reduce the 

impact. 

Socioeconomic monitoring will follow the Pinedale Socioeconomic Monitoring Plan (6-24-08) developed 

by Dr. Robert Winthrop. Monitoring reports will be submitted to the BLM and cooperating agencies 

annually. 

Soils 

Soil retention measures, such as silt fencing, contour furrows, or hydromulching, shall be implemented on 

erosive soils at the time of disturbance. 

Revegetation shall be initiated on exposed soils on portions of the disturbance no longer needed for 

operations (e.g., cut and fill slopes, portions of well pads not needed for production operations) within 

one growing season of the time the disturbance is no longer needed for operations. Interim reclamation 

(i.e., site stabilization/soil retention seeding) shall be conducted on disturbed areas that are needed for 

future planned operations but will not be occupied for one or more growing seasons. 

Upland soils classified as highly erodible in the order three soil survey would be avoided. 

Slopes greater than 10 percent and with south-facing aspects with sensitive or highly erosive soils and 

areas with biological crusts would be avoided.

Before a surface disturbing activity is authorized, topsoil depth would be determined. The amount of 

topsoil to be removed, along with topsoil placement areas, would be specified in the authorization. The 

uniform distribution of topsoil over the area to be reclaimed would be required, unless conditions warrant 

a varying depth. On large surface-disturbing projects (e.g., gas processing plants) topsoil would be 

stockpiled and seeded to reduce erosion. Where feasible, topsoil stockpiles would be designed to 

maximize surface area to reduce impacts to soil microorganisms. Stockpiles remaining less than 2 years 

are best for soil micro-organism survival and native seed viability. 

Emphasis would be placed on the reduction of soil erosion and sediment into the Green River Basin 

watershed. Of particular importance would be those areas with saline soils or those areas with highly 

erodible soils. Critical erosion condition areas would continue to be identified during soil surveys, 

monitoring, site specific project analysis, and activity plan development for the purpose of avoidance and 

special management. 

Operators would avoid adverse impacts to soils by— 

• Minimizing disturbance, avoiding construction with frozen soil material 

• Avoiding areas with high erosion potential (e.g., unstable soil, dunal areas, slopes greater than 25 

percent, floodplains), where possible 

• Salvaging and selectively handling topsoil from disturbed areas 

• Adequately protecting stockpiled topsoil and replacing it on the surface during reclamation 

• Leaving the soil intact (scalping only) during pipeline construction, where possible 

• Using appropriate erosion and sedimentation control techniques, including, but not limited to, 

diversion terraces, riprap, and matting 

• Promptly revegetating disturbed areas using adapted species 

• Applying temporary erosion control measures (e.g., temporary vegetation cover) 

• Applying biodegradable mulch, netting, or soil stabilizers 

A3-16 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 3 

• Constructing barriers as appropriate in certain areas to minimize wind and water erosion and 

sedimentation prior to vegetation establishment. 

Management of the soil resource would continue to be based on the following: 1) evaluation and 

interpretation of soils in relation to project design and development; 2) identification and inventory of 

soils for baseline data; and 3) identification and implementation of methods to reduce accelerated erosion. 

Evaluation and interpretation involves identifying soil properties that would influence their use and 

recommendations for development while minimizing soil loss. Projects would be examined on a sitespecific basis, evaluating the potential for soil loss, and the compatibility of soil properties with project 

design. Stipulations and mitigating measures are provided on a case-by-case basis to ensure soil 

conservation and practical management. Projects requiring soil interpretations include construction of 

linear right-of-way facilities (i.e., pipelines, roads, railroads, and power transmission lines); construction 

of water impoundments; rangeland manipulation through fire or mechanical treatments; construction of 

plant site facilities, pump stations, well pads and associated disturbances; and reclamation projects. 

BLM would require each individual right-of-way, APD, or other application to include a reclamation plan 

approved by the BLM. Each Master Development Plan for projects that cumulatively disturb more than 

10 acres would be required to submit an Erosion, Revegetation and Restoration Plan (ERRP) consistent 

with BLM guidance. Prior to new disturbance, ERRPs would be approved by the BLM Authorized 

Officer. 

Notice of any spill or leakage, as defined in BLM NTL 3A, would be immediately reported by the 

operator to the AO and other such federal and state officials (e.g., WDEQ) as required by law. Verbal 

notice would be given as soon as possible, but within 24 hours, and verbal notices would be confirmed in 

writing within 72 hours of any such occurrence. Any accidental soil contamination by spills of petroleum 

products or other hazardous materials would be cleaned up and the soil disposed of or rehabilitated 

according to WDEQ Solid Waste Guidelines (#2) for petroleum contaminated soils. 

Visual Resource Management 

Visual Resource Management (VRM) class objectives and design considerations should be considered 

early in the project planning process. Approval of well pad locations, new roads, buried pipelines, or other 

facilities would be conditioned upon the operator developing a visual resource protection plan, acceptable 

to BLM, for the mitigation of anticipated impacts. To minimize visual impacts, authorization of well pad 

locations, new roads, CPFs, buried pipelines, etc. would require the operator to demonstrate to the AO’s 

satisfaction that the location and/or facilities have reasonably incorporated visual design considerations 

that would mitigate unnecessary visual impacts. 

Within VRM Class II and III areas, during onsite reviews, the BLM and the operator would evaluate 

potential disturbances and impacts to visual resources using the VRM Contrasting Rating Process and 

forms as required and described in Handbook H-8431-1. Identify appropriate mitigation and reevaluate 

until it is demonstrated that VRM management class objectives are met. Three-dimensional design and 

visual analysis software could be used to analyze impacts, develop mitigation plans, and prepare visual 

simulations. Digital terrain information could cover the project area viewshed with engineered site plans 

being entered into the Geographic Information System (GIS) 3D model allowing for comprehensive 

analysis and determining cumulative impacts. Mitigation techniques would include, but not be limited to 

new roads that would be designed so that they conform with the landscape, incorporating curves to 

eliminate distant, straight line impacts; every opportunity would be taken to reclaim existing road ROWs 

that are not used when new roads are designed over them; revegetation would be initiated as soon as 

possible after disturbance; pipeline ROWs would be located within existing ROWs whenever possible; 

Pinedale RMP A3-17 
Appendix 3 Final EIS 

and aboveground facilities not requiring safety coloration would be painted with appropriate BLMspecified nonreflective standard environmental colors (i.e., Carlsbad Canyon, Shale Green or Desert 

Brown, or other specified standard environmental color). Topographic screening, vegetation 

manipulation, project scheduling, and traffic control procedures would all be employed as deemed 

appropriate by the BLM to further reduce visual impacts. 

Low profile tanks would be required wherever visual sensitivity is an issue and/or wherever deemed 

appropriate mitigation to help maintain the visual integrity and basic characteristics of the landscape. 

Within VRM Class IV areas, the BLM and operators would implement BMPs including, but not limited 

to the following: utilize existing topography to screen roads, pipeline corridors, drill rigs, wells, and 

production facilities from view, where practical. Operators would paint all aboveground production 

facilities with appropriate colors (Carlsbad Canyon, Shale Green or Desert Brown, or other specified 

standard environmental color) specified by the BLM to blend with adjacent terrain, except for structures 

that require safety coloration in accordance with OSHA requirements. 

Avoid the introduction of new, linear visual intrusions on the landscape. New roads and pipeline 

corridors, to the extent practicable, would follow contours and use topography as screening. New 

pipelines would be combined with existing or proposed roads and, wherever possible, new cross-county 

pipeline corridors would be avoided. 

If BLM allows a well pad to be developed in any area managed for visual resources, roads and well pads 

may need to be surfaced with materials that reduce visual contrast. For example, in the VRM Class II area 

near Pinedale, the subsoil material (Wasatch Formation) can be very light in color and thus contrasts with 

surrounding undisturbed areas. Mixing topsoil with gravel (1-inch deep) in highly visible areas would 

help to reduce contrast. Operators would be required to investigate the feasibility of applying this 

opportunity of surfacing roads and well pads with materials closer in color and texture to the surrounding 

landscape. 

Watershed and Water 

Approved surface disturbing management actions in stream corridors (within the “high bank” of any 

ephemeral or intermittent stream course, or within the high bank +50 feet of any perennial stream) shall 

be designed and implemented to protect fish spawning, fry, and other important fish life stages and 

habitats within the stream or connected streams and to maintain fish passage. 

All disturbance occurring within the high bank +50 feet shall be reclaimed to meet the PFC standards. 

Crossings of perennial streams would be located within existing “linear disturbance corridors” where 

possible. Should such a corridor not exist on a particular stream or with a reasonable distance of the 

proposed crossing, the crossing shall be located at a point to minimize disturbance to the stream channel 

and associated riparian habitat and maintain an adequate amount of unrestricted water flow to maintain 

fish passage during and after construction. 

Horizontal directional drilling shall be used for all pipeline crossings of perennial streams and their 

associated riparian habitats, unless the operator/permittee/right-of-way holder can demonstrate to the 

AO’s satisfaction that this procedure is not economically or technically feasible for a given crossing. 

Upland erosion from surface disturbing activities must be controlled effectively and not allowed to be 

transported to stream systems. 

A3-18 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 3 

Prudent use of erosion control measures, including diversion terraces, riprap, matting, temporary sediment 

traps, and water bars would be employed as necessary. These erosion control measures would be used as 

appropriate to control surface runoff generated at well locations. The type and location of sediment 

control structure, including construction methods, would be described in APD and ROW plans. If 

necessary, to reduce suspended sediment loads and remove potential contaminants, Operators may treat 

diverted water in detention ponds prior to release to meet applicable state or federal standards. 

BMP project proponents/operators/permittees would be required to control sediment from all construction 

sites. 

Operators would prepare Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) for their respective areas of 

field development as required by WDEQ National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permit requirements. 

Any industrial water wells and any tanks, pumps, hoses, pipes, or other associated connections would 

include check valves, backflow preventers, or other devices that secure the well against discharge of 

fluids into the well. 

All water used for the drilling of the surface casing must comply with all requirements concerning water 

quality as set forth by WOGCC Regulations. 

All water used in association with this project would be permitted through the Wyoming State Engineer’s 

Office. 

All water wells must be constructed and operated according to all requirements of the Wyoming State 

Engineer’s Office and shall be equipped with measures and equipment to prevent backflow and/or 

siphoning into the well. 

Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Floodplains 

All surface disturbance, permanent facilities, etc., would remain a minimum of 500 feet away from the 

edge of surface waters, riparian areas, wetlands, and 100-year floodplains unless it is determined through 

site-specific analysis, approved in writing by the BLM AO, that no practicable alternative to the proposed 

action exists. If such a circumstance exists, then all practicable measures to mitigate possible harm to 

these areas must be employed. These mitigating measures would be determined on a case-by-case basis 

and may include, but are not limited to, diking, lining, screening, mulching, terracing, and diversions. 

Floodplains by their very nature are unsafe locations for permanent structures. With an inundation of 

flood waters, soils disturbed by construction could experience a rate of erosion greater than undisturbed 

sites. Additional concern exists over the potential for floodwaters to aid in the dispersal of hazardous 

materials that may be stored within such structures. Therefore, floodplains would have no permanent 

structures constructed within their boundaries unless it can be demonstrated on a case-by-case basis that 

there is no physically practical alternative. In cases in which floodplain construction is approved, 

additional constraints could be applied. 

Floodplain Executive Order 11988 (Section 2.a.(2)) states in summary that if the HEAD OF THE 

AGENCY finds that the only practicable alternative consistent with the law and the policy set forth in the 

Order requires siting in a floodplain, the agency would, prior to taking action, 1) design or modify its 

action in order to minimize potential harm...and 2) prepare and circulate a notice containing an 

explanation of why the action proposed is to be located in the floodplain. 

Pinedale RMP A3-19 
Appendix 3 Final EIS 

Floodplain Executive Order 11988 (Section 3), in reference to federal real property and facilities, states 

that agencies would, if facilities are to be located in a floodplain (i.e., no practicable alternative), apply 

flood protection measures to new construction or rehabilitate existing structures, elevate structures rather 

than fill the land, provide flood height potential markings on facilities to be used by the public, and when 

the property is proposed for lease, easement, right of way, or disposal, the agency has to attach restriction 

on uses in the conveyance, etc., or withhold from such conveyance. 

Any disturbances to wetlands and/or waters of the U.S. would be coordinated with the COE, and 404 

permits would be secured as necessary prior to disturbance. 

Operators would evaluate all project facility sites for occurrence of waters of the U.S. special aquatic 

sites, and wetlands, per COE requirements. All project activities would be located outside these sensitive 

areas, where practical. 

Where disturbance of wetlands, riparian areas, streams, and ephemeral/intermittent stream channels 

cannot be avoided, COE Section 404 permits would be obtained by the operator as necessary. 

Discharge of Produced, Treated, or Other Waters 

Operators or pipeline contractors would comply with state and federal regulations for water discharged 

into an established drainage channel. The rate of discharge would not exceed the capacity of the channel 

to convey the increased flow. Waters that do not meet applicable state or federal standards would be 

evaporated, treated, or disposed of at an approved disposal facility. The disposal of all water (hydrostatic 

test water, stormwater, produced water) would be conducted in conformance with WDEQ-Water Quality 

Division (WQD), BLM Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 7, and WOGCC rules and regulations. 

Channel Discharge Plans: Plans for any proposed discharge of produced water to channels on public 

lands will at a minimum contain provisions for the following: 

The proposed discharged water will meet or exceed all state-approved standards for quality and be of 

equal or better quality than the proposed receiving waters at the point of confluence. 

A survey and evaluation of the public land portion of the channel from the proposed point of discharge to 

the downstream extent of BLM-administered public lands that encompass the drainage or the confluence 

of the nearest perennial water with an upstream source of flow that will provide a dilution of at least 10:1 

for produced water from all sources to the channel in question at the point of confluence. 

The evaluation will address channel geometry and record current locations (by GPS, monumenting, photo 

points) and nature of key features such as vegetative communities, headcuts, depositional areas, existing 

wetlands, any other discharges, etc. 

A certified laboratory report showing the components and quality of the water to be discharged will be 

provided to the BLM with sufficient time prior to initial discharge of produced water to allow for 

analysis. Subsequent reports will be provided to the BLM not more than 2 weeks past the date of the 

survey. 

Channels on public lands receiving produced water discharges will be resurveyed annually at a minimum, 

or as requested by the AO, by the project proponent in the manner described above. The need to take 

corrective actions will be determined by the BLM. 

A3-20 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 3 

Adequate design to minimize erosion at the point of discharge and to prevent channel drops (headcuts) 

from traveling up channel under augmented and natural flow conditions. 

A method to control, in a timely manner, accelerated channel erosion. Corrective actions could include 

but are not limited to engineered structures, vegetation augmentation, or elimination of the discharge to 

the affected channel. 

An acknowledgement that discharging to public lands, including discharge in an open channel, is a 

privilege that is revocable at any time by the AO. 

The design of the discharge plan must be such that the Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health are not 

violated. 

Vegetation, land form, rocks, and/or large woody debris associated with the channel in question 

throughout the length of the channel as described previously shall be maintained in a condition sufficient 

to dissipate stream energy, filter sediment, aid groundwater recharge, aid in floodplain development, 

stabilize stream banks, and maintain channel characteristics. 

Upland Discharge Plans: Plans for any proposed discharge of produced water onto uplands will, at a 

minimum, contain provisions for the following: 

• An acknowledgement that the purpose of the discharge is for vegetation reclamation only 

• Another avenue for the discharge of the water or the ability to immediately stop the flow 

• Certification that the water meets or exceeds WDEQ standards 

• Information to support analysis that application of the water to the soil will not negatively affect 

soil quality, including infiltration or fertility 

• Information to support analysis that vegetative diversity and productivity and soil health and 

structure will not be negatively affected 

• No surface runoff from the reclamation site 

• An approved revegetation plan that includes a weed management plan 

• A monitoring plan and provisions for prompt action to address errors 

• A timeline to assure that irrigation efforts would be used for initial establishment of vegetation 

communities, not to maintain them. 

Wildlife 

General Wildlife 

Well locations and associated road and pipeline routes would be selected and designed to avoid 

disturbances to areas of high wildlife value (e.g., raptor nest sites, wetland areas). 

Avoid activities and facilities that create barriers to the seasonal movements of big game and livestock. 

Reserve, workover, and production pits potentially hazardous to wildlife would be adequately protected 

(e.g., fencing, netting) to prohibit wildlife access as directed by the BLM in consultation with WGFD. 

Pinedale RMP A3-21 
Appendix 3 Final EIS 

Wildlife-proof fencing would be used on reclaimed areas, in accordance with standards specified in BLM 

Fencing Handbook 1741-1, if it is determined that wildlife species are impeding successful vegetation 

establishment. 

ROW fencing associated with this project would be kept to a minimum; if necessary, fences would 

consist of four-strand barbed wire meeting WGFD approval and BLM Fencing Handbook 1741-1 

standards for facilitating wildlife movement. 

For all breeding birds observed, additional surveys would be conducted immediately prior to construction 

activities to search for active nest sites. 

To avoid potentially significant noise impacts, compressor engines would be located 2,500 feet or more 

from a dwelling or residence and from sage-grouse leks. 

Activities in crucial habitats would be avoided when practicable. 

Wildlife habitat mitigation would be carried out as quickly as possible or at the same time as the 

disturbance. 

Locatable mineral development activities would not be allowed within identified big game parturition 

areas between May 1 and June 30 or within raptor nesting areas from February 1 to July 31.

Powerlines would be buried or otherwise constructed or modified to reduce impacts to wildlife where 

possible. 

Crucial wildlife winter ranges and nesting habitats could be treated with nitrogen fertilizers. 

For additional wildlife mitigation measures, the Wyoming Game and Fish’s document titled 

Recommendations for Development of Oil and Gas Resources within Crucial and Important Wildlife 

Habitats (WGFD 2004) may be consulted. 

T&E and Special Status Species 

If while conducting operations, substantial unanticipated environmental effects to listed, proposed, or 

candidate species are observed (whether effects are direct or indirect), formal consultation with U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) would be initiated immediately in addition to cessation of all such 

operations. 

USFWS and WGFD consultation and coordination would be conducted for all mitigation activities 

relating to raptors and threatened and endangered (T&E) species and their habitats, and all permits 

required for movement, removal, and/or establishment of raptor nests would be pursued if they meet 

USFWS migratory bird office requirements. 

Co-location of cell towers and other communication facilities will be encouraged to mitigate impacts 

within potential raptor habitat. 

Surveys for T&E and candidate wildlife species would be implemented in areas of potential habitat by a 

qualified biologist prior to disturbance. Findings would be reviewed by the BLM prior to or as 

components of ROW applications and APD review processes. If T&E and/or candidate species are found 

in the area, consultation with the USFWS would be initiated, and construction activities would be 

curtailed until there is concurrence between BLM and USFWS, on what activities can be authorized. 

A3-22 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 3 

Proposed construction sites in the development area would be examined prior to surface-disturbing 

activities to confirm the presence or absence of prairie dog colonies. Confirmation would be made of 

white-tailed prairie dog colony/complex size, burrow density, and any other data to indicate whether the 

criteria for black-footed ferret habitat, established in the USFWS guidelines, are present. If prairie dog 

colony/complex meets the USFWS criteria, a qualified biologist would locate all project components to 

avoid direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to the colony/complex. If this is not practical or possible, 

black-footed ferret surveys of the prairie dog colony/complex, where required by the USFWS, would be 

conducted in accordance with USFWS guidelines and requirements. The results of the survey would be 

provided to the USFWS in accordance with Section 7 of the ESA, as amended, and Interagency 

Cooperation Regulations. If a black-footed ferret or its sign is found during the survey, the BLM AO 

would stop all action on the application in hand. New roads and trails should not cross colonies. 

A survey for black-footed ferret is required prior to approval of construction activities within nonblock 

cleared habitats. 

The USFWS has determined that any withdrawal of water from the Colorado River System (surface or 

groundwater) would jeopardize the endangered Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail, and 

razorback sucker. The USFWS Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program requires a depletion 

fee be paid by the proponent to help support the recovery program. The fee is required for each acre-foot 

of water depletion where the depletion of water is in excess of 100 acre-feet from the Colorado River 

system. 

Operators would finance site-specific surveys for special status plant species (SSPS) prior to any surface 

disturbance in areas determined by the BLM to contain potential habitat for such species (Directive 

USDI-BLM 6840). These surveys would be completed by a qualified botanist as authorized by the BLM 

and this botanist would be subject to BLM’s SSPS survey policy requirements. Data from these surveys 

would be provided to the BLM, and if any SSPS or habitats are found, BLM recommendations for 

avoidance or mitigation would be implemented. 

Migratory Birds 

Bald eagles roost, perch, feed, and nest along the Green and New Fork Rivers. To ensure continued 

protection of this species, no surface disturbing or human activities would be authorized between 

November 1 and April 1 within 1 mile of known bald eagle winter use areas. All surface-disturbing or 

human activity, including construction of roads, pipelines, well pads, drilling, completion, or workover 

operations, would be seasonally restricted from February 1 through August 15 within 1.0 mile of all 

active eagle nests. An active eagle nest is one that has been occupied once in the past 5 years. 

Permanent (life of the project) and high profile structures such as well locations, roads, buildings, storage 

tanks, overhead power lines, etc., and other structures requiring repeated human presence would not be 

constructed within 1,000 feet (1,400 feet for ferruginous hawks; 2,600 feet for bald eagles) of active 

raptor nests. Wells that must be located closer than 2,600 feet (but would not be allowed closer than 2,000 

feet) of a bald eagle nest would be out of the direct line of sight of the nest; would have no human activity 

at the well site from February 1 through August 15 except in the case of an emergency; and would locate 

production facilities off-site or at a central production facility location at a distance of 2,600 feet or more 

from the nest. In these cases the USFWS would be contacted to ensure compliance under the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. 

All surface-disturbing activity (e.g., road, pipeline, well pad construction, drilling, completion, workover 

operations) would be seasonally restricted from February 1 through July 31 within a 0.5-mile radius of all 

active raptor nests, except that ferruginous hawk nests would be seasonally restricted from March 1 

Pinedale RMP A3-23 
Appendix 3 Final EIS 

through July 31 and the seasonal buffer would be 1.0 mile. An active raptor nest is defined as a nest that 

has been occupied within the past 3 years. The seasonal buffer distance and exclusion dates applicable 

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

natural topographic barriers, line-of-site distance(s), and other conflicting issues such as cultural values, 

steep slopes, etc. 

Raptor nest surveys would be conducted for active nests within a 0.5- to 1.0-mile radius of proposed 

surface use or activity areas if such activities are proposed to be conducted between February 1 and July 

31 or as required in the Pinedale Field Office raptor survey protocol. 

The buffer distance for raptors may vary depending on the species involved, prey availability, natural 

topographic barriers, line-of-sight distances, and other conflicting issues (e.g., cultural values, steep 

slopes). Linear disturbances such as pipelines and seismic activity could be granted exceptions as long as 

they would not adversely affect the raptor(s). 

Surface disturbing and disruptive activity will be prohibited within 0.5 mile of burrowing owl nesting 

habitat from April 1 through August 15. 

For surface disturbing activities, surveys would be conducted within suitable plover habitat by a qualified 

biologist in accordance with USFWS 1999 guidelines. (A copy of the guidelines may be obtained from 

the USFWS, BLM, or WGFD). Two types of surveys may be conducted: 1) surveys to determine the 

presence/absence of breeding plovers (i.e., displaying males and foraging adults), or 2) surveys to 

determine nest density. 

If surface disturbing activity is requested to take place in mountain plover habitat between April 10 and 

July 10, presence/absence surveys are required. Survey results would determine when activities are 

proposed. 

Surveys to determine presence/absence of the plover would be conduct between April 10 through July 10 

throughout the breeding range. 

Visual observation of the area should be made within 0.25 mile of the proposed action to detect the 

presence of plovers. 

A site must be surveyed for plover three times during the survey window, with each survey separated by 

at least 14 days. 

Initiation of the project should occur as near to completion of the plover survey as possible (within 2 days 

for seismic exploration; a 14-day period may be appropriate for other projects. 

If active plover nest is found in the survey area, the planned activity should be delayed 37 days, or one 

week post-hatching. If a brood of flightless chicks is observed, activities should be delayed at least 7 days. 

Plover surveys would be conducted during early courtship and territorial establishment. Throughout the 

breeding range, this period extends from approximately mid-April through early July. However, the 

specific breeding period depends on latitude, elevation, and weather. 

Plover surveys would be conducted between local sunrise and 10:00 a.m., and between 5:30 p.m. and 

sunset (periods of horizontal light to facilitate spotting the white breast of the adult plovers). 

A3-24 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 3 

Drive transects within the project area to minimize early flushing. Flushing distances for mountain 

plovers may be within 3 meters (9 to 10 feet) for vehicles, but plovers often flush at 50 to 100 meters (164 

to 328 feet) when approached by humans on foot. 

In cases where an exception will be provided to the proponent during the April 10 to July 10 breeding and 

nesting time period, BLM personnel will adhere to approved protocols describing survey protocol for 

exceptions. 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

No surface disturbance within one-quarter mile of an occupied greater sage-grouse lek will be permitted. 

Linear disturbances such as pipelines and seismic activity could be granted exceptions outside the 

breeding season if they are determined not to have associated long-term, continuous activity that could 

impact breeding success. 

Permanent, high-profile structures such as buildings and storage tanks would not be constructed within 

0.25 mile of an occupied greater sage-grouse lek. 

In selecting a site for a compressor facility, a well pad or other permanent facility, the distance from the 

edge of a an occupied greater sage-grouse lek would be sufficient to result in a noise level increase from 

operating facilities no greater than 10 decibels (dBA) above background (i.e., 39 dBA background + 10 

dBA = 49 dBA). Further restrictions may be required if the species is determined by the USFWS to be 

eligible for listing as either threatened or endangered pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. Monitoring 

would be required by BLM to determine which leks in the PAPA are occupied and which have been 

abandoned. 

If existing information is not current, field evaluations for greater sage-grouse leks and/or nests would be 

conducted by a qualified biologist prior to the start of activities in potential greater sage-grouse habitat. 

These field evaluations for leks and/or nests would be conducted if project activities are planned in 

potential greater sage-grouse habitat between March 15 and July 15. BLM wildlife biologists would 

ensure that such surveys are conducted using proper survey methods. 

Operators would be required to apply noise mitigation at well locations, as determined necessary by the 

BLM AO, on a case-by-case basis. 

Sagebrush Habitats 

These guidelines (Bohne et al. 2007) include an approach to identify sage-grouse issues in landscape scale 

assessments, proposed habitat project planning and implementation and to build a safety net into the 

process to maintain or enhance sage-grouse populations. This is an approach that can be used to identify 

sage-grouse habitat issues and resolve conflicts in the development of vegetative treatment prescriptions, 

and it should be an integral part of the NEPA process where appropriate. The Wyoming Guidelines for 

Managing Sagebrush Communities with an Emphasis on Fire Management (Wyoming Interagency 

Vegetation Committee 2002:12) provides a list of nine decision elements that should be considered when 

evaluating a potential sagebrush treatment. In addition to those nine elements, assessing the need for a 

vegetation treatment involves a general assessment of the landscape and its use by sage-grouse. The 

following evaluation criteria should also be considered when developing vegetation treatments in 

occupied sage-grouse habitat: 

1) Determine if sage-grouse (or other species of interest) seasonal habitats are present, the condition of 

these habitats, and the relative level of importance of these habitats. In the case of sage-grouse, it is 

Pinedale RMP A3-25 
Appendix 3 Final EIS 

important to know whether the population is resident or migratory when evaluating potential habitats 

affected by proposed actions. 

2) Identify how much of the sage-grouse habitat in the area has been impacted previously by fire 

(prescribed or wild), other habitat conversions, habitat losses, or fragmentation, preferably using a GISbased analysis. 

3) Determine how much of the area is likely to burn in future wildfire and at what scale (a risk 

assessment). 

4) Identify the short-term (1–14 years) and mid-term effects (15–30 years) of prescribed fires or other 

treatments on vegetation and key wildlife species. 

5) Assess the presence of undesirable plant species (e.g., cheatgrass, invasive noxious weeds, rabbitbrush, 

juniper and other conifer invasion) and the risk of these species increasing under current management 

and/or as a result of the proposed treatment. 

6) Determine the likely response of desirable species of vegetation that are present to the type and 

intensity of treatment being proposed. 

7) Provide a clear statement of the intended objectives of the prescribed treatment, provide a rational for 

the treatment, and identify impacts to sage-grouse and other species of interest as part of the management 

prescription and environmental assessment. 

8) Establish overall goals along with measurable objectives and an adequate monitoring plan (adequate in 

terms of funding as well as quantifying the effects of treatment). 

9) Identify mitigation measures (if any) needed to offset potential adverse impacts on sage-grouse habitat. 

10) Develop a post treatment management plan that will ensure desired vegetative responses can be 

achieved and maintained. 

No sagebrush control work should occur where live sagebrush cover is less than 20% (Bohne 2007). 

If the herbaceous understory is depleted (reduced number of grass and forb species present), providing 

limited or inadequate cover, and the shrub canopy is too dense, then some vegetative treatment may be 

needed to restore the stand to its potential productivity and value for sage-grouse and other wildlife 

species. In this situation, the guidelines recommend treating no more than 20% of nesting and early 

brood-rearing habitat (Bohne 2007). 

Sagebrush restoration techniques should be considered in areas in which sagebrush has been removed or 

severely fragmented by past management practices. If 40% or more of the breeding habitat of a 

population or subpopulation has been lost, the guidelines by Connelly et al. (2000a) recommend that the 

remaining habitat should be protected from additional loss or degradation. In these situations, sagebrush 

restoration should be the priority land treatment to restore suitable shrub densities and understory 

vegetation to provide effective sage-grouse habitat (Bohne 2007). 

A3-26 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 3 

Reclamation 

All disturbances would be limited to the minimum necessary to enable production of the resource. 

All disturbances would be returned to the approximate predisturbance contour of the land. 

Predisturbance land use would be returned to the maximum extent practicable. 

Where approved disturbance prohibits maintenance of use, offsite mitigation could be considered. 

Reclamation would be designed to restore the affected lands to predisturbance land uses once a project is 

completed. While surface-disturbing or disruptive activities continue, land uses would be mitigated using 

revegetation, stabilization, erosion control, and habitat enhancement. 

Experimental methods to maintain or reclaim wildlife habitat or improve reclamation science are 

encouraged to be tested on small areas within the planning area. When scientifically proven effective for a 

reclamation objective, these methods may be incorporated into proven reclamation methods. 

All reclamation of disturbed lands will be conducted with a diverse mix of noninvasive, certified weedfree seed demonstrated effective for post-disturbance land uses and approved by the AO. In designated 

crucial and important wildlife habitats, this seed mix should be designed to restore predisturbance wildlife 

use. 

A site-specific reclamation plan should be prepared for each well pad, pipeline, road, or other surface 

disturbing activities prior to authorization and should include the following: 

• Top soil storage techniques 

• Description of native vegetation disturbed, including species and composition 

• Need to collect native seed 

• Need for irrigation and fertilization 

• Need for fencing 

• Proposed recontouring plans and seeding/planning procedures 

• Definition of success 

• Plans for reseeding if reclamation fails. 

BLM would require each individual right-of-way, APD, or other application to include a reclamation plan 

approved by the BLM. 

Site Stabilization 

On existing well pads that would not be fully developed by the second winter following construction, all 

bare ground would have at least a 75-percent protective cover that may include but not be limited to 

organic mulch, herbaceous vegetation, jute matting, or other erosion-preventative fabric. Protective cover 

may be excluded on active work sites (up to the wellhead with production equipment) if justified by the 

operator and with BLM concurrence. 

During the period when an existing well pad is not being fully developed, there would be no sediment 

discharge from the existing pad. Operators would modify all existing well pads to achieve zero sediment 

discharge for a 25-year storm or snowmelt event. 

Pinedale RMP A3-27 
Appendix 3 Final EIS 

Access road(s) leading to the temporarily stabilized well pad would have protective cover to the same 

levels required on the well pad. 

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

Streams, wetlands, and riparian areas disturbed during project construction would be restored to as near 

pre-project conditions as practical, and if impermeable soils contributed to wetland formation, soils would 

be compacted to reestablish impermeability. 

Areas would be recontoured and BLM-approved species would be used for reclamation. 

Reclamation activities would begin on disturbed wetland areas immediately after completion of project 

activities. 

Upon completion of construction and/or production activities, operators would restore the topography to 

near preexisting contours at well sites, access roads, pipelines, and other facility sites. 

All roads on federal lands not required for routine operation and maintenance of producing wells, 

ancillary facilities, livestock grazing administration, or necessary recreation access would be reclaimed as 

directed by the BLM. These roads would be permanently blocked, recontoured, reclaimed, and 

revegetated by the operators, as would disturbed areas associated with permanently plugged and 

abandoned wells. 

Disturbances should be reclaimed or managed for zero sediment discharge. All excavations and pits 

should be closed by backfilling and contouring to conform to surrounding terrain. On well pads and larger 

locations, the surface use plan would include objectives for successful reclamation such as soil 

stabilization, plant community composition, and desired vegetation density and diversity. 

On producing locations, operators would be required to reduce slopes to original contours (not to exceed 

3:1 slopes). Areas not used for production purposes would be backfilled and blended into the surrounding 

terrain, reseeded, and erosion control measures installed. Erosion control measures would be required 

after slope reduction. Facilities would be required to approach zero runoff from the location to avoid 

contamination and water quality degradation downstream. Mulching, erosion control measures, and 

fertilization may be required to achieve acceptable stabilization. 

Abandoned sites must be satisfactorily rehabilitated in accordance with a plan approved by the BLM. Soil 

samples may be analyzed to determine reclamation potential, appropriate reseeding species, and nutrient 

deficits. Tests may include pH, mechanical analysis, electrical conductivity, and sodium content. Terraces 

or elongated water breaks would be constructed after slope reduction. 

All reclamation is expected to be accomplished as soon as possible after the disturbance occurs with 

efforts continuing until a satisfactory revegetation cover is established and the site is stabilized (3 to 

5 years). Only areas needed for construction would be allowed to be disturbed. 

On all areas to be reclaimed, seed mixtures would be required to be site specific and composed of native 

species. Seed mixtures also would be required to include species promoting soil stability. A 

predisturbance species composition list must be developed for each site if the project encompasses an area 

in which several different plant communities present. Livestock palatability and wildlife habitat needs 

would be given consideration in seed mix formulation. BLM guidance for native seed use is BLM Manual 

1745 (Introduction, Transplant, Augmentation, and Reestablishment of Fish, Wildlife, and Plants), and 

Executive Order No. 11987 (Exotic Organisms). 

A3-28 Pinedale RMP 
Final EIS Appendix 3 

If deemed necessary, approved sterile seed mix could be considered for use in site stabilization during 

reclamation. 

Interseeding, secondary seeding, or staggered seeding may be required to accomplish revegetation 

objectives. During rehabilitation of areas in important wildlife habitat, provision would be made for the 

establishment of native browse and forb species, if determined to be beneficial for the habitat affected. 

Follow-up seeding or corrective erosion control measures may be required on areas of surface disturbance 

which experience reclamation failure. 

Any mulch and mineral material (sand and gravel) used would be certified weed free and free from mold 

or fungi. Mulch may include native hay, small grain straw, wood fiber, live mulch, cotton, jute, synthetic 

netting, and rock. Straw mulch should contain fibers long enough to facilitate crimping and provide the 

greatest cover. 

Noxious Weeds 

Operators would monitor noxious weed occurrence on the project area and implement a noxious weed 

control program in cooperation with the BLM and Sublette County to ensure noxious weed invasion does 

not become a problem. Weed-free certification by county extension agents would be required for grain or 

straw used for mulching revegetated areas. Gravel and other surfacing materials used for the project 

would be free of noxious weeds. 

The operator, grantee, or lessee would be responsible for the control of all noxious weed infestations on 

surface disturbances. Prior to any treatment, the operator, grantee, or lessee would be responsible for 

submission of Pesticide Use Proposals and subsequent Pesticide Use Reports. Control measures would 

adhere to those allowed in the Final Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM in 17 Western 

States Programmatic EIS (June 2007) and ROD (September 2007), Rock Springs District Noxious Weed 

Control EA (USDI 1982a), or the Regional Northwest Area Noxious Weed Control Program EIS (USDI 

1987). Herbicide approvals and treatments would be monitored by the BLM Authorized Officer. Aerial 

application of chemicals would be prohibited within one-quarter mile of special status plant locations, and 

hand application would be prohibited within 500 feet. 

Herbicide applications would be kept at least 500 feet from known SSPS populations or other distance 

deemed safe by the BLM AO. 

Hazardous Waste Disposal 

Operators would use WDEQ-approved portable sanitation facilities at drill sites; place warning signs near 

hazardous areas and along roadways; place dumpsters at each construction site to collect and store 

garbage and refuse; ensure that all refuse and garbage is transported to a state-approved sanitary landfill 

for disposal; and institute a Hazard Communication Program for its employees and require subcontractor 

programs in accordance with OSHA (29 CFR 1910.1200). 

In accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1200, a Material Safety Data Sheet for every chemical or hazardous 

material brought on-site would be kept on file at the operator’s field office. 

Chemical and hazardous materials would be inventoried and reported in accordance with the SARA Title 

III (40 CFR 335). If quantities exceeding 10,000 pounds or the threshold planning quantity are to be 

produced or stored, the appropriate Section 311 and 312 forms would be submitted at the required times 

to the State and County Emergency Management Coordinators and the local fire departments. 

Pinedale RMP A3-29 
Appendix 3 Final EIS 

Any hazardous wastes, as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as 

amended, would be transported and/or disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and 

local regulations. 

Owners or operators of onshore facilities (any facility of any kind, or drilling or workover rigs), which 

because of their location could be reasonably expected to discharge oil in harmful quantities (as defined in 

40 CFR part 110 and 112.3) into or upon navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines, 

would prepare a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC Plan) in accordance with 40 

CFR 112.7. Owners or operators of drilling or workover rigs need not prepare a new SPCC Plan each 

time the facility is moved to a new site. The SPCC Plan may be a general plan, using good engineering 

practices (40 CFR 112.3 (a), (b), and (c)). Owners or operators of a facility for which an SPCC Plan is 

required would maintain a complete copy of the SPCC Plan at such facility if the facility is normally 

attended at least 8 hours per day, or at the nearest field office if the facility is not so attended (40 CFR 

112.3(e)). 

SPCC Plans would be implemented and adhered to in a manner such that any spill or accidental discharge 

of oil would be remediated. An orientation should be conducted by the operators to ensure that project 

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

appropriate recourse if a spill occurs. Where applicable and/or required by law, streams at pipeline 

crossings would be protected from contamination by pipeline shutoff valves or other systems capable of 

minimizing accidental discharge. If reserve pit leakage is detected, operations at the site would be 

curtailed, as directed by the BLM, until the leakage is corrected. 

All natural gas wells would be cased and cemented to protect subsurface mineral and freshwater zones. 

Unproductive wells and wells that have completed their intended purpose would be properly abandoned 

and plugged using procedures identified by the Office of State Oil and Gas Supervisor, Rules and 

Regulations of WOGCC and the BLM. 

A3-30 Pinedale RMP