U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Wyoming State Office

Buffalo Field Office March 2001

DECISION RECORD

Wyodak Drainage Coal Bed Methane

Environmental Assessment (WY-070-01-034)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
MISSION STATEMENT

It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the health, diversity,

and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future

generations.

BLM/WY/PL-01/008+1320

1

Decision Record

for

Wyodak Drainage Coal Bed Methane

Environmental Assessment

EA # WY-070-01-034

Introduction

The impact analysis in this environmental assessment (EA) identifies the effects of drilling 2,500

federal coal bed methane (CBM) protective wells in the next 15 months to prevent (CBM) drainage

within the Wyodak CBM project area. 

Scoping for this action began in April 2000. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) felt an

urgency to conduct this analysis due to the disparity between the number of state and private

(CBM) wells being permitted, drilled, and put into production when compared to the number of

federal wells. This EA is an interim measure between the 1999 Wyodak Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) and the Powder River Basin EIS (PRBO&G EIS) which is scheduled for

completion in April 2002. It became apparent in March 2000, based on information from the

BLM’s Wyoming State Office, Reservoir Management Group (attachment A), that federal

protective wells needed to be drilled in order to prevent loss of federal gas and associated

royalties and to protect the public interest. Sufficient NEPA analysis had not been conducted that

disclosed the effects of drilling additional federal CBM wells beyond the level analyzed in the

Wyodak EIS. The BLM was faced with complying with two conflicting mandates—the

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for any federal action, and the

Mineral Leasing Act as Amended requiring the maximum economic recovery (MER) of the

mineral resource.

The EA evaluates one alternative. Several others were considered but eliminated from further

detailed analysis. The No Action Alternative was not considered because allowing federal

protective wells is not a discretionary decision. An operator=s drilling and producing obligations

to the BLM on federal leases are described at 43 CFR 3162.2, which states, “Operators must drill

diligently and produce continuously to protect the federal government from royalty loss resulting

from drainage.” Under these regulations, the No Action Alternative would not comply with 43

CFR 3162.2.

This EA is tiered to the 1999 Wyodak EIS. Selecting Alternative 1 in the Wyodak EIS allowed

5,000 new CBM wells to be drilled. The EIS contains analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative

effects. The threshold level to judge significance of impacts for this EA is the cumulative effect

levels for surface disturbance, water, and air impacts from Alternative 1.

An analysis of impacts from overall continued CBM development within the Powder River Basin

of Wyoming was initiated in May 2000 with scoping for the PRBO&G EIS. A decision for this

new EIS is anticipated in about 15 months. The analysis in the EIS will include completed air

quality, groundwater, and surface water computer models to analyze impacts. The results of the

analyses for this EA will be included in the PRBO&G EIS analysis.
2

Decision

It is my decision to authorize the actions described in the Proposed Action (PA) of the subject

EA (WY 070-01-034). This decision will allow Federal mineral leaseholders to drill up to 2,500

federal protective CBM wells, within the Wyodak area, to help alleviate drainage of methane and

on-going loss of royalties to the U.S. and the State of Wyoming. These wells will be drilled in

accordance with the maintained Buffalo Resource Management Plan (RMP) and the standard and

supplemental conditions of approval in appendices B and C of the EA. In addition, the

mitigation measures in attachment B will also be required. Project-specific NEPA analysis will

also be required before applications for permit to drill (APD) are approved.

All conditions, mitigating measures, and monitoring from the Record of Decision for the

Wyodak EIS are required along with this decision. This decision updates the NEPA compliance

for the Buffalo RMP.

In accordance with 43 CFR 3165.3 (b) you have the right to request an administrative review

before the Wyoming, State Director, either with or without oral presentation, regarding this

decision. Such request, including all supporting documentation, shall be filed in writing with the

State Director within 20 business days of receipt of this decision. Upon request and showing of

good cause, an extension for submitting supporting data may be granted by the State Director.

Response to Comments

The EA was released for a 30-day public review on January 9, 2001 with a deadline to receive

comments of February 7, 2001. A preliminary finding of no significant impacts (FONSI) was

included in the release. During the comment period, 34 letters were received. These letters have

been reviewed to determine whether information was provided that would warrant a change to

the preliminary FONSI. Substantive comments with responses are summarized below.

1. The analysis does not provide information that supports the need to reduce the drainage of

federal minerals. Where are protective wells needed? Why would they be successful; how

many are needed to significantly reduce royalty losses?

The general area of current CBM production is

outlined by the 90% contour line on maps 1 and 2.

In these producing areas about 40% of the mineral

ownership is federal. However, only 15% of the

CBM currently being produced is from U.S.

minerals (see figure 1).

South Gillette Area A recently completed study of

pressure depletion and CBM drainage covers a 66-

township area (1.5 million acres) south of Gillette,

Wyoming (USDI, 2001) (map 1). The pressure at

the top of the main producing coal was mapped and

is displayed as a percent of original pressure

(pressure before CBM production began). Each pressure zone shown on map 1 is summarized

below:

CBM Gas Production

0

3

6

9

12

15

Jan-1994 Jan-1996 Jan-1998 Jan-2000

Month and Year

Monthly Gas Production

(billion cubic feet)

NonFed

Federal

Figure 1 CBM production from federal

and nonfederal wells in the Powder River

Basin, Wyoming.
3

Zone one (80-90% of original pressure remaining) probably contains little

drainage from undrilled federal acreage.

Zone two (60-80% of original pressure remaining) contains some drainage

from federal acreage, but most of the CBM is still present. It is unlikely that

more than one-third of the CBM has been drained from undrilled federal

acreage. In most areas the amount of drainage is much less than one-third, and

some areas have little or no drainage.

Zone three (40-60% of original pressure remaining) has experienced drainage

throughout most of the area. In some parts of this zone CBM may be as much

as half depleted from undrilled federal acreage.

Zone four (20-40% of original pressure remaining) most of the area probably

contains less than half the original CBM content. In a few areas undrilled

federal acreage may not support economic wells.

Zone five (less than 20% of original pressure remaining) is badly drained. In

much of the area undrilled federal acreage may not support economic wells.

North Gillette Area A very generalized drainage study was completed for a 52-township area

(1.2 million acres) northwest of Gillette (map 2). This study was based on limited data and

geological interpretation compared to the drainage study of the South Gillette area. Preliminary

findings indicate undrilled federal acreage just north of Gillette, with less than 60% of original

pressure remaining, may have been significantly drained. Other areas that have been potentially

drained are outlined by the 80% contour lines on map 2 (Meyer 2001).

In summary, it can be concluded that CBM is being extensively drained from undrilled federal

mineral acreage over large areas north and south of Gillette, Wyoming. This drainage from

undrilled federal mineral acreage represents a large transfer of wealth from the public estate to

the nonfederal estate owners and a potential loss of unrecoverable methane resource.

Based on the above information, it is likely that the majority of the federal protective wells would

be drilled in the Belle Fourche watershed area (South Gillette Area, map1). It is likely that the

next largest percentage (25-30%) of federal protective wells would be drilled in the Little Powder

River watershed area (SE 1⁄4 of map 2). It is estimated that only a small percentage (5%) of the

2,500 federal protective wells would be drilled in the Powder River watershed as proportionately

fewer wells have already been drilled in that area compared to areas immediately north and south

of Gillette (NW 1⁄4 map2).

In the South Gillette Area, in order for

federal CBM production to equal nonfederal

CBM production, nonfederal CBM

production should be no more than about 1
4

1⁄2 times federal production. Figure 2 shows

the disparity of federal wells to nonfederal

wells from 1998 through 2000. In order for

federal wells to be equal (eliminate

drainage) with nonfederal wells,

approximately 3,000 federal wells would

have needed to be completed in 2000;

however, only about 1,200 were completed. 

There are currently 1,900 pending APDs that

are confirmed drainage cases on file in the

Buffalo Field Office.

Total CBM Wells Completed

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

1998 1999 2000

Federal

NonFed

Figure 2

2. Analysis concerning discharges of produced water (primarily to the Powder River drainage)

does not support the FONSI.

Over the past several months, protests over issuing CBM-related National Pollution Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permits have been submitted to the Wyoming Department of

Environmental Quality (WDEQ) from Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ),

Wyoming Outdoor Council (WOC), Powder River Basin Resource Council (PRBRC), and

individuals. These protests stated that discharged CBM- produced water could adversely affect

water quality in tributaries to the Powder River and downstream into Montana. This in turn

could have an adverse impact on lands irrigated with this water in Montana. These issues were

not raised during scoping for this EA nor did MDEQ submit comments during the 30-day EA

comment period. Therefore, the EA did not analyze affects of Powder River water on irrigated

lands and water quality of the Powder River in Montana.

These protests have caused the WDEQ to either require a demonstration by the operator that their

discharge would have no adverse effects or to temporarily suspend issuing NPDES permits for

surface discharge of water in the Powder and Little Powder River watersheds. The WDEQ and

MDEQ offices are working together to come to resolution regarding the water quality issue

between their respective states. Three letters between the agencies explaining their strategies

regarding this issue are in attachment D. WDEQ has stated that, “It will administer its permit

program on the Powder and Little Powder Rivers to insure no measurable change in water quality

occurs at the border.”

If companies cannot obtain NPDES permits to discharge produced water from their federal wells

they will need to look at alternative methods for disposing the produced water. This EA did not

analyze alternative methods of disposal such as re-injection or channel storage and dilution

ponds. Impacts from surface discharge with mitigating measures were not anticipated to be

significant; therefore, it was determined that additional mitigation analysis for re-injection or

impoundment was not warranted. If companies pursue other alternatives, additional NEPA

analysis would be needed as those impacts were not analyzed in the EA.
5

WDEQ may consider NPDES permit issuance if water is adequately treated to meet applicable

effluent standards (see mitigation section) prior to discharge. Additional NEPA analysis may

also be needed should this option be pursued by companies.

Based on the possible distribution of wells, as stated in response to comment #1 above, the BLM

estimates the largest percentage of water produced from the proposed federal protective wells

would be discharged into the Belle Fourche watershed. The Little Powder River would receive

somewhat less and the Powder River would receive the smallest percentage. Several factors

come into play that could affect the portion of federal wells that could be drilled in the Powder

and Little Powder River watersheds.

1. WDEQ would be approving discharge permits incrementally for these wells during the next

15 months. BLM permits to drill these federal wells would be issued with the condition that

before water could be discharged all other state and federal permits must be obtained.

2. Many NPDES permit applications are currently pending approval through WDEQ. The

majority of these applications apply to state and fee wells. These permits may be issued prior

to any new federal well discharge permit approvals.

The majority of data used in this next section is from AHA 2000a.

Powder River

Of the 1,425 federal-producing wells discussed in the Proposed Action, only an estimated 5% (71

wells) will discharge to the Powder River. The average production of water from these wells,

30.9 gallons per minute (gpm), is higher than the overall basin (from Figure 2.2, Main Stem

Study, Tier 1 Report). It is important to note this volume is based on initial production reported

Volumes decline continually several months after initial production as other wells come on line. 

This is evident in the Belle Fourche area where average water discharge rates were predicted in

the Wyodak EIS to be 12 gpm. As of August 2000, overall average production rates in the Belle

Fourche area were approximately 6 gpm. The average for the entire Wyodak area used in the EA

was 11.1 gpm.)

Assuming a worst case scenario of 100% of the discharge water reaching the Powder River

would result in 3.2 million gallons per day (gpd) or approximately 5 cubic feet per second (cfs). 

Table 1 shows this discharge (in cfs) as compared to mean monthly and minimum monthly flows

of the Powder River at Moorhead, MT (USGS 1999).
6

Table 1

FLOW MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

Average flow (cfs)

CBM % of average

1,083.00

 0.50

1,416.0

 0.4

 482.0

 1.0

 179.0

 2.8

 147.0

 3.4

Minimum flow (cfs)

CBM % of average

 82.6

 6.1

 39.5

 12.7

 33.9

 14.7

 .6

 833.3

 1.28

 390.60

The average adjusted sodium absorption ratio (SAR) for wells discharging into the Powder River

is 17 (ranging from 7 to 26.5), and the specific conductance is 2,253 (ranging from 946 to 3560).

 The average baseline adjusted SAR in the Powder River is 4 (ranging from 3.5 to 5), and the

average specific conductance (salinity) is 1,800 umhos/cm (ranging from 1,500-2,200).

The results of mass balance calculations showing the impacts of the CBM discharge water are

displayed in the following table.

Table 2

SAR MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

Baseline SAR 5.00 3.50 4.20 4.40 4.20

SAR at average flow with

CBM influence

 5.06 3.55 4.33 4.74 4.62

SAR at minimum flow with

CBM influence

 5.68 5.02 5.85 15.65 14.39

SAR at minimum flow with

CBM influence and 30%

delivery

 5.21 3.99 4.74 13.40 11.01

SAR threshold 8.00 6.50 11.50 13.50 13.00

The approximate threshold SAR values for no impact to soil infiltration and crop production for

May, June, July, August, and September are 8, 6.5,11.5 13.5, and 13, respectively. As can be

seen in table 2, at the minimum monthly flows on record, the combined CBM and natural flow

SAR values exceed the threshold in August and September while assuming 100% of the CBM

produced water makes it to the Powder River. However, assuming a 70% loss due to

infiltration/evapotranspiration at the minimum flows shown above in August and September, the

SAR threshold will not be exceeded. Infiltration/evapotranspiration loss has been documented

by Meyer (2000) and AHA (2000b) specifically: Belle Fourche - <3%; Caballo Creek - 0%;

Pumpkin Creek - 2.3% to 3%; Wildcat Creek - 3%; and, Spotted Horse Creek - 25%.
7

Cumulative Direct Impacts To Powder River Mainstem

The tables below are similar to those above but consider the impacts of 5% of all the wells (7,129

total wells or 357 projected wells discharging to the Powder River).

Using a similar production rate (30.9 gpm) for 357 wells results in a cumulative discharge

volume of 25 cfs.

Table 3

FLOW MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

Average flow (cfs)

CBM % of average

1,083.0

 2.3

1,416.0

 1.8

 482.0

 5.2

 179.0

 14.0

 147.00

 17.00

Minimum flow

(cfs)

CBM % of average

 82.6

 30.0

 39.5

 63.0

 33.9

 74.0

 0.6

 4,000.0

 1.28

 1,660.00

Table 4

SAR MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

Baseline SAR 5.00 3.50 4.20 4.40 4.20

SAR at average flow with

CBM influence

 5.27 3.73 4.83 5.94 6.06

SAR at minimum flow with

CBM influence

 7.79 8.73 9.63 16.70 16.40

SAR at minimum flow with

CBM influence and 30%

delivery

 6.00 5.65 6.52 16.10 15.13

SAR threshold 8.00 6.50 11.50 13.50 13.00

As can be seen in Table 4, at the average monthly flows on record the combined CBM and

natural flow SAR values do not exceed the threshold while assuming 100% of the CBM

produced water makes it to the Powder River. However, the combined CBM and minimum

monthly flows exceed the threshold in three of the five irrigation months; and, assuming a 30%

delivery, exceed the threshold in two of the five months. Only when the CBM delivery is less

than 7% is the threshold not exceeded in all five-irrigation months. This is assuming the worst

case discharge volume of 30.9 gpm.
8

Little Powder River

Of the 1,425 federal wells discussed in the PA, only an estimated 30% (or 428 wells) will

discharge to the Little Powder River. The production of water from these wells average higher

than the overall basin average at 15.6 gpm (extrapolated from Figure 2.2, Main Stem Study, Tier

1 Report). Assuming a worst case scenario of 100% of this discharge water reaching the Little

Powder, this equates to 9.6 million gpd or approximately 15 cfs . Table 5 shows this discharge

(in cfs) as compared to mean monthly and minimum monthly flows of the Little Powder River

above Dry Creek, near Weston WY (means for years 1973-1999, USGS Water Resources Data,

Wyoming 1999).

Table 5

FLOW MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

Average flow (cfs)

CBM % of average

 63.6

 23.6

 31.10

 48.20

 11.300

 132.700

 6.11

 245.50

 4.44 

 337.88 

Minimum flow (cfs)

CBM % of average

 104.0

1,400.0

 2.11

 711.00

 .044

>>1000.000

 0.00

>>4,000.00

 .0028

>>1,000.00 

The average adjusted SAR for wells discharging into the Little Powder River is 9.25 (ranging

from 7.7 to 11 based on discharges from 4 currently permitted wells completed in the Wyodak,

Pawnee, and Wall coal seams). The specific conductance is 1,027 (ranging from 800 to 1,260). 

The average baseline adjusted SAR in the Little Powder River is 5.8 (ranging from 5.5 to 6.5),

and the average specific conductance is 1,850 umhos/cm (ranging from 1,750-2,000).

The results of mass balance calculations showing the impacts of the CBM discharge water are

displayed in the following table.

Table 6

SAR MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

Baseline SAR 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.50 5.50

SAR at average flow with

CBM influence

 7.02 7.06 7.64 8.16 8.39

SAR at minimum flow with

CBM influence

 9.07 8.73 9.24 9.25 9.25

SAR at minimum flow with

CBM influence and 30%

delivery

 7.40 8.21 9.21 9.25 9.25

SAR threshold 14.00 12.00 10.00 10.00 10.00
9

The approximate threshold SAR values for no impact to soil infiltration and crop production for

May, June, July, August, and September are 14, 12,10 10, and 10, respectively. As can be seen

in Table 6, at any of the three scenarios, never do the combined CBM and natural flow SAR

values exceed the threshold. 

Cumulative Direct Impacts To Little Powder River

The following tables are similar to those above but they consider the impacts of 30% of all the

wells (7,129 total wells or 2,139 projected wells discharging to the Little Powder River).

Using a similar production rate (15.6 gpm) for 2,139 wells results in a cumulative discharge

volume of 74 cfs.

Table 7

FLOW MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

Average flow (cfs)

CBM % of average

 63.6

 116.0

 31.1

 238.0

 11.3

 655.0

 6.11

1,211.00

 4.44

 1,667.00

Minimum flow (cfs)

CBM % of average

In low flow years, the CBM discharge will be practically all of the

flow.

Table 8

SAR MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

Baseline SAR 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.50 5.50

SAR at average flow with

CBM influence

 7.98 8.29 8.75 8.96 9.04

SAR at minimum flow with

CBM influence

 9.25 9.25 9.25 9.25 9.25

SAR threshold 14.00 12.00 10.00 10.00 10.00

As can be seen in Table 8, at the average monthly flows on record the combined CBM and

natural flow SAR values never exceed the threshold values.

In summary, SAR could be above threshold levels (in the Powder River only) during some

months assuming discharge rates stay the same as initial reports and all the wells will have

approved discharge permits within the 15-month period. The primary point regarding these

affects is that for the next 15 months, WDEQ will not be issuing NPDES permits unless

companies can demonstrate that water quality in the Powder and Little Powder rivers will not be

elevated beyond current baseline levels at the state line. This may require some companies to

provide some level of treatment or storage so that the water can meet permit limits.
10

Treatment options that could be used and have been explored to reduce SAR levels include:

1. Off channel complete containment in evaporation/infiltration ponds.

2. On channel storage and dilution ponds, where dilution with the natural runoff will meet

acceptable SAR values on a discharge.

3. Ion exchange units.

4. Re-injection into potable and non-potable aquifers, if there are receivers that will accept the

water.

5. Infiltration leach fields.

Of these options, 1 and 2 are getting extensive use; 3 has been found to be too expensive; 4 is

being piloted at a number of locations (city of Gillette’s depleted aquifer); and 5, is being tried.

There are a number of conservative assumptions in the above data (AHA 2000) that lead to

projections that are extremely unlikely to be realized. First, all of the information on conveyance

loss indicates that the 70% loss factor is very conservative; a loss factor of 90% or higher would

be more appropriate. Second, the per-well water production estimate is much higher than the

expected actual water production. The estimate is based on production values reported in the

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission’s (WOGCC) database. The water production

values reported to the WOGCC have historically been instantaneous well production

measurements. These values overestimate production because they do not include shut down

time, and they usually include some produced gas in the flow measurement.

Barium

As stated in the EA (page 4-5, paragraph 4) in the course of a study of discharge water, 47

samples were taken from CBM wells in the Powder River Basin. Barium concentrations ranged

from 0.14 milligrams per liter (mg/l) to 1.6 mg/l (mean of 0.62). None of these samples

exceeded the human health standard proposed by the WDEQ of 2.0 mg/l. Based on other

available water quality data, less than 10% of all CBM discharges would approach or exceed this

limitation and would require preliminary treatment to reduce the barium concentration. AIn most

natural waters, there is sufficient sulfate or carbonate to precipitate the barium present in the

water as a virtually insoluble, non-toxic compound” (EPA 1986). The streams (and soils) in the

Powder River Basin are no exception. Natural surface water in the region has sufficient

concentrations of sulfates to prevent any toxicity risk from dissolved barium discharged in

relation with CBM development.

Allowing the discharge water to come in contact with soils, stream channels, and/or naturally

occurring surface water would be the primary treatment method. WDEQ also requires best

management practices (BMPs) at the wellhead to remove soluble iron. These aeration devices

and small treatment ponds also work well to remove barium. Another option would be to have

CBM waters containing elevated barium (800 to 2,000 ug/l range) discharged into stream

channels immediately above a storage reservoir (CBM Associates 2001). The short flow stream

path should provide sulfate via gypsum dissolution; the reservoir itself should provide some
11

sulfate via the same process. Wind-driven deposition of local dust and storm event run-in

providing sulfate to small reservoirs also would occur. Once in the reservoir, CBM water should

mainly infiltrate to shallow groundwater (Wasatch sands preferably) with only a limited volume

being transported to the next reservoir downslope during storm events. Barium should end up in

the reservoir sediments and in shallow subsurface areas in a form that cannot be absorbed by

organisms (nonbioavailable). This layout should more or less preclude long range transport of

barium below the reservoirs either in surface or in groundwaters.

In a study conducted by WWC Engineering (WWC 2000) conclusions similar to those above

were made.

1. The water quality of the Powder River will be protected. With no or only minimal

treatment to lower the concentrations of barium, manganese, and possibly iron, up to

80,000 acre-feet/year (71.4 billion gallons/day) of CBM water can be discharged without

exceeding the assimilative capacity of the Powder River therefore complying with WDEQ

antidegradation rules.

2. The downstream suitability of Powder River water for irrigation will not be affected.

Considering normal flow rates and water quality in the Powder River during the irrigation

season (May – September), discharge of up to 80,000 ac-ft/yr (71.4 bgd) of CBM water will

not change the river waters suitability for downstream irrigation. Downstream from the

discharge point, the Powder River flows are augmented by Crazy Woman Creek and Clear

Creek, which help to ensure water quality downstream. 

The study further concludes, “The proposed CBM water would likely increase the SAR of the

Powder River while reducing its salinity. The effects are minor, however, and the projected

overall impact is to leave the irrigation classification of the Powder River unchanged. Based on

the limited number of irrigated lands, the adequate drainage characteristics and low clay content

of typical irrigated lands, and the limited impacts to SAR and salinity, the suitability of the

Powder River for irrigation water will be maintained.”

3. Unnecessary or undue degradation (FLPMA). BLM ignored other means such as

unitization, communitization, and compensatory royalties.

To assume that existing CBM wells in the Wyodak area will efficiently and economically drain

all the CBM resource is incorrect. The private and state wells are and will continue to drain a

significant portion of the Federal oil and gas resource; but they will not recover all of the

resource. To cease drilling federal wells in the Wyodak area, thus leaving economic recoverable

CBM gas in the ground, does not meet BLM responsibility to obtain MER of the resource and

protect the public resource.

Compensatory Agreements

The BLM can attempt to enter into a compensatory agreement with the operator or the lessee of

adjacent private and state lands (43CFR 3100.2-1). However, compensatory agreements are

voluntary and are usually entered into in situations where unleased federal lands are being

drained. Unleased lands are those that have been withdrawn from the mineral leasing laws

(National Park lands, wildlife refuges, wild and scenic river lands, wilderness areas, certain
12

rights-of-way, etc). There is little to no incentive for the operator or the lessee of the adjacent

nonfederal lands to enter into such an agreement with the BLM. The BLM cannot force a

nonfederal operator or lessee to enter into a compensatory agreement. The BLM can attempt to

enter into a compensatory agreement if the federal land is already leased, but again, there is little

or no incentive for the nonfederal operator or lessee of the adjacent private and state lands to

enter into such an agreement.

Compensatory Royalty Assessments

In accordance with the regulations at 43 CFR 3162.2, Drilling and Producing Obligations, and

section 4 of the oil and gas lease agreement, the record title owner and/or the operating rights

owner shall drill diligently and produce continuously all wells necessary to protect the lessor

from loss of royalty by reason of drainage. The BLM may assess compensatory royalty to

reimburse the United States as a result of drainage if the record title owner/operating rights

owner fails to drill a protective well. By regulation, the BLM cannot assess the lessee and/or the

operating rights owner compensatory royalty unless the lessee/operating rights owner refuses to

drill a protective well. Also, the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) has ruled in numerous

cases--Gulf Oil Exploration and Production Company (94 IBLA 364); CSX Oil and Gas

Corporation (104 IBLA 188); Atlantic Richfield Company (105 IBLA 218); and, Kerr-McGee

Corporation (118 IBLA 119)—that BLM cannot assess compensatory royalty unless actual

drainage is occurring, it is economic to drill a protective well, and if the lessee/operating rights

owner refuses to drill a protective well. The lessee/operating rights owner has to be given an

opportunity to drill a well before the BLM can assess compensatory royalties. Lessees/operating

rights owners have not been given this opportunity because BLM CBM well NEPA analysis was

reached in August of 2000. No new wells can be approved until additional analysis is completed.

Therefore, BLM cannot assess compensatory royalties as the operators have not been given the

opportunity to drill protective wells.

Unit Agreements

A unit agreement is a contract between the federal government and the interest owners of federal,

private, and state leases in an area with potential oil and gas resources. This includes owners of

any right, title, or interest in the oil and gas deposits to be unitized. The actual producers may or

may not fit this definition. Unitization is intended to facilitate the orderly and timely

development of all the oil and gas resources within the proposed unit area. The BLM encourages

federal unit agreements be established whenever and wherever practical. To date, 24 federal

units have been approved. However, the BLM cannot force a private or state interest owner to

enter into a unit agreement contract. Since the vast majority of the CBM wells have been drilled

on, and are producing from, nonfederal lands, there is little to no incentive for the interest owners

of the nonfederal leases to enter into a unit agreement. 

Communitization Agreements (CA)

Communitization is authorized when a Federal lease cannot be independently developed in

conformity with an established spacing pattern (usually 80 acres or larger). The WOGCC

establishes well spacing on all lands in Wyoming. The BLM constantly monitors all drilling

activity in the state and will always ensure that a CA is established whenever it is appropriate.
13

Relinquish Affected Acreage

If BLM determined that a federal lease is being drained, it is solely the decision of the lessee to

relinquish their entire lease or that portion of the lease that is subject to drainage. The lessee is

liable for any drainage that occurred during that time the lessee had an interest in the lease. The

BLM will attempt to lease the relinquished lands as soon as possible. It is important to note that

an operator has a lease right to drill regardless of how much gas is left in place.

4. The additional 2,500 CBM wells would require additional compression, which could affect

air quality.

The Wyodak EIS air quality model analyzed the amount of compression and associated facilities

that would be necessary to move one billion cubic feet (bcf) of gas per day out of the Powder

River Basin. In September 2000, approximately 460 million cubic feet of gas per day was being

moved. Using the cumulative producing well number of 7,129 for the 15-month period,

approximately .98 bcf of gas could be produced per day. The Wyodak EIS modeled compression

emission for nitrogen oxides (Nox) at 1.5 grams per horsepower hour (gm/hp-hr) and 2 gm/hp-hr

for carbon monoxide (CO). WDEQ has permitted these compression facilities at a maximum

emission limit of 0.7 gm/hp-hr for nitrous oxides (Nox) and 1.5 gm/hp-hr for CO. The results of

these differences are that Wyodak EIS over modeled the true emissions for these facilities. 

Because of these factors, the cumulative effects of the Proposed Action fall within the levels

analyzed and approved in the Wyodak EIS.

5. Interim actions during the NEPA process.

Federal regulation 40CFR1506.1 states “Until an agency issues a record of decision as provided

in 1505.2, no action concerning the proposal shall be taken which would 1) have an adverse

environmental impact, or 2) limit the choice of reasonable alternatives in the subsequent EIS.” 

This analysis and decision has determined that no significant impact will result from this

Proposed Action. Secondly, the PRBO&G EIS alternatives have already been developed, and

this action has not changed the development of alternatives to be analyzed.

6. FLPMA non-conformity.

The rationale for conformity with the Buffalo Resource Management Plan and other oil and gas

and coal decisions is addressed in the EA on pages 1-13 & 1-14.

7. Impacts over the lifetime of the wells.

An EA that analyzes effects over a 15-month interim period between two EISs analyzing similar

actions is unusual. The impacts analyzed in this EA fall under the umbrella of the analysis of

impacts for the approved action alternative in the Wyodak EIS ROD. The impacts were mainly

related to the water and air resources cumulative effects. Impacts from this Proposed Action for

water and air resources are below Wyodak EIS levels; thus, cumulative effects beyond the 15-

month interim period would be analyzed in the on-going PRB O&G EIS based on new models

for those resources.

Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
14

Based on the analysis of potential environmental impacts, I have determined that the Proposed

Action is not a major federal action significantly affecting the human environment. Therefore,

preparation of an EIS is not required.

Rationale for the Findings

Surface Disturbance

The analysis in the Wyodak EIS determined the alternative selected in the ROD would disturb a

total of 26,551 acres. Of this total, 103 acres were associated with compressor stations and

26,448 acres were for pads, roads, pipelines, and POD facilities. Since the Wyodak EIS ROD

was published, the BLM has monitored disturbance associated with the new wells and ancillary

facilities. Results of this monitoring suggest the actual areal extent of the 1,063 federal wells and

associated facilities is 1,470 acres. This disturbance equates to an actual rate of about 1.38 acres

of disturbance per well.

Assuming this actual rate of disturbance remains constant through implementation of the PA, the

cumulative drilling of 12,501 wells (includes Wyodak EIS wells, the PA’s 2,500 wells, and

projected state and fee wells) would affect 17,251 acres. This figure is well below the total areal

extent of disturbance projected in the Wyodak EIS (26,448 acres) for these facilities. Thus,

disturbance associated with the PA in addition to those associated with the 1999 Wyodak project

do not exceed the level of effect disclosed in the Wyodak EIS and ROD.

Information obtained from on-site reviews of plans of development for pending federal drainage

wells show that the majority of infrastructure for production is already in place. This means that

the estimates of disturbance to drill the 2,500 protective wells made in the EA are probably

higher than will actually occur.

Air Quality

No additional compression facilities are anticipated for the Proposed Action. The Wyodak EIS

air quality model analyzed the amount of compression and associated facilities that would be

necessary to move one billion cubic feet of gas per day out of the Powder River Basin. In

September 2000, approximately 460 million cubic feet were being moved per day. Using the

cumulative producing well number of 7,129 for the 15-month period, approximately 0.98 bcf

could be produced per day. The Wyodak EIS modeled compression emission for nitrogen oxides

(Nox) at 1.5 grams per horsepower hour (gm/hp-hr) and 2 gm/hp-hr for carbon monoxide (CO). 

WDEQ has permitted these compression facilities at a maximum emission limit of 0.7 gm/hp-hr

for Nox and 1.5 gm/hp-hr for CO. The results of these differences are that Wyodak EIS over

modeled the true emissions for these facilities. Because of these factors, the cumulative effects

of the Proposed Action fall within the levels analyzed and approved in the Wyodak EIS.

Water

Based on the BLM=s and WOGCC=s current projection for increased numbers of wells and their

compilation of water production data for existing CBM wells (WOGCC 2002a), total water

production for 1,425 new producing protective federal wells is estimated at 98,172 acre feet over
15

the 15-month period. This is about 82,900 acre- feet for the 12-month period ending February

28, 2002. For the 6-month period (January 2000 through June 2000), the discharge rate from

producing wells averaged 11.1 gpm.

As wells come on line over the 15-month period, applying the 11.1 gpm rate, water production

would total approximately 127,497 acre feet (as of February 28, 2002) or about 107,660 acre-feet

per year based on the previous 12 months of projected production.

The maximum rate of water production under the approved action for the Wyodak EIS was

estimated to be 101.8 mgd or 114,030 acre-feet per year (Wyodak FEIS, p. 4-63). The Proposed

Action’s projected volumes of water to be produced daily and annually, compared to the volumes

for the approved action in Wyodak EIS, indicate CBM-generated flows for the Proposed Action

would be less than those volumes estimated in the Wyodak EIS.

SAR could be above threshold levels during some months on the Powder River. This assumes

discharge rates stay the same as initial reports and all the wells have approved discharge permits

within the 15-month period. Mitigation measures could be used to reduce SAR levels during

those months when levels exceed threshold.

It is anticipated that less than 10% of all CBM discharges would approach or exceed threshold

levels for barium and would require preliminary treatment to reduce concentrations to acceptable

levels.

The Water Quality Division (WQD) of the WDEQ regulates increasing sedimentation, erosion,

and other issues affecting the quality of water. WQD also is responsible for granting NPDES

permit for surface discharge of produced waters from CBM wells. The WDEQ’s NPDES

permitting process, effluent limitations, and monitoring requirements for CBM produced water

currently are being reevaluated. WDEQ will not be issuing NPDES permits unless companies

can demonstrate that water quality in the Powder and Little Powder Rivers will not be elevated

beyond current baseline levels at the state line. This may require companies to treat the water

before it meets permit limits.

The BLM will issue APD’s to operators with the condition that “water will not be discharged

until all required State and Federal permits have been obtained”. 
16

References

Applied Hydrology Associates.

2000a Current CBM Discharge Contributions to Mainstem Streams, Powder River Basin

Wyoming.

Applied Hydrology Associates and BKS Environmental.

2000b Evaluation of CBM Water Discharges for Compliance with Agricultural Use

Water Quality, Main Stem Study Tier One Report.

CBM Associates.

2001 Personal Communication regarding barium treatment between Mike Brogan,

BLM Hydrologist and Frank Sanders. Sanders is a Hydrologist with CBM Associates.

Environmental Protection Agency.

1986 Quality Criteria for Water.

Meyer, J.

2000 Coal Bed Methane Produced Water – Infiltration/Evaporation, Belle Fourche

River Basin 1993 to 1999. Abstract. Annual Geologic Society of America Conference,

November 2000, Reno Nevada.

Meyer, J.

2001 Update to “Coal Bed Methane Drainage Analysis Townships 50 to 58 North

Range 71 to 77 West.”

USDI BLM.

2001. Update and Revision of Interim Drainage Report on Coalbed Methane

Development and Drainage of Federal Land in the South Gillette Area, Campbell and

Converse Counties, Wyoming T.40-50 N., R 70-75 W.

United States. Geological Survey.

1999 Water Resources Data, Wyoming. Means for years 1930-1999.

WWC Engineering.

2000 Option #3 NPDES Permit Application for Discharge to the Powder River.

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC).

2000 Coal Bed Production. Located on the Internet,

http//wogcc.state.wy.us/coalbedchart.cfm. Accessed November 1, 2000.
17

ATTACHMENT A

DATE1

NUMBER OF

WELLS2

NUMBER OF

OFFENDING

WELLS3

NUMBER OF

POTENITAL

DRAINAGE CASES4

08/16/1999 220 81 186

08/30/1999 15 5 18

09/16/1999 84 26 57

10/05/1999 66 18 35

10/19/1999 96 41 128

11/02/1999 25 8 17

11/15/1999 127 52 184

12/01/1999 249 114 231

01/18/2000 464 194 447

02/01/2000 169 83 229

02/14/2000 115 57 181

02/28/2000 16 8 18

03/16/2000 89 34 74

04/03/2000 114 54 125

04/17/2000 344 119 360

05/01/2000 300 343

Total 3,387 894 2,630

NEW PROCEDURE – Producing Wells Only

07/17/2000 96 20 51

08/07/2000 28 1 1

08/30/2000 48 13 29

09/22/2000 53 12 22

10/04/2000 127 53 97

11/03/2000 38 2 5

12/08/2000 10 0 0

TOTAL 2,893 1,131 2,838

1

Date RMG checked all new wells that had production since the last down load

date.

2

Number of new producing wells on this download.

3

Number of offending wells generated from (2). 4

Number of potential drainage cases generated from (3). With the new

procedure, the offending wells are producing. The offending wells need to pass a

screen to validate drainage cases.
18

ATTACHMENT B

PROGRAMMATIC MITIGATION PLAN COMMON

TO THE PROPOSED ACTION

Project design features that will be required, if applicable site-specifically, at the APD/POD level

of analysis under the Proposed Action are compiled below as a programmatic mitigation plan for

CBM development. These mitigating measures also are described in various sections of chapter 4

of the EA, where they are incorporated within the resource impact analyses. Requirements that

are standard conditions of approval for CBM APDs are described in appendix A of the Wyodak

EIS Record of Decision and in Appendix B of the EA. Supplemental standard conditions of

approval are presented in Appendix C of the EA. The Buffalo Field Office’s Coalbed Methane

Well Application for Permit to Drill and Project Plan of Development Preparation Guide,

(December 2000), is also used as a guide to avoid or minimize environmental harm.

Geology and Minerals

Inadvertent release to the atmosphere of the methane resource will be controlled through

WOGCC requirements and APD conditions of approval that address well control, casing,

ventilation, and plugging procedures appropriate to site-specific CBM development plans.

Surface Water

Mitigation measures in the form of water management plans will be developed and applied as a

cooperative effort at the APD/POD level of analysis, on a site-specific basis or on a project-level

basis (appendices B and C). Participants in this planning effort include jurisdictional agencies

(BLM, Forest Service (FS), Corps of Engineers, Wyoming State Engineer’s Office, WOGCC

and/or WDEQ), involved land managers and conservation districts. Operators, landowners, and

nearby downstream interests (including water users and landowners affected by impacts of

increased flows on access, ranching, or mining operations) will also be involved. Cooperation

between all stakeholders will be necessary in order to develop water management plans that

identify mitigating measures for areas or drainages where high CBM-generated flows are or could

be impacting existing uses. Some of the measures that could be applied, as appropriate, at each

site include:

-- Produced water will be dispersed in the upper reaches of drainages by installing stock

tanks.

-- Produced water will be transported to distant discharge points when required to avoid

sensitive soils, agricultural areas that could be harmed, or areas of potential accelerated

erosion. This could require pipelines of considerable length.

-- Produced water will be discharged into existing stream channels, reservoirs, stock ponds,

and stock tanks in a manner that will not cause increased or accelerated erosion. This has

been done effectively in past CBM projects by using energy dissipaters at discharge

points and by discharging into channels that are well developed and large enough to

handle the increased flows. Energy dissipation can be achieved by using rock, concrete
19

control structures, or hydrophytic (water-loving) vegetation.

-- Discharge points will be located to minimize spring flooding in fields and in accordance

with surface owner agreements.

-- Discharge outfalls will use alternative outfalls for use with irrigation, as agreed by the

operator and landowner or lessee. If discharge water SAR values are not in compliance

with WDEQ irrigation suitability evaluation criteria, water discharge on irrigated lands will

be prohibited unless the operator treats the water to meet the criteria before discharging it,

or confines the untreated water in compliant nondischarge impoundment(s).

Treatment options that could be used and have been explored to reduce SAR levels

include:

1. Off channel complete containment in evaporation/infiltration ponds.

2. On channel storage and dilution ponds, where dilution with the natural runoff will

meet acceptable SAR values upon a discharge.

3. Ion exchange units.

4. Re-injection into potable and nonpotable aquifers if receivers are available to accept

the water.

5. Infiltration leach fields.

Effectiveness of these treatment methods have not been analyzed in the EA.

-- In those situations where treatment for barium would be necessary before WDEQ would

issue a NPDES permit, the following treatment methods could be used: 

1. Allow the water to come in contact with soils, stream channels, and/or naturally

occurring surface water.

2. WDEQ requires BMPs at the wellhead to remove soluble iron. These aeration devices

and small treatment ponds also work well to remove barium.

3. CBM waters containing elevated barium (800 to 2,000 ug/l range) may be discharged

into stream channels immediately above a storage reservoir (CBM Associates 2001).

-- To handle total flows with the addition of CBM produced waters, existing downstream

culverts on lease will be replaced should flows exceed culvert capacity. New culverts

and/or low water crossings will need to be sized to BLM standards for anticipated total

flows. Off lease, it is recommended that the operator work with other operators and with
20

surface owners in the same drainage to replace downstream undersized culverts that will

be affected by their discharge.

-- Discharges will be limited to a volume less than or equal to the naturally occurring mean

annual peak flow (which is roughly equivalent to a peak generated by a 2-year, 24-hour

storm) and that can be handled by the natural channel under anticipated conditions.

-- Local springs will be identified, and construction will be avoided in these areas.

-- Discharge into playas will be avoided unless issues related to potential wetland creation,

maintenance of discharge facilities, reclamation, and accountability are agreed to by the

operator and landowner or lessee.

-- Discharge points will be selected in stable channels or reservoirs away from any

significant downstream headcuts or other major erosional features. Outfall design may

include discharge aprons and downstream stabilization of channel side slopes to prevent

erosion and provide energy dissipation.

-- Discharge facilities will be site-specifically designed using best management practices, to

accommodate livestocks’ access to water, to control erosion, and to limit sedimentation.

-- Irrigation diversions to increase channel length and in-stream impoundments will be

established, as appropriate, and as agreed to by the operator and landowner or lessee.

-- Downstream impoundments may need new or redesigned outlet works in order to handle

the steady inflow provided by CBM discharge water.

-- As per State of Wyoming effluent limitations and monitoring requirements contained in

approved permits, and BLM or FS monitoring requirements contained in approved

monitoring plans, CBM producers will monitor volume and water quality parameters at

discharge sites. Monitoring also will occur at selected stations or downstream points of

compliance on the Little Powder, Powder, Belle Fourche, and Cheyenne rivers and/or

their tributaries.

-- The areal extent of surface disturbance and the length of time that the area will remain

disturbed before interim or final reclamation activities commence will be minimized.

-- Interim and final reclamation of all disturbed areas will proceed in a timely manner. 

Reclamation activities will be conducted during timeframes established by federal land

management agencies, landowners, and affected interests.

-- Reclamation must produce a natural appearance and must be consistent with site

conditions, area management standards, and projected uses, as agreed to by the operator,

landowner or lessee, and appropriate state and federal agencies.

-- Reclamation will include, as appropriate, recontouring, establishing desirable, perennial

vegetation, and stabilizing and controlling erosion of all disturbed areas. Additional
21

measures, such as topsoil conservation, temporary fencing, mulching, or weed control

will be used as necessary to ensure long-term vegetative stabilization of all disturbed

areas. Reclamation standards will be agreed to between the operator, landowner or lessee,

and appropriate state and federal agencies.

-- A water management plan must accompany each federal APD/POD and must address all

potential CBM development in a watershed area, regardless of surface and mineral

ownership (appendices B and C and BLM Plan of Development Preparation Guide).

-- At the discretion of the surface owner, dams can be removed and the impoundment area

reclaimed after the produced water is no longer available.

-- Design and siting of discharge facilities must be carefully controlled or limited where

channels are not stable, armored, or large enough to accommodate the flows that will be

anticipated.

-- Design and location of discharge points must be carefully controlled or limited to ensure

that localized flooding does not occur where channel or basin capacity is insufficient to

handle increased flows.

-- Potential impacts to spring flow, specifically those related to scoria aquifers like the one

feeding Moyer Springs, can be analyzed site-specifically, as needed, during review of

APDs/PODs or sundry notices. Impacts will be mitigated by applying special conditions

of approval for drilling or production operations.

-- The feasibility of designing surface water discharge facilities that could prevent increased

sediment loads from reaching the affected segments of the Belle Fourche drainage having

water quality limited beneficial uses will be analyzed site-specifically.

-- Timely recontouring and revegetation of disturbed areas will be required to limit runoff

from disturbed areas that could cause sediment concentrations in surface waters to rise

over present levels.

Groundwater

-- A standard agreement has been developed by CBM operators and landowners to monitor

and mitigate water well impacts caused by CBM operations.

-- The BLM requires compliance with the Hydrologic Monitoring and Mitigation program

outlined in the Wyodak EIS ROD. 

-- The objective of the monitor well program is to collect data and monitor the effects of

coal bed methane development on the groundwater system including the target aquifer(s),

adjacent sand zones, and other zones of local importance. Data will be used to

characterize and monitor aquifer properties, drawdown, interaquifer communication,

leakage, recharge, water quality, and water production / methane production interaction.
22

As required by the Wyodak EIS/ROD (11/17/99) and in consultation with BLM, the operator will

be responsible for drilling, completing, and equipping a set of monitoring wells, as described

below, in or near their project area. The specific location will be determined in consultation with

the BLM. A well set will include wells completed in the production zone(s) and a sand aquifer,

above or below the production zone(s). A typical well set would consist of two or more monitor

wells depending on the number of production zones. The two or more monitor wells are to be on

the same location, situated 20 to 60 feet apart (depending on topography and site specific

constraints). In addition to drilling and completing the wells, the CBM operator is responsible

for geophysical logging of the wells, obtaining surface access for the drilling and operation of the

monitor wells, and all permitting (Wyoming State Engineer’s Office, etc.). The operator is also

responsible for a portion of the cost of the monitoring equipment and set-up (the BLM will do

the actual equipment setup). This cost share has been established for this year (2001) at $10,000

per monitor well set. The operator must provide cost share dollars before BLM can equip the

wells. These monitor wells must be drilled, completed, equipped and operating at least 30 days

prior to any water or gas production from the well(s) authorized under this approval.

WELL COMPLETIONS

COAL WELL (S)

The coal well(s) of the well sets will be completed in a manner similar to a CBM

production well. The well(s) will be drilled to the top of the production zone(s)

and 5 1/2" (minimum OD) steel casing will be set and cemented from the top of

coal to the surface. The coal will then be drilled out, leaving an open whole

completion. The well will then be circulated with fresh water to remove any

remaining drilling fluids. If the coal doesn’t appear to be making water during the

clean up of the well bore, water frac may be required. The well must be

completed on top with a standard well head, (i.e. KVF ‘Gillette Special’ well head

(2x2 or 2x4 with a 2", centered tubing port and threaded auxiliary access port in

the mandrel).

SAND WELL

The depth of the sand well will be determined in the field utilizing the geophysical

logs from the coal well. The objective is to complete the sand well in the best sand

aquifer immediately above, or below, the production zone(s).

On wells less than 500 feet, the hole must be drilled with a minimum of a 8 3/4" bit

to accommodate SDR17, 5 inch ID (minimum) PVC casing and allowing for

proper placement of gravel pack and bentonite grout. If larger casing is used, a

larger hole will have to be drilled. Upon completion of drilling, geophysical logs

will be run to determine the exact placement of the well screen. The well casing

will include 10 to 20 feet of blank pipe on the bottom (capped), .020 slot well

screen open to the selected sand zone, and blank pipe to the surface. The well will

then be gravel packed with 10-20 silica sand to cover the well screen (and

associated sand zone) and backfilled with bentonite gravel (or pellets) to the

surface. The top of the well casing must have threads (slip to thread adapter) and

a vented cap.
23

On wells greater than 500 feet, 5 1/2" (minimum) steel casing will be set through

the sand zone, cemented to surface, and perforated, 4 shots per foot, through the

sand zone.

The monitor wells are subject to the same spud notification requirements and completion

report requirements as regular federal wells (see General Conditions of Approval). If you

have any questions concerning this stipulation and for information on locating and

equipping of the wells, please contact Mike Brogan, BLM Hydrologist, at (307) 261-7600.

Air Quality

-- Air quality issues related to stationary sources of air pollution will be addressed in

accordance with the authorities of the WDEQ. Air quality issues related to mobile

sources of air pollution will be addressed in accordance with the authorities of the EPA. 

Visibility impairment within federally mandated Class I areas will be addressed in

accordance with federal regulations on regional haze. Visibility impairment at other Class

I and sensitive Class II areas will be addressed in accordance with the recommendations

from interagency and stakeholder coordinating groups.

-- At the discretion of the surface owner, and in accordance with permitting decisions made

by the WDEQ, compressors and compressor stations should be sited to avoid sensitive

surface resources and potential conflicts with other uses.

-- Under the regulatory authority of the WDEQ and at the discretion of the landowner and

the CBM operator, the implementation cost and effectiveness of electrification of

compressors and other BACT will be considered.

-- Dust control by watering or other appropriate means may be required on access roads.

Soils

-- Accelerated soil loss will be minimized by limiting vegetation removal; leveling work

areas; and locating wells on slopes that require cuts-and-fills for well pad construction.

-- Timely initiation of reclamation and revegetation efforts will be required to effectively and

immediately control accelerated soil loss due to either wind or water erosion.

-- Road construction that requires cuts-and-fills will be minimized. Pipeline construction

also will avoid steeper slopes where possible. Where necessary, erosion control features,

such as water bars or other means of diverting flows off sloping pipeline rights-of-way,

will be constructed.

-- Areas of highly erosive soils will be avoided when drill sites, two-track access routes, and

pipeline routes are surveyed and staked in order to substantially reduce the amount of soil

loss.
24

-- Soil fertility testing and the addition of soil amendments may be required to stabilize

some disturbed lands.

-- Surface disturbance will be minimized using construction equipment that is appropriate to

the scope of work.

-- Roads will be constructed to the minimum standard needed, so that disturbance to soil

and vegetation on each road will be minimized.

Vegetation Resources

-- Reclamation in the disturbance areas and final closure of the proposed operations will reestablish vegetation suitable for forage and wildlife habitat.

-- Actions to enhance restoration of vegetation productivity from desirable species include

the following site preparation and reclamation techniques: mechanical loosening or

roughening the soil where compacted (discing or ripping); fertilizing or amending soil;

seeding to proper depth with desirable species; mulching to retain soil moisture;

transplanting containerized plants to speed up the slow-growing species; controlling

noxious weeds; or temporary fencing to exclude livestock until vegetation is reestablished

successfully. These actions will be required as appropriate.

-- Mitigating measures most effective in reducing the potential for decreased vegetation

production include timely and well-planned reclamation and effective noxious weed

management, avoiding disturbance within playas (old lake beds), and avoiding discharge

within closed basins, playas, and areas with soils that will be difficult to revegetate. These

mitigation activities will be required as appropriate.

Wetlands

-- For any jurisdictional wetlands identified that may be impacted, a detailed mitigation plan

will be developed during the APD/POD or sundry notice approval process. Federal

requirements to replace all impacted wetlands will mitigate this loss, so environmental

impacts will occur only during the life of the project (including reclamation).

-- The WDEQ’s Water Quality Division administers a state wetland bank. Landowners

have the opportunity to bank newly created or expanded wetland areas. While banking

provisional wetlands from CBM discharges serves to record the existence or nonexistence

of prior nonwetland status, there is no temporary mitigation. Wetlands used for

mitigation purposes become jurisdictional and must be maintained in perpetuity. If

wetland characteristics are lost due to inadequate hydrology, or other factors, then the

banked credit is lost. Banking of wetlands will be considered as appropriate.

-- To reduce adverse effects on existing wetlands, water discharge should not be allowed

within playas and closed basins, near existing wetlands (if increased discharge volumes or

subsequent recharge of shallow aquifers will inundate and kill woody species, especially

willows or cottonwoods), and within all delineated or recognized wetlands.
25

-- At the discretion of the surface owner, fencing wetlands and providing off-site watering

for livestock will be used to allow vegetation to develop and to maintain water quality in

key wetlands. Any fences used should be placed well back from the wetlands to prevent

waterfowl mortalities and should be constructed to standards that allow big game

movement.

-- Consideration will be given to having wetlands and ponds built on accessible public lands

where recreational users can benefit from the development.

Wildlife

-- All power lines will be built to protect raptors from accidental electrocution.

-- Power line corridors will avoid wetlands, to the extent possible, in order to reduce the

chance of waterfowl hitting the lines.

-- At the discretion of the surface owner, several small ponds will be consolidated into one

larger pond in order to provide more open water and a longer shoreline at one site, which

may be more beneficial to wildlife.

-- The appropriate standard seasonal or year-long stipulations for raptors, sage grouse, and

big game, as identified by the BLM’s RMP, will be applied.

-- Fences along service roads will be avoided unless absolutely necessary in order to prevent

a maze of barriers to big game movements. Fences will be constructed to standards that

allow for easy big game passage.

Fisheries

-- At the discretion of the surface owner, several small ponds will be consolidated into one

larger pond that may have the characteristics needed to support a fishery.

-- At the discretion of the surface owner, reservoirs developed as part of CBM activities will

be sited within natural stream courses to provide benefits to fish and wildlife resources.

-- Under the authority of the WDEQ, CBM-produced water and receiving waters will be

analyzed before wetlands, ponds, or lakes are formed or expanded. Selenium levels that

would cause adverse effects in fish or waterfowl should be not be present.

Special Status Species

The following terms and conditions, implement the reasonable and prudent measures described

in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Biological Opinion, March 2001, for this action. The

reasonable and prudent measures, with their implementing terms and conditions, are designed to

minimize the impact of incidental take that might otherwise result from the Proposed Action. If,

during the course of the action, this level of incidental take is exceeded, such incidental take
26

represents new information requiring re-initiation of consultation and review of the reasonable

and prudent measures provided. The Bureau must immediately provide an explanation of the

causes of the taking and review with the Service the need for possible modification of the

reasonable and prudent measures. The terms and conditions are non-discretionary.

The following terms and conditions will be addressed through educational efforts with drilling

permit holders. These conditions apply to areas of identified habitat and nesting locations. The

Bureau can only apply and enforce these conditions where we have authority.

Bald Eagle

-- Speed limits on all project access roads will not exceed 35 mph.

-- In the event that a (dead or injured) bird is located during construction and operation, the

Services’ Wyoming Field Office (307-772-2374) and the Services’ Law Enforcement

Office (307-261-6365) will be notified within 24 hours.

Mountain Plover

-- In the event that a (dead or injured) bird is located during construction and operation, the

Services’ Wyoming Field Office (307-772-2374) and the Services’ Law Enforcement

Office (307-261-6365) will be notified within 24 hours. Because of difficulty in

identification, all small birds found dead should be stored in a freezer for the Service to

identify.

-- Speed limits will be 35 mph on local roads and 25 mph within 1/2 mile of identified

nesting areas.

-- Construction of ancillary facilities (e.g. compressor stations, processing plants) shall not

be located within 1/2 mile of known nesting areas.

-- Road-killed animals (excluding migratory birds) shall be promptly removed from areas

within 1/2-mile of identified nesting areas to avoid attracting avian and mammalian

predators. If possible, work schedules and shift changes should be set to avoid the

periods from 1/2-hour before to 1/2-hour after sunrise and sunset during June and July,

when mountain plovers and other wildlife are most active.

-- No dogs will be permitted at work sites to reduce the potential for harassment of plovers.

-- The Bureau shall provide operators with educational material illustrating and describing

the mountain plover, its habitat needs, life history, threats, and gas development activities

that may lead to incidental take of eggs, chicks, or adults. Operators will be responsible

for circulating this information among all employees and service providers.

All conservation measures/mitigation measures identified in the Biological Assessment prepared

for the project and dated November 2000 will be implemented. The Bureau shall monitor for

compliance with the measures. These measures are as follows:
27

Bald Eagle

-- Power lines will be built to standards identified by the Avian Power Line Interaction

Committee (1996) to minimize electrocution potential

-- The appropriate standard seasonal or year-long stipulations for raptors as identified in the

Buffalo Resource Management Plan (U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1985) will be

applied

-- Surveys for active raptor nests will conducted prior to construction.

-- A minimum disturbance-free buffer zone of 1/2 mile radius will be established for all bald

eagle nests and roost sites.

-- A seasonal disturbance-free zone of 1 mile radius will be established for all bald eagle

nests (February 15 - August 15). This buffer zone and timing may be adjusted based on

site specific information through coordination with and with written concurrence of the

Service.

Mountain Plover

-- Roads will be located outside of nesting plover habitat wherever possible.

-- Creation of hunting perches (any object taller than 5 feet high) will be minimized within

1/2 mile of identified nesting areas.

-- Disturbance to prairie dog towns will be avoided where possible.

-- Native seed mixes will be used during reclamation to re-establish areas where short grass

prairie vegetation was disturbed due to Proposed Action activities.

-- In areas identified as potential habitat, surveys for nesting mountain plovers will be

conducted if ground-disturbing activities are anticipated to occur between April 15 and

June 30. Surveys will be conducted in compliance with the FWS Mountain Plover

Survey Guidelines. A disturbance-free buffer zone of 1/4 mile will be established around

all mountain plover nesting locations between April 1 and July 31.

Once occupied mountain plover nesting habitat is located, the Bureau shall reinitiate section 7

conferencing with the Service on any project-related activities proposed for such habitat or within

1/4 mile of such habitat. The amount and nature of ground-disturbing activities shall be limited

within and adjacent to identified nesting areas in a manner to avoid the abandonment of these

areas. 
28

The Bureau shall monitor all take of bald eagle and mountain plover habitat associated with the

proposed project. The actual measurement of disturbed habitat can be the responsibility of the

Bureaus’ agent (consultant, contractor, etc.) with a written summary provided to the Services’

Wyoming Field Office upon project completion, or immediately if the anticipated impact area is

exceeded.

In addition to the above FWS terms and conditions, the following mitigation measures will also

be applied for special status species.

-- Special habitats for raptors will be analyzed site-specifically during review of the

APD/POD or sundry notices. A minimum disturbance-free buffer zone of 1/2-mile will

be established for all raptors during the nesting season (February 1 through July 31), in

accordance with the BLM’s RMP. Enlarged disturbance-free buffer zones will be

established for specific species, as appropriate, at the APD/POD level of analysis.

-- Prairie dog towns will be surveyed for the presence of black-footed ferrets if the towns

meet U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) guidelines. Disturbance in prairie dog towns

will be avoided or minimized to protect sensitive species such as the burrowing owl and

mountain plover.

-- A disturbance-free buffer zone of 1/4 mile will be established around a sage grouse lek to

reduce disruption of breeding and nesting activities. A seasonal timing restriction will

extend outward for another 1 mile from the 1/4-mile buffer-free zones between March 1

and June 15.

-- At the discretion of the surface owner, native species will be planted to reestablish special

habitats.

Cultural Resources

-- A cultural inventory will be conducted on all areas of proposed surface disturbance at the

APD/POD or sundry notice phase of each action.

-- Specific plans for avoidance or data recovery will be recommended for any significant

sites within the area of potential effect of the proposed activities.

Land Use and Transportation

-- If CBM development activities are proposed in the vicinity of scattered subdivisions near

Gillette, site-specific mitigating measures will be developed to minimize the impacts and

to resolve conflicts.

-- Over the project life, uneconomic and depleted wells will be plugged and abandoned, and

the disturbance reclaimed and revegetated to approximate pre-project conditions.
29

-- Reclamation and final closure of the proposed operations will be reestablished to grazing

and wildlife habitat.

-- CBM facilities such as central gathering and metering facilities or compression facilities

will be fenced as specified by the BLM.

-- Roads and facilities no longer needed will be removed and the affected area will be

rehabilitated.

-- Where feasible, each access road will be constructed in a transportation corridor that will

also include gas and water pipelines and electrical cables.

Visual Resources

-- Gathering lines, water lines, high pressure gas lines and underground electrical cables will

be located along road rights-of-way whenever feasible.

-- Long-term visual impacts will be minimized by designing permanent structures so that

they blend with the surrounding landscape to the extent feasible. Disturbed areas no

longer needed for operations will be recontoured and revegetated as soon as practicable,

and straight edges made by roads, pipelines, well pads, and compression facilities will be

reshaped to create irregular or indistinct edges.

-- Proposed facility developments on BLM-administered federal surface will be consistent

with BLM management objectives for mapped VRM classes.

-- All proposed wells and facilities on FS-administered federal surface will be consistent

with visual quality objectives for the Thunder Basin National Grassland. Adverse impacts

will be minimized by locating facilities, minimizing disturbance of affected sites, and by

designing facilities so that they blend in with the surrounding landscape.

-- Using two-track and existing roads and centralizating gas compression facilities along

existing roads will minimize the visual impact of the road network.

-- Use buried power lines to each well, where feasible, will reduce the linear element in the

landscape.

-- Construction debris will be removed immediately.

-- Resource protection measures proposed for erosion control, road construction,

rehabilitation and revegetation, and wildlife protection will be implemented during

approval of APDs and sundry notices. These measures also will mitigate impacts to

visual quality.
30

Noise

-- Compressors should be located at least 600 feet from sensitive receptors (residences,

schools, medical facilities, and recreation areas). Under current Wyoming law, the WDEQ

can only require this mitigation to occur if municipal or county land use plans address

siting of noise emitters.
31

ATTACHMENT C

EA ERRATA

Page

Number

Paragraph

Number

Line

Number Errata

1-20 Air Quality

heading

3rd bullet After the third bullet, add heading Coal Mining Conflicts

2-7 1st row of table 8th column,

“Cum. No.

Producing

Wells

Replace the number “1857” with 1867

3-12 1 2 The text should read evapotranspiration and infiltration losses

may be greater than 90 percent over a distance of 17 miles

(Meyer 2000).

4-18 4 2 Replace sentence starting with “Each well is...” with “Each

well is expected to produce an average of 138 mcf per day

over the projected 15-month period, for an average of 62,928

mcf over the entire 15-month period for each well.”

4-18 4 3 Replace “155 bcf” with 90 bcf

4-18 4 4 Replace A$309,305" with A$179,345".

4-18 4 5 Replace A$441 million with A$256 million.

4-19 2 1 Replace A$38,663" with A$22,418".

4-19 2 2 Replace A$309,305" with A$179,345".

4-19 2 3 Replace A$55,095,000" with A$31,945,650".

4-19 2 4 Replace sentence starting with “Natural gas produced ...”

with The remaining $156,927 per federal well (87.5

percent of the estimated sales value of $179,345 per well)

is subject to state severance (6 percent) and ad valorem

(6 percent) taxes that total $18,832 per federal well. The

proposed 1,425 producing federal wells would contribute

$26,835,600 in severance and ad valorem taxes.

4-19 2 5 Replace “However” at the beginning of the sentence with In

addition

4-19 2 6 Replace A$27,547,000 with A$15,972,825.

4-20 4 2 Insert the following at the end of the sentence that begins

with “A1) $14.0 million....”: and 4) $13.8 million (ad

valorem taxes).

4-20 4 3 Replace “$39.4 million” with $53.2 million.

4-20 4 4 Replace the fourth sentence starting with “However, the

estimated...” with the following sentence: However, the

estimated $16.0 million is about 19 percent of the

contribution of $82 million in federal royalties that was

projected in the Wyodak EIS, because existing wells have

produced larger quantities of natural gas (average of

138mcf/day) than projected in the Wyodak EIS (average

of 125 mcf/day).

4-20 4 4 Replace “seven percent” with nine percent in the last

sentence of the paragraph

4-27 4 2 Replace the sum “$2,204.8 million” with $1,278.7 million.

4-27 4 5 Replace the sum of “$551.2 million” with A$379.2 million

4-28 Table 4-2 See Revised table 4-2 below.

6-4 1st citation on

page

Replace the citation for “Meyer, J. 2000....” With Meyer, J.

2000. Testimony before Wyoming Select Water

Committee. Gillette, Wyoming. November, 2000.
32

Revised Table 4-2

Cumulative Economic Impact for Proposed CBM Production

Proposed

Action

Existing

Federal Wells

Existing State &

Fee Wells

Projected State

& Fee Wells TOTAL

Number of

Producing Wells

1,425 573 3,521 1,610 7,129

Sales Value $255.6 million $102.8 million $631.5 million $288.8 million $1,278.7 million

Direct/Indirect

Employment

$37.2 million 7.8 million 48.4 million 22.1 million $115.5 million

Federal Royalty $31.9 million $12.6 million 0 0 $44.5 million

Federal Royalty

Returned to State

$15.9 million $6.3 million 0 0 $22.2 million

State Royalty 0 0 $105.3 million $48.1 million $153.4 million

Severance & Ad

Valorem Taxes

$26.8 million $10.8 million $75.8 million $34.6 million $148.0 million

Sales and Use Taxes $2.2 million $0.9 million $5.5 million $2.5 million $11.1 million

TOTAL $369.6 million $141.2 million $866.5 million $396.1 million $1,773.4 million

Notes: Calculated using 2000 dollars and spot gas price of $2.85 per mcf.

Federal royalties are an estimated $22,418 per federal well

State royalties are an estimated $29,897 per state well (State royalty - 16.67 percent)

Sales and Use taxes are $1,575 per well
33

ATTACHMENT D

DEQ LETTERS