Draft Environmental Assessment of Proposed Oil and Gas 

Exploration, Baca National Wildlife Refuge, 

Saguache County, Colorado 

January 2011 

Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

San Luis Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

8249 Emperius Road

Alamosa, Colorado 81101 

and 

Region 6, Mountain-Prairie Region 

Division of Refuge Planning

134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300 

Lakewood, CO 80228
2

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, 

protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit 

of the American people.

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national network 

of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and, where appropriate, 

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the 

United States for the benefit of present and future generations. 

Recommended citation: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Draft Environmental Assessment of 

Proposed Oil and Gas Exploration, Baca National Wildlife Refuge, Saguache County, Colorado. January 7, 

2011. 
3

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

°F degrees Fahrenheit 

3D three dimensional 

afy acre-feet per year 

AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

APCD Air Pollution Control Division 

APD applications for permit to drill 

APE area of potential effect 

APEN Air Pollutant Emission Notice 

AQRV air quality related values 

ARPA Archaeological Resource Protection Act 

BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis 

BMP best management practices 

BOP blowout preventer 

Btu British thermal units 

Ca Calcium 

CAAQS Colorado Ambient Air Quality Standards 

CCP comprehensive conservation plan 

CDA Colorado Department of Agriculture 

CDOW Colorado Division of Wildlife 

CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 

CDWR Colorado Department of Water Resources 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs cubic feet per second 

CH4 Methane 

Cl Chloride 

CNHP Colorado Natural Heritage Program 

CO carbon monoxide 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

CO3 carbonate 

COGCC Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 

CR County Road 

CRS Colorado Revised Statute 

CU consumptive use 

dBA decibels on the ―A‖ weighted scale

DOLA Colorado Department of Local Affairs 
4

DOT Department of Transportation 

DST Drill Stem Test 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EO Executive Order 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FLAG Federal Land Manager’s Air Quality Related Values Work Group

FLM Federal Land Managers 

GPS Global Positioning System 

GSDNPP Greater Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve 

HAPs Hazardous Air Pollutants 

HCO3 Bicarbonate 

HDN Hardness 

HGM Hydrogeomorphic 

K Potassium 

kaf/yr Kilo-acre feet per year 

LAPS Land Acquisition Priority System 

Ldn sound level day/night 

Leq(24) 24-hour equivalent sound level 

Lexam Lexam Explorations (U.S.A.) Inc. 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

MCF thousand cubic feet 

MD measured depth 

Mg Magnesium 

mg/L milligrams per liter 

m/s meters per second 

Na Sodium 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

NCA Network of Conservation Areas 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NMPM New Mexico Prime Meridian 

NOAA FSL National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Forecast System Laboratory

NOx nitrogen oxides 

NPS National Park Service 

NRAs Natural Resource Advisors 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 
5

NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NWI National Wetland Inventory 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

PCA Potential Conservation Area 

PM2.5 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less 

PM10 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Refuge Baca National Wildlife Refuge 

RFFA Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

RGDSS Rio Grande Decision Support System 

RIMP Resource Inventory and Monitoring Plan 

SCF standard cubic feet 

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

SH State Highway 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SLV RETAC San Luis Valley Regional Emergency Medical Services/Trauma Advisory Council 

SO2 Sulfur dioxide 

SO4 Sulfate 

SPCC Plan Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan 

SWMP Storm Water Management Plan 

SVOC Semi-volatile organic compound 

SWSP substitute water supply plan 

TCP traditional cultural property 

TDS total dissolved solids 

TNC The Nature Conservancy 

TVD total vertical depth 

U.S. United States 

USACE United States Army Corp of Engineers 

USC United States Code 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 

USFS United States Forest Service 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

VOC volatile organic compound 

μs/cm Micro semens per centimeter
6

Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations............................................................................................................3

Executive Summary...............................................................................................................................................14 

1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................................................16 

1.1 Baca National Wildlife Refuge...........................................................................................................16 

1.2 Background...........................................................................................................................................17 

Mineral Ownership.......................................................................................................................17 

Previous Exploration.....................................................................................................................17 

Events Leading to the Current Proposal by Lexam.......................................................................18 

1.3 Purpose and Need................................................................................................................................19 

1.4 Conformance with Service Management Plans ..................................................................................19

1.5 Relation to Statutes, Regulations, and Other Plans..............................................................................20 

Service Regulations......................................................................................................................20 

Other Laws Relating to Oil and Gas Activity on NWR System Lands...........................................22 

Other Federal Regulations ............................................................................................................23 

State Regulations and Rules.........................................................................................................23 

1.6 Description of Lexam’s Plan of Operations.......................................................................................24 

Road and Drill Pad Construction....................................................................................................24 

Drilling Operations ........................................................................................................................27 

1.7 Scoping.....................................................................................................................................33 

2.0 Description of Alternatives............................................................................................................................34 

2.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................34

2.2 Alternative A – No Additional Protective Measures Provided by the Service.................................34

2.3 Alternative B – Acquisition of the Mineral Estate.....................................................................35

2.4 Alternative C – Maximum Protection of Refuge during Exploration (Preferred Alternative)...............37

2.5 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis...................................................50

No Drilling Alternative..................................................................................................50

Deny Access Alternative..............................................................................................50

Drilling Two Wells from One Well Pad Alternative.............................................................50

Suspend Drilling Until Completion of Comprehensive Conservation Plan Alternative................53

3.0 Affected Environment ....................................................................................................................................55 

3.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................55

Baca National Wildlife Refuge....................................................................................................55 

Project Area ..................................................................................................................................55 

3.2 Gelogy, Minerals, and Soils ................................................................................................................55 

Geology.........................................................................................................................................55 
7

Minerals.........................................................................................................................................57 

Soils...............................................................................................................................................58 

3.3 Air Resources ......................................................................................................................................58 

Special Air Quality Protection Area................................................................................................58 

Climate .........................................................................................................................................60 

Air Quality.....................................................................................................................................61 

3.4 Water Resources..................................................................................................................................64 

Surface Water................................................................................................................................64 

Groundwater..................................................................................................................................73 

Unconfined Aquifer.....................................................................................................77

Confined Aquifer........................................................................................................78

Ground Water Use.....................................................................................................80

Ground Water Level Patterns........................................................................................82

Ground Water Quality.................................................................................................87

Water Balance..........................................................................................................91

3.5 Vegetation and Habitats .......................................................................................................................92 

Vegetation Communities..............................................................................................92

Wetland, Riparian, and Aquatic Habitats.........................................................................94

Existing Conditions.....................................................................................................94

Wetland Functions.....................................................................................................97

Wetland Conservation Areas........................................................................................98

Upland Habitats.........................................................................................................99

Special Status Plant Species .......................................................................................................99 

Invasive and Noxious Weeds.....................................................................................................99 

3.6 Wildlife and Fisheries.........................................................................................................................100 

Recreationally and Economically Important Species and Nongame Wildlife...............................100 

Big Game...............................................................................................................102 

Small Game and Furbearers.......................................................................................103

Non-game Species...................................................................................................103

Migratory Birds........................................................................................................107

Fisheries................................................................................................................107

Special Status Species................................................................................................................108 

Mammals................................................................................................................117

Birds......................................................................................................................117

Amphibians.............................................................................................................119

Fish.......................................................................................................................119

3.7 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................120 
8

Regulatory Framework ................................................................................................................120 

Cultural Resources Investigations...............................................................................................120 

3.8 Native American Traditional Values....................................................................................................122 

3.9 Recreation..........................................................................................................................................124

3.10 Social and Economic Environment...................................................................................................124 

Population ...................................................................................................................................124 

Demographic Characteristics .....................................................................................................124 

Economic Overview.....................................................................................................................125 

Income, Poverty, and Unemployment..........................................................................................125 

Environmental Justice ................................................................................................................125 

Housing........................................................................................................................................126 

Traffic ..........................................................................................................................................126 

Emergency Services...................................................................................................................126 

Land Use and Ownership............................................................................................................127 

3.11 Aesthetics.........................................................................................................................................127 

Visual Resources........................................................................................................................127 

Noise ...........................................................................................................................................128 

4.0 Environmental Consequences.....................................................................................................................130

4.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................130

4.2 Analysis Method............................................................................................................130

4.3 Geology, Mineral Resources, and Soils...............................................................................131

Effects on Geology...................................................................................................131

Effects on Mineral Resources.....................................................................................131

Effects on Soils........................................................................................................132

Alternative A............................................................................................................132

Alternative B............................................................................................................132

Alternative C...........................................................................................................132

Cumulative Impacts..................................................................................................133

4.4 Air Quality.....................................................................................................................133

Effects on Air Quality................................................................................................133

Source Characterization............................................................................................134

Impact Analysis.......................................................................................................137

Alternative A............................................................................................................139

Alternative B............................................................................................................140

Alternative C...........................................................................................................140

Cumulative Impacts..................................................................................................141

4.5 Water Resources...........................................................................................................141
9

Effects on Surface Water...........................................................................................141

Alternative A............................................................................................................141

Alternative B............................................................................................................142

Alternative C...........................................................................................................142

Cumulative Impacts..................................................................................................143

Effects on Groundwater.............................................................................................143

Alternative A............................................................................................................144

Alternative B............................................................................................................144 

Alternative C...........................................................................................................145

Cumulative Impacts..................................................................................................148

4.6 Vegetation and Habitat....................................................................................................149

Effects on Vegetation and Habitat................................................................................149

Alternative A............................................................................................................150

Alternative B............................................................................................................151

Alternative C...........................................................................................................151

Cumulative Impacts..................................................................................................152

4.7 Wildlife and Fisheries......................................................................................................152

Effects on Wildlife and Fisheries..................................................................................152

Alternative A............................................................................................................153

Alternative B............................................................................................................153

Alternative C...........................................................................................................153

Cumulative Impacts..................................................................................................155

4.8 Cultural Resources.........................................................................................................155

Effects on Cultural Resources.....................................................................................155

Alternative A............................................................................................................156

Alternative B............................................................................................................156

Alternative C...........................................................................................................156

Cumulative Impacts..................................................................................................157

4.9 Native American Traditional Values....................................................................................157

Effects on Native American Traditional Values................................................................157

Alternative A............................................................................................................158

Alternative B............................................................................................................158

Alternative C...........................................................................................................158

Cumulative Impacts..................................................................................................158

4.10 Recreation..................................................................................................................159

Effects on Recreation................................................................................................159

Alternative A............................................................................................................159
10

Alternative B............................................................................................................159

Alternative C...........................................................................................................159

Cumulative Impacts..................................................................................................159

4.11 Social and Economic Environment...................................................................................159

Effects on the Social and Economic Environment............................................................159

Alternative A............................................................................................................160

Alternative B............................................................................................................160

Alternative C...........................................................................................................160

Cumulative Impacts..................................................................................................160

4.12 Aesthetics...................................................................................................................161

Effects on Visual Resources.......................................................................................161

Alternative A............................................................................................................162

Alternative B............................................................................................................162

Alternative C...........................................................................................................162

Effects on Acoustical Environment...............................................................................162

Alternative A............................................................................................................163

Alternative B............................................................................................................163

Alternative C...........................................................................................................163

Cumulative Impacts..................................................................................................163

4.13 Resource Inventory and Monitoring Plan...........................................................................163

Inventory................................................................................................................163

Monitoring...............................................................................................................164

Inventory and Monitoring Protocol................................................................................164

5.0 Consultation and Coordination....................................................................................................................174 

5.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................174

6.0 References....................................................................................................................................................175 

List of Appendices 

Appendix A – Service Manual, Land Use Series, 612 FW 2, Oil and Gas...................................................184

Appendix B – Lexam Explorations (U.S.A.) Inc. Proposed Terms and Conditions................................................198 

Appendix C – Scoping Notice and Comments......................................................................................207

Appendix D – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Protective Measures Required Under Alternative C...................214

Appendix E – Lexam Explorations (U.S.A.) Inc. Letter from Consulting Geologist........................................227

Appendix F – Agreement between Saguache County and Lexam Explorations (U.S.A.)...............................230

Appendix G – Baseline Surface Water and Ground Water Sampling Analytical Results................................234
11

List of Appendices (continued) 

Appendix H – Air Quality Emissions Calculations..................................................................................241

Appendix I – U.S. Geological Service Technical Review Memorandum to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service....250

Appendix J – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Saguache County Cooperator Agreement...........................254

List of Tables

Table 1-1 Total Surface Disturbance...........................................................................................24

Table 2-1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Land and Water Conservation Fund Enacted Appropriations 

– FY 2001 through FY 2010 (Land Acquisition Project Funding by Fiscal Year).........................36 

Table 3-1 Monthly Climate Summary for GSDNPP, 1950-2010.........................................................61

Table 3-2 Background Concentrations, Ambient Standards, and Significant Impact Levels of 

Regulated Air Pollutants..............................................................................................64

Table 3-3 Summary of USGS Flow Data for San Luis Valley............................................................66

Table 3-4 Summary of Relevant USGS Surface Water Quality Data...................................................70

Table 3-5 Comparison of USGS and Baseline Surface Water Quality Data..........................................73

Table 3-6 Summary of USGS Flow Data for San Luis Valley............................................................85

Table 3-7 Summary of Baseline Groundwater Sampling Sites...........................................................89

Table 3-8 Comparison of Groundwater Area Average Annual Results (from RGDDS 2001)....................92

Table 3-9 Vegetation Types and Sub-communities Present in the Project Area....................................94

Table 3-10 Wetland Types Present in the Project Area.....................................................................95

Table 3-11 Typical Characteristics and Primary Functions of Hydrogeomorphic Riparian/Wetland 

Classes Found in the Project Area.................................................................................98

Table 3-12 Noxious Weeds Potentially Occurring within the Project Area............................................101

Table 3-13 Special Status Species Potentially Occurring near the Project Area....................................109

Table 3-14 List of Native American Tribes to be Consulted upon Release of the Draft Environmental 

Assessment............................................................................................................123

Table 3-15 Common A-weighted Outdoor Sound Services (USFWS 2006b)........................................128

Table 3-16 Maximum Permissible Noise Levels.............................................................................129

Table 4-1 Lexam Explorations (U.S.A.) Inc. Proposed Exploration Program Emissions (estimated 

from USEPA 2008a).................................................................................................136
12

List of Tables (continued)

Table 4-2 Summary of Maximum Estimated Concentrations at GSDNPP Class I Area and 

Applicable Standards (adapted from USEPA 2008b).......................................................138

Table 4-3 Summary of Environmental Consequences for Actions of the Draft Environmental 

Assessment Alternatives for the Proposed Oil and Gas Exploration by Lexam Explorations 

(U.S.A.) Inc. on Baca National Wildlife Refuge...............................................................167 

Table 5-1 List of Preparers – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Staff on Planning Team............................174

Table 5-2 List of Preparers – Other Consultants...........................................................................174

List of Figures

Figure 1-1 Project Location.........................................................................................................19

Figure 1-2 Proposed Lexam Explorations (U.S.A.) Inc Wells..............................................................21

Figure 1-3 Typical Well Location Layout........................................................................................28

Figure 1-4 Well Casing Program..................................................................................................29

Figure 2-1 Baca #5 Access Road Reroute.....................................................................................49

Figure 2-2 Lexam’s Prospective Targets for Exploration...................................................................52

Figure 2-3 Directional Drilling Patterns..........................................................................................54

Figure 3-1 Proposed Area General Geology...................................................................................56

Figure 3-2 Geologic Cross-section in Center of San Luis Valley (Topper et al. 2003)..............................57

Figure 3-3 Project Area Soil Map Units..........................................................................................59 

Figure 3-4 Proximity of Proposed Drilling to Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve....................60

Figure 3-5 Annual Wind Rose for Alamosa, Colorado, Airport: 2001-2006............................................62

Figure 3-6 Wind Rose for Alamosa, Colorado, Airport: October through March 2001-2006......................62

Figure 3-7 Comparison of Seasonal Wind Roses for Alamosa, Colorado, Airport: 2001-2006...................63

Figure 3-8 Rio Grande Watershed and San Luis Closed Basin (modified from Levings et al. 1998)............65

Figure 3-9* USGS Gage Locations................................................................................................66

Figure 3-10 Annual Pattern of Surface Water Flow Data.....................................................................67

Figure 3-11 Average Annual Flow for North Crestone Creek: 1948–1980...............................................68

Figure 3-12 Peak Flow for North Crestone Creek: 1937–1981............................................................69
13

List of Figures (continued) 

Figure 3-13* Baseline Surface Water Sampling Locations....................................................................71

Figure 3-14 Baseline Surface Water Samples..................................................................................72

Figure 3-15 Rio Grande Aquifer System (from Robson and Banta 1995)................................................74

Figure 3-16 Conceptual Representation of the Five Major Hydrogeologic Formations in the San Luis 

Valley (CDWR 2004)..................................................................................................75

Figure 3-17 Hydrogeological Characteristics of Layers 1 through 5 in the San Luis Valley (CDWR 2004).....76

Figure 3-18 San Luis Valley Water Table Coutours: 1996-1997 (from Topper et al. 2003).........................78

Figure 3-19* San Luis Valley Water Table Contours: 2004-2005...........................................................79

Figure 3-20* San Luis Valley Water Shallow Confined Aquifer Potentiometric Surface: 2004-2005...............81

Figure 3-21* San Luis Valley Deep Confined Aquifer Potentiometric Surface 2004-2005:...........................83

Figure 3-22* Wells Used to Evaluate Seasonal and Long-term Trends...................................................84

Figure 3-23 Hydrograph: Wells Near Project Area.............................................................................86

Figure 3-24 Hydrograph: Deep Confined Aquifer Wells......................................................................86

Figure 3-25 Hydrograph: Select Well Pairs......................................................................................87

Figure 3-26* Baseline Groundwater Sampling Locations.....................................................................88

Figure 3-27 Baseline Groundwater Samples....................................................................................90

Figure 3-28 Vegetation Classification for the 3D Seismic Region Survey Areas.......................................93

Figure 3-29* Project Area National Wetland Inventory Map..................................................................96

Figure 3-30 Designated Elk Winter Range.....................................................................................104

Figure 3-31 Designated Mule Deer Winter Range...........................................................................105

Figure 3-32 Designated Pronghorn Winter Range..........................................................................106

Figure 4-1 Map of Proposed Exploration Wells Relative to GSDNPP Class I Area................................135

Figure 4-2 Colorado Division of Water Resources Decision Support System Modeled Evaluation 

Estimate of Aquifer Layer #4.......................................................................................146

Figure 4-3 Location of Well SW-5 on Baca National Wildlife Refuge......................................................148 

*These figures also include the well pad location of Baca #6 which was not previously permitted by the Colorado Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission. Lexam has proposed drilling at Baca #7 instead of Baca #6. Therefore, Baca #6 was excluded 

from all analyses in this document. 
14

Executive Summary 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has prepared this Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) of 

Proposed Oil and Gas Exploration, Baca National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge), Saguache County, Colorado in 

accordance with the procedures for implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as stated by 

the Council of Environmental Quality. The purpose of this Draft EA is to ensure that the proposed oil and gas 

exploration on the Refuge by Lexam Explorations (U.S.A.) Inc. (Lexam) does not unreasonably impact the surface 

estate (including all surface and subsurface natural resources not considered to be minerals) of the Refuge and 

associated cultural, socioeconomic, and aesthetic resources. The Service seeks to protect Refuge resources 

while honoring a mineral owner’s rights to access and explore the oil and gas mineral estate. The Service will 

ensure protection of the surface estate and associated resources occurring on the Refuge from unreasonable 

damage by requiring that Lexam follow specific protective measures during all phases of the proposed oil and gas 

exploration (project), including the intended drilling of two exploratory wells on the Refuge. This Draft EA 

evaluates and compares the No Additional Protective Measures Provided by the Service Alternative (no action 

alternative), Acquisition of the Mineral Estate Alternative, and a Maximum Protection of Refuge during Exploration 

Alternative (preferred alternative).

Project Location 

The proposed exploration by Lexam would be located within the Refuge, Saguache County, in the San Luis 

Valley of south-central Colorado. The proposed exploration is focused in an area located in the north-central 

portion of the Refuge approximately 4 miles south of Saguache County Road T. 

Project Description 

Lexam has provided documentation to Service showing that it is an owner of mineral rights below portions of the 

surface estate on the Refuge, and therefore is entitled to make use of the surface for exploration. The Service 

would deny surface access without such evidence. Lexam acquired their mineral interest prior to acquisition of the 

surface interest in the Baca Ranch by the Service. As an owner of portions of the Refuge subsurface oil and gas 

mineral estate, Lexam has contacted the Service regarding its proposal to explore the subsurface for oil and gas, 

including the drilling of two 14,000 foot wells. 

With respect to State of Colorado law on subsurface mineral rights in Colorado, the subsurface mineral property 

owner has the right to pursue recovery of its minerals. 

The Service has reviewed Lexam’s Plan of Operations for oil and gas exploration on the Refuge and is requiring 

specific protective measures be followed by Lexam to ensure that impacts from exploration are less than 

significant. These protective measures are designed to ensure that the manner, location, and timing of Lexam's 

activities constitute a reasonable use of the Refuge's surface estate. 

Project Scoping 

The Service sought public involvement regarding Lexam’s proposed exploration activities, as part of the NEPA 

process, during a 30-day comment period and by hosting a public meeting in Crestone, Colorado. This process 

allowed the Service to gather public input and solicit concerns regarding Lexam’s proposed oil and gas 

exploration on the Refuge. Refuge staff along with the Service’s Region 6 Division of Refuge Planning conducted 

the public scoping meeting. 
15

Project Impacts 

Implementation of the Preferred Alternative – the Service is requiring that specific protective measures and 

standards are followed during all phases of oil and gas exploration being proposed by Lexam, including the 

intended drilling of two exploratory gas wells on the Refuge, to ensure maximum protection of the surface estate 

(including all surface and subsurface natural resources not considered minerals) of the Refuge and associated 

cultural, socioeconomic, and aesthetic resources from unreasonable degradation or impacts. With these 

requirements incorporated into Lexam’s Plan of Operations, potential impacts are expected to be less than 

significant in regards to NEPA. Information gathered in this Draft EA indicates that the temporary nature of the 

proposed exploration (<180 days), along with implementation of the preferred alternative, will not unreasonably 

degrade or result in significant impacts to the surface estate (including all surface and subsurface natural 

resources not considered to be minerals) of the Refuge and associated cultural, socioeconomic, and aesthetic 

resources. 
16

1.0 Introduction 

The purpose of this Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) is to ensure that initial exploration of the oil and gas 

mineral estate under the Baca National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) by Lexam Explorations (U.S.A.) Inc. (Lexam) 

does not unreasonably degrade or impact the Refuge and associated resources. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service) seeks to protect Refuge resources while at the same time honoring a mineral owner’s vested 

right to access and explore the oil and gas mineral estate. The Service’s preferred alternative would ensure 

maximum protection of the Refuge by requiring that Lexam follow specific protective measures and standards 

during all exploration activities. The Service would request that any of these protective measures applicable to the 

Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission’s (COGCC) regulation authority, be considered as conditions for 

permit approval for any permit applications by Lexam for wells on the Refuge. The Draft EA provides a 

comparison of three alternatives: 1) No Additional Protective Measures (no action), 2) Acquisition of the Mineral 

Estate and 3) Maximum Protection of Refuge during Exploration (preferred alternative). This comparison of 

alternatives assesses a range of potential effects to all surface and subsurface resources protected by the Refuge 

and associated cultural, socioeconomic, and aesthetic resources may be affected during Lexam’s proposed 

exploration activities. 

1.1 Baca National Wildlife Refuge 

Authorized in 2000, the Refuge is a large and recent addition to the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) 

administered by the Service, Department of the Interior. Currently, the Refuge consists of 78,670 acres of fee-title 

land and has an approved acquisition boundary of over 92,500 acres. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has the 

largest inholding of land remaining within the approved acquisition boundary. The Refuge is located in Saguache 

and Alamosa counties in the San Luis Valley of south-central Colorado (Figure 1-1) and includes some lands 

which were part of the ―Luis Maria Baca Grant No. 4‖ - commonly referred to as the ―Baca Ranch.‖ Congress 

approved this Refuge boundary and authorized acquisition of lands within it with passage of Public Law 106-530, 

also known as the ―Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve Act of 2000,‖ as amended by Section 117 of 

the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Bill (Public Law 111-8). This legislation focused not only on protecting the 

region's hydrology, which the unique sand dunes ecosystem depends upon, but also protecting the ecological, 

cultural, and wildlife resources of the area. 

The purpose of the Refuge is to restore, enhance, and maintain wetland, upland, riparian, and other habitats for 

native wildlife, plant, and fish species in the San Luis Valley. In administering the Refuge, the Secretary shall, to 

the maximum extent practicable - (A) emphasize migratory bird conservation; and (B) take into consideration the 

role of the Refuge in broader landscape conservation efforts; and (C) subject to any agreement in existence as of 

the date of enactment of this paragraph, and to the extent consistent with the purposes of the Refuge, use 

decreed water rights on the Refuge in approximately the same manner that the water rights have been used 

historically (as amended by Section 117 of the 2009 Public Law 111-8). 

The Refuge is situated within the San Luis Valley, which is considered a high mountain desert. However, 

abundant snowfall in the two 14,000 foot mountain ranges (San Juan Mountains to the west and Sangre de Cristo 

Mountains to the east) contributes to the dynamic hydrological regime and wetland complex in the San Luis 

Valley. Although the valley floor only receives an average of seven inches of precipitation on an annual basis, 

wetland and riparian habitat throughout the San Luis Valley are sustained by runoff from snowfall in the 

surrounding mountain ranges. Numerous streams also flow across the Refuge creating abundant surface water in 

an otherwise arid landscape. The Refuge contains a diverse suite of habitats including desert shrublands, 

grasslands, wet meadows, playa wetlands, and riparian corridors and is home to a large number of wildlife and 

plant species, many of which are endemic to the San Luis Valley. 

The Refuge abuts lands owned or controlled by other conservation entities including: the National Park Service 

(NPS), TNC, The Colorado Division of Wildlife, and the Colorado State Land Board. This complex of lands, 

totaling more than 500,000 acres, contains one of the largest and most diverse assemblages of wetland habitats 

remaining in Colorado. 
17

The San Luis Valley also is rich in prehistoric and historic resource sites, some of which date over 12,000 years 

ago. Many of these are eligible to be placed on the National Register of Historic Places. On federally managed 

lands, such as the Refuge, eligible sites share the same management status as already listed sites. 

1.2 Background 

Mineral Ownership 

Lexam’s mineral interest underlies portions of the Refuge that were originally granted to the Baca family by the 

United States (U.S.) government as replacement for land lost in the Mexican American War. The original grant 

was located in the Las Vegas, New Mexico area and was granted by the King of Spain to the Baca family. There 

are 100,000 acres of land in the Luis Maria Baca Grant #4 (Baca Grant), which is located in Townships 41 to 43 

North (T41N to T43N) and Ranges 10 to 12 East (R10E to R12E), New Mexico Prime Meridian (NMPM) in 

Saguache County. 

Lexam’s signed a Surface Use Agreement in 1992 with American Water Development, Inc. ("AWDI"), a previous 

owner. The Surface Use Agreement is a 20-year agreement (of two 10-year terms) that describes Lexam’s rights 

to use the surface of the Baca Grant. The agreement includes provisions for extensions of the agreement beyond 

20 years. In a Memorandum of Understanding dated May 5, 2010, the parties to the lawsuit San Luis Valley 

Ecosystem Council, et al. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Civil Action No. 07-CV-00945-WDM-MEH (D. Colo.) 

agreed that the expiration of the Surface Use Agreement would be tolled beginning September 3, 2009 and would 

continue to be tolled until completion of the NEPA analysis and the conclusion of any subsequent litigation, 

including appeals.

Previous Exploration 

Prior oil and gas exploration activities began on the Baca Grant in the early 1980s by other companies. Lexam 

began conducting its own mineral exploration drilling in the early 1990s before the Refuge was established. In 

1992 and 1993, 42 shallow mineral exploration boreholes were drilled by Challenger Gold Inc. (a predecessor to 

Lexam), 27 of these encountered oil in fractured Precambrian rocks and Mesozoic sediments (including Morrison 

Formation, Dakota Sandstone and Mancos Shale) (Watts et al. 2006). These oil shows were not indicative of 

commercially producible oil and gas (Watkins et al. 1995; Cappa and Wallace 2007). The 42 shallow mineral 

boreholes drilled in 1992 and 1993 were located approximately seven miles from the currently proposed well sites 

on the Refuge. While the oil shows provide evidence that oil exists in a concealed seep located more than 4 miles 

along the east margin of the San Luis Valley, the 42 shallow boreholes drilled may not be indicative of any 

producible hydrocarbons at Baca #5 and Baca #7. Results from the 42 boreholes indicate that the oil is 

Cretaceous in origin, similar to produced oil and gas origins in other areas of the Rocky Mountains. 

Data available in the public domain and proprietary data obtained by Lexam were combined with data from the 

mineral exploration drill holes to map and interpret the geology beneath the Baca Grant. This mapping by Lexam 

led to the drilling of two exploration wells, Baca #1 and Baca #2 wells (Figure 1-1). These wells were permitted 

with the COGCC and were drilled in 1995 before the Refuge was established. The Baca #1 was drilled to a depth 

of 4,322 feet and the Baca #2 was drilled to a depth of 6,932 feet. The wells were plugged and abandoned in 

1996 in accordance with COGCC rules and plugging orders (COGCC approved surface reclamation January 

2007 [COGCC 2009]). Data obtained from the Baca #1 and Baca #2 wells along with two dimensional seismic 

data acquired in 1996, 1998, 1999, and 2002 and data from other exploration techniques indicated that thicker 

Cretaceous sections (located in the Baca Graben) may be present on deeper blocks under parts of the Baca 

Grant (Watts et al. 2006). This information along with data gathered during the 3D seismic surveys led to Lexam’s 

current Plan of Operations that targets exploration activities in a prospective area in the north-central portion of 

the Baca Grant generally located in the southern portions of T43N, R11E NMPM (Figure 1-1). Lexam’s Plan of 

Operations identifies two proposed wells for exploration, both of which are within the boundaries of the Refuge. 

These wells, Baca #5 and Baca #7, were previously permitted with the COGCC, but both permits expired on May 

20, 2010 and are no longer valid. Baca wells #3 and #4 were permitted but never drilled and were located in the 

southern part of T43N, R11E. Because permits for Baca #5 and Baca #7 are expired, Lexam would need to 

resubmit an application to drill for oil and gas at Baca #5 and Baca #7 as described in their current Plan of 

Operations 
18

In 2004, Lexam signed a 2-year agreement with Petro-Hunt to evaluate Lexam’s oil and gas mineral estate in the 

San Luis Valley, to process and interpret approximately 50 miles of the previously mapped Chevron 2D seismic 

data and an additional 60 miles of 2D seismic data, and to assist Lexam in defining the structural closure in 

Lexam’s Crestone Prospect (Watts et al. 2006). 

Events Leading to the Current Proposal by Lexam 

In May 2006, Lexam announced their intent to explore for natural gas or oil. Lexam conducted a cultural resource 

inventory of the Baca #5 and Baca #6 drill sites and access roads and the entire length of the lines to be used in 

conducting the 3D seismic program. During January 2007, Lexam performed a 3D seismic exploration survey on 

the Refuge after receiving a permit from the COGCC to further define their target for drilling exploration. Lexam 

and the Service jointly negotiated an operating plan to mitigate impacts to the surface estate of the Refuge prior to 

carrying out the actual 3D seismic survey. The 3D seismic survey area is shown on Figure 1-1. New information 

gathered from the 3D seismic survey led to the identification of the current proposed exploration targets, Baca #5 

and #7 drill locations (Figure 1-2). Drilling is proposed to occur on Baca #5 and Baca #7 locations, each with one 

vertical well to 14,000 feet. 

In May 2007, the San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council and Citizens for San Luis Valley Water Protection Coalition 

filed a complaint in U.S. District Court of Colorado alleging the Service did not comply with the NEPA and the 

Administrative Procedure Act while working with Lexam to develop measures to protect the surface estate. All 

Service activities to this point in time had followed agency policy and draft agency guidelines (Appendix A) for 

directing exploration of excepted minerals on NWRs. In response to the complaint and without challenging its 

legal applicability, the Service began the NEPA process in June 2007 by initiating preparation of an EA. In 

November 2007, the court remanded the matter back to the Service to complete the NEPA analysis started earlier 

in the year. 

After completing the EA, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was signed by the Service’s Mountain-Prairie 

Regional Director during October, 2008. The FONSI indicated that an Environmental Impact Statement was not 

warranted because the Service was confident the EA contained restrictions on the time, place and manner of 

Lexam’s exploration activities that were reasonable to protect the surface estate of the Refuge, without infringing 

on a mineral owner’s private property rights. If, after preparing the EA, the Service had determined the proposed 

oil and gas exploration project could not be conducted without significant impacts to the human environment, an 

Environmental Impact Statement would have been required before exploration could occur. 

In February 2009, the plaintiffs amended their original complaint against the Service, resuming litigation. After a 

motion by the plaintiffs and a subsequent evidentiary hearing on May 20, 2009 the court granted a preliminary 

injunction on September 3, 2009. The injunction had several elements, the most significant of which were that it 

prevented the Service taking any action that would result in Lexam’s use and occupancy of the Refuge to explore 

for minerals, and it prevented the Service from relying on the 2008 Final EA and FONSI. 

Starting in November 2009, a series of settlement conferences were held in the U.S. District Court of Colorado. 

The parties included the plaintiffs, the Service as defendant and Lexam as an intervener. Settlement was reached 

and the case administratively closed during September 2010. As part of the settlement, all parties agreed to the 

Service conducting a new NEPA process and a schedule for completion. 
19

1.3 Purpose and Need 

The purpose of this Draft EA is to ensure that 

the proposed exploration for oil and gas is 

conducted in a reasonable manner. The 

Service is requiring specific protective 

measures that would protect the surface 

estate and associated resources of the 

Refuge from unreasonable damage be 

followed by Lexam in their Plan of 

Operations, while at the same time 

recognizing a mineral owner’s vested rights 

to access and explore the oil and gas mineral 

estate. 

The scope of this Draft EA does not address 

potential future production of oil and gas from 

any of the wells described above. If Lexam 

determines that production is viable as a 

result of exploration, then a separate 

analysis pursuant to NEPA would be 

applicable and required. 

The federal government owns the surface 

estate of the Refuge (including all surface 

and subsurface natural resources not 

considered to be minerals), and it is 

administered by the Service as part of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) 

pursuant to the Great Sand Dunes National 

Park and Preserve Act of 2000, the NWRS 

Administration Act, and other applicable laws 

and regulations. As the surface owner, the 

Service has a responsibility to protect the surface estate of the Refuge and its associated resources. Pursuant to 

Colorado law and the Surface Use Agreement that was entered into between the previous landowner and 

Lexam's predecessors-in-interest, the Service policy (612 FW 2.7(c), USFWS 2007a; Appendix A) requires that 

the Refuge is protected from all unnecessary damage resulting from oil and gas activities. Thus, the Service has 

the responsibility to require protective measures to ensure that the surface estate (including all surface and 

subsurface natural resources not considered to be minerals) of the Refuge and associated cultural, 

socioeconomic, and aesthetic resources are not unreasonably impacted by Lexam’s proposed activities. 

1.4 Conformance with Service Management Plans 

Currently management on the Refuge is being guided by an interim plan which is referred to as a Conceptual 

Management Plan (CMP; USFWS 2005). The CMP provides a broad overview of the Service's proposed 

management approach to wildlife and their relative habitats, public uses, facilities, interagency coordination, and 

other operational needs of the Refuge until such a time that a full comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) can be 

created. The CCP planning process for the Refuge is scheduled to start with baseline data collection in 2011, but 

completion of the CCP is not expected until 2014. The CCP will provide a thorough, in-depth analysis of all facets 

of current and future Refuge management activities. Given the limited scope of Lexam’s current proposal, which 

includes drilling two exploration wells over a period less than 180 days, the Service has determined that it is not 

reasonable to delay consideration of the Lexam’s Plan of Operations prior to the completion of the CCP. 
20

1.5 Relation to Statutes, Regulations, and Other Plans 

Service Regulations 

Oil and gas management is not new to the Service as the agency has managed oil and gas operations on 

approximately one quarter of the over 553 National Wildlife Refuges in the NWRS. Under the National Wildlife 

Refuge Administration Act of 1966, as amended, the Service is responsible for managing all activities on Refuges 

including oil and gas operations on non-federally owned (private) mineral rights on Refuges. It is the policy of the 

Service ―to protect Service resources to the maximum extent possible without infringing on the rights of subsurface owners‖. The following sections describe the legal framework under which the Service regulates oil and 

gas exploration that takes place on Refuge lands when the Service does not own the subsurface rights. In 

addition to Service regulations concerning oil and gas activities, other statutes and regulations are cited. 

Excepted Mineral Rights 

The Service Manual, Land Use Series, 612 FW 2, Oil and Gas (Manual) (USFWS 2007a; Appendix A) provides 

standard policy guidance and background information on management of oil and gas activities on NWRS lands 

(USGAO 2003). In this Manual, the Service provides for the exercise of non-federally owned mineral rights while 

protecting Service resources to the maximum extent possible. The provisions of the Service Manual are 

applicable to Lexam’s oil and gas mineral interest that are discussed below. 

On a large portion of the Refuge, the mineral owner holds ―excepted rights‖ that also are referred to as 

―outstanding rights‖ (USFWS 2007a; Appendix A). Excepted rights occur when oil and gas rights are owned by 

third parties at the time the Service acquires title to the lands. The ―owner of excepted (outstanding) oil and gas 

rights has the right to sell, lease, explore for, and remove those minerals subject to the terms of the instrument by 

which that interest was acquired or reserved and to the State laws governing protection of the surface and the 

rights of the surface owner.‖ Section 2.9.B of the Manual provides the procedural requirements for permitting oil 

and gas activities on Service lands (USFWS 2007a; Appendix A).

In addition to the Manual, reserved and excepted rights are addressed in the NWR System Administration Act of 

1966 and addressed by the regulation in Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 29.32 (Mineral Rights 

Reserved and Excepted). This regulation provides general rules governing the exercise of reserved and accepted 

mineral rights on NWR System lands. 50 CFR 29.32 states the following: 

Persons holding mineral rights in wildlife refuge lands by reservation in the conveyance to the United 

States and persons holding mineral rights in such lands which rights vested prior to the acquisition of the 

lands by the United States shall, to the greatest extent practicable, conduct all exploration, development, 

and production operations in such a manner as to prevent damage, erosion, pollution, or contamination to 

the lands, waters, facilities and vegetation of the area. So far as is practicable, such operations also must 

be conducted without interference with the operation of the Refuge or disturbance to the wildlife. 

Physical occupancy of the area must be kept to the minimum space compatible with the conduct of 

efficient mineral operations. Persons conducting mineral operations on refuge areas must comply with all 

applicable federal and state laws and regulations for the protection of wildlife and the administration of the 

area. Oil field brine, slag, and all other waste and contaminating substances must be kept in the smallest 

practicable area, must be confined so as to prevent escape as a result of rains and high water or 

otherwise, and must be removed from the area as quickly as practicable in such a manner as to prevent 

contamination, pollution, damage, or injury to the lands, waters, facilities, or vegetation of the refuge or to 

wildlife. Structures and equipment must be removed from the area when the need for them has ended. 

Upon the cessation of operations the area shall be restored as nearly as possible to its condition prior to 

the commencement of operations. Nothing in this section shall be applied so as to contravene or nullify 

rights vested in holders of mineral interests on refuge lands. 
21

 
22

Compatible Uses Policy 

The NWRS Administration Act of 1966, Policy 603 FW 2 Compatible Uses Policy (USFWS 2000) and the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, set forth general rules and provides guidelines for determining 

compatibility of proposed and existing uses of Refuge. However, provisions of 603 FW 2, as they relate to the 

compatibility standard of the NWRS Administration Act to the exercise of reserved and excepted mineral rights on 

NWRS lands, state the following: 

The Service must recognize and allow owners’ property rights that are not vested in the federal 

government, such as reserved or excepted rights, to explore and develop minerals or oil and gas beneath 

a refuge, regardless of whether the use is compatible. In these situations, a compatibility determination is 

not required and should not be completed. Therefore, the compatibility standard of the NWR System 

Administration Act does not apply to Lexam’s exploration program on the Refuge. 

Appropriate Refuge Use Policy 

The NWRS Administration Act of 1966, Policy 603 FW 1 Appropriate Refuge Uses Policy (USFWS 2006a), sets 

forth general rules and provides guidelines for determining appropriate uses of NWRs. The Appropriate Refuge 

Use Policy of the NWRS Administration Act, does not apply because exercise of the subsurface mineral holder’s

rights is not at the Service’s discretion and jurisdiction.

Other Laws Relating to Oil and Gas Activity on NWR System Lands 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

NEPA (42 United States Code [USC] 4321-4370f) requires federal agencies to examine the environmental impact 

of their actions, incorporate environmental information, and utilize public participation, as appropriate, in the 

planning and implementation of their actions. NEPA compliance is required only whenever a federal agency takes 

an action. A federal action typically takes the form of a permit or other explicit land use authorization without 

which the activity cannot proceed. As discussed above, although Service regulations and the Manual (USFWS 

2007a) explicitly recognize that the Service has the right and is obligated to prevent unreasonable degradation of 

the surface resources of the Refuge, Service does not have the authority to completely deny a mineral owner’s

activities on the Refuge. Pursuant to the Final Settlement Agreement, the Service initiated this Draft EA as part of 

the NEPA process to ensure that the surface estate is not unreasonable degraded by Lexam’s proposed oil and 

gas exploration. 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended 

Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to assess the effects of an undertaking on historical and 

cultural resource sites. This is accomplished by inventorying proposed disturbance areas or area of potential 

effect (APE), evaluating site importance and eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), 

assessing the effect of the undertaking on NRHP-eligible sites, and consulting with appropriate historic 

preservation agencies. Compliance with section 106 of NHPA was followed for the oil and gas exploration 

activities described in this Draft EA. 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 USC 470aa-470mm) and amendments provide for the 

protection of archaeological resources on public and Native American lands and provide for exchange of 

information between governmental entities and academic or private archaeological researchers. An 

archaeological resource under this Act is defined as material remains of past human life or activities that are of 

archaeological interest and includes but not limited to pottery, basketry, bottles, weapons, tools, structures, rock 

paintings or carvings, intaglios, graves, and human skeletal materials. 
23

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 USC 703-712) implements various treaties between the United States 

and other nations of the MBTA and provides for the protection of migratory birds and specifies penalties for 

harming or unlawfully killing migratory birds. Section 715e of the MBTA provides statutory authority for regulation 

of reserved mineral rights on NWRs (it subordinates oil and gas interests to such rules and regulations as may be 

prescribed by the Secretary of the Department of the Interior from time-to-time). 

Endangered Species Act 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 USC 1531-1544) provides for the protection of endangered and 

threatened species and the habitats upon which they depend. Section 7 of the act requires federal agencies, to 

consult with the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce in cases where the agencies’ action may 

affect a listed species, to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat for these species. 

Other Federal Regulations 

The proposed Lexam exploration activities also are governed by a number of other federal regulatory programs. 

The list below is not intended to be exhaustive: 

 Clean Water Act 

 Clean Air Act 

 American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) 

 Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) 

 Resource Conservation Recovery Act 

 Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) regulations 

 Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations 

State Regulations and Rules 

The major regulatory agencies and programs under which the proposed exploration activities are regulated are 

discussed below: 

Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 

The COGCC regulates oil and gas drilling on state and private mineral lands in Colorado. COGCC oil and gas 

rules cover all phases of oil and gas drilling operations, address pollution prevention, and provide for penalties 

and fines for non-compliance with the rules. The oil and gas rules give the COGCC staff latitude when developing 

conditions of approval for applications for permit-to-drill (APDs) depending on specific site concerns or conditions. 

In the case of the Baca #5 and Baca #7, site-specific conditions of approval were applied to the permits, but these 

conditions expired on May 20, 2010 and are no longer assumed to be valid by the Service. Lexam would be 

required to re-apply for a COGCC permit on Baca #5 and Baca #7 prior to drilling at any time in the future. 

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 

Major regulatory programs of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) that apply to 

the exploration activities include the regulation of storm water discharges during construction activities, storage 

and disposal of solid waste, and air emissions sources. 
24

1.6 Description of Lexam’s Plan of Operations

The following provides a description of Lexam’s Plan of Operations, as provided by Lexam, including references 

to protection measures that have were previously incorporated into the expired COGCC permits to drill at Baca #5 

and Baca #7 (Appendix B). At minimum, Lexam would need to re-apply to the COGCC to permit Baca #5 and 

Baca #7 oil and gas wells because the permits expired on May 20, 2010. It is unclear if Lexam would voluntarily 

request any of the previous permit conditions listed below to the COGCC during re-application. The Service 

considers any protective measures in the previous permits to be invalid because they are expired. The Service 

made this determination in compliance with COGCC rule 303(j)(1) (COGCC 2009) which states: 

“For Applications for Permit-to-Drill, Form 2. If drilling operations are not commenced on the permitted 

well within one (1) year after the date of approval, then the approval shall become null and void.‖

Consequently, the Service will require that new protective measures be implemented as part of the preferred 

alternative (alternative C), which ensures maximum protection of the Refuge during the proposed oil and gas 

exploration activities. Under alternative C, the Service also will require that Lexam resubmit a new Plan of 

Operations that addresses deficiencies identified in the current Plan of Operations and implements protective 

measures required by the Service. 

Lexam’s Plan of Operations is based on their proposal to drill two exploration oil and gas wells (Baca #5 and Baca 

#7) on the Refuge. The Service is using this Plan of Operations as the basis for evaluation of their proposed 

activities. The Service also included this Plan of Operations as part of the NEPA process (i.e., public scoping, 

public comment, and on the Refuge’s website [http://fws.gov/alamosa/Baca NWR.html]) during the development 

of this Draft EA. 

Road and Drill Pad Construction 

Lexam’s proposed activities will incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to lessen impacts. The COGCC 

defines BMPs as ―practices that are designed to prevent or reduce impacts caused by oil and gas operations to 

air, water, soil, or biological resources, and to minimize adverse impacts to public health, safety and welfare, 

including the environment and wildlife resources (COGCC 2009)" 

Before drilling can occur, access roads and well pads would be constructed. The following describes the general 

procedure for construction. No construction would occur during the months of May, June, or July (Appendix B). 

Table 1-1 summarizes Lexam’s approximate total acres of disturbance for access roads and well pads. 

Construction would be conducted in accordance with COGCC 1000 Series rules and a Storm Water Management 

Plan for construction disturbances greater than 1.0 acre in accordance with CDPHE storm water rules that were 

revised in 2007 (CDPHE 2007a). 

Table 1-1. Total Surface Disturbance

Total Surface Disturbance Baca #5 and Baca #7 Drill Sites

Baca #5 Location 2.1

Baca #5 Access Road 3.3

Baca #7 Location 2.1

Baca #7 Access Road 4.2

Total Acres 11.7
25

The following summarizes the requirements of the COGCC regarding surface disturbance and site reclamation for 

non-crop land sites (COGCC 2009). The following procedures apply to site preparation, drilling, and reclamation: 

―The operator shall separate and store the A soil horizon or the top six (6) inches, whichever is 

deeper, and mark or document stockpile locations to facilitate subsequent reclamation. When 

separating the A soil horizon, the operator shall segregate the horizon based upon noted changes 

in physical characteristics such as color, texture, density, or consistency.‖ 

―When the soil horizons are too rocky or too thin for the operator to practicably segregate, then the 

topsoil shall be segregated to the extent possible and stored. Too rocky shall mean that the soil 

horizon consists of greater than thirty five percent (35%) by volume rock fragments larger than ten 

(10) inches in diameter. Too thin shall mean soil horizons that are less than six (6) inches in 

thickness. The operator shall segregate remaining soils on crop land to the extent practicable to a 

depth of three (3) feet below the ground surface or bedrock, whichever is shallower, based upon 

noted changes in physical characteristics such as color, texture, density or consistency and such 

soils shall be stockpiled to avoid loss and mixing with other soils.‖ 

―All stockpiled soils shall be protected from degradation due to contamination, compaction and, to 

the extent practicable, from wind and water erosion during drilling and production operations. Best 

management practices (BMPs) to minimize erosion and offsite sedimentation by controlling storm 

water runoff shall be implemented.‖ The best management practices can include, depending on site 

conditions, silt fences, plant buffers, rock filter dikes, slope roughening, and mulch.‖ 

―The drilling location shall be designed and constructed to provide a safe working area while 

reasonably minimizing the total surface area disturbed. Consistent with applicable spacing orders 

and well location orders and regulations, in locating drill pads, steep slopes shall be avoided when 

reasonably possible. The drill pad site shall be located on the most level location obtainable that will 

accommodate the intended use. Deep vertical cuts and steep long fill slopes shall be constructed to 

the least percent slope practical. BMPs minimize erosion and offsite sedimentation by controlling 

storm water runoff shall be implemented.‖ 

―In order to reasonably minimize land disturbances and facilitate future reclamation, well sites...and 

access roads shall be located, constructed and maintained so as to reasonably control dust, 

minimize erosion, alteration of natural features and removal of surface materials. BMPs to minimize 

erosion and offsite sedimentation by controlling storm water runoff shall be implemented.‖ 

―Existing roads shall be used to the greatest extent practicable to avoid erosion and minimize the 

land area devoted to oil and gas operations. BMPs to minimize erosion and offsite sedimentation by 

controlling storm water runoff shall be implemented. Where feasible and practicable, operators are 

encouraged to share access roads in developing a field. Where feasible and practicable, roads 

shall be routed to complement other land usage. To the greatest extent practicable, all vehicles 

used by the operator, contractors, and other parties associated with the well shall not travel outside 

of the original access road boundary.‖ 

―During drilling, production, and reclamation operations, all disturbed areas shall be kept 

reasonably free of noxious weeds and undesirable species as practicable.‖ 

―Upon the plugging and abandonment of a well, all mouse and rat holes and cellars shall be 

backfilled. All debris, abandoned gathering line risers and flow line risers, and surface equipment 

shall be removed within three (3) months of plugging a well. All access roads to plugged and 

abandoned wells and associated production facilities shall be closed, graded and recontoured. 

Culverts and any other obstructions that were part of the access road(s) shall be removed. Well 

locations, access roads and associated facilities shall be reclaimed. As applicable, compaction 

alleviation, restoration, and revegetation of well sites, associated production facilities, and access 

roads shall be performed to the same standards as established for interim reclamation under Rule 

1003.‖ Additionally, ―All such reclamation work shall be completed within three (3) months on crop 

land and twelve (12) months on non-crop land after plugging a well or final closure of associated 

production facilities. The Director may grant an extension where unusual circumstances are 
26

encountered, but every reasonable effort shall be made to complete reclamation before the next 

local growing season.‖ 

Successful reclamation of the well site and access road will be considered completed when: 

―On non-crop land, reclamation has been performed as per Rules 1003. and 1004., and the total 

cover of live perennial vegetation, excluding noxious weeds, provides sufficient soils erosion control 

as determined by the Director through a visual appraisal. The Director shall consider the total cover 

of live perennial vegetation of adjacent or nearby undisturbed land, not including overstory or tree 

canopy cover, having similar soils, slope and aspect of the reclaimed area.‖ 

―A Sundry Notice, Form 4, has been submitted by the operator which describes the final 

reclamation procedures and any mitigation measures associated with final reclamation performed 

by the operator.‖ 

―A final reclamation inspection has been completed by the Director, there are no outstanding 

compliance issues relating to Commission rules, regulations, orders, permit conditions, or the act, 

and the Director has notified the operator that final reclamation has been approved." 

In addition to the COGCC 1000 Series rules concerning erosion control and reclamation, the CDPHE has a permit 

system under the Clean Water Act to provide control over storm water discharges and minimize soil erosion and 

degradation of water resources. The storm water permit system specifies reclamation goals and requires that 

operators have a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP). The SWMP defines what erosion controls would be 

used during ground disturbing activities, explains how hazardous materials (such as oils and fuels) would be 

managed to prevent soil and water contamination, and specifies how reclamation and monitoring would occur. 

The major features of a SWMP include: 

 Identification of site specific measures that would be used to control erosion and BMPs including 

silt fences, plant buffers, rock filter dikes, slope roughening, and mulch. The SWMP includes 

descriptions and drawings of the specific erosion control structures to be used. 

 The SWMP should identify materials that will be stored and used on-site and procedures for 

preventing and managing spills. Spill prevention and management can be addressed separately in 

a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan. SPCC Plans must be site specific, 

comply with applicable rules, and be certified by a professional engineer. The SWMP and SPCC 

plans must be kept on-site. 

 The SWMP must describe the methods used for site stabilization of the site. Stabilization methods 

can include standards for dealing with compaction, seed mixtures, and seeding method (drill 

seeding, hydromulching, etc). 

 Procedures for inspection and maintenance are described in the SWMP. Periodic inspections of 

erosion control devices and re-vegetation progress are required, and the SWMP must describe how 

inspection and maintenance is to take place and how it is to be documented. In addition to periodic 

inspections, inspections are required after strong precipitation events as defined by the permit. 

Final stabilization of a site under the CDPHE storm water rules, ―means that all ground surface disturbing 

activities at the site have been completed, and all disturbed areas have been either built on, paved, or a uniform 

vegetative cover has been established with an individual plant density of at least 70 percent of pre-disturbance 

levels, or equivalent permanent, physical erosion reduction methods have been employed. Re-seeding alone 

does not qualify.‖ For oil and gas operations, if a site reverts to cropland after oil and gas activities, then permit 

coverage is no longer required. 

Road Construction 

The routes for the proposed access roads have been designed to minimize the amount of road construction and 

impacts to habitat, soils, and sensitive plants. BMPs as described above would be used to minimize runoff and 

erosion and facilitate reclamation. Access roads to the locations would branch off of the Lexam Road, a main 

north-south road through the Refuge (Figure 1-2). The Lexam Road is gravel and would not need to be upgraded 

to handle the equipment and traffic. An access road to the Baca #5 location would have to be built. The road 
27

would be approximately 1.1 miles long with a running surface of approximately 15 feet. Total width of disturbance 

would be approximately 25 feet. The estimated fill required to construct this road is approximately 8,000 cubic 

yards. For access to location Baca #7, there already exists a two-track unimproved road that goes to this location. 

The existing two-track road would be upgraded to accommodate the equipment needed to transport the drilling rig 

and service the operation. The distance of the access road to the Baca # 7 location that will be upgraded would 

be approximately 1.4 miles. 

Road construction may take from 1 week to 1 month to complete depending upon the terrain and soil conditions. 

The equipment would consist of haul trucks for transporting earth moving equipment and gravel, and earth 

moving equipment. Approximately 450 trips would be required to haul equipment and gravel for the roads. The 

number of trucks would depend upon the fleet and construction practices used by the contractor. Water trucks will 

be required to wet down the location for dust control. 

Well Pad Construction 

Disturbance for each well pad is expected to be approximately 2.1 acres, allowing for a 90,000 square foot well 

pad and soil stockpile areas (Figure 1-3). BMPs as described above will be used in pad construction as required 

by CDPHE and COGCC rules to control runoff and erosion. Bulldozers (two to three D7-sized Caterpillars) would 

be used to construct and level the drilling locations. Top soil and growth medium would be stockpiled for later 

reclamation. The pads and access roads would be graveled as necessary to support the rig and the ongoing 

operations. Road and well pad construction would take place during daylight hours. The estimated fill required to 

construct each well pad is approximately 10,000 cubic yards. Approximately 550 trips would be required to haul 

equipment and gravel for the roads. The number of trucks would depend upon the fleet and construction practices 

used by the contractor. 

Drilling Operations 

Location Preparation 

When the pad is completed, several operations would take place before the drilling rig moves on location. A small 

work-over rig would move in, drill a 24-inch hole and set approximately 80 to 150 feet of 20-inch conductor pipe. 

This small, diesel powered self-propelled rig would have an approximately 40 feet tall derrick. The conductor pipe 

would provide stability for the hole in the unconsolidated materials in the uppermost part of the subsurface. The 

conductor pipe would be cemented in place from a depth of approximately 80 to150 feet to the surface as 

required by the COGCC permit (Figure 1-4). The small rig also would drill the ―rathole‖ and the ―mousehole,‖ 

which are used to manipulate and store pipe and equipment used in the drilling process. The rathole and 

mousehole would nominally be 13 to 24 feet deep, cased with 8.63-inch pipe, and be sealed from contact with 

groundwater. Drill location preparation would take approximately 3 days. Equipment typically used consists of a 

water well-type rig, several vehicles and trailers. The work would take place during daylight hours. 

After location preparation, the drilling rig and associated equipment would be moved to the location and erected. 

Moving a drilling rig would require 30 to 60 truck-loads of equipment. After the pieces are assembled, the derrick 

would be raised to a height of approximately 135 feet. Derrick heights vary depending on the depth of the drill 

hole and weight capacity of the rig. 

Drilling 

Once the rig is ready, a 17.5-inch-diameter hole will be drilled to approximately 350 feet, at which point a string of 

13.38-inch-diameter surface casing would be set and cemented from total depth to the surface (Figure 1-4). After 

the surface casing is set, a blowout preventer (BOP) will be attached to the top of the surface casing. A blowout 

is an uncontrolled release of subsurface fluids (oil, gas, water) to the surface, which if ignited could cause a 

dangerous or hazardous fire. Through a system of hydraulically activated valves and manifolds, the BOP is 

designed to shut the well in and also allow fluid to be pumped into the hole and stop the uncontrolled release of 

fluids (i.e., to ―kill‖ the well). BOPs are required by COGCC rule, and conditions of the drilling permit approval 

specify the pressure rating of the BOP, which depends on potential subsurface conditions. COGCC rules also 

require testing of the BOP before drilling out from the surface casing. 
28

 
29

 Drilling fluid or mud would be circulated 

through the drill pipe to the bottom of the 

hole, through the bit, up the bore of the 

well, and finally to the surface. When the 

mud emerges from the hole, it would pass 

through a series of equipment used to 

screen and remove drill cuttings (rock 

chips) and sand-size solids. When the 

solids have been removed, the mud will be 

placed into holding tanks, and from the 

tank, pumped back into the well. The mud 

would be maintained at a specific weight 

and viscosity to cool the bit, seal off any 

porous zones (thereby protecting aquifers 

or preventing damage to producing zone 

productivity), control subsurface pressure, 

lubricate the drill string, clean the bottom of 

the hole, and bring the drill cuttings to the 

surface (Moore 1974). There are three 

common types of drilling fluids: waterbased, oil-based, and synthetics. Waterbased muds are the most common and are 

largely made up of water and bentonite, a 

naturally occurring clay that has special 

properties used to maintain proper 

viscosity and other properties over a wide 

range of drilling conditions. Lexam’s drilling 

operations will use water-based drilling 

fluids. 

Upon drilling out of the surface casing, the 

well would be deepened to a depth of 

approximately 3,000 feet. At that point, a 

9.63-inch intermediate casing string 

(Figure 1-4) would be placed in the hole 

and cemented in from total depth to the surface in accordance with COGCC rules and the permits to drill. The 

intermediate casing would be used to protect the deep (confined) and shallow (unconfined) aquifers (actually all 

usable groundwater as it extends from below the deep aquifer to surface) and ensure stability of the hole as the 

well is deepened to its target depth. To provide additional protection for the aquifers, the 3,000-foot depth for the 

intermediate string is a permit condition irrespective of surface management issues. The COGCC has authority 

under Rule 317 to set casing and cementing requirements to protect aquifers. The 3,000-foot depth of the 

intermediate aquifer protection casing was added as a condition of the drilling permits by the COGCC at the 

specific request of the Service. 

After the intermediate casing is set, the well would be deepened (hole size 8.75 inches to total depth), and 

prospective zones would be evaluated if encountered while drilling. Rock cores may be obtained depending on 

data derived during drilling. The expected total depth is approximately 14,000 feet, and once the total depth is 

reached, geophysical wireline well logs would be run. If warranted, formation productivity tests (drill stem tests or 

wireline formation tests) would be conducted on prospective zones. Data from logging and testing would support 

a determination as to the commercial potential of the zone(s) of interest. If the zones are deemed not to be 

commercially productive, the well would be plugged and abandoned according to COGCC regulations. If tests 

indicate commercial productivity, 5.5-inch production casing (Figure 1-4) would be run and set according to 

COGCC rules. The drilling rig would be rigged down and moved off to the next well or removed from the area. 

Rig down and move off should take an estimated 5 days subject to weather conditions and truck availability. The 

Service would perform another NEPA environmental review prior to any proposed oil and gas development in the 

Refuge. 
30

A flow test that is conducted during well drilling is called a drill stem test (DST). A DST is a temporary completion of 

the well to test for oil and gas. A DST may be conducted when evidence of oil and gas or a porous zone(s) are 

encountered while drilling or indicated by down-hole logs. A DST can be highly diagnostic of producible oil and 

gas, particularly in frontier exploration areas where no well data exists to accurately assess the potential of a rock 

formation to produce oil and gas based solely on down-hole logs. At a minimum, running of a DST includes the 

expense of hiring a testing contractor to conduct the test and the cost of 24 to 48 hours of additional rig time. 

The DST not only provides for formation fluids to flow, but also obtains samples of fluids and gas in sample chambers 

and records pressure data. Testing procedures commonly require one or two flow periods and one or two shut-in 

periods. The flow periods allow formation fluids to flow into the drill pipe and sample chambers, and the shut-in periods 

allow for measurement and calculation of accurate formation pressure. During a flow period (usually one to two hours 

in length), fluids consisting of varying combinations of oil, gas, water, and drilling mud may enter the drill pipe. Gas 

may come to the surface if it is present in sufficient quantities. The safest and most efficient way to handle gas during 

a DST is by flaring the gas during the short periods of fluid flow. Flaring would be done using a flare stack common 

to the industry. Flaring would occur for short durations, 2-4 hours, with limited emissions. All other fluids that 

reach the surface will be collected in tanks and disposed of off-site. A DST can take up to 6 hours, not counting time 

to trip in and out of the hole. DST's are usually run in daylight hours for safety reasons, since potential spark sources 

such as electrical equipment and lights must be shut down because of the potential for the presence of gas. 

One or more DST’s may be required to determine if potentially economic quantities of oil or gas are present in the 

event that favorable petroleum source and reservoir rocks are encountered during drilling. The decision to run DSTs 

and the number required would be based on what formations are encountered during drilling, the results of mud 

logging data and the results of down-hole logs. As many as 10 DST's could be conducted. 

Waste streams potentially generated from a DST would be oil and gas, formation water, and drilling mud. These 

materials would be recovered into surface tanks and the materials disposed of offsite at approved third-party disposal 

facilities. 

Any natural gas produced by the well during a DST would be flared. COGCC Rule 912 requires that local 

emergency dispatch or emergency authority be contacted at least two hours prior to flaring. The gas from the DST 

will be routed through a separator (for removal of the condensate and produced water) then to the flare, with a release 

point about 20 feet above the ground. Flaring rate is expected to be between 125 and 2,500 MCF of a 

methane/ethane mixture over this 3-hour period. Because the flaring follows separation, it should contain only trace 

amounts of the heavier hydrocarbon compounds, so there should be little if any visible plume. 

Using the EPA generic emission factor of 0.068 lb/106 Btu for NOx (USEPA 2008a), the range of NOx emissions 

(at a gas heat content of 1050 Btu/SCF) is from 9 to 179 lb per three-hour flare event. With two potential DSTs, 

the total proposed project (and annual) flare emissions should range from 18 to 358 lbs of NOx. Emission factors 

for soot from a flare range from: 0 lb/106 Btu (non-smoking); 40 lb/106 Btu (lightly smoking); 177 lb/106 Btu 

(average smoking flares); and 274 lb/106 Btu (heavily smoking flares). 

The flare will be operating only at a times when drilling will have ceased and the generators will be operating at a 

very low level, if at all, so there will be no additive effect with the generator plume while the generators are being 

run at load. For emissions estimation purposes, assuming full-time use of the generators instead of developing 

scenarios for DST flaring provides a conservatively high value for projected air pollution that will be produced by 

this project. 

Well Abandonment and Reclamation 

If the well is considered non-commercial, then the well would be plugged and abandoned following COGCC rules. 

Plugging and abandonment would consist of placing cement plugs as directed by the COGCC. It is anticipated 

that the COGCC would require placing multiple plugs in the open hole section, one plug at the base of the surface 

casing, and one plug from the surface down 100 feet. Heavy drilling mud would be placed between all plugs. For 

final abandonment, all casing would be cut off at least six feet below ground level. 

With a non-commercial well, plugging is accomplished using the drilling rig that drilled the hole. Heavy drilling mud 

would be pumped into the open hole up to the lowest elevation required for a cement plug by the COGCC. 

Cement would then pumped on top of the heavy drilling mud up to the desired thickness, typically 100 feet of 

cement plug. Heavy drilling mud and cement would then be placed in sequence until the drill hole is filled. 
31

Under COGCC reclamation rules, after a well is plugged, the drill site and access roads must be reclaimed. For 

final reclamation of well sites, the rules include the following requirements: 

 Upon the plugging and abandonment of a well, all mouse and rat holes shall be backfilled. 

 All access roads to plugged and abandoned wells shall be closed, graded, and recontoured. 

Culverts and any other obstructions that were part of the access road(s) shall be removed. 

 Well locations, access roads, and associated facilities shall be reclaimed according to rules and 

including, as applicable, compaction alleviation, restoration, and revegetation of well sites and 

access roads. 

COGCC rules allow the surface owner to waive reclamation requirements. If, for instance, the surface owner 

wants to retain roads, the operator and surface owner can make agreement to do so. However, it is intent of the 

Refuge management that roads (except for the Lexam Road) and pads be completely removed and the areas 

reclaimed to prior conditions in accordance with COGCC rules regarding reclamation. The operator must comply 

with the provisions of the CDPHE SWMP requirements concerning final site stabilization. 

In addition, Service regulations 50 CFR 29.32, Mineral Rights Reserved and Excepted, require oil and gas 

companies to restore their sites as closely as possible to the original conditions that existed prior to site 

disturbance. Lexam’s restoration efforts would be conducted under the direct supervision of the Service, using 

only endemic plants and seed mixtures approved by the Service. The Service will monitor restoration efforts from 

that point on to ensure that restoration efforts have been successful. 

Water Requirements 

Water would be piped to the well locations using temporary plastic pipe laid out on the surface from the supply 

well to the drilling locations. Water requirements for the project are estimated to be a maximum of 15 acre-feet. 

Water could be obtained from a nearby monitoring well (SW-5) that is owned by the Service. The well is cased to 

approximately 181 feet below the ground surface and is considered to be tributary to the stream system. The well 

would be temporarily permitted as an industrial well for the duration of the project, and a substitute water supply 

plan (SWSP) would be required from the State Engineer’s Office (SEO) to replace water pumped from SW-5. 

Lexam has investigated nearby agriculture water rights and transferring the consumptive use portion of those 

water rights to Well SW-5 to offset depletions arising from the drilling program. Lexam would file for a SWSP 

pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) 37-92-308(5), which apply when the depletions will not exceed 5 

years. The plan would be approved for 1 year and can be renewed annually, but not to exceed 5 years. 

However, in the event that well water would not be available, water would have to be purchased from an off-site 

source and trucked to the drilling locations. Depending on daily water needs of the rig and the capacity of the 

tanker truck, as many as 250 truckloads per well could be required to supply water to the drilling operation. 

Solid Waste and Hazardous Materials 

Trash containers and portable toilets would be located on well sites during well pad construction, drilling 

operations, and site restoration. Toilet holding tanks would be pumped bi-weekly or as needed and their contents 

disposed of at a municipal sewage treatment facility in accordance with applicable rules and regulations regarding 

sewage treatment and disposal. Garbage, trash, and other non-hazardous waste material would be collected in a 

portable, self-contained, fully enclosed trash cage during operations. Trash would not be burned on location. The 

collected material would be hauled to an approved landfill. 

According the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule, certain wastes intrinsic to the drilling and 

production of oil and gas are exempt from regulation as hazardous wastes (USEPA 1988). Although exempted 

from regulation as hazardous wastes, it is still required that these wastes be disposed of according to applicable 

rules and in an environmentally acceptable manner. Drilling mud and drill cuttings are included in the exempt 

waste category. 

Drilling mud would constitute the largest volume of solid waste generated by the drilling operation. At the request 

of the Service, a condition of the COGCC permit requires use of a mud system that does not use an excavated 

reserve pit. The drilling system would be a closed-loop type of system in which all fluids and drill cuttings are 

contained in tanks. Also at the request of the Service, the COGCC permit requires Lexam to transport all drilling 
32

mud and drill cuttings to an off-site third-party commercial disposal facility permitted by CDPHE to handle such 

wastes. 

Lexam would maintain a file, according to 29 CFR 1910.1200 (g), containing Material Safety Data Sheets for all 

chemicals, compounds, and/or substances that would be used during drilling and completion operations. A variety 

of chemicals and materials, including petroleum fuels, lubricants, paints, and additives, are used to drill and 

complete a well. Some of these chemicals and materials may be considered hazardous or contain constituents 

that are hazardous. The transportation, use, storage, and handling of hazardous materials would follow 

procedures specified by federal and state regulations. Transportation of the materials to the well locations would 

be regulated by the DOT under 49 CFR Parts 171–180. DOT regulations pertain to packaging, container 

handling, labeling, placards on vehicles, and other safety aspects. 

A SPCC plan would be developed for the drill sites. A SPCC is site specific, describes how certain hazardous 

materials would be managed (oils and fuels), and provides information and procedures in case of a spill or 

release of those materials occurs. SPCC plans would be developed when a drilling contractor is chosen, since the 

SPCC has to be specific to the equipment and storage that would be on-site. A SPCC plan must be reviewed and 

certified by a professional engineer. Lexam would be responsible for providing the certification of the SPCC plan. 

Workforce and Time Requirements 

Construction of the access road and drill pad would be completed by local contractors and only during daylight 

hours. When drilling commences, the operation would become a continuous 24-hour operation until the well is 

drilled to total projected depth. Following road and pad construction, the following personnel would be on-site for 

any given shift (tour): six rig hands including the driller, one tool pusher (drilling contractor’s supervisor), one 

company representative, one geologist, two mud loggers, one mud engineer, one water truck/equipment operator, 

and one gatekeeper. A rig crew would work one 12-hour tour per 24-hour day. Supervisory personnel, the 

geologist, mud loggers, mud engineer, water truck/equipment operator, and gatekeeper would be on-site 24 hours 

per day. Other personnel would be on-site on a regular basis, but they are not considered part of the drilling 

personnel: drilling contractor health and safety supervisor, delivery drivers, suppliers, and government inspectors. 

Service company personnel (for cementing, BOP testing, wireline, drill stem testing, and casing) would be present 

for the time needed to conduct given services (6- to 24-hour events). Therefore, at any given time there may be 

from 14 to 30 people on-site during drilling operations. It is estimated that each well would take approximately 60 

to 90 days to drill and complete perhaps longer if unforeseen circumstances arise. 

Health and Safety 

Health and safety for drilling operations are governed by regulations of the COGCC, OSHA, and CDPHE. For 

more information, please consult: 

 COGCC: http://cogcc.state.co.us Select Rules, select 600 Safety Regulations 

OSHA: www.osha.gov/SLTC/oilgaswelldrilling/index.html 

 CDPHE: www.cdphe.state.co.us/ap/tankdocuments.html 

Conditions of the COGCC permit include the following health and safety measures: 

 Prior to commencing operations, an inventory of all chemicals and products that would be 

used or stored on site must be provided to the COGCC, the surface owner, and local 

emergency response personnel prior to bringing those substances on to the Refuge. If 

additional chemicals or products are required, then information about these substances 

must be provided to the COGCC, the surface owner, and local emergency response 

personnel prior to bringing them on to the Refuge. 

 Prior to commencing operations, an emergency response plan would be completed by 

Lexam and approved by the Service and discussed with local governments responsible for 

emergency services. A meeting with the local emergency response personnel would be 

held to establish an adequate safety and response plan for drilling, completion, and 

production activities. 

A copy of the emergency response plan and emergency contact numbers would be provided to Refuge staff and 

monitors before operations begin. 
33

1.7 Scoping

Public scoping was an important component of the development of this Draft EA. During this phase of the project, 

the Service obtained input from the public, interested organizations and federal, state, and local agencies to help 

inform the Service of concerns related to the proposal by Lexam. Information obtained through public involvement 

was important to capture specific issues, concerns, and ideas related to the potential exploration activities 

proposed by Lexam. 

The formal scoping period for the general public began on October 13, 2010 with the publication of a press 

release that was distributed through the Refuge website (http://fws.gov/alamosa/BacaNWR.html) and various 

newspapers and radio advertisements throughout the state of Colorado. The 30-day public comment period 

closed on November 10, 2010. A public scoping meeting was held on October 26, 2010 at the Colorado College 

Baca Conference Center in Crestone, Colorado and was attended by 19 people. Lexam’s Plan of Operations and 

the Service’s power-point presentation given during the public scoping meeting also are included on the Refuge’s 

website for public review and comment. The purpose of this meeting was to solicit public comments and concerns 

that will be considered in the Draft EA. 

Meeting Format 

Following a brief welcome and introduction, Service staff made a 15-minute power-point presentation that outlined 

the following points: 

Description and purpose of the Service and the National Wildlife Refuge System 

 Timeline of events associated with the proposed exploration activity by Lexam 

 Issues identified through previous public involvement 

 Overview of proposed exploration 

Following the presentation, the remainder of the meeting was broken up into two components, questions and 

answers and public comments. During the question and answer session, questions from the attending audience 

were posted on flip charts. In turn, Service staff answered all questions. The majority of the meeting time was 

spent in the question and answer session. After all the questions were answered, the Service took formal 

comments from those who wanted to offer them. This format enabled participants to have their questions 

answered about the Draft EA process and also identified many of the important issues. Refer to Appendix C for a 

complete scoping report including the questions and scoping comments received during the public meeting and 

public comment period. 

Major issues and concerns identified during the scoping process include: 

 Acquisition of mineral rights from Lexam; 

 Protection of aquifer; 

 Exploration prior to completion of Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP); 

 Number of exploration well pads; 

 Potential contaminants; 

 Degradation of air quality; 

 Degradation of surface water and groundwater quality; 

 Potential impacts to vegetation, habitats, and wildlife; 

 Increased noise;

 Management of hazardous materials and solid wastes; 

 Degradation of visual environment; 

 Impacts to human quality of life and livelihoods; and 

 Impacts to cultural resources. 

 Traffic associated with exploration; 

 Potential for future development; 

 Impacts to public health. 
34

2.0 Description of Alternatives

2.1 Introduction 

This chapter describes the alternatives considered in the development of this Draft EA for the proposed oil and 

gas exploration by Lexam, including the drilling of two exploratory vertical wells (Baca #5, Baca #7) on the 

Refuge. Alternatives are different approaches for consideration of the proposed action that must be rigorously 

explored and objectively evaluated. A range of alternatives was considered regarding the proposed action during 

the development this Draft EA, including the No Additional Protective Measures Provided by the Service 

Alternative (no action), Acquisition of the Mineral Estate Alternative, and Maximum Protection of Refuge during 

Exploration Alternative (preferred alternative), as well as alternatives considered but not selected for further 

evaluation. These alternatives evaluate the different levels of protection that the Refuge and associated resources 

can expect if a mineral owner exercises their legal right to conduct exploration activities on the Refuge. 

2.2 Alternative A - No Additional Protective Measures Provided by the 

Service (No Action Alternative) 

The No Action Alternative is important to include in the range of alternatives because it allows decision-makers to 

compare the magnitude of environmental effects of the action alternatives (i.e., Alternatives B and C) against a 

benchmark. Further, NEPA regulations require the inclusion of a No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative 

may be thought of in terms of continuing with the proposed exploration without the addition of protective 

measures and standards by the Service. 

Under the No Additional Protective Measures Provided by the Service Alternative (Alternative A), the Service 

would accept the standard rules and regulations required by various federal, state, and local agencies as 

adequate to protect the Refuge. Thus, no additional Refuge specific protective measures for Lexam’s proposed 

exploration activities would be required for inclusion in Lexam’s Plan of Operations. 

The Service policy (612 FW 2.7c; USFWS 2007a) mandates that Project Leaders: 

 Administer all oil and gas activities; 

 Comply with all applicable laws, policies, and guidance when administering oil and gas activities; 

 Protect Service lands against all unnecessary damage resulting from oil and gas activities; 

 Where reserved or excepted mineral rights exist, the project leader is responsible for ensuring 

that his/her actions do not result in an illegal taking of private property. 

The Service would not require any additional protective measures to be implemented by Lexam as part of their 

Plan of Operations because the Project Leader would consider the standard rules and conditions of imposed by 

federal (e.g., OSHA, EPA), state (e.g., COGCC, CDPHE), and local (Saguache County) guidelines adequate to 

protect the surface and subsurface resources of the Refuge from unnecessary degradation during the proposed 

oil and gas exploration. Exploration of Baca #5 and Baca #7 also would be subject to the binding Surface Use 

Agreement that was signed in 1992 by the previous owner. Also, under this alternative, Lexam would not be 

required to follow any of the protective measures required by the Service required under the Maximum Protection 

of Refuge during Exploration Alternative (alternative C). 

Under this alternative, drilling would occur from two vertical wells, one at Baca #5 and the other at Baca #7. The 

Service is uncertain which, if any additional conditions would be required by the COGCC as conditions of 

approval for a permit-to-drill in the absence of Service input. However, the COGCC has the authority to require 

certain conditions to prevent environmental degradation as determined through the permit review process. 
35

2.3 Alternative B - Acquisition of the Mineral Estate 

Under this alternative, three scenarios for acquiring the mineral estate could occur including: the purchase of the 

mineral estate by the federal government, purchase of the mineral estate by an outside party where the estate is 

then donated to the federal government or direct donation of the mineral estate to the federal government by the 

mineral owner. Acquisition of the mineral estate by the federal government would be pursuant to the authorization 

contained in Section 8(a)(1) of the Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve Act of 2000, 16 USC 410hhh6(a)(1). Donation of the mineral estate to the federal government would be pursuant to Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956, as amended, 16 USC 742f(b), which authorizes the acceptance of gifts, devises, or bequests of real and 

personal property, or interests therein, for the benefit of the Service. 

Acquisition or donation of the mineral estate would preclude proceeding with the proposed exploration, and the 

effects of exploration activities would not occur. Lexam has expressed to interested parties, the company’s 

willingness to sell its mineral interests and share of oil and gas rights for the purchase price of $8,399,847. This 

figure is based on Lexam’s total cost expended includes all costs associated with the acquisition of the property 

and past development and exploration related expenses, including the drilling and reclamation of two previous 

exploratory wells (Lexam #1 and Lexam #2); water quality baseline sampling; a cultural resource survey; 

geophysical evaluation including the recent 3D seismic survey; water rights planning and engineering; and air 

quality analysis. The cost does not include litigation costs associated with the Civil Action. This information was 

prepared by an independent audit firm and provided to the Service for analysis (Ernst and Young 2010). Lexam’s 

cost estimate includes significant limitations due to lack of available records dating back to the inception of the 

project. Costs from inception through 2006 were tabulated using public filings and communications with current 

and past management of Lexam. Only costs incurred from January 1, 2007 to present are supported by actual 

receipts and invoices which total $1,887,760 or approximately 22% of the requested purchase price. 

Although Service policy (342 FW 6) authorizes acquisition of land through condemnation in certain situations, the 

Service has never considered the use of eminent domain to secure the mineral estate under the Refuge as it is 

prohibited by the Refuge’s authorizing legislation (The Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve Act of 

2000) which only allows the purchase of lands and other interests from willing sellers. 

The Service may only purchase mineral interests for the fair market value (FMV) as determined by a competent 

minerals specialist that is either employed by or contracted by the Department of the Interior’s Office of Minerals 

Evaluation. The Office of Minerals Evaluation is used by Department of the Interior to perform mineral 

assessments and market analyses of potentially marketable minerals. The Federal government will not include 

so-called consequential costs incurred throughout the duration of the project in its valuation. The valuation 

process for reserved minerals beneath the Refuge is considered costly due to the size of the project and would be 

need to be funded using the Service’s operating funds (Davidoff & Cornellisson 2011). To date, Lexam has not 

provided information on the valuation of the actual mineral estate and the Service has not contracted for an 

evaluation of the value of minerals under the Refuge. 

The following documents were provided to the Refuge Manager by Lexam : a Special Warranty Deed With 

Reserved Net Profits Interest (Baca Minerals, Inc. to Aberford Minerals dated July 16, 1987); Articles of 

Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation (Aberford Minerals [U.S.] Inc. to Abermin Inc. dated September 3, 

1987); Articles of Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation (Abermin Inc. to Challenger Gold Inc. dated 

December 10, 1990); Articles of Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation [Change of Name] (Challenger Gold 

Inc. to Lexam Explorations (U.S.A.) Inc. dated January 17, 1995); a Special Warranty Deed (Newhall Land and 

Farming Company to Lexam Explorations [U.S.A.] Inc. dated October 14, 1997); a Quit Claim Deed (James N. 

Donaldson to Lexam Explorations [U.S.A.] Inc. dated November 2, 1998); a Surface Agreement (American Water 

Development, Inc. to Challenger Gold, Inc. dated April 7, 1992, but effective April 1, 1992); and a Supplement to 

Surface Agreement (dated January 12, 1993, but also effective April 1, 1992). In addition, the Service reviewed 

public documents held by Saguache County which include a Notice of Claim to Severed Mineral Interests 

(ConocoPhillips dated October 4, 2007). 

Once the mineral estate is properly valued, the Service has multiple legal authorities to purchase interests in 

lands to become a part of the federal estate. These legal authorities vary based on the source of their funding and 
36

their intended purposes. The following legal authorities would be applicable to the purchase of the mineral estate 

beneath the Refuge: 

 The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended, 16 USC 742a, authorizes acquisition of additions to the 

National Wildlife Refuge System for the development, management, advancement, conservation, and 

protection of fish and wildlife resources by purchase or exchange of land and water or interests therein. 

 The Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve Act of 2000, 16 USC 410hhh-6(a)(1), authorizes 

acquisition on lands and interests in lands within the acquisition boundary of the national wildlife refuge by 

purchase, donation, transfer, or exchange. 

 The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 460l, authorizes 

appropriations to the Service to acquire land for National Wildlife Refuges as otherwise authorized by law. 

Each year, the Service develops a request for funding obtained through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

This request is based upon a Land Acquisition Priority System (LAPS) which ranks proposed acquisition projects 

using standardized, objective biological criteria. The LAPS quantifies the biological attributes of fisheries and 

aquatic resources, endangered species, migratory birds, and larger ecosystems at the refuge level. The Service’s 

land acquisition program then achieves its conservation goals by prioritizing proposed acquisitions according to 

their potential to permanently protect habitats where biological communities will flourish within ecosystems. 

Funding is requested on a project-by-project basis. In addition, the Secretary of the Interior and the President’s 

Office of Management and Budget provide input into the formulation of the Service land acquisition budget 

proposal. Once completed, this budget proposal is provided to Congress as a part of the annual federal 

appropriation process. 

Table 2-1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Land and Water Conservation Fund Enacted Appropriations 

FY 2001 through FY 2010 (Land Acquisition Project Funding by Fiscal Year) 

–

(thousands 

of dollars) FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009

1 Region 6 $5,650 $7,000 $6,750 $10,500 $3,994 $1,500 $1,980 $319 $2,000

National $50,700 $80,135 $65,870 $30,070 $29,494 $15,195 $12,402 $20,676 $29,315

Region 6 Average (FY 2001 – FY 2010): $4,824 Region 6 Average (FY 2006 – FY 2010): $2,870 1

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region 6 includes: Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska

South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. 

FY 2010

$8,550

$66,785

, North Dakota, 

Over the past ten years (FY 2001 – FY2010), the Fish and Wildlife Service has received Land and Water 

Conservation Fund appropriations ranging from $12.4 to $80.1 million annually for land acquisition projects (Table 

2-1). Funding has been distributed using a relatively equitable ratio across the organization’s eight geographic 

regions. The Refuge falls within Region 6, which has also seen a wide range of appropriations. Region 6 has 

averaged approximately $4.8 million annually for the past ten years and approximately $2.9 million annually for 

the past five years. Project funding must be used to achieve a wide variety of habitat protections throughout the 

geographic region. The current budget process is focused on the agency’s ability to deliver conservation 

outcomes through protection of additional acres of habitat. The system does not provide metrics to reflect public 

concern or other non-habitat related impacts associated with commercial development of outstanding mineral 

rights. The Service recognizes these concerns, but it is very unlikely that the purchase of a severed mineral estate 

will ever be scored high enough to be included in an annual budget request. However, the Service has been 

required to expend over $400,000 to date as a direct result of Lexam’s intention to explore for oil and gas under 

the Refuge. As this figure grows, the federal government must be willing to consider an analysis where the cost of 

mineral acquisition becomes a reasonable expense. 

The federal process begins eighteen months prior to the start of any fiscal year and there are currently no 

requests for funding to acquire the mineral estate on the Refuge in Fiscal Year 2011 or Fiscal Year 2012 federal 
37

budgets. Without a proper valuation of the cost to purchase the minerals beneath the Refuge, it is extremely 

speculative to determine the relative priority of a project of this nature. 

However, the Department of the Interior finished a complete appraisal in 2008, including surface and subsurface 

interests on over 51,000 acres and on approximately 6,000 acres of several mineral rights located in Alamosa and 

Saguache Counties. This report concludes that cost of severed minerals in Luis Maria Baca Grant No. 4 are of 

relatively low value due to the numerous attempts to locate significantly producible oil and gas and the lack of any 

significant discovery. This report is supported by an independent geologic evaluation of the Crestone Prospect 

with similar negative conclusions (USDOI 2008). Appraisals are site-specific and may not be used in the 

development of fair market value for alternate locations, but comparable data is always a valuable tool in 

supporting real estate transactions. 

The Service has the legal authority and would accept the donation of reserved mineral interests directly from a 

mineral owner or as a donation from a third-party upon their acquisition. Donations would be handled in 

accordance with Department of the Interior donation guidelines for real property and would be recorded as 

property of the United States. 

The Service can neither compensate Lexam for its cumulative costs of exploration and it can only consider 

acquisition of the entire mineral estate beneath the Refuge for the fair market value. Without discovery of 

significant recoverable oil and gas, such a figure would be significantly lower than the $8.4 million proposed by 

Lexam. In addition, the Service will only consider the acquisition of 100% of the hard mineral and oil and gas 

rights beneath its lands which would require additional compensation to any other parties holding a reserved 

mineral interest. If all outstanding mineral rights are purchased, 43 CFR 3101.5-1 states that federal minerals 

underlying a NWR are not leasable, except in the event of actual drainage. However, this alternative is not being 

rejected , because Lexam has not rejected a compete valuation necessary to determine the fair market value of 

the complete mineral estate beneath the Refuge nor have they rejected discussions related to full or partial 

donation of the mineral estate. 

2.4 Alternative C - Maximum Protection of Refuge during Exploration 

(Preferred Alternative) 

Under this alternative, the Service would require that specific protective measures and standards be followed 

during all phases of oil and gas exploration being proposed by Lexam, including the proposed drilling of two 

exploratory oil and gas wells on the Refuge, to ensure that the surface estate of the Refuge and associated 

resources are not unreasonably degraded or impacted. These measures shall be equally applicable to Lexam’s 

employees, representatives, consultants, contractors and subcontractors. The Service also will require that 

Lexam resubmit a new Plan of Operations that addresses deficiencies identified in the current Plan of Operations 

and implements protective measures required by the Service. 

Under this alternative, drilling would occur from a vertical well at Baca #5 and a vertical well at Baca #7. However, 

at the request of the Service, Lexam has agreed to conduct their exploration activities including construction of 

roads and pads in sequential order, beginning first at their primary target (Baca #5). After Baca #5 is drilled, 

Lexam will make a decision on whether sufficient information was obtained, or if proceeding with construction and 

drilling at Baca #7 is necessary. The Service’s request for sequential exploration at Baca #5 then at Baca #7 does 

not affect the scope of the analyses in this Draft EA because the impacts of both wells (Baca #5 and Baca #7) 

have been assessed throughout Chapter 4.

Specific protective measures would be required by the Service to minimize and mitigate the potential effects of 

Lexam’s Plan of Operations on the surface and subsurface resources of the Refuge. These protective measures 

were developed by the Service through information obtained during public scoping, from the Final Settlement 

Agreement dated September 23, 2010 involving the litigation of the proposal by Lexam (Operator), and by new 

evidence outlining the potential impacts to resources protected by the Refuge. Of these, protection measures #5, 

8, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 32 included in the list below were modified or not included as conditions of approval for prior 

permits to drill on the Refuge. These protective measures also are listed in Appendix D. 
38

Under this alternative, Lexam would be required to implement the following protective measures and conditions 

outlined below. Specific reference to federal and state laws and regulations are not intended to be all inclusive. 

Therefore, all applicable federal and state laws in addition to those highlighted below would still apply to the 

proposed exploration activities. 

1) All vehicles and equipment from outside the Refuge will be decontaminated per Service procedures 

to prevent the introduction of noxious weeds to the Refuge. Decontamination will include removal of 

skid plates for inspection and cleaning if necessary. This measure is subject to the following rules: 

 COGCC rule 1004(e) – ―All areas being reclaimed shall be kept as free as practicable of all 

undesirable plant species designated to be noxious weeds. Weed control measures shall be 

conducted in compliance with the Colorado Noxious Weed Act, C.R.S. §35-5.5-115 and the 

current rules pertaining to the administration and enforcement of the Colorado Noxious Weed Act. 

It is recommended that the operator consult with the local weed control agency or other weed 

control authority when weed infestation occurs. It is the responsibility of the operator to monitor 

affected and reclaimed lands for noxious weed infestations. If applicable, the Director may require 

a weed control plan.‖

 Plants and animals or their parts taken elsewhere shall not be introduced, liberated, or placed on 

any national wildlife refuge except as authorized. (50 C.F.R. 27.52) 

2) In order to protect cultural resources Lexam will provide on-site cultural resource monitoring during all 

ground disturbing activities. This measure is subject to the following rules: 

 No person shall search for or remove from national wildlife refuges objects of antiquity except as 

may be authorized by 43 CFR part 3. (50 C.F.R. 27.62) 

 No person shall search for buried treasure, treasure trove, valuable semi-precious rocks, stones, 

or mineral specimens on national wildlife refuges unless authorized by permit or by provision of 

this subchapter C; Permits are required for archeological studies on national wildlife refuges in 

accordance with the provisions of this subchapter C. (50 C.F.R. 27.63) 

3) Lexam will provide trained natural resource advisors (NRAs), approved by Service, who will continue to 

serve as liaisons between the Refuge Manager, construction contractor, and drill rig personnel and 

ensure that all operations are conducted in a manner that minimizes surface impacts. NRAs have specific 

skills and duties when working on ―sensitive lands,‖ like a NWR, that enable them to identify deficiencies 

or negligent activities before issues arise that have the potential to cause unreasonable degradation of 

the surface and subsurface estate of the Refuge. 

4) Impacts to sensitive habitat, wildlife, plants, other sensitive natural or historical resources will be 

avoided to the extent possible while constructing the access road and well pads. This measure is subject 

to the following rules: 

 COGCC rule 1002(e) – ―Existing roads shall be used to the greatest extent practicable to avoid 

erosion and minimize the land area devoted to oil and gas operations. Roadbeds shall be 

engineered to avoid or minimize impacts to riparian areas or wetlands to the extent practicable. 

Unavoidable impacts shall be mitigated. Road crossings of streams shall be designed and 

constructed to allow fish passage, where practicable and appropriate.‖

5) Lexam will provide a resource monitoring plan which must be approved by Service. This plan should 

include a schedule for gathering data before, during, and after construction and/or drilling activities occur. 

It should include an assessment of baseline water quality of surface waters, the near-surface unconfined 

aquifer and the deeper confined aquifers in proximity to the proposed well locations (both up gradient and 

down gradient), as well as baseline information on soils, vegetation, air quality, sound (e.g., hourly sound 

pressure, ambient sound levels, etc.), and visual impacts. In addition, it should include provisions for resampling in the event of anomalous detections. 
39

6) Pre- and post-drilling aerial photographs will be taken of the proposed drilling and road construction 

area. The photographs will be color and will provide complete coverage of the drilling and road 

construction area. The pre-survey documentation shall be submitted within 10 days of initiation of the 

drilling, the post-survey documentation shall be submitted within 110 days of completion along with a 

digitized version of the pre-survey photographs. These photographs will become the property of the 

Refuge. This measure is subject to the following rule: 

 COGCC rule 303(d)(3) – ―A minimum of four (4) color photographs, one (1) of the staked location 

from each cardinal direction. Each photograph shall be identified by: date taken, well or location 

name, and direction of view.‖

7) The soils at the location site will be tested using approved standards to determine levels of heavy 

metals, chemical pollutant, and other contaminants, prior to rig-up operations. Duplicate tests will be 

conducted before completion or at abandonment. If the exit test reveals levels above the background 

established by pre-drilling test, cleanup will be required. The most practical method of clean up is soil 

removal. Any quantity of soil removed will be replaced to the original contours. This measure is subject to 

the following rules: 

 COGCC rule 1003(e)(2) – ―Revegetation of non-crop lands. All segregated soil horizons 

removed from non-crop lands shall be replaced to their original relative positions and contour as 

near as practicable to achieve erosion control and long-term stability, and shall be tilled 

adequately in order to establish a proper seedbed. The disturbed area then shall be reseeded in 

the first favorable season following rig demobilization. Reseeding with species consistent with the 

adjacent plant community is encouraged. In the absence of an agreement between the operator 

and the affected surface owner as to what seed mix should be used, the operator shall consult 

with a representative of the local soil conservation district to determine the proper seed mix to use 

in revegetating the disturbed area. In an area where an operator has drilled or plans to drill 

multiple wells, in the absence of an agreement between the operator and the affected surface 

owner, the operator may rely upon previous advice given by the local soil conservation district in 

determining the proper seed mixes to be used in revegetating each type of terrain upon which 

operations are to be conducted.‖

Interim reclamation of all disturbed areas no longer in use shall be considered complete when all 

ground surface disturbing activities at the site have been completed, and all disturbed areas have 

been either built on, compacted, covered, paved, or otherwise stabilized in such a way as to 

minimize erosion to the extent practicable, or a uniform vegetative cover has been established 

that reflects pre-disturbance or reference area forbs, shrubs, and grasses with total percent plant 

cover of at least eighty percent (80%) of pre-disturbance levels or reference areas, excluding 

noxious weeds. Re-seeding alone is not sufficient.‖

8) Lexam shall provide Service with a detailed wetland delineation, which shall be performed prior to any 

disturbance in the immediate Project Area vicinity. This determination should follow U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Hydrogeomorphic Method (Smith et al. 1995). Based on information gathered from the wetland 

delineation, well sites will be located as far from sensitive wet meadow wetlands as practicable. This 

measure is important to determine if the following rules apply: 

 COGCC rule 303(f) – ―Oil and gas locations in wetlands. In the event that an operator, 

otherwise required to file a Form 2A, acquires an Army Corps of Engineers permit pursuant to 

33 U.S.C.A. §1342 and 1344 of the Water Pollution and Control Act (Section 404 of the 

federal ―Clean Water Act‖) for construction of an oil and gas location, the operator shall so 

indicate on the Oil and Gas Location Assessment, Form 2A.‖

 COGCC rule 1002(e)(2) – ―Operators shall avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands and 

riparian habitats to the degree practicable.‖
40

9) Summaries of all the results generated from the water quality sampling, cultural resource work and any 

other sampling or monitoring, including the results of Lexam’s exploratory drilling, will be provided to the 

Refuge Manager upon completion and summation. This measure is subject to the following rule: 

 COGCC rule 608(b)(5) – ―Copies of all test results described above shall be provided to the 

Commission and the water well owner within three (3) months of collecting the samples. The 

analytical data and surveyed well locations shall also be submitted to the Director in an 

electronic data deliverable format.‖

10) Lexam will provide a detailed description of all best management practices that will be used during 

any aspect of the proposed exploration project. This measure is subject to the following rule: 

 COGCC rule 1002(f)(2&3) – Stormwater management - best management practices. 

11) All construction of roads and pads will occur in a way that best facilitates their subsequent complete 

removal and reclamation once Lexam activities have ceased at these sites. This includes separating and 

stockpiling and covering topsoil layers on-site to be replaced during reclamation. All disturbed areas will 

be reclaimed per the requirements imposed by the COGCC and with Service input. Only endemic plants 

and seed mixtures are to be used in reclamation. This measure is subject to the following rules: 

 COGCC rule 1002(b)(2) – ―The operator shall separate and store the topsoil horizon or the 

top six (6) inches, whichever is deeper, and mark or document stockpile locations to facilitate 

subsequent reclamation. When separating the soil horizons, the operator shall segregate the 

horizon based upon noted changes in physical characteristics such as organic content, color, 

texture, density, or consistency.‖

 COGCC rule 1002(c) – ―All stockpiled soils shall be protected from degradation due to 

contamination, compaction and, to the extent practicable, from wind and water erosion during 

drilling and production operations. Best management practices to prevent weed 

establishment and to maintain soil microbial activity shall be implemented.”

 COGCC rules 1003 & 1004 – ―Final reclamation of all disturbed areas shall be considered 

complete when all activities disturbing the ground have been completed, and all disturbed 

areas have been either built upon, compacted, covered, paved, or otherwise stabilized in 

such a way as to minimize erosion, or a uniform vegetative cover has been established that 

reflects pre-disturbance or reference area forbs, shrubs, and grasses with total percent plant 

cover of at least eighty percent (80%) of pre-disturbance or reference area levels, excluding 

noxious weeds, or equivalent permanent, physical erosion reduction methods have been 

employed. Re-seeding alone is not sufficient.‖

12) To fully protect the aquifers from contamination through communication in the borehole. The 

intermediate casing shall extend 500 feet beyond the bottom of Layer #4 of the deep confined aquifer1. 

The bottom of Layer #4 must be determined by detailed logging of the lithology during drilling. Although, 

existing information suggests that the bottom of Layer #4 could be 3,500 feet below the surface, Lexam 

shall consult with an independent professional geologist (reference CRS-34-1-201) approved by the 

Service to confirm when the appropriate depth has been reached based on data collected from drill logs. 

 COGCC rule 317(d) – ―Casing program to protect hydrocarbon horizons and 

groundwater. The casing program adopted for each well must be so planned and 

maintained as to protect any potential oil or gas bearing horizons penetrated during drilling 

from infiltration of injurious waters from other sources, and to prevent the migration of oil, gas 

 

1

 Lexam must case the entire deep confined aquifer (Aquifer Layer #4). The CDWR (2004) described five separate 

hydrogeological layers that comprise the aquifer in the San Luis Valley. Each layer is defined based on one or more lithologies 

with similar hydrogeologic characteristics. Layer #4 occurs within a Sante Fe formation that is predominantly sand and gravel 

and has up to 50% clay layers in most areas of the SLV. Approximate depth of Layer #4 is from 1,200 to 3,500 feet.
41

or water from one (1) horizon to another, that may result in the degradation of groundwater. A 

Sundry Notice, Form 4, including a detailed work plan and a wellbore diagram, shall be 

submitted and approved by the Director prior to any routine or planned casing repair 

operations. During well operations, prior verbal approval for unforeseen casing repairs 

followed by the filing of a Sundry Notice, Form 4, after completion of operations shall be 

acceptable.‖

 COGCC rule 317(e) – “Casing where subsurface conditions are unknown. In areas 

where pressure and formations are unknown, sufficient surface casing shall be run to reach a 

depth below all known or reasonably estimated utilizable domestic fresh water levels and to 

prevent blowouts or uncontrolled flows, and shall be of sufficient size to permit the use of an 

intermediate string or strings of casings. Surface casing shall be set in or through an 

impervious formation and shall be cemented by pump and plug or displacement or other 

approved method with sufficient cement to fill the annulus to the top of the hole, all in 

accordance with reasonable requirements of the Director.‖

13) Lexam shall provide a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) which must be approved by Service. 

This plan should be prepared according to SWMP guidelines prepared by the Colorado Department of 

Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). CDPHE guidelines for General Permit Application and 

Stormwater Management Plan Preparation Guidance and should include sufficient information and 

narrative descriptions regarding construction activities along the existing waterways, locations of all 

proposed potential discharges, identification of potential pollutant sources, maps detailing all ground 

disturbing activities at sites, and details and figures for proposed BMPs for these construction activities. 

An outline is available from CDPHE and should be followed. 

 COGCC rule 1002(f)(2&3) - ―Oil and gas operators shall implement and maintain Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) at all oil and gas locations to control stormwater runoff in a 

manner that minimizes erosion, transport of sediment offsite, and site degradation. BMPs shall be 

maintained until the facility is abandoned and final reclamation is achieved pursuant to Rule 1004. 

Operators shall employ BMPs, as necessary to comply with this rule, at all oil and gas locations, 

including, but not limited to, well pads, soil stock piles, access roads, tank batteries, compressor 

stations, and pipeline rights of way. BMPs shall be selected based on site-specific conditions, 

such as slope, vegetation cover, and proximity to water bodies, and may include maintaining inplace some or all of the BMPs installed during the construction phase of the facility. Where 

applicable based on site-specific conditions, operators shall implement BMPs in accordance with 

good engineering practices.‖

 The Water Quality Control Act (§25-8-501(1), C.R.S.) - Establishes a state water quality 

management program administered by the Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) which 

prohibits any person from ―discharg[ing]...any pollutant into any state water from a point source 

without first having obtained a permit from the division for such discharge . . .‖ Stormwater 

management for construction activities at oil and gas related sites is currently regulated under two 

separate agencies within the State of Colorado, the WQCD and the COGCC. 

14) Lexam shall provide a Spill Prevention and Countermeasures Plan (SPCC), which must be approved 

by Service. This plan shall include: a listing of secondary containment and/or diversionary structures or 

equipment for all oil handling containers, equipment, and transfer areas. It should also include a table 

identifying tanks and containers at the facility with the potential for an oil discharge; the mode of potential 

failure; the likely flow direction and potential quantity of the discharge; as well as, provide the secondary 

containment method and containment capacity. In addition, the plan should include the physical layout of 

the facility and a facility diagram, which must mark the location and contents of each container. The 

facility diagram must also include all transfer stations and connecting pipes. 

15) A closed loop mud and drill cuttings system will be used to minimize impacts to surrounding habitats. 

In addition, drill cuttings will be isolated in an above-ground tank during drilling. Cuttings and drilling fluids 
42

will be removed from the Refuge and disposed of off-site in accordance with state regulations (50 C.F.R. 

27.94; 50 C.F.R. 29.32). 

16) Drilling operations will be modified, as necessary, to reduce conflicts with regular Refuge 

management activities. 

17) A gate guard will be provided by Lexam, and approved by the Service, to document traffic entering 

and exiting the Refuge and to eliminate potential illegal entry onto the Refuge. 

18) Arrangements for additional Service law enforcement personnel will be made in the event it is 

deemed necessary to effectively enforce state, federal, refuge, and wildlife laws and regulations during 

drilling activities. 

19) The Operator’s construction and drilling activities will be restricted to the period of August 1 through 

April 30 to avoid conflicts with wildlife and limit ground disturbance activities to periods of low precipitation 

minimizing impacts to soil. Any field operations conducted during the Refuge's migratory bird closure 

period (May 1 through July 31) must be coordinated and pre-authorized by the Refuge Manager or his 

authorized representative. Service will consider allowing Lexam to continue work in early May if allowing 

access is necessary to complete activities and such activities would not impact the Refuge and resources 

greater than what is anticipated in the EA. Absolutely no activities will be permitted beyond May 15. Rig 

up and rig down operations can only be conducted during daylight hours. However, drilling operations can 

be conducted 24 hours per day. This measure is subject to the following rules: 

 COGCC rule 306(a) – ―Consultation with surface owner. In locating roads, production facilities, 

and well sites, or other oil and gas operations, and in preparation for reclamation and 

abandonment, the operator shall consult in good faith with the surface owner...Such good faith 

consultation shall allow the surface owner or appointed agent the opportunity to provide 

comments to the operator regarding preferences for the timing of oil and gas operations and 

preferred locations for wells and associated facilities.‖

 CDOW Actions to Minimize Adverse Impacts to Wildlife Resources - "Schedule construction, 

drilling, and completion activities to avoid particularly sensitive seasonal wildlife habitats.‖

20) Refuge Manager or his authorized representative may require drill pads to be fenced if necessary to 

prevent large ungulates from gaining access to the sites. 

 CDOW Actions to Minimize Adverse Impacts to Wildlife Resources - ―Fence livestock and/or 

wildlife out of newly reclaimed areas until reclamation standards have been met and plants are 

capable of sustaining herbivory.‖

21) To protect special status species such as the Rio Grande Sucker and Rio Grande Chub, the Service 

requires that Lexam: 

− Establish a 0.25-mile buffer zone of no activity around potential and identified habitat. 

− Limit vehicle crossings to existing or pre-approved crossings. 

− Sample waterways for particulate matter, creating a baseline and regular monitoring during 

period of activity. 

− Assess stability and suitability of road water crossings prior to road construction and drilling 

activities and perform upgrades, if needed. Conduct periodic monitoring of crossings during 

activities and documentation of any deficiencies that may occur that may be indicative of potential 

structural failure. 

− Provide dust suppression in the vicinity of waterway crossings.

22) The Operator shall provide detailed maps or plats, as required by COGCC the Refuge Manager or his 

authorized representative of the proposed project layout, showing routes, staging areas, construction 

areas, and work locations. This measure is subject to the following rules: 
43

 COGCC rule 303 (c) - ―Attached to and part of the Permit-to-Drill, Form 2, as filed shall be a 

current 81⁄2" by 11" scaled drawing of the entire section(s) containing the proposed well location 

with the following minimum information: 

(1) Dimensions on adjacent exterior section lines sufficient to completely describe the 

quarter section containing the proposed well shall be indicated. If dimensions are not field 

measured, state how the dimensions were determined. 

(2) The latitude and longitude of the proposed well location shall be provided on the 

drawing with a minimum of five (5) decimal places of accuracy and precision using the 

North American Datum (NAD) of 1983 (e.g.; latitude 37.12345 N, longitude 104.45632 

W). If global positioning system (GPS) technology is utilized to determine the latitude and 

longitude, all GPS data shall meet the requirements set forth in Rule 215. a. through h. 

(3) For directional drilling into an adjacent section, that section shall also be shown on the 

location plat and dimensions on exterior section lines sufficient to completely describe the 

quarter section containing the proposed productive interval and bottom hole location shall 

be indicated. (Additional requirements related to directional drilling are found in Rule 

321.) 

(4) For irregular, partial or truncated sections, dimensions will be furnished to completely 

describe the entire section containing the proposed well. (5) The field-measured 

distances from the nearer north/south and nearer east/west section lines shall be 

measured at ninety (90) degrees from said section lines to the well location and 

referenced on the plat. For unsurveyed land grants and other areas where an official 

public land survey system does not exist, the well locations shall be spotted as footages 

on a protracted section plat using GPS technology and reported as latitude and longitude 

in accordance with Rule 215. 

(6) A map legend. 

(7) A north arrow. 

(8) A scale expressed as an equivalent (e.g. - 1" = 1000'). 

(9) A bar scale. 

(10) The ground elevation. 

(11) The basis of the elevation (how it was calculated or its source). 

(12) The basis of bearing or interior angles used. 

(13) Complete description of monuments and/or collateral evidence found; all aliquot 

corners used shall be described. 

(14) The legal land description by section, township, range, principal meridian, baseline 

and county. 

(15) Operator name. 

(16) Well name and well number. 

(17) Date of completion of scaled drawing.‖

 COGCC rule 303 (d)(3)(D) - "A topographic map showing all surface waters and riparian areas 

within one thousand (1,000) feet of the proposed oil and gas location, with a horizontal distance 

and approximate bearing from the oil and gas location.‖ 

 COGCC rule 303 (d)(3)(E) - "An 8 1/2‖ by 11‖ vicinity or U.S. Geological Survey topographic map 

showing the access road from the highway or county road providing access to the proposed oil 

and gas location.‖

23) All materials brought into the Refuge to build up the location pad will be authorized by the Refuge 

Manager or his authorized representative. To minimize the spread of invasive species, no top soils will be 

brought in from off the Refuge. (50 C.F.R. 27.52; 50 C.F.R. 29.32) 

24) The Operator shall have an on-site independent oil and gas consultant present during all phases of 

exploration and they shall be the sole representative of the Operator and subcontractors regarding all 

communications and decisions of the Refuge Manager or his authorized representative. The consultant’s 

sole responsibility is to ensure daily compliance with Refuge, ensure that all oil and gas laws and 
44

regulations are followed, report all accidents and/or injuries and keep the Project Leader informed daily. 

The Operator shall keep the Refuge Manager or his authorized representative informed if there is any 

change of designated independent oil and gas consultant. (50 C.F.R. 25.72) 

25) Refuge officials will conduct an on-site meeting before rig-up with representatives of the Operator, 

drilling contractor, subcontractors, suppliers and service companies. The purpose of the meeting is to go 

over regulations and conditions that apply to work crew conduct on the Refuge. 

26) Prior to rig-up, an Emergency Preparedness Plan covering exploratory drilling, well control, materials 

hauling, spill response, and fire evacuation, will be provided to the Refuge Manager and discussed in a 

pre-operation meeting to be held with local governments. The plan shall contain a telephone list naming 

key contacts for emergency operations and activation. This measure is subject to the following rules: 

 COGCC rule 306 - Consultation. The operator shall consult in good faith, as provided . . .[with] 

local governments that have appointed a local governmental designee and have indicated to the 

Director a desire for consultation shall be given an opportunity to engage in such consultation.‖

 COGCC rule 317(l) - "Flaring of gas during drilling and notice to local emergency dispatch. 

Any gas escaping from the well during drilling operations shall be, so far as practicable, 

conducted to a safe distance from the well site and burned. The operator shall notify the local 

emergency dispatch as provided by the local governmental designee of any such flaring. Such 

notice shall be given prior to the flaring if the flaring can be reasonably anticipated, and in all 

other cases as soon as possible but in no event more than two (2) hours after the flaring occurs.‖

 COGCC rule 317(B)(d)(6) - "An emergency spill response program that includes employee 

training, safety, and maintenance provisions and current contact information for downstream 

Public Water System(s) located within fifteen (15) stream miles of the DCPS Operation, as well 

as the ability to notify any such downstream Public Water System(s) with intake(s) within fifteen 

(15) stream miles downstream of the DCPS operations.‖

27) The Operator will upgrade and maintain all access routes, roads and bridges designated for its use 

across the Refuge in accordance with acceptable specifications and standards. The Operator shall have 

road maintenance equipment and operator(s) readily available to perform road repairs and maintenance 

as needed, or as directed by the Refuge Manager or his authorized representative. 

28) Dust levels on regularly traveled access routes must be kept to a minimum. The Operator shall have a 

water truck and operator(s) readily available to perform dust abatement as needed, or as directed by the 

Refuge Manager or his authorized representative. Only water will be allowed for dust suppression efforts. 

Dust control measures shall be implemented throughout the traveled areas of the Project Area in addition 

to the dust abatement requirement in measure #15. This measure is subject to the following rule: 

 COGCC rule 1002(e)(1) - In order to reasonably minimize land disturbances and facilitate future 

reclamation, well sites, production facilities, gathering pipelines, and access roads shall be 

located, adequately sized, constructed, and maintained so as to reasonably control dust and 

minimize erosion, alteration of natural features, removal of surface materials, and degradation 

due to contamination. 

29) The drill site and immediate access roads shall be constructed of Refuge approved material for all 

drilling locations. Drill pads may not exceed 90,000 square feet in area. All existing drainage patterns 

within roads to be constructed shall be maintained uninterrupted by the use of culverts, bridges or other 

applicable techniques as specified and authorized by the Refuge Manager or his authorized 

representative. This measure is subject to the following rule: 

 COGCC rule 1002(d) - The drilling location shall be designed and constructed to provide a safe 

working area while reasonably minimizing the total surface area disturbed. Consistent with 

applicable spacing orders and well location orders and regulations, in locating drill pads, steep 
45

slopes shall be avoided when reasonably possible. The drill pad site shall be located on the most 

level location obtainable that will accommodate the intended use. If not avoidable, deep vertical 

cuts and steep long fill slopes shall be constructed to the least percent slope practical. Where 

feasible, operators shall use directional drilling to reduce cumulative impacts and adverse impacts 

on wildlife resources. 

30) Upon completion of drilling operations, the Refuge Manager or his authorized representative must be 

advised within 120 days whether the well is to be retained or plugged. If the well site is to be abandoned, 

the well is to be plugged according to state law, all above ground structures removed and the site and 

road restored as directed by the Refuge Manager or his authorized representative. Any damage to 

existing surface vegetation, water channels, or other physical features shall be restored to original site 

conditions. All costs shall be born by the Operator. This measure is subject to the following rules: 

 COGCC rule 1001(a) - The rules and regulations of this series establish the proper reclamation of 

the land and soil affected by oil and gas operations and ensure the protection of the topsoil of 

said land during such operations. The surface of the land shall be restored as nearly as 

practicable to its condition at the commencement of drilling operations. 

 Upon the cessation of operations the area shall be restored as nearly as possible to its condition 

prior to the commencement of operations. (50 C.F.R. 29.32) 

31) Pits, ponds and/or open tanks are prohibited. Fully enclosed portable tanks must be used in 

circulating operations for the temporary storage of all drilling fluids, cuttings, mud, and contaminants. All 

drilling fluids, cuttings, mud, contaminants, portable tanks, and other equipment must be transported off 

Refuge to a state approved facility upon cessation of drilling activity. On-site disposal of drilling fluids is 

prohibited. It is highly recommended that an auger tank be used for transferring drill cuttings and sand to 

a vehicle for off Refuge transport. This measure is subject to the following rule: 

 COGCC rule 907(c)(2)(c) – Drilling Fluids. Treatment and Disposal. Drilling fluid may be disposed 

as follows: 

B. Disposal at a commercial solid waste disposal facility 

32) Lexam must provide Service with a written description of how potential produced water and 

condensate resulting from drill stem testing will be handled and disposed of, in the event that the 

proposed exploratory wells intersect gas reserves. On-site disposal of produced water is prohibited. 

Produced water may only be disposed of at an off-site state approved facility following: 

 COGCC rule 907(c)(2)(c) – Produced water disposal. Produced water may be disposed as 

follows: 

C. Disposal at permitted commercial facilities 

33) All toxic construction and equipment supplies and refuse (oil, grease, gasoline, diesel, paint, and 

other petrochemical derivatives) shall be centrally stored. Wastes shall be disposed off Refuge 

immediately following completion of drilling operations. In the event of an accidental spill or discharge of 

oil, brine, or any other petrochemical substance, the Operator shall immediately notify the Refuge 

Manager or his authorized representative. The Operator shall remove contaminated soils for proper 

disposal off Refuge, and replace such soils with the same type soils or of a type specified and approved 

by the Refuge Manager or his authorized representative. A site reclamation plan may be required by the 

Refuge Manager or his authorized representative. (50 C.F.R. 29.32) This measure is subject to the 

following rules: 

 CDPHE rule 6 C. C. R. 1007-2&3. Solid and Hazardous Waste Commission Regulations. 

Hazardous wastes require storage, treatment, and disposal practices in accordance with 6 C.C.R. 
46

1007-3. All non-hazardous/non-E&P wastes are considered solid waste, which require storage, 

treatment, and disposal in accordance with 6 C.C.R. 1007-2.

34) Catch pans or other liner systems approved by the Refuge Manager are required for equipment and 

locations such as mud pumps, bulk mud additive tanks, fuel tanks, mixing shed, generators, accumulator 

and lines, and under the entire rig floor. The catch pans will cover the entire surface area under the 

equipment. The rig floor catch pan will be tied to allow for wash down and mud drainage from drill pipe. 

The catch pans will be kept free and clean from accumulated debris and spill materials. (50 C.F.R. 27.94; 

50 C.F.R. 29.32) 

35) The Operator will be responsible for providing all water needed for drilling operations. No waste water 

will be discharged onto Refuge lands, ditches, or water bodies. The Operator will provide a containerized 

or temporary septic system for domestic sewage disposal during drilling operations, which shall be 

removed upon completion of drilling. Use of portable toilets at drill site or the installation of a septic 

system, or similar treatment system or tanks will be required for any trailer or quarters on site. No surface 

discharge of septic system or portable toilet water is permitted. Septic tanks must be inspected weekly 

during operations and pumped as necessary. Upon completion of operations, the septic tanks must be 

pumped out and all material hauled away. 

36) All disposable type materials and trash brought onto the Refuge or generated at the drill site shall be 

removed from the Refuge on a biweekly basis and upon completion of the drilling activities. The drill site 

and operational area shall be kept free of debris and trash at all times. Trash shall be contained securely 

at the drill site in such a manner (fully enclosed trash cages) as to prevent trash from being spread by 

wind or wildlife. No trash may be disposed of or buried on the Refuge. (50 C.F.R. 27.94) 

37) Lexam must implement the recommendations contained in the report entitled ―Existing Conditions 

Report for a Portion of the Lexam Road, Saguache County, Colorado,‖ prepared by Russell Surveyors 

and Associates, Inc., March 30, 2008, with input from the Service. 

38) Lexam must implement the recommendations that were the basis for the air quality report analysis set 

forth in the ―Lexam Baca Drilling Project Visibility Impact Evaluation,‖ Air Sciences Inc., April 30, 2008: (a) 

power generators will be Tier 2 engines; (b) diesel fuel used in generators and all other non-road engines 

will be ultra-low-sulfur (less than 0.05 percent sulfur); and (c) disturbed areas will be watered to control 

the fugitive dust. 

39) Lexam must use mufflers on all internal combustion engines and certain compressor components that 

are designed to further attenuate noise emissions during all exploration activities. 

 COGCC rule 802(b) - "Oil and gas operations at any well site, production facility, or gas facility 

shall comply with the following maximum permissible noise levels. Operations involving pipeline 

or gas facility installation or maintenance, the use of a drilling rig, completion rig, workover rig, or 

stimulation is subject to the maximum permissible noise levels for industrial zones. The type of 

land use of the surrounding area shall be determined by the Commission in consultation with the 

local governmental designee taking into consideration any applicable zoning or other local land 

use designation.‖

40) Upon CDOW recommendation, Lexam has agreed, that in the event of a severe winter, to assist the 

CDOW with managing for the needs of any wintering big game temporarily displaced by Lexam’s 

activities within the designated areas, especially if the temporary displacement results in the potential for 

a decline in overall physiological health of the animals or in increased game damage claims by private 

landowners. This assistance could occur as a Lexam funded baiting program, feeding program or other 

form of distribution management as determined appropriate by CDOW within the severe winter range 

area. 

41) A minimum of one up-gradient and two down-gradient monitoring wells will be installed around each 

drill pad. The wells will be completed in the shallow unconfined aquifer. The locations and elevations of 
47

the wells will be surveyed and depth to water will be measured. Water samples will be collected for 

chemical analysis before the wells are spud and at predetermined intervals thereafter, which will agreed 

to by the Service and Lexam. If spills or releases of drilling related chemicals at sites occur, then the 

sampling frequency may be increased to a frequency agreed to by the Service, Baca Grande Water and 

Sanitation District, and Lexam. 

42) General Refuge access conditions: 

− Access is to allow Lexam and/or its contractor’s access to portions of the Refuge for the 

purpose of carrying out drilling of oil and gas exploration wells Baca #5 and Baca #7. (50 C.F.R. 

26.22) 

− The Refuge Manager is the coordinating official having immediate jurisdiction and 

administrative responsibility for oil and gas operations on the Baca National Wildlife Refuge 

(Refuge) lands and property, all entry upon the Refuge must be coordinated with the Refuge 

Manager or his authorized representative The Refuge Manager must be advised at least 48 hours 

in advance of initial activity. (50 C.F.R. 26.22) 

− The failure of the United States to require strict performance of the terms, conditions, 

covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this permit for access to conduct exploration activities 

on National Wildlife Refuge lands, shall not constitute a waiver or relinquishment of the right of 

the United States to strictly enforce thereafter such terms, conditions, covenants, agreements, or 

stipulations which shall, at all times, continue in full force and effect. 

− Lexam and/or its contractors shall save, hold harmless, defend, and indemnify the United 

States, its agents and employees for loss, damages, or judgments and expenses on account of 

bodily injury, death or property damage, or claims for bodily injury, death or property damage of 

any nature whatsoever, and by whomever made, arising out of the Operator, his employees, 

subcontractors or agents with respect to the exploration of any and all mineral rights within the 

lands administered by the Refuge. 

− All applicable federal and state regulations apply and will be in force. Operator shall be 

responsible for the actions of all exploration and support personnel. Violations of applicable laws 

or regulations will subject the operator and/or his employees to prosecution under state and/or 

federal laws. Individuals utilizing the Refuge under the Operator's authorization are subject to 

inspections of vehicles and their contents by federal and state law enforcement officers. 

− Proof of general liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 must be furnished to 

repair/mitigate any damages. This does not limit the liability for damages to this amount. 

 COGCC rule 708 - General Liability Insurance. All operators shall maintain 

general liability insurance coverage for property damage and bodily injury to third parties 

in the minimum amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence. Such policies 

shall include the Commission as a ―certificate holder‖ so that the Commission may 

receive advance notice of cancellation. 

− Operators will act in a manner that is respectful of Refuge habitats, wildlife, and property. Gates 

are to be locked or unlocked as they are found. (50 C.F.R. 27.21; 50 C.F.R 27.51) 

− All vehicle access will be restricted to developed roads and two-tracks. All terrain vehicle use 

and deviations to vehicle use must be pre-approved by the Refuge Manager in writing prior to any 

action taken. (50 C.F.R. 27.31) 

− Vehicle speed limits will be set at the discretion of Refuge Manager and limits will be strictly

adhered to. (50 C.F.R. 27.31) 
48

− No pets will be allowed on the Refuge. (50 C.F.R. 28.42; 50 C.F.R. 28.43) 

− Possession of firearms, alcoholic beverages or drugs is strictly prohibited on the Refuge. (50 

C.F.R. 27.41; 50 C.F.R. 27.42; 50 CFR 27.81; 50 C.F.R. 27.82) 

− Fires are strictly prohibited in any areas of the Refuge. (50 C.F.R. 27.95) 

− Operators are not to be considered agents of the Service and are not to represent the Service 

in any matters. (50 C.F.R. 27.84) 

− Operators will perform all work in accordance with the highest standards of the industry and to 

the satisfaction of the Service. 

− Operators will perform all work in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations and will 

obtain all necessary permits or licenses when required to do so. (50 C.F.R. 25.13; 50 C.F.R. 

29.32) 

− All personnel and activities shall be restricted to the immediate drilling area and the direct 

access road to the drill site. (50 C.F.R. 26.22) 

− Feeding wildlife species is prohibited. Molesting or destroying the home or dens of wildlife is 

prohibited. If dens are found during the normal course of operations, distinctive flagging will be 

used to alert all personnel of the den location. Adverse impacts on fish, wildlife and the 

environment shall be kept to an absolute minimum. All road kills will be reported to the Refuge 

Manager or his authorized representative. (50 C.F.R. 27.51) 

− Littering is prohibited. All cans, bottles, lunch papers, and operations trash must be removed. 

Cigarette butts are considered litter. All vehicles will be equipped with a container to carry out 

trash. (50 C.F.R. 27.94) 

− All necessary permits, contacts and clearances must be completed or obtained by Lexam prior 

to the start of the activity. (50 C.F.R. 25.13) 

− No overnight quarters will be permitted on the Refuge unless authorized by Refuge Manager. 

(50 C.F.R. 27.92) 

− Re-route the access road to Baca #5 to avoid sensitive plant species and wet meadow habitat 

(Figure 2-1).

Under this alternative, if Lexam discontinues or fails to perform any of the preceding protective measures, and the 

Refuge Manager believes such failure will lead to unreasonable damages to Refuge resources, the Service may 

assess penalties pursuant to 50 CFR Part 28 or any of the aforementioned CFRs listed above. The Service may 

require Lexam to cease exploration activities until the risk of damage to Refuge resources has been removed or 

mitigated in the sole discretion of the Service. 
49
50

2.5 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis 

No Drilling Alternative 

Under the No Drilling Alternative, the Service would continue to manage the surface estate of the Refuge without 

exploration for oil and gas. Lexam would remain the owner of a mineral interest and have the right to explore for 

oil and gas on the Refuge and may retain an application for permitting exploratory wells (Baca #5 and Baca #7) 

by the COGCC. However, the mineral owner would not submit an application to permit Baca #5 and Baca #7 by 

the COGCC or implement their Plan of Operations to explore for oil and gas, including any survey or construction 

activities. As a result, there would be no new disturbance to the surface estate of the Refuge and associated 

resources (e.g., soil, air, surface and groundwater, vegetation, habitat, wildlife, fisheries, cultural resources, 

socioeconomic resources, and aesthetic resources) because drilling would not occur. 

This alternative was deemed not to be feasible by the Service and eliminated from further analyses because of 

Lexam’s investment to date since 1992. The Service determined that it was unlikely that Lexam would not pursue 

permitting Baca #5 and Baca #7 wells with the COGCC and explore for oil and gas beneath the Refuge, given 

their interest and activity to date including collecting 3D seismic data in 2007 and other data collected during the 

drilling of two test wells (Baca #1, Baca #2) in 1995 which provided useful information for exploration of the 

proposed oil and gas wells. 

Deny Access Alternative 

The Service does not have the right to deny a mineral owner of their mineral rights and party to a binding surface 

use agreement, and access to the Refuge to pursue recovery of minerals. This alternative was eliminated from 

additional detailed analyses because Colorado property law allows the subsurface mineral owner to make 

reasonable and necessary use of the surface to explore for, develop, and produce its mineral interest. Any action 

by the Service to deny Lexam the reasonable opportunity to explore for minerals would likely be considered by 

Lexam an unconstitutional ―taking‖ of private property (oil and gas mineral interest) without just compensation. 

Drilling Two Wells from One Pad Alternative 

The Service considered the drilling of two wells (one vertically, one directionally) from a single well pad to limit 

disturbance during exploration to one site. This required the Service to first better understand the requirement for 

two exploratory wells and then to understand any limitations associated with directional drilling in providing the 

exploratory information needed by Lexam. 

Lexam’s plans for testing the oil and gas potential of the Refuge by drilling the proposed wells is driven primarily 

by the interpretation of the available 2D and 3D seismic data. Seismic exploration of what is now the Refuge 

began in 1984 by Chevron and has continued periodically until the most recent 25 square mile 3D seismic survey 

completed by Lexam in 2007. Seismic technology is used to interpret data and to map the structural configuration 

of traps that could potentially contain oil and gas. Seismic information is then refined and validated through the 

drilling and analysis of information obtained from exploratory wells. 

Seismic data is recorded in the time domain. Reflections from geological strata are recorded and imaged by the 

amount of time it takes for waves to return to the surface after the seismic energy source has initiated a sound 

wave. The depth of any particular horizon is dependent upon the velocity at which the sound waves travel down 

through various rock types and back to the surface. Lacking data from previous drilling, significant uncertainty 

exists in estimating seismic velocities. As a result, the interpreted depth and geometry of targeted geologic 

formations are only approximate. The interpretation of 3D seismic data is also subject to significant uncertainties 

due to lateral and vertical changes in rock characteristics that affect seismic velocities. The interpretation of 3D 

seismic data is often an iterative process that includes initial interpretation, drilling and subsequent reinterpretation using velocity measurements obtained from geophysical logs of the well or wells that have been 

drilled. 
51

Seismic exploration also cannot identify the age and types of geologic formations. It can provide useful 

information for exploration by identifying potential prospect areas based on the known geologic history and 

substrates that are likely to contain commercially recoverable hydrocarbons. The Dakota sandstone (an early 

Cretaceous formation of the Rocky Mountains) is interpreted to be one of the primary targets of exploration by 

Lexam (see Appendix E – Lexam Explorations (U.S.A.) Inc. Letter from Consulting Geologist). 

Current analysis of 2D and 3D seismic data reveals there are two distinct structural components beneath the 

project area. This data is the basis used by Lexam to describe the need to obtain additional well data from two 

distinct targets within the so-called Crestone East prospect. The targets fall directly beneath the Baca #5 and 

Baca #7 wells. These targets are on opposite sides of a significant and heavily faulted east-west geologic 

intrusion (Figure 2-2). Lexam’s primary target, Baca #5, was selected for exploration because it had the highest 

image data quality and lies within a less complex series of fault lines compared to Baca #7. Figure 2-2 also 

displays the two independent structural prospect traps located on opposite sides of the intersected fault lines that 

Lexam has identified as potential areas for oil and gas discovery. This target was first identified as having the 

appropriate qualities and structure by 2D seismic (Sonat in 1998 and Petro-Hunt between 2002-2004) and later 

validated by the 3D seismic analysis. The target beneath Baca #7 has not been as successfully imaged, but still 

shows similar characteristics. For these reasons, Lexam will begin drilling with the Baca #5 exploratory well and 

using acquired data will then move equipment to drill the Baca #7 exploratory well.

The need for two wells has been further described by Lexam due to the very limited oil and gas exploration in the 

San Luis Valley. Oil and gas companies rely on whatever information is available to inform exploration activities. 

Comparing previous seismic data to actual well data create analytical controls to further refine future prospects. 

Within the entire area of the Refuge and adjacent GSDNPP, well control is only available from Lexam’s Baca #1 

and #2 wells. As defined by the results of oil and gas exploration conducted from 1995 to the present, no wells 

have been drilled in areas currently judged to be prospective for oil and gas. Because of lateral variations in 

geologic formations within the area, the Baca #1 and #2 wells do not provide suitable well control for interpreting 

seismic data in the area of the proposed wells. 

The requirements for two sequentially drilled exploratory wells appear to be well substantiated and necessary to 

limit surface disturbance while exploring for oil and gas. The Service reviewed the possibility of using directional 

drilling from one well pad to reach the two targets beneath Baca #5 and Baca #7. Directional drilling is generally 

defined as ―drilling a non-vertical hole.‖ There are a number of different designs of directional drilling including a 

simple slant hole, single bend, double bend, and extended reach (Figure 2-3). Directional drilling is conducted for 

a variety of reasons and includes multiple wells from one location, inaccessible surface locations, access to 

different productive zones from existing vertical bores and to enhance productivity. Generally, exploratory wells 

are vertically drilled because subsurface conditions cannot be predicted with certainty in unexplored areas, 

especially at greater depths and with a potential for over-pressurized zones. In addition, deviated wells have been 

rarely used during exploration in areas with extreme geologic formations like the Rocky Mountains.

Vertical wells minimize exploration risks associated with the uncertainty in estimating depth in an area with little 

or no well control and to minimize the number of wells needed to definitively test the target during the early 

stages of exploration. Generally, exploratory wells are vertically drilled because subsurface conditions cannot be 

predicted with certainty in unexplored areas, especially at greater depths and with a potential for overpressurized zones. A vertical well bore will intersect the target geologic formation at its true depth below the 

surface, even though that may be significantly different than the original interpreted depth. Wells directionally 

drilled at a deviated angle (Figure 2-3) add the risk of not encountering the target at the preferred location, 

potentially increasing the exploration time because of the need to drill additional wells. More importantly, the 

velocity control gained from vertical wells is superior to data gained from drilling deviated wells in that a vertical 

well will provide a discrete velocity function from the surface directly through the total depth of the well. Drilling 

vertical wells at both of the proposed locations will provide unique velocity functions at two points which can be 

used to define lateral variations in seismic velocities directly over the target.
52

Figure 2-2. Lexam’s Prospective Targets for Oil and Gas Exploration2

Observed lateral variations in seismic velocities can then be projected beyond the area of the two initial wells for 

the purpose of re-interpreting seismic data and generating new well plans. Inferior velocity control obtained during 

the early stages of exploration will continue to add uncertainty to subsequent drilling prognoses and well plans. 

Other concerns regarding directional drilling involve the simple fact that a deviated well will have a longer 

measured depth (MD) than the true vertical depth (TVD) of the target zone. Assuming the case of simple slant 

hole configuration, an additional 4000 feet would have to be drilled. The actual borehole configuration would be 

more complex and result in additional drilling distances of more than 4,000 feet and MDs in excess of 18,000 feet. 

The consequences of the increased distance include, but would not be limited to, a larger rig, a larger drill pad 

 

2

 Source: John S. Belcher, 20/20 Exploration, LLC, Denver, Colorado 80202. 
53

(greater disturbance), more time needed to drill the well, more drill cuttings, and higher potential for hole problems 

(sticking drill pipe and drilling tools, inadequate ability to test potential zones, losing the hole). 

All of the preceding information provided by Lexam has provided sufficient evidence to the Service indicating that 

Lexam will not be able to acquire adequate information to definitively characterize and quantify the target 

resource potential without the need for further exploration, if vertical drilling is not allowed. Any further exploration 

will result in greater potential for environmental damage. Therefore, the Service has determined that requiring 

directional drilling is not a feasible alternative that would offer greater protection for the resources of the Refuge. 

Suspend Drilling Until Completion of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan Alternative 

Suspension of the proposed drilling until completion of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) was 

eliminated from consideration because it is considered an unreasonable constraint on a mineral owner’s rights to 

develop its oil and gas interests. The purpose of this EA is to analyze the Service’s establishment of protective 

measures and standards to ensure protection of the surface estate on the Refuge from unreasonable damage 

from the proposed oil and gas exploration. Second, as noted above, the roads and drill pads affect approximately 

11.7 acres of land on the Refuge. The CCP will apply to the entire Refuge, which is approximately 92,500 acres. 

The Service has determined that impact of this proposed drilling program on the resources of the Refuge can and 

should be thoroughly assessed and evaluated prior to the completion of the CCP. In addition, information 

obtained through Lexam’s proposed exploratory drilling will be beneficial to Service’s planning efforts by further 

defining the economic viability of the underlying oil and gas mineral estate and predicting potential development 

scenarios which could affect the remaining acreages of the Refuge. Therefore, any information gained from this 

effort would be incorporated into the development of the CCP. 
54
55

3.0 Affected Environment 

3.1 Introduction 

This Draft EA analyzes the Service’s stipulations requiring protective measures and standards to be implemented 

by the mineral owner to ensure that their proposed exploration of the mineral estate underlying the Refuge does 

not unreasonably degrade or significantly impact the Refuge’s surface estate and associated resources. As such, 

the sites of the exploration wells and existing and proposed access roads constitute the project area. The larger 

16,246-acre area of the earlier seismic exploration by Lexam serves to provide the regional context for most of 

the ―on the ground‖ resources (e.g., vegetation, wildlife, cultural resources, geology, etc.). This seismic survey 

area is referred to as the project vicinity. Larger regional contexts are used as appropriate for resources such as 

air, groundwater, and visual resources. 

Baca National Wildlife Refuge 

The Refuge was established in 2000 and comprises 78,670 acres in Saguache and Alamosa counties in the San 

Luis Valley of south-central Colorado. The Refuge is situated the San Luis Valley, which is considered a high 

mountain desert. However, abundant snowfall in the two 14,000 foot mountain ranges (San Juan Mountains to the 

west and Sangre de Cristo Mountains to the east) and the resulting annual spring snowmelt support the dynamic 

wetland complex within this intermountain basin. Runoff from snowmelt also supplies numerous streams with 

surface water that flows across the Refuge providing an abundance of life in an otherwise arid landscape. The 

Refuge contains numerous habitat types including desert shrublands, grasslands, wet meadows, playa wetlands, 

and riparian areas and is home to a large number of wildlife and plant species, many of which are endemic to the 

San Luis Valley. 

Congress approved the Refuge boundary and authorized acquisition of lands within it with passage of Public Law 

106-530, also known as the ―Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve Act of 2000,‖ as amended by Section 

117 of the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Bill (Public Law 111-8). This legislation focused not only on protecting 

the region's hydrology, which the unique sand dunes ecosystem depends upon, but also protecting the ecological, 

cultural, and wildlife resources of the area. 

Project Area 

The proposed access roads and two exploration wells would be located in the north east portions of the Refuge 

which is situated in the north central portion of the larger Luis Maria Baca Grant No. 4. This is generally in the 

southern portions of T43N, R11E NMPM. Lexam’s proposed drilling is at an approximate surface elevation of 

7,600 feet and is on a slight west-facing slope covered with shrubs. The Project Area is approximately 5,200 

acres in size, compared to the project vicinity of 16,246 acres and the Refuge, which contains 78,670 acres. The 

Project Area provides a 0.50-mile buffer around key elements of Lexam’s proposed drilling program. 

3.2 Geology, Minerals, and Soils 

Geology 

The San Luis Valley is part of the much larger Rio Grande Rift Zone, which extends from southern New Mexico 

northward through the San Luis and Upper Arkansas Valleys to its northern termination near Leadville, Colorado 

(McCalpin 1996). The San Luis Valley is bordered on the east by the linear Sangre de Cristo Mountains, which 

resulted from extensive block faulting during the Laramide Orogeny (Figure 3-1). The west side of the valley is 

flanked by the San Juan Mountains, the result of extensive Tertiary-aged volcanism. In sharp contrast with the 

steeply faulted eastern side of the valley floor, the Oligocene volcanic rocks of the San Juan Mountains gently dip 

eastward into the valley floor where they are interbedded with valley-fill deposits. Valley-fill deposits consist of 

sedimentary rocks that inter-finger with volcanic deposits (McCalpin 1996). Quaternary deposits include 

pediments along the mountain fronts, alluvium, and sand dunes. 
56
57

The Project Area is immediately underlain by Quaternary alluvium (Cappa and Wallace 2007). Below the alluvium 

are over 10,000 feet of sedimentary deposits of the Alamosa and Santa Fe Formations (Mayo et al. 2006) and 

generally consist of stream and lake deposits composed of sand, clay, and gravel. The Project Area lies within 

the Baca Graben adjacent to the Sangre de Cristo Mountains (Figure 3-2).

Minerals 

The most recent modern-day mining activities to have occurred in the general vicinity of Crestone, Colorado have 

been operations conducted by Battle Mountain Gold Company at its San Luis Mine, located some 50-plus miles 

southeast of Crestone in Costilla County, which ceased operations in late 1996; and, the former Summitville Mine 

which is located some 60-plus miles southwest of Crestone in Rio Grande County. The Summitville Mine was 

operated by Galactic Resources, Inc. and ceased operations in late 1992. In the immediate vicinity of Crestone, 

the last recorded mining took place in the late 1800s. Prospecting for gold and silver occurred throughout the 

immediate area in the Sangre de Cristo’s, and Crestone itself was founded at one of the locations where there 

was a small producing ore body. Production was sufficient to support the construction of a stamp mill at the 

location; however the mine soon played out. 

The major mineral commodities that are mined in the San Luis Valley vicinity are sand and gravel (Guilinger and 

Keller 2000). The nearest sand and gravel pits are located a couple of miles north of the Refuge in T44N, R11E. 

Other sand and gravel operations are scattered around the San Luis valley, and concentrated around the towns of 

Alamosa and Del Norte. Other minerals that are mined in the area include gold, silver, peat, and limestone. In 

2006, there were no active mine permits issued or pending mine permits in Saguache County (Cappa et al. 2007). 

Only 46 mining claims were recorded in the county compared with 5,693 for the entire state. At present, no 

minerals are produced from the Refuge.

Figure 3-2. Geologic Cross-Section in Center of San Luis Valley (Topper et al. 2003) 
58

Soils 

Baca #5 Well Location and Baca #5 Access Road 

The Baca #5 well location and access road would be constructed on Laney loam (Soil Map Unit #42) (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service [USDA-NRCS] 2007) (Figure 3-3). The 

Laney loam has 0 to 3 percent slopes and consists of very friable A horizons and stratified very strongly alkaline C 

horizons. Depth of the calcareous material ranges from 9 to 10 inches below ground surface. Laney soils reside 

on gently sloping flood plains and alluvial fans with slopes of 0 to 3 percent. They are well-drained with slow-tomedium runoff and moderate permeability. The Laney soil is considered erodible by wind (USDA-NRCS 1984). 

Baca #7 Well Location and Baca #7 Access Road 

The Baca #7 location would be constructed on Mosca loamy sand, (Soil Map Unit #50) (USDA-NRCS 2007). The 

Mosca series has 0 to 3 percent slopes and consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in mixed 

alluvium. They have low runoff and moderate permeability; Mosca loamy sand is highly erodible (USDA-NRCS 

1984). 

The access road to the Baca #7 well location crosses the Mosca loamy sand from the Lexam Road to 

approximately 1,000 feet north of the Baca #7 location (USDA-NRCS 2007). From there the road crosses the 

Laney loam (USDA-NRCS 2007) approximately 1,200 feet north of the Baca #7 location. The road then crosses 

onto the Laney loam for approximately 1,600 feet before it turns to the northeast and crosses onto Kerber loamy 

sand for a few hundred feet (Soil Map Unit #41). The Kerber loamy sand is highly erodible. 

3.3 Air Resources

Special Air Quality Protection Area 

Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve (GSDNPP) and the Refuge are areas designated for natural 

resource management and protection in the San Luis Valley. GSDNPP is located immediately east of the Refuge 

and includes an air quality protection area that requires specific attention in the analysis of the proposed project 

(Figure 3-4). From its designation as Great Sand Dunes National Monument in 1932 by Herbert Hoover, the 

protection of GSDNPP has been a priority to local citizens, including protection of its scenic value. 

Consistent with the Wilderness Act of 1964, which defined wilderness as "untrammeled by man, where man 

himself is a visitor who does not remain," the over 33,000 acres of Great Sand Dunes National Monument was 

designated wilderness, and on November 22, 2000, Congress passed the Great Sand Dunes National Park and 

Preserve Act of 2000, which authorized the expansion of the national monument into a national park almost four 

times its original size. The legislation authorized the eventual purchase of privately held property from willing 

sellers for inclusion in Great Sand Dunes National Park. 

Of specific importance to the air quality analysis of this proposed project is the definition of mandatory Class I 

Federal areas in the 1977 Clean Air Act. These mandatory Class I lands are identified as national parks (over 

6,000 acres), wilderness areas (over 5,000 acres), national memorial parks (over 5,000 acres) and international 

parks that were in existence as of August 1977. As such, the wilderness portion of the original Great Sand Dunes 

National Monument was designated Class I. As part of the Act, Federal Land Managers (FLM) were given an 

―affirmative responsibility‖ to protect AQRVs inside mandatory Class I lands. 
59
60

Climate 

The climate in the San Luis Valley is typical of high mountains and valleys. As a result of cold air drainage from 

the surrounding mountains, winters are cold and summers are cool. Summers average about 62°F, compared 

with 27°F in winters. The proximity of the San Juan Mountains to the west results in decreased orographic 

precipitation because storms from the west unload moisture before moving over the mountains. This rain shadow 

effect results in annual precipitation within the Valley of approximately 11 inches. 

 Orographic precipitation is rain, snow, or other precipitation produced when moist air is lifted as it 

moves over a mountain range. As the air rises and cools, orographic clouds form and serve as the 

source of the precipitation, most of which falls upwind of the mountain ridge. Some also falls a short 

distance downwind of the ridge and is sometimes called spillover. On the lee side of the mountain 

range, rainfall is usually low, and the area is said to be in a rain shadow. Very heavy precipitation 

typically occurs upwind of a prominent mountain range that is oriented across a prevailing wind from 

a warm ocean (Encyclopædia Britannica 2008). 

Figure 3-4. Proximity of Proposed Drilling to GSDNPP 
61

A summary of monthly climatic data from GSDNPP, located immediately east of the Refuge, is provided 

in Table 3-1 (WRCC 2010). 

Table 3-1. Monthly Climate Summary for Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve, 1950 to 2010. 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual*

Avg. Max. 34.8 39 46.8 56.2 66.2 76.5 80.7 77.9 71.5 60.3 45.6 36.0 57.6 Temp (°F)

Avg. Min. 9.7 14.0 21.1 28.1 37.0 45.3 50.6 48.7 41.8 31.7 20.3 11.2 30.0 Temp (°F)

Avg. Total 0.43 0.36 0.77 0.92 1.10 0.85 1.85 2.01 1.22 0.88 0.47 0.38 11.25 Precip. (in.)

Avg. Total 6.7 5.2 8.2 6.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.8 4.7 5.8 41.0 Snowfall (in.)

Avg. Snow 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 Depth (in.)

Representative meteorological data for the San Luis Valley is available from both the GSDNPP and from the 

airport in Alamosa. Hourly meteorological data was collected at GSDNPP from March 24, 1988 through 

September 30, 1991 (3.5 years). Six years of data (2001-2006) are available from the National Weather Service 

(NWS) station at the Alamosa airport. These data are represented on annual, fall-winter, and quarter-of-year wind 

roses (Figures 3-5, 3-6, and 3-7). Although the fall-winter (October through March) rose is not identical in time 

with the drilling season proposed for this project (August through April), it is similar and representative of it. Both 

the annual and fall-winter wind roses show a similar pattern where more frequent, faster winds blow from the 

southwest and less frequent, lighter winds blow from the northeast. During these seasons, winds are primarily 

from the southwest, with secondary components from the north and southeast. In the spring, the winds are 

strongest and blow mostly from the southwest. Winds in the summer blow from all directions but a stronger, 

easterly flow is evident, a result of down sloping winds from the nearby mountains to the east. On these wind rose 

diagrams, the length of the vectors shows the percentage of time that the wind blew from each direction. The 

frequency of occurrence of various wind speeds is represented by colors the length of color band within the 

vectors for each of the 16 compass directions, as listed in the legend accompanying each graph. 

Air Quality 

With the exception of ozone, the existing air pollutant concentrations in the local vicinity of the proposed Project 

Area are relatively low. This is because there are few air pollution emission sources (limited industrial facilities 

and few residential emissions, primarily from smaller communities and isolated ranches) in the region. There is 

some local, naturally-generated particulate matter, in part due to the dry climate (windblown dust). 

Representative air quality monitoring data have been collected at GSDNPP from 1988 to 1992. Specifically, 

information is available from 1988-1991 for ozone concentrations and from 1988-1992 for SO2 measurements. 

Data from the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring for visibility 

(particle sampling at Morris Gulch and camera near the landing strip adjacent to the south boundary of the Class I 

area) are available from 1988 to the present. The IMPROVE monitoring program was established in 1985 to aid 

the creation of Federal and State implementation plans for the protection of visibility in Class I areas (156 national 

parks and wilderness areas) as stipulated in the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act. [see also: 

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/IMPROVE/] 

Atmospheric deposition data from the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) monitoring in Alamosa, 

Colorado (approximately 30 km away) are available from 1980 to the present. The NADP is a nationwide network 

of government and private entities that collect data on the chemistry of precipitation (e.g., hydrogen [acidity as 

pH], sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, chloride, and base cations [calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium] for 

monitoring geographical and temporal long-term trends. [see also: http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu] 
62

Figure 3-5. Annual Wind Rose for Alamosa, Colorado, Airport: 2001-2006

Figure 3-6. Wind Rose for Alamosa, Colorado, Airport: October through March, 2001-2006
63

Figure 3-7. Comparison of Seasonal Wind Roses for Alamosa, Colorado, Airport: 2001-2006

The data presented in Table 3-2 were used to define background air quality conditions in the area of the 

proposed project and include impacts from existing sources both inside and outside the proposed Project Area. 

The maximum pollutant concentrations are well below applicable Colorado and National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) for most pollutants, although maximum concentrations of ozone (8-hour average) 

approaching the federal standard have been observed. Given the episodic nature of observed high ozone levels 

and limitations in photochemical modeling (which is required to simulate the complex mechanisms that govern 

ozone formation and fate in the lower atmosphere), the exact cause is uncertain, although it appears that regional 

transport plays a role in the level of ozone in the observed background concentrations (Western Regional Air 

Partnership 2008). 
64

Table 3-2. Background Concentrations, Ambient Standards, and Significant Impact Levels of 

Regulated Air Pollutants 

Pollutant Averaging 

Time

Background 

Conc. (μg/m3)

NAAQS1

(μg/m3)

CAAQS2

(μg/m3)

PSD Class I 

Increment (μg/m3)

PSD Class II 

SILs (μg/m3)

PSD Class I 

SILs (μg/m3)

Carbon 

Monoxide3

1-hour 2,060 40,000 40,000 NA 2,000 500

8-hour 1,831 10,000 10,000 NA 500 NA

Nitrogen 

Dioxide3 Annual 8 100 100 2.5 1 0.1

Ozone4

1-hour 151 235 235 NA NA NA

8-hour 138 157 157 NA NA NA

Annual 78 NA NA NA NA NA

Max. 

Season5 80 NA NA NA NA NA

Avg. 

Season5 78 NA NA NA NA NA

PM2.5

6,4

24-hour 21 35 35 NA NA NA

Annual 4 15 15 NA NA NA

PM10

6

24-hour 50 150 150 8 5 0.3

Annual 11 50 50 4 1 0.2

Sulfur 

Dioxide7

3-hour --- 1,300 700 25 25 1

24-hour 3 365 365 5 5 0.2

Annual 0.2 80 80 2 1 0.1

1

 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

2.0 Colorado Ambient Air Quality Standards 

3.0 Based on the most recent 3 years of data from EPA AIRS database for data collected near Ignacio, CO (rural location), 2005-

2007. http://www.epa.gov/aqspub1/

4.0 EPA’s current PM2.5 implementation policy will be finalized 60 days after publication (Aug. 24, 2010) in the Federal Register. 

5.0 From August through April 

6.0 Based on the most recent 3-years of data available from the IMPROVE station at Great Sand Dunes NP, 2002-2004. 

Http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Data/IMPROVE/AsciiData.aspx

7.0 Based on historical data collected at Great Sand Dunes NP, 1988-1991. 

SIL – Significant Impact Level, NA – Not Applicable 

3.4 Water Resources 

Surface Water 

The Refuge lies within a topographic basin referred to as the ―Closed Basin‖ (Mayo et al. 2006). The Closed Basin 

lies in the northern portion of the Rio Grande Watershed (Figure 3-8). The lowest portion of the Closed Basin is 

known locally as the ―Sump,‖ which occurs on part of the Refuge (USFWS 2005), but does not include the Project 

Area. 
65

The Closed Basin or Sump may have occurred in 

middle Pleistocene when the lake that filled the 

valley began to dry up, resulting in an environment 

of swamps and organic-rich sediments. Mayo et al. 

(2006) refer to the Closed Basin of Pleistocene 

time as the ―ancestral sump.‖ Currently, the Closed 

Basin covers approximately 2,940 square miles in 

the northern part of the valley and is separated 

from the rest of the valley by a low alluvial fan. 

The Closed Basin is composed of the San Luis 

and Saguache drainage basins (USEPA 2007a). 

Water enters the Closed Basin through 

precipitation and through snowmelt in the 4,700 

square miles of watershed in the surrounding 

mountains. Water exits primarily through 

evapotranspiration. Approximately 7,000 miles of 

stream channels and ditches flow through the 

valley. The surface water in the basins generally 

flow into San Luis Creek, which flows generally to 

the south, and because there is no outlet, water is 

impounded in San Luis Lake and associated lakes 

in an area south of the Refuge. 

Surface water flow data for several sites in the 

valley are available from the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS; USGS 2010) at the locations 

shown on Figure 3-9. These data also are 

summarized in Table 3-3. A plot of the monthly 

mean flows at the gaging stations is shown on 

Figure 3-9. The Saguache Creek site shows the 

highest flows, with maximum monthly average 

flows of 151 and 165 cubic feet per second (cfs) 

occurring in May and June. The two San Luis 

Creek sites are higher up in the drainage, and San 

Luis Creek flows further down valley would be 

comparable to Saguache Creek. All sites show a 

similar pattern of peak flows in May and June, with 

minimum flows occurring in the winter. Two of the 

sites, North Crestone Creek and Cottonwood 

Creek, lie near the Project Area. 
66

Figure 3-9. USGS Gage Locations3

Table 3-3. Summary of USGS Flow Data for San Luis Valley4

 

Station No. Location Begin End Max Min Avg

North Valley

08224110 San Luis Creek near Poncha Pass Jul-79 Sep-85 3.0 (May) 0.56 (Sep) 1.1

08224113 San Luis Creek above Villa Grove Jul-79 Sep-85 3.1 (May) 0.57 (Sep) 1.2

West Valley

08224500 Kerber Creek near Villa Grove Jun-23 Sep-07 45 (May) 2.6 (Jan) 11.9

08227000 Saguache Creek near Saguache Aug-10 Sep-07 165 (Jun) 23 (Jan) 65.3

East Valley

08224200 Raspberry Creek near Villa Grove Jan-67 Sep-70 1.1 (Jun) 0.32 (Jan) 0.6

08226700 Cotton Creek near Mineral Hot Springs Jan-67 Sep-70 30 (Jun) 5.5 (Jan) 12.7

08227500 North Crestone Creek near Crestone May-36 Sep-81 45 (Jun) 2.0 (Feb) 11.9

08229500 Cottonwood Creek near Crestone Jan-67 Sep-70 19 (Jun) 1.2 (Feb) 6.7

Data Period Flow (cfs)

3

 Figure 3-9 was created using data from the USGS (2010) by The PBS&J Corporation. 

4

 Table 3-3 was created using data from the USGS (2010) by The PBS&J Corporation. 
67

Figure 3-10. Annual Pattern of Surface Water Flow Data5

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Flow (cfs)

Cottonwood Creek

SLC-Poncha

SLC-Villa

N Crestone

Saguache

Raspberry Creek

Kerber Creek

Cotton Creek

Project Area 

San Luis Creek and Saguache Creek are the main surface water bodies in closed basin portion of the valley. San 

Luis Creek lies to the west of the Project Area. A number of drainages cross the Refuge, flowing generally from 

northeast to southwest, including Deadman Creek and Cottonwood Creek that lie to the south of the Project Area. 

GSDNPP lies to the south of Cottonwood Creek. 

In the immediate vicinity of the Project Area are a number of named and unnamed drainages that flow from 

northeast to southwest. The named drainages (from north to south) include Crestone Creek, Willow Creek, and 

Spanish Creek. In the northern part of the Project Area are the Crestone Creek and Baca Grant Ditch # 9. 

Although the Project Area is in the San Luis Creek drainage, the surface water flows into ephemeral playa lakes 

on the western border of the Refuge (Anderson 2007). 

Within the project area Crestone Creek and Baca Grant Fitch #9 have year round flow, but Willow Creek and 

Spanish Creek are intermittent streams that only flow in response to significant runoff and snowmelt events in 

their respective watersheds (Applegate Group, 2008). Average monthly flows for North Crestone Creek upstream 

of the Project Area are shown on Figure 3-10. A plot of the average annual flow by year for North Crestone Creek 

for the available data period is shown on Figure 3-11, suggests that despite brief periods of higher and lower 

flows, on average flows in the creek did not change between 1948 and 1980. More current data are not available. 

Baca Grant Ditch #9 is an irrigation supply canal that conveys water primarily during the irrigation season. In 

addition, several smaller ditches and additional simple diversion structures divert water from creeks within the 

Refuge to irrigate wet meadows, with any excess water diverted to the normally dry playa wetlands to the west. 

 

5

 Figure 3-10 was created using data from the USGS (2010) by The PBS&J Corporation. 
68

Figure 3-11. Average Annual Flow for North Crestone Creek: 1948–19806

A plot of annual peak flow events (Figure 3-12) illustrates maximum flows above the Project Area. For the 

available period of data, peak flows exceed 100 cfs in 38 percent of the years, and exceeds 200 cfs on four 

occasions. South Crestone Creek likely behaves in a similar manner, so the combined flows crossing the Project 

Area would be even higher than shown on Figure 3-12. 

 

6

 Figure 3-11 was created using data from the USGS (2010) by The PBS&J Corporation. 

0

2

4

6

8

1 0

12

14

16

18

20 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 Average Annual Flow (cfs)
69

Figure 3-12. Peak Flow for North Crestone Creek: 1937–19817

Surface Water Quality

Previous investigations into surface water quality in the San Luis Valley include both regional studies and work 

focused specifically on the San Luis Valley. A few of the previous water quality investigations include a study of 

the Rio Grande Watershed (Levings et al. 1998), an evaluation of surface water-groundwater interaction using 

stream and wetland water quality data (Kappen et al. 2004), and the use of geochemical and isotopic data to 

analyze surface water-groundwater interaction (Mayo et al. 2006). EPA water quality assessment data indicate 

that the surface water quality in the Project Area is fully supportive of the State Designated Use categories 

(agriculture, aquatic life warm water class 2, and recreation primary contact) (USEPA 2007b). 

A search of the USGS database for water quality data found some analytical information available for the two 

main creeks in the valley (Saguache and San Luis) and also data for two creeks near the Project Area (North 

Crestone and Cottonwood). The most extensive and relevant data, summarized in Table 3-4, are not recent but 

can be used to illustrate seasonal patterns and to compare changes in conditions as more current data are 

gathered. 

 

7

 Figure 3-12 was created using data from the USGS (2010) by The PBS&J Corporation. 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Flow (cfs)

Average Annual Flow 11.1 cfs

N. Crestone Peak Flow
70

Table 3-4. Summary of Relevant USGS Surface Water Quality Data8

Disch Temp Spec Cond M g Ca Na K Cl CO3 HCO3 SO4 TDS HDN

Date (cfs) (C) (μs/cm) pH (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l)

Saguache Creek

04/19/01 176 8.3 113 7.2 1.8 1 2 5.04 2.6 1.61 5 6 5.67 100 37.8

06/06/01 175 14 100 7.6 2.1 1 3 4.04 1.5 0.64 5 6 2.89 9 2 41.2

07/03/01 9 6 17.8 9 2 7.6 1.9 1 3 4.13 1.4 0.91 5 7 2.75 8 6 39.2

08/01/01 8 8 17.7 105 7.2 2 1 3 4.31 1.9 1.25 7 2 2.68 8 9 40.5

08/30/01 4 7 15.4 112 7.4 2.1 1 4 5.1 1.7 0.97 5 8 3.29 9 3 44.3

San Luis Creek

10/03/72 19.5 275 8.1 8.4 2 9 0 120 110

12/09/72 0 270 7.5 8.4 3 2 0 120 110

02/10/73 0.5 280 6.9 8.4 3 7 0 127 130

06/05/73 9.5 320 7.5 8.6 3 8 0 7 4 130

11/01/73 5

N Crestone Creek

10/19/67 8.6 5 106 7.4 1 1 8 1.6 0.9 0 6 0 5 6 4

01/02/68 3.1 0 113 7.4 1.5 2 0 1.7 0.8 0 6 6 5.2 6 4

04/03/68 6 1 114 7.2 2.4 1 8 1.9 1 0 6 5 5.5 6 8

06/14/68 3 6 6 1 7.1 1.5 1 0 0.7 1.1 0 3 6 4.2 4 2

07/02/68 2 0 7 7 5 7.1 1.5 1 3 1 0.8 0 4 6 3.8 4 3

09/03/68 1 4 7 9 4 7.1 1.5 1 6 1.2 0.9 0 5 5 4 5 5

Cottonwood Creek

10/16/67 3.1 2 7 2 7.4 1 1 1 1.1 0.4 0 3 8 5.5 7 2

01/26/68 1.5 0 9 0 7.3 1.2 1 3 2.3 1.4 0 4 4 5 5 8

04/03/68 1.3 2 8 5 7.4 1.7 1 3 2.1 1.5 0 4 1 5.2 5 2

06/14/68 2 1 4 4 2 7.2 0.5 7.2 0.7 0.6 0 2 2 3.8 2 2

07/02/68 9.3 6 4 9 7.2 1.2 7.6 0.8 1.7 0 2 8 3.2 2 9

09/19/68 3.8 5 7 0 7.4 1.9 9.6 1 1.1 0 3 6 5 5 4

When these data were collected for the two creeks near the Project Area, the data revealed seasonal variations in 

most of the parameters. Total dissolved solids (TDS) were lower during June and July, as was sulfate, 

bicarbonate, sodium, calcium, and magnesium. Peak concentrations generally occurred during the January and 

April sampling events, although some parameters for Cottonwood Creek had peak values during September and 

October. 

More recently, surface water quality data in and around the Project Area have been collected as part of a baseline 

sampling program. The surface water component of the baseline sampling program includes eight locations 

(Figure 3-13).

Analytical results of the baseline sampling conducted in 2008 are in Appendix G. The major ions and metals 

reported for the Cottonwood Creek sample were part of a December 2006 sampling event. In addition to field 

parameters and major ions and metals, the samples were also analyzed for oil and gas and volatile organic 

compounds (VOC). 

Neither diesel nor gasoline were detected in any of the samples. Methane was detected in all of the Spanish 

Creek and Willow Creek samples at ranges of 1 to 35 parts per billion. The highest levels of methane were in the 

Spanish Creek samples. VOCs were not detected in any of the samples except for bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate, at 

concentrations of 0.6 and 3.3 parts per billion in the samples from Willow Creek-West and Willow Creek-Baca 5, 

respectively. 

 

8

 Table 3-4 was created using data from the USGS (2010) by The PBS&J Corporation. 
71

Figure 3-13. Baseline Surface Water Sampling Locations9

The eight baseline surface water sampling locations are: 

 S. Crestone: South Crestone Creek, northeast (upstream) of Project Area 

 Deadman: Deadman Creek, southeast (upstream) of Project Area 

 Cottonwood: Cottonwood Creek, east (upstream) of Project Area 

SC-E: Spanish Creek-East, east (upstream) of Project Area 

SC-W: Spanish Creek-West, in Project Area 

WC-E: Willow Creek-East in Project Area 

WC-W: Willow Creek-West in Project Area 

WC-B5: Willow Creek-Baca 5 in Project Area 

9

 Figure 3-13 was created by The PBS&J Corporation. 

 
72

In terms of major ions, a plot of the sample data is shown on a piper diagram (Figure 3-14). Piper diagrams are 

useful to illustrate general water types and to compare samples. The piper diagram indicates that general water 

quality conditions change moving from the sites upstream of (diamonds) to those within (triangles) the Project 

Area. The Project Area samples tend to be higher in the major ions as well as TDS, and pH and conductivity are 

higher as well. 

Figure 3-14. Baseline Surface Water Samples10

 

10 Figure 3-14 was created by The PBS&J Corporation based on data gathered during the 2008 surface water sampling by 

Lexam. 
73

Table 3-5 compares the older USGS water quality data (1967-1968) with the baseline sampling (2008); the table 

shows values in grey where baseline sampling differs from previous sampling. Although the Crestone Creek 

samples are for two different branches, they can be used for comparison. The comparison indicates that 

conditions generally do not appear to have changed appreciably in the two creeks. 

11 Table 3-5. Comparison of USGS and Baseline Surface Water Quality Data

M g Ca Na Cl HCO3 SO4 TDS

Location Date pH (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l)

N Crestone Creek 1967-1968 7.1-7.4 1.0-2.4 10-20 0.7-1.9 0.8-1.1 36-66 3.8-5.5 42-68

S Crestone Creek 2008 7.28 0.84 8.13 0.96 0.95 25.8 1.62 4 6

Cottonwood Creek 1967-1968 7.2-7.4 1.0-1.9 7.2-13 0.7-2.3 0.4-1.7 22-44 3.2-5.5 22-72

Cottonwood Creek 2008 6.7 1.4 11.8 1.61 0.41 32.3 4.67 3 9

Groundwater 

The Project Area is in the San Luis Valley portion of the Rio Grande Aquifer System (Figure 3-15). The San Luis 

Valley is the northernmost portion of the aquifer system that stretches from Saguache County, Colorado, to West 

Texas (Robson and Banta 1995). The San Luis Valley is estimated to contain more than 2 billion acre-feet of 

groundwater in storage, with more than 140 million acre-feet estimated to be recoverable, and the principal use of 

groundwater is agricultural (Topper et al. 2003). 

The Project Area is underlain by two relatively distinct aquifers, the unconfined or shallow aquifer and the 

confined or deep aquifer. The confined aquifer, which ranges from 60 to more than 4,500 feet below the surface 

(Mayo et al. 2006) has been further subdivided into separate units. 

The Rio Grande Decision Support System (RGDSS) ground water model was developed by the State of Colorado 

and Principia Mathematica Inc. for the Rio Grande Water Conservation District. This ground water model is 

considered to be the most rigorous, detailed and peer-reviewed modeling application in Colorado and contains 

the most accurate information on the hydrogeologic characteristics of the Rio Grande Aquifer System. The model 

is based on five layers that represent the major geologic formations in the San Luis Valley (Figure 3-16, CDWR 

2004).

 

11 Table 3-5 was created by The PBS&J Corporation based on data from the USGS (2010) and surface water samples 

collected by Lexam. 
74

Figure 3-15. Rio Grande Aquifer System (from Robson and Banta 1995) 

 
75

Figure 3-16. Conceptual Representation of the Five Major Hydrogeologic Formations in the San Luis 

Valley (CDWR 2004) 

Because of the complex interlaying of sand, clay, and volcanic rocks in the San Luis Valley, the layers are defined 

in a broader context based on one or more lithologies containing similar hydrogeologic characteristics within each 

layer (Figure 3-17; CDWR 2004). The Project Area for exploration occurs in the Northern San Luis Valley portion 

of Figure 3-17. 
76

Figure 3-17. Hydrogeological Characteristics of Layers 1 through 5 in the San Luis Valley (CDWR 2004) 

The five stratigraphic layers in the San Luis Valley are defined by the RGDSS (CDWR 2004) as follows: 

―Layer 1: Unconfined aquifer - from ground level to the first regionally extensive, greater than 10 ft. thick 

clay layer. Mainly sand, gravels, and cobbles, with minor thin (10-ft.) clay layers.‖ Approximate depth of 

Layer 1 is 100 feet on average. 

―Layer 2: Alamosa- Clay dominated – predominantly clay with generally less than 25% sand or gravel 

content (however, the sand layers within this clay-dominated series do constitute an aquifer in some parts 

of the SLV. Even though the clay series that forms the upper confining layer (layer 2) does not physically 

extend to the edge of the modeled area, it does within the model. However these extensions of the upper 

confining layer have appropriate hydraulic conductivity values assigned to represent the higher 

conductive sands and gravels that dominate the alluvial fans along the edge of the valley.‖ Approximate 

depth of Layer 2 is 50-500 feet. 

―Layer 3: (Northern portion of model) Alamosa – Clay and Sand – sandier section of the Alamosa 

formation. Sand layers make up greater than approximately 25% of the interval. This is generally 

interpreted to be the most productive portion of the confined aquifer. The Southern portion of model – 

Volcanics – includes Hinsdale and Servilleta basalts.‖ Approximate depth of Layer 3 is 150-1,500 feet.

 
77

―Layer 4: Sante Fe – predominantly sand and gravel with up to 50% clay layers in most areas of the SLV. 

Also includes interlayered Conejos Formation volcanics and volcaniclastic units, particularly in the 

western portion of the modeled area.‖ Approximate depth of Layer 4 is 1,200-3,500 feet. 

―Layer 5: Lower Sante Fe – more clay rich, generally of low hydraulic conductivity. This layer only occurs 

in the Baca Graben area. Due to its depth and low hydraulic conductivity it is not generally considered a 

feasible aquifer. However, it was included in the layering sequence to include all Santa Fe formation 

deposits in the valley, to allow ground water movement to and from Layer 4, and to allow simulation of 

pumping stresses in this layer, should that simulation be desired in the future.‖ Approximate depth of 

Layer 5 is 5,000 feet on average. 

Groundwater flow and aquifer characteristics are affected by the presence of major structural elements of the 

valley including the Monte Vista Graben, the Alamosa Horst, and the Baca Graben. These structures represent 

vertical displacement that results in variable thicknesses of the aquifer units as well as changes in vertical 

groundwater flow conditions. The Project Area lies in the area of the Baca Graben (Figure 3-2). 

Unconfined Aquifer 

Recharge 

The unconfined aquifer is recharged by infiltration of irrigation waters, canal leakage, seepage from mountain 

streams that flow across permeable alluvial fans, and infiltration from precipitation. Below the unconfined aquifer 

are a number of clay-based layers that serve to separate, although not disconnect entirely, the unconfined aquifer 

from the deeper layers of sands and gravels containing water in the confined aquifer. The clay layers reduce 

upward movement of water from the confined aquifer creating water pressure. 

Aquifer Properties and Groundwater Flow 

Transmissivity of the unconfined aquifer has been estimated to range from 5,000 to 225,000 gallons per day per 

foot throughout the entire valley (Alamosa River Watershed rest plan). Ongoing RGDSS modeling (CDWR 2004) 

has specified hydraulic conductivity (transmissivity divided by thickness) of the aquifer in the Project Area to range 

between about 300 and 1,000 feet per day, consistent with coarse sand and gravel. 

Flow of groundwater in the unconfined aquifer is from northeast to southwest beneath the Project Area (Rupert 

and Plummer, 2004; Topper et al. 2003). Where the unconfined aquifer comes to the surface, natural seeps, wet 

meadows, and inter-dune wetlands typically result (USFWS 2005). 

Groundwater contours for the unconfined aquifer were previously developed by Topper et al. (2003) for the period 

1996–1997 (Figure 3-18). Using water level data from the USGS website (USGS 2010), water table contours of 

more recent data were developed (Figure 3-19). The contours were developed by identifying water levels for 

wells in the area shown that were measured in early 2004 or early 2005. The water levels were separated into 

those for the unconfined and those for the confined aquifer. Information on the wells used for the contouring is in 

Appendix G. 

The unconfined contours for 2004–2005 match favorably with those from 1996–1997. Both maps show 

groundwater in the unconfined aquifer flowing into the valley center from uplands to the west, north, and east. In 

the Project Area, groundwater in the unconfined aquifer flows to the southwest at a gradient of roughly 0.0042. 

Depth to groundwater in the unconfined aquifer is roughly 4 to 9 feet for wells in the Project Area. 
78

Figure 3-18. San Luis Valley Water Table Contours: 1996-1997 (from Topper et al. 2003)

Confined Aquifer

Recharge 

The confined aquifer is recharged from precipitation in the mountains and enters the aquifer at higher elevations 

in the mountains. Recharge from the Sangre de Cristos to the east of the valley appears to occur within a 

relatively narrow fault zone. To the west, recharge in the San Juans is greater due to a larger recharge area and 

occurs more commonly through bedding planes (HRS 1987). 

Aquifer Properties and Groundwater Flow 

Transmissivity of the shallow confined aquifer was estimated to be 132,000 gallons per day per foot from testing 

of the Hooper Pool well (HRS 1987). The deep confined aquifer transmissivity was estimated to be roughly 

10,000 gallons per day per foot based on comparison of geophysical well logs with logs of similar lithology where 

testing data were available (HRS 1987). Ongoing groundwater modeling has established a hydraulic conductivity 

(transmissivity divided by thickness) for the confined aquifer at roughly 10 to 30 feet per day (CDWR 2004). 
79

Figure 3-19. San Luis Valley Water Table Contours: 2004–2005
80

Groundwater flow in the shallow confined aquifer is from the recharge source in the surrounding mountains 

toward the valley center, with a component of flow to the south in the southern portion of the valley, south of the 

closed basin. As noted, there is an upward gradient in the confined aquifer forcing some groundwater to flow into 

the unconfined aquifer. Isotope data indicate the confined aquifers slowly discharge to the surface, but the 

amount of contribution of the confined aquifer to the unconfined aquifer does not exceed 20 percent based on 

isotope data analysis (Mayo et al. 2006). 

Water level data from the USGS website (USGS 2010) were used to develop a potentiometric surface map for 

both the shallow and deep confined aquifers. Wells with water levels for the period of early 2004 or early 2005 

were separated into the three aquifers present and the data were contoured. The potentiometric surface elevation 

contours for the shallow confined aquifer are shown on Figure 3-20, along with the wells used. Information on the 

wells used for the contouring is in Appendix G. Note that the depth to potentiometric surface does not imply 

depth to aquifer because the groundwater is under pressure and rises above the aquifer top in wells. 

The potentiometric map suggests that flow in the shallow confined aquifer mimics the unconfined aquifer, with 

flow toward the center of the valley. This is consistent with isotope analyses that suggest groundwater systems in 

the Closed Basin are not in active communication with groundwater systems in the southern portion of the valley 

(Mayo et al. 2006). Within the Project Area, flow is to the west-southwest at a gradient of roughly 0.0038. Depth to 

the potentiometric surface in the vicinity of the Project Area ranges from about 35 feet above ground (flowing well) 

to 24 feet below ground. 

Groundwater flow in the deep confined aquifer consists of downward movement in the upland recharge zones and 

upward movement in the area near the extensional horst-graben features. The vertical flow is a function of the 

high elevation of the recharge zones and the lower elevation of the aquifer. In addition, as groundwater in the 

lower confined aquifer flows basinward, it encounters less permeable material and is forced upward into the 

shallow confined aquifer. Vertical flow is enhanced along the structural fracture openings and in cooling-related 

jointing in the lava flows. Enhanced horizontal flow occurs along bedding planes and in thin horizons of the lavaflow and welded ash-flow units (HRS 1987). 

South of the closed basin, groundwater flow in the deep confined aquifer is also to the south and out of the valley, 

as evidenced by a decline in the potentiometric surface to the south (HRS 1987). Estimates of flow out of the 

valley range from 71,000 afy (HRS 1987) to 89,000 afy (Coons and Kelly 1984). In terms of relative contributions 

of the outflow, HRS (1987) break it down into 7,000 afy from the deep confined aquifer and 64,000 afy from the 

unconfined and shallow confined aquifer. HRS (1987) estimated the groundwater flow rate to the south in the 

shallow confined aquifer is 10 to 12 feet per year, while in the deep confined aquifer it is 1.2 feet per year. 

A potentiometric surface elevation contour map developed from USGS data (USGS 2010) for the deep confined 

aquifer is shown on Figure 3-21, along with the wells used. Information on the wells used for the contouring is in 

Appendix G. Note that the depth to potentiometric surface does not imply depth to aquifer because the 

groundwater is under pressure and rises above the aquifer top in wells. 

The potentiometric map suggests that flow in the deep confined aquifer is to the southeast. Immediately south of 

the Project Area, flow is to the south-southwest at a gradient of roughly 0.001. Depth to the potentiometric surface 

in a single well near the Project Area is 83 feet above ground (flowing well). 

Groundwater Use 

Important uses for water in the San Luis Valley include domestic, recreation, wildlife, agriculture, and mining. Most 

mining operations closed by the end of the 20th century. Agriculture is the primary use of water in the valley, with 

more than 97 percent reportedly being used for that purpose (Saguache County 2001). 
81

Figure 3-20. San Luis Valley Water Shallow Confined Aquifer Potentiometric Surface: 2004–2005
82

Data evaluations for ongoing groundwater modeling (CDWR 2004) indicate that as of 1978 a total of 7,688 wells 

with pumping rates greater than 50 gallons per minute existed in the San Luis Valley. In a 2007 publication 

(Martin 2007), it was noted that the Ground Water Atlas of Colorado specifies that as of February 2001 water well 

permit records indicate that nearly 10,000 wells have been completed in the San Luis Valley, 90 percent of which 

are used for irrigation of commercial crops. Although groundwater use in the San Luis Valley is primarily for 

agriculture, more than 95 percent of domestic water use for the San Luis Valley’s 45,000 residents is dependent 

on groundwater (Saguache County 2001). Groundwater is also used for public water supply in most of the 

municipalities within the San Luis Valley. As of 2000, there were 76 permitted municipal wells in the valley, with a 

total permitted pumping rate of 32,552 gallons per minute (Topper et al. 2003). 

Pumping represented in the RGDSS groundwater flow model (CDWR 2004) includes both agricultural and 

municipal and industrial wells. Municipal and industrial represents less than 5 percent of the water pumped, 

consistent with the 90 percent agricultural use noted above. For the steady state modeling period of 1990–1998, 

the model uses a total of 604,349 afy for agriculture and 36,865 afy for municipal and industrial. 

Most available publications do not differentiate on the amount of groundwater use from aquifers in the valley. It is 

clear that based on the number of wells, the primary sources are the unconfined and shallow confined aquifer. 

The RGDSS model assigns 47 percent of the pumping to model layer 1 (unconfined aquifer), 21 percent to model 

layer 2 (upper Alamosa), and 32 percent to the other model layers (CDWR 2004). The extensive use of the 

unconfined aquifer is borne out by the Ground Water Atlas of Colorado, which states that ―historically, depth to 

water in the unconfined aquifer has been generally less than 12 feet below ground surface. Extensive irrigation in 

the valley using groundwater wells has resulted in depletion of the aquifer. In the period 1969 to 1980, water level 

declines of up to 40 feet were documented in the unconfined aquifer. Since 1976, the Water Division engineer 

estimates that the unconfined aquifer has lost 1 million acre-feet of storage.‖

One other use of groundwater worthy of note is the Closed Basin Project. The Closed Basin Project was 

developed from 1985 through 1993 and was designed to reduce non-beneficial evapotranspiration and convey 

the resulting water to the Rio Grande. A series of wells in the unconfined aquifer pumps water into pipeline 

laterals connected to a 42-mile conveyance channel that delivers the water to the Rio Grande. Direct benefits of 

the project include supplying additional water to help Colorado satisfy its obligations under the Rio Grande 

Compact and providing water supplies for fish and wildlife habitat. As originally envisioned, the project would 

supply approximately 100,000 acre-feet, thereby reducing the need to curtail water users on the Rio Grande and 

Conejos River to meet Compact obligations. To date (1985 to 1997), the project has supplied an average of 

35,000 acre-feet for this purpose (CDWR 2004). 

Groundwater Level Patterns 

Seasonal and long-term trends of groundwater levels in the three aquifers in the San Luis Valley were evaluated 

by obtaining and plotting water level data from the USGS website (USGS 2010). The database was searched for 

wells with water level data in Alamosa County and Saguache County, and was further reduced to include only 

those with a long period of record that is either still ongoing or ended relatively recently. The wells were then 

differentiated as to whether they are in the unconfined, shallow confined, or deep confined aquifer. The well 

locations used for this evaluation are shown on Figure 3-22. 

The wells used to evaluate groundwater level patterns are summarized in Table 3-6. Well data were analyzed to 

determine the change in water levels, with the period of focus being 1990–2005, although some wells had slightly 

different periods. The period of data used for evaluating water level change, along with the net change in water 

levels is shown in Table 3-6. 

All wells showed a decline in water levels for the period evaluated. Unconfined aquifer wells had declines ranging 

from 0.7 to 9.2 feet, with a mean value of 3.4 feet. Shallow confined aquifer wells exhibit a decline of 0.6 to 5.4 

feet, with a mean value of 3.3 feet. Only two wells in the deep confined aquifer had enough data to evaluate 

trends, and they showed declines of 10.2 and 14.7 feet. 
83

Figure 3-21. San Luis Valley Water Deep Confined Aquifer Potentiometric Surface: 2004–2005
84

Figure 3-22. Wells Used to Evaluate Seasonal and Long-Term Trends12

Hydrographs of some of these data were developed and are presented below. Wells near the Project Area are 

shown on Figure 3-23. Well RG-08 to the north of the Project Area has the longest record of data, showing a rise 

of 2 to 3 feet from 1974 to 1994, and then a decline of about the same amount through 2010, for a net rise of 

about 1 foot since 1974. Small seasonal fluctuations of about 1 to 2 feet are evident at RG-08, with peaks in the 

spring and lows in late summer. 

To the south, wells EW-55U and EW-56C-1 both show a decline of about 5 feet for the period 1984 to 2006 and 

demonstrate a similar pattern for the unconfined and shallow confined aquifer. Both wells show highly variable 

seasonal fluctuations ranging from less than 1 foot to about 4 feet. 

Near the Project Area, wells have a very short period of record, with the longest being 5 years. Shallow confined 

wells DW-1 and DW-3 both exhibit a water level rise of about 2 feet for the period 2005 to 2010, while unconfined 

aquifer well SW-3 shows no net change for the same period. 

The two deep confined aquifer wells are shown on Figure 3-24. These two deep wells show a decline in 

potentiometric head of about 30 feet for the period 1988 to 2005, followed by a rise in water levels of about 6 to 8 

feet through 2010. The wells also exhibit significant seasonal fluctuations of about 10 feet, with peaks occurring in 

spring and lows in summer. 

 

12 Figure 3-22 was created by The PBS&J Corporation using data from the USGS (2010). 
85

Table 3-6. Summary of USGS Flow Data for San Luis Valley13

Map Well Change

ID Site No. Site Name Depth Begin End No. Dates Years (ft)

Unconfined

151 375212105554301 NA04200924DAD EW-80C 105 3/5/1980 8/24/2005 316 1994-2005 11 -5.04

155 375305105491601 NA04201013ADB1 EW-53U 41.8 9/14/1984 1/15/2006 378 1990-2005 15 -3.74

158 375324105553301 NA04201007CCC RG18 57 1/5/1967 10/7/2010 416 1990-2005 15 -8.43

164 375415105505601 NA04201002CCD1 EW-56U 42 9/14/1984 7/11/2006 189 1990-2005 15 -4.04

171 375523105505301 NA04301035CAC1 EW-55U 38 9/14/1984 1/4/2006 239 1990-2005 15 -2.46

172 375524106020501 NA04300931CCC RG13A 30 9/5/1974 10/5/2010 418 1990-2005 15 -1.52

175 375621105452301 BACA LAND GRANT NO. 4 SW-5 181 4/21/2005 6/7/2006 11

177 375717105492001 BACA SW-3 221 4/19/2005 10/13/2010 32

178 375733105581901 NA04300922BDD1 EW-51U 42.5 6/28/1984 4/21/2005 223 1994-2005 11 -0.7

179 375745105553001 NA04301019BBB RG14 25 9/5/1974 10/7/2010 396 1990-2005 15 -1.19

183 380023105551901 NA04301006BCC1 RG09A 35 6/2/1986 10/7/2010 286 1990-2005 15 -0.16

184 380128105484401 NA04401131BBC RG08 27 9/5/1974 10/7/2010 424 1990-2005 15 -0.83

NA 375324105534101 NA04201017AAC1 EW-57U NA 10/19/1983 4/10/2006 191 1991-2005 14 -9.21

Shallow Confined

268 375258105533801 NA04201017ADC EW-78C 107 5/3/1979 5/26/2005 235 1995-2005 10 -5.43

269 375305105491602 NA04201013ADB2 EW-53C 129 12/17/1984 7/28/2005 167 1994-2005 11 -3.15

277 375415105505602 NA04201002CCD2 EW-56C-1 108 9/14/1984 7/11/2006 150 1991-2005 14 -5.03

283 375733105581902 NA04300922BDD2 EW-51C 135 10/16/1984 4/21/2005 66 1994-2005 11 -0.55

284 375820106052001 NA04300815CBB SAG 13 830 1/20/1969 9/28/2010 99 1998-2005 7 -5.1

285 375828105432501 BACA DW-3 993 4/20/2005 10/12/2010 32

286 375842105473601 BACA LAND GRANT NO. 4 SW-2 302 3/1/2005 8/30/2006 15

287 375842105473701 BACA DW-1 994 6/10/2005 4/5/2010 33

289 375938106015901 NA04300907BBB2 RG10 27 9/5/1974 10/5/2010 417 1990-2005 15 -0.82

Deep Confined

300 375155106021501 NA04200919CCC1 SAG 4 2301 1/20/1969 9/30/2010 150 1994-2005 11 -14.7

301 375310106021501 NA04200907CCC SAG 2 1987 1/20/1969 9/30/2010 187 1991-2005 14 -10.2

Measurements Period

Three sets of paired wells (unconfined and shallow confined wells at the same location) are shown on Figure 3-

25. Each well pair shows a similar pattern for the unconfined and shallow confined aquifers, indicating a similar 

response to variations in recharge and discharge (pumping). Head in the shallow confined aquifer is greater than 

that in the unconfined aquifer at each well pair, indicating an upward gradient, except for brief periods at well pair 

EW-56U/56-C1 when seasonal highs create a downward gradient. For the data period 1984 to 2006, the well pair 

EW-51U/C shows no net change in water levels, while declines of about 5 feet occur at EW-53U/C and 8 feet at 

EW-56U/C1. 

 

13 Table 3-6 was created using data from the USGS (2010) by The PBS&J Corporation. 
86

Figure 3-23. Hydrograph: Wells Near Project Area14

Figure 3-24. Hydrograph: Deep Confined Aquifer Wells15

 

14 Figure 3-23 was created using data from the USGS (2010) by The PBS&J Corporation. 

15 Figure 3-24 was created using data from the USGS (2010) by The PBS&J Corporation. 

7560

7565

7570

7575

7580

7585

7590

7595 Jan-74 Jan-76 Jan-78 Jan-80 Jan-82 Jan-84 Jan-86 Jan-88 Jan-90 Jan-92 Jan-94 Jan-96 Jan-98 Jan-00 Jan-02 Jan-04 Jan-06 Jan-08 Jan-10 Jan-12 Groundwater Elevation (ft MSL)

RG-08

EW-55U

SW-3

SW-5

EW-56C1

D W-1

D W-3

SW-2

Notes:

Unconfined Aquifer Wells in Blue

Shallow Confined Aquifer Wells in Red

Groundwater elevations have been 

adjusted for some wells to fit on plot

7585

7590

7595

7600

7605

7610

7615

7620

7625

7630 Jan-74 Jan-76 Jan-78 Jan-80 Jan-82 Jan-84 Jan-86 Jan-88 Jan-90 Jan-92 Jan-94 Jan-96 Jan-98 Jan-00 Jan-02 Jan-04 Jan-06 Jan-08 Jan-10 Jan-12 Groundwater Elevation (ft MSL)

SAG-4

SAG-2
87

Figure 3-25. Hydrograph: Select Well Pairs16

Groundwater Quality 

The water quality in the San Luis Valley varies by location and among the different layers of the aquifer. Water 

quality in the unconfined aquifer of the San Luis Valley ranges from very good along the periphery of the valley to 

very poor in the sump area in the vicinity of San Luis Lakes, northeast of Alamosa (Topper et al. 2003). 

TDS in the San Luis Valley can be variable, ranging from less than 500 milligrams per liter (mg/L) along the 

fringes to more than 3,000 mg/L in the center of the basin (Robson and Banta 1995). Topper et al. (2003) indicate 

that TDS concentrations in the sump area around San Luis Lakes range from 2,000 to more than 10,000 mg/L. 

However, reported TDS values in the unconfined aquifer in the northern valley have been reported as high as 

35,000 mg/L according to Mayo et al. (2006), who concluded that ―the elevated TDS of northern valley unconfined 

and upper active confined systems result from mineral dissolution, ion exchange and methanogenesis of organic 

and evaporate lake sediments deposited in an ancient lake.‖ The highest values of TDS in the unconfined aquifer 

are found in the San Luis Lakes area at the lowest portion of the Closed Basin, approximately 20 miles south of 

the Project Area. The waters of the confined aquifer are generally lower in TDS and nitrogen, and thus are of 

higher quality. 

Groundwater quality impairment issues in the San Luis Valley include the presence of bacteria, toxic metals, and 

nitrate that have been detected in private domestic drinking water wells (USEPA 2007c). A study by the USGS 

covering the period 1992 to 1995 found that in the San Luis Valley agricultural land use study, water from 11 of 

the 35 wells sampled contained nitrate concentrations greater than the EPA maximum concentration level; the 

largest concentration was 58 mg/L (Levings et al. 1998). In addition, the salinity hazard in the unconfined aquifer 

is medium to very high (Topper et al. 2003). In response, the San Luis Valley Drinking Water Well Project was 

initiated in April 2007 and includes free testing of water from private wells and provides information on various 

water treatment techniques. 

 

16 Figure 3-25 was created using data from the USGS (2010) by The PBS&J Corporation. 

7525

7530

7535

7540

7545

7550

7555 Jan-74 Jan-76 Jan-78 Jan-80 Jan-82 Jan-84 Jan-86 Jan-88 Jan-90 Jan-92 Jan-94 Jan-96 Jan-98 Jan-00 Jan-02 Jan-04 Jan-06 Jan-08 Jan-10 Jan-12 Groundwater Elevation (ft MSL)

EW-51U

EW-53U

EW-56U

EW-56C1

EW-53C

EW-51C

Notes:

Unconfined Aquifer Wells in Blue

Shallow Confined Aquifer Wells in Red

Groundwater elevations have been 

raised 7 ft for EW-53U/C for plotting
88

Sources of available groundwater quality data, in addition to those in the references cited above, include the 

USGS online database (USGS 2010) and the recent baseline sampling program. The USGS database was 

searched for water quality data from wells in the valley, but the search found analytical data for only a handful of 

wells in the vicinity of the Project Area and these were from 1980 or before. Unlike the surface water data, the 

locations typically contained single samples; therefore, seasonal variations could not be analyzed. The most 

recent data on groundwater quality is from the baseline sampling being conducted in and around the Project Area. 

The baseline groundwater sampling included 21 wells, 8 of which are in the unconfined aquifer and 13 in the 

confined aquifer. The baseline study well locations are shown on Figure 3-26. Table 3-7 summarizes the 

baseline groundwater sampling sites. 

Figure 3-26. Baseline Groundwater Sampling Locations17

 

17 Figure 3-26 was created by The PBS&J Corporation using baseline groundwater sampling data gathered by Lexam. 
89

Table 3-7. Summary of Baseline Groundwater Sampling Sites18

Location

Name Type Aquifer Location

199723 Flowing Well Confined In Project Area

C-20 Flowing Well Confined

C-22 Flowing Well Confined

C-24 Flowing Well Confined

C-25 Flowing Well Confined

C-27 Flowing Well Confined

C-57 Flowing Well Confined

C-7 Flowing Well Confined

Domestic Well Pumped Well Unconfined

SW-5 Pumped Well Unconfined

Motel Well Pumped Well Unconfined Northeast of Project Area

Well-14 Pumped Well Unconfined

Well-15 Pumped Well Unconfined

Well-17 Pumped Well Unconfined

Well-18 Pumped Well Unconfined

C-23 Flowing Well Confined East of Project Area

Well-2 Pumped Well Unconfined

375307 Pumped Well Confined Southeast of Project Area

FL-3 Flowing Well Confined

FL-4 Flowing Well Confined

C-18 Flowing Well Confined West of Project Area

Analytical results of the baseline sampling conducted in 2008 are in Appendix G. The baseline sampling analysis 

detected neither gasoline nor diesel fuel; however, the lighter hydrocarbon gases methane and ethane were 

present. Methane was detected in 17 out of 20 wells that were sampled, and ethane was detected in 10 wells. 

Moreover, methane was detected in five of seven surface water samples. No ethane was detected in the surface 

water samples. The hydrocarbon gases likely originated from the decomposition of organic matter that 

accumulated in the ―ancient sump‖ (Mayo et al. 2006). 

Organic parameters also were measured in the samples obtained for baseline analysis and included VOCs, semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC), and hydrocarbon compounds (gasoline, diesel, methane, and ethane). No 

VOCs were detected in the baseline samples; however, an SVOC, bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate, was found in 

several samples, but no other SVOCs were detected. The origin of bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate in the samples is 

likely from sample contamination from plastic containers used for sample collection (Telesto 2007). Bis(2-

Ethylhexyl)phthalate is commonly associated with plastics, but it is not very persistent in an aquatic environment 

(Howard, 1989). 

TDS values in the Project Area are generally less than 500 mg/L based on the groundwater baseline sampling 

analytical results; however, TDS in the deeper wells in the area may exceed 500 mg/L. A number of metals were 

analyzed in the samples, but no unusual concentrations of metals were detected. Concentrations of analyzed 

metals that are on the Colorado groundwater standards list did not exceed the standards (CDPHE 2007b).

Half of the baseline groundwater analytical results were plotted on a piper diagram (Figure 3-27). Groundwater in 

the San Luis Valley was characterized as calcium bicarbonate or magnesium bicarbonate by Robson and Banta 

(1995). The piper diagram shows a separation of the unconfined and confined aquifer samples, with the 

unconfined samples plotting as calcium bicarbonate and the confined samples plotting as magnesium 

bicarbonate. 

 

18 Table 3-7 was created by The PBS&J Corporation using the groundwater sampling locations for in and around the Project 

Area for Lexam’s proposed oil and gas exploration.
90

Figure 3-27. Baseline Groundwater Samples19

Water quality in the deep confined aquifer diminishes below 2,500 to 3,000 feet because of TDS concentrations of 

greater than 3,000 mg/L as compared to 300 to 500 mg/L above the 2,500-foot to 3,000-foot depth range. The 

decrease in water quality limits the potential use of water from depths greater than 3,000 feet. Also, decreasing 

hydraulic conductivity at depth would adversely affect well productivity. A TDS concentration limit of 500 mg/L is a 

secondary maximum contaminant level for drinking water (CDPHE 2007c). Concentrations above that level are 

acceptable but not optimal for human consumption mainly due to taste and palatability. Water with a TDS 

concentration greater than 2,000 mg/L is generally unsuitable for irrigation (Fipps 2003). TDS concentrations of 

between 3,000 and 5,000 mg/L are satisfactory for use for most livestock, but can cause problems for sensitive 

animals such as poultry. Concentrations between 7,000 and 10,000 mg/L are risky for several types of livestock 

(Soltanpour and Raley 1993). 

Groundwater quality in the San Luis Valley can be variable ranging from less than 500 milligrams per liter (mg/L) 

total dissolved solids (TDS) along the fringes to over 3,000 mg/L in the center of the basin (Robson and Banta 

1995). However, reported TDS values in the unconfined aquifer in the northern valley have been reported as high 

as 35,000 mg/L according to Mayo et al. (2006), who concluded that ―the elevated TDS of northern valley 

unconfined and upper active confined systems result from mineral dissolution, ion exchange and methanogenesis 

 

19 Figure 3-27 was created by The PBS&J Corporation using data from groundwater samples collected in and around the 

Project Area for Lexam’s proposed oil and gas exploration.
91

of organic and evaporate lake sediments deposited in an ancient lake.‖ The highest values of TDS in the 

unconfined aquifer are found in the San Luis Lakes area at the lowest portion of the Closed Basin, approximately 

20 miles south of the proposed Project Area. 

Groundwater quality impairment issues in the San Luis Valley include the presence of bacteria, toxic metals, and 

nitrate that have been detected in private domestic drinking water wells (USEPA 2007c). In response, the San 

Luis Valley Drinking Water Well Project was initiated in April 2007 and includes free testing of water from private 

wells and provides information on various water treatment techniques. 

TDS values in the proposed Project Area are generally less than 500 mg/L based on groundwater baseline 

sampling analytical results (Figure 3-27) (Appendix G). However, TDS in the deeper wells in the area may 

exceed 500 mg/L. Groundwater in the San Luis Valley is characterized as calcium bicarbonate or magnesium 

bicarbonate (Robson and Banta 1995). A number of metals were analyzed in the samples, but no unusual 

concentrations of metals were detected (Appendix G). Concentrations of analyzed metals that are on the 

Colorado groundwater standards list did not exceed the standards (CDPHE 2007b). 

Organic parameters also were measured in the samples obtained for baseline analysis and included volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), and hydrocarbon compounds (gasoline, 

diesel, methane, and ethane). No VOCs were detected in the baseline samples. However, a SVOC, bis(2-

Ethylhexyl)phthalate, was found in several samples, but no other SVOCs were detected. The origin of bis(2-

Ethylhexyl)phthalate in the samples is likely from contamination from plastic containers used for sample collection 

(Telesto 2007). Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate is commonly associated with plastics, but it is not very persistent in an 

aquatic environment (Howard 1989). 

The baseline sample analysis did not detect gasoline and diesel fuel; however, the lighter hydrocarbon gases 

methane and ethane were present. Methane was detected in 17 out of 20 wells that were sampled, and ethane 

was detected in 10 wells (Appendix G). Moreover, methane was detected in five of seven surface water samples. 

No ethane was detected in the surface water samples. The hydrocarbon gases likely originated from the 

decomposition of organic matter that accumulated in the ―ancient sump‖ (Mayo et al. 2006). 

Water Balance 

A water balance is a summary of flows into and out of a system and is useful to identify relative contributions of 

various components. A number of water balances for the San Luis Valley have been developed by researchers 

over the years. The water balances developed to date show a range in values for the various components, largely 

because the flows cannot be directly measured and need to be calculated using certain assumptions. The 

different water balances that have been developed to date were summarized and evaluated in 2001 in support of 

the RGDSS groundwater modeling effort being developed for the area (RGDSS 2001). 

The 2001 effort reviewed and critiqued the previous water balances and developed a best estimate of the water 

budget components. The study also included the water budget resulting from the groundwater model for 

comparison. Results of that effort are in Table 3-8. Differences between the best estimate and model results were 

partly attributable to different study periods, although significant differences were discussed. 
92

Table 3-8. Comparison of Groundwater Area Average Annual Results (from RGDSS 2001) 

In general, the water budget supports the contention that precipitation and surface water inflow from the 

surrounding mountains are the primary sources of recharge, each providing roughly the same amount. The San 

Juan Mountains provide almost four times as much water as the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. The major outflow 

is consumptive use, which is an equal split between beneficial use and non-beneficial use. 

3.5 Vegetation and Habitats 

Vegetation Communities 

The Refuge is characterized by a diverse range of habitats including desert shrublands, grasslands, wet 

meadows, playa wetlands, and riparian areas (USFWS 2005). Specific vegetation communities (Figure 3-28) 

within these habitats were classified based on review of aerial photography and ground-truthing surveys 

conducted by Service. Within the project vicinity, there are five general vegetation types: grasslands, shrublands, 

wet meadows/non-woody riparian areas, woody riparian areas, and playas. The wet meadows are wet during 

active runoff periods when native grasses and rushes are irrigated and grown primarily for water bid production. 

Open water, barren areas, sand flats, and developed areas accounts for less than 1 percent of the Project Area 

and do not display vegetation characteristics; consequently they are not discussed in this section of the Draft EA. 

Table 3-9 summarizes the number of acres of each vegetation type and the sub-communities present in this area. 
93
94

Table 3-9. Vegetation Types and Sub-communities Present in the Project Area

Vegetation Type 1 Sub-community Common Species 2 Acres

Grassland Alkali Sacaton Herbaceous Alliance

Alkali sacaton, western wheatgrass, buffalograss, 

tansyaster, fourwing saltbush, scarlet globemallow, 

prairie coneflower, James; galleta, bush muhly, little 

barley, Indian ricegrass, blue grama, seepweed, cholla 

cactus, and pricklypear cactus

292

Shrubland

Rabbitbrush Shrubland Alliance;

Greasewood Shrubland Alliance

Rubber rabbitbrush, greasewood, four-wing saltbush, 

shadscale, winterfat, Indian ricegrass, Alkali sacaton, 

western wheat grass, blue grama, silver sagebrush, big 

sagebrush, broom snakeweed, yucca, pricklypear 

cactus, bluebunch wheatgrass, James’ galleta, spike 

dropseed, fewflower buckwheat, and clasping 

pepperweed

3,254

Wet meadow/non-woody 

riparian areas

Baltic Rush Seasonally Flooded 

Herbaceous Alliance;

Saltgrass Intermittently Flooded 

Herbaceous Alliance;

Redtop Intermittently Flooded Herbaceous 

Alliance

Baltic rush, redtop, foxtail barley, greasewood, alkali 

sacaton, Nuttail’s alkaligrass, sedges, tufted hairgrass, 

fleabane, bluebell, lupine, goldenrod, Junegrass, 

shrubby cinquefoil, and western wheatgrass

1,585

Woody riparian areas Willow Temporarily 

Alliance

Flooded Shrubland Narrowleaf cottonwood, 

and greasewood

willows, red osier dogwood, 9

Playas Greasewood Intermittently Flooded 

Sparsely Vegetated Alliance

Greasewood, four-wing saltbush, saltgrass, 

sacaton, spike-rush, and foxtail barley

alkali 19

2 Total 5,159

1 

2 

 Source: Grossman et al. 1998; 

 Total acres for each vegetation 

vegetation 

type in the 

mapping was 

Project Area. 

conducted by Service personnel. 

Wetland, Riparian, and Aquatic Habitats 

The type and locations of wetlands and riparian areas were mapped using remotely sensed data from the 

National Wetland Inventory (NWI) for the Project Area. Riparian/wetland areas can generally be identified in the 

Project Area during the summer months by the green belt of vegetation adjacent to streams. They also occur as 

seeps, sloughs, or wet meadows in areas where groundwater is close to the soil surface or in areas being actively 

irrigated. Drought conditions can make identification of riparian/wetland areas problematic. 

Existing Conditions

Riparian/wetland areas can be distinguished from other plant community types by the unique combination of 

hydrology, soils, and vegetation. A site’s hydrology is the overriding characteristic that distinguishes 

riparian/wetland areas from adjacent uplands. The hydrology of any site or region is ultimately linked to 

precipitation, but the development of riparian/wetland areas are dependent on the longer-term presence of 

available water. In much of the western United States, annual precipitation is less than 20 inches, and annual 

evapotranspiration is more than 30 inches (WRCC 2009), indicating a water deficit and that precipitation alone is 

insufficient to support the establishment or persistence of riparian/wetland areas. These conditions hold true for 

the Project Area. Because of this water deficit, the hydrology of riparian/wetland areas in the Project Area 

originates primarily from surface water, groundwater, or both. 
95

Soils in riparian/wetland areas differ from upland soils by their formation and the prolonged presence of water. 

Riparian/wetland soils form under conditions characterized as flowing (lotic) or standing water (lentic) 

environments (Lewis et al. 2003). Soils in lotic environments, such as floodplains, typically exhibit a high level of 

stratification developed by successive depositional events during floods. Organic matter in these areas can often 

be found as deposits derived from offsite sources. Soils in lentic environments, such as in depressional areas or 

lakes, frequently have higher levels of organic matter accumulation than either lotic environments or uplands 

(Lewis et al. 2003). The amount of organic matter accumulation in lentic areas is affected by the type of 

vegetation and the amount of wave action the site receives, among other factors (Lewis et al. 2003). 

When a soil becomes saturated with water, the bio-geochemical processes change because of the lack of oxygen 

(the environment is anaerobic). These changes in soil chemistry are unique to saturated soils and have been 

termed ―hydric.‖ Hydric soil is defined as ―a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding or ponding 

long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part‖ (NRCS 2007). Hydric 

soils are most commonly found in wetland areas and can be identified by field indicators such as mottling, gleying, 

and darker color (i.e., chroma), among others (USDA-NRCS 2006). According to the NRCS (2010), hydric soils 

within the Project Area are Hagga loam, dry; Medano fine sandy loam; Schrader sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent 

slopes; and Vastine loam. Partially hydric soils in the Project Area include Laney loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes and 

Space City loamy sand, saline, 0 to 3 percent slopes. Within the Project Area hydric soils are found on active 

floodplains and stream terraces on valley floors (NRCS 2010). Hydric soils can also be found as inclusions in 

other, non-hydric, soil types.

The Refuge contains a diversity of riparian/wetland types. According to the NWI map, approximately 32 percent 

(1,309 acres) of the Project Area is classified as wetlands (Table 3-10 and Figure 3-29). Four types of 

riparian/wetland areas potentially occur: 

 Freshwater (palustrine) emergent 

 Unconsolidated shore 

 Aquatic bed 

 Lacustrine 

Table 3-10. Wetland Types Present in the Project Area 

Wetland Type Acres %

Freshwater Emergent, temporarily flooded 956 73.0

Freshwater Emergent, Unconsolidated Shore, seasonally flooded 352 26.8

Freshwater Emergent, semi-permanently flooded 1 <1

Freshwater Aquatic 

seasonally flooded

Bed, Lacustrine Littoral Unconsolidated Shore, <1 <1

Total 1,309 100

 Source: USFWS 1990. Based on Service consultation and Service field surveys, the PSS NWI classification has been reclassified as 

shrubland habitat for this analysis.

These wetland and waters of the U.S. types are concentrated along the streams and playa areas located within 

the Project Area. The palustrine emergent and unconsolidated shore temporary and seasonal wetlands are 

referred to locally as wet meadows and non-woody riparian areas. 
96

Figure 3-29. Project Area National Wetland Inventory Map20

Wet Meadows/Non-woody Riparian Areas 

Wet meadows and non-woody riparian areas comprise the largest wetland type in the Project Area. Where the 

water table just reaches the soil surface during the early part of the growing season or inundates the surface for 

short periods is usually where this vegetation type is found. 

The majority of this vegetation type is found in the north, central, and western portions of the Project Area along 

Crestone, Spanish, and Willow creeks. Historically, the Refuge was managed as a working ranch under which 

creation and maintenance of this habitat type was perfected for utilization as high quality cattle forage. Current 

management of the wet meadows by the Service involves similar management and maintenance for use as 

migratory bird nesting, foraging, and cover by actively flooding the meadows and haying in the fall in an attempt to 

promote the native plant communities. 

The dominant sub-community in this vegetation type is the Baltic Rush (Juncus balticus) Seasonally Flooded 

Herbaceous alliance. The Baltic Rush Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance occupies seasonally flooded 

 

20 Figure 3-29 was created by The PBS&J Corporation using data from the national wetlands inventory. 
97

swales and wet, low- to mid-elevation sites, where habitats are often alkaline. The graminoid layer is dense with 

up to 98 percent cover, dominated by Baltic rush, and found throughout the Project Area. 

The two other communities that compose the wet meadows/non-woody riparian areas are the Saltgrass 

Intermittently Flooded Herbaceous Alliance and the Redtop (Agrostis gigantean) Intermittently Flooded 

Herbaceous Alliance. In the Project Area, the Saltgrass Intermittently Flooded Herbaceous Alliance occurs south 

of North Crestone Creek, while the Redtop Intermittently Flooded Herbaceous Alliance sub-community is found 

along Willow Creek on the eastern edge. 

Woody Riparian Areas 

The Project Area has less than 1 percent of woody riparian habitat; this habitat is location along North Crestone 

Creek (USFWS 2005). There are no woody riparian vegetation communities near the proposed well sites. 

This habitat type is composed of one sub-community, Willow (Salix spp.) Temporarily Flooded Shrubland Alliance 

is found north of Crestone Creek. This community is usually found in the floodplains of the creeks, located on 

islands, sand or cobble bars, and immediate streambanks. It is tree-dominated with a diverse shrub component 

and is dependent on the natural hydrological regime, especially annual to episodic flooding. Narrowleaf 

cottonwood is the dominant tree species with understory vegetation of willows, red osier dogwood (Cornus 

stolonifera), and greasewood (USFWS 2005). 

Playas 

Playas can experience weeks, months, or even years between periods of inundation. This vegetation type is 

found in small patches in the south-and north-central portions of the Project Area. This vegetation type is 

characterized by sparsely vegetated areas (<10 percent canopy cover), with typical species including greasewood 

and four-wing saltbrush (Altriplex canescens). Surrounding the playas is usually greasewood and rubber 

rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa) with an understory of saltgrass and western wheat grass (Pascopyrum 

smithii). Barren salt flats also are a component of playa wetland systems. The only sub-community in this 

vegetation type is Greasewood Intermittently Flooded Sparsely Vegetated Alliance. It often occurs along flat to 

gently sloping stream terraces, where soils are alkaline and may be moderately saline. 

Wetland Functions 

As noted, riparian/wetland areas are transition zones between aquatic and terrestrial systems. As such, they 

frequently occupy important positions in the landscape for providing a variety of physical, chemical, and 

biological functions important to society. These functions are linked not only to processes occurring within the 

riparian/wetland area, but also are directly linked to watershed-scale processes. Functions commonly associated 

with freshwater riparian/wetland areas typically fall into the following categories: 

 Flood flow attenuation 

 Food chain support 

 Nutrient cycling 

 Water quality improvement 

 Water storage 

 Wildlife/bird habitat 

The USACE has developed a system for the classification and evaluation of riparian/wetland functions called the 

hydrogeomorphic (HGM) method. The HGM classification system is based on a riparian/wetland area’s 

topographic position (i.e., geomorphic setting), its dominant water source, and the hydrodynamics of the site (i.e., 

dominant direction of flow) (Smith et al., 1995). The HGM riparian/wetland classes applicable to the Project Area 

are primarily riverine and slope, though mineral flats and depressional classes may also occur. Each HGM class 

has certain associated functions (Table 3-11) that are performed at varying capacity levels depending on their 

HGM class as well as site-specific conditions and characteristics. 
98

Table 3-11.Typical Characteristics and Primary Functions of Hydrogeomorphic

Riparian/Wetland Classes Found in the Project Area

HGM Class Examples Characteristics* Primary Functions

Depressional Potholes

o Occurs in a topographic depression 

(e.g., shallow pond).

o Dominant water sources are 

precipitation, overland flow, and/or 

groundwater.

o Water levels fluctuate vertically. 

Water storage, nutrient 

cycling, food chain

support, wildlife/bird 

habitat.

Mineral Flats Large playas

o Dominant water source is precipitation.

o Water levels fluctuate vertically.

o Poor vertical drainage usually due to 

hardpans or spodic horizons. 

Water storage, nutrient 

cycling, food chain

support, wildlife/bird 

habitat.

Riverine

Perennial and 

intermittent 

creeks

o Occurs along streams and rivers.

o Dominant water source is from 

overbank flow from channel or alluvial 

aquifer.

o Flow is downstream and lateral away 

from channel.

Water storage, flood 

flow attenuation, water 

quality improvement, 

nutrient cycling, food 

chain support, 

wildlife/bird habitat.

Slope

Wet meadows 

on slopes with 

seeps/springs

o Occurs on a slope.

o Dominant water source is groundwater.

o Flow is down-gradient.

Water storage, nutrient 

cycling, food chain

support, wildlife/bird 

habitat.

*Source: Smith et al., 1995.

Wetland Conservation Areas 

The Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) defines a Network of Conservation Areas (NCA) as a collection 

of Potential Conservation Areas (PCA) that contains similar species or natural communities and ecological 

processes. An NCA may also be identified as large, relatively undisturbed (e.g., lightly fragmented) landscapes 

that support wide-ranging species and large disturbances (CNHP 2005a). PCAs include the ecological processes 

that are necessary to support the continued existence of a particular element of natural heritage significance. 

PCAs may include a single occurrence of a rare element, or a suite of rare elements or significant features (CNHP 

2005b). 

The Project Area occurs within a portion of the San Luis Valley Playa Lake Megasite. This NCA includes several 

playa lake PCAs. According to Rondeau et al. (1998): 

The playa lake ecosystems of the San Luis Valley floor depend upon a complex interaction of 

surface and groundwater sources which undergo characteristic seasonal and inter-annual 

fluctuations. Water uses which perturb the timing or magnitude of surface flows, or affect the 

valley bottom water table, are likely to affect these wetlands detrimentally. 

The Project Area also occurs within the western extent of the Baca Grande and Reserve PCA. According to the 

CNHP (2006) this PCA supports a ―fair‖ occurrence of a globally vulnerable subspecies of the northern pocket 

gopher. In addition, the three creeks included in the PCA (Willow, Spanish, and Cottonwood) are important water 

sources for wetlands on the Baca MWR (CNHP 2006). 
99

Upland Habitats 

Grasslands 

Grasslands occur throughout the Project Area. This vegetation type is typically found in lowland and upland areas 

on swales, playas, mesa tops, plateau parks, alluvial flats, and plains. The only sub-community in this vegetation 

type is Alkali Sacaton (Sporobolus airoides) Herbaceous Alliance, which is widespread on the valley floor. A 

sparse to moderately dense graminoid layer of medium-tall bunch grasses with smaller densities of short grasses 

and forbs characterize this sub-community, with alkali sacaton being the dominant grass. The access road to the 

Baca #5 location, and the location itself, are located within this vegetation type. 

Shrublands 

Shrubland is the most dominant vegetation type in the Project Area, and is widespread on the valley floor. Many 

of the plants within this type are drought resistant and tolerant to a range of soil salinity, conditions common to the 

valley floor. The most dominant sub-community is the Rubber Rabbitbrush Shrubland Alliance, usually 

characterized by open to moderately dense, short-shrub layer dominated by rubber rabbitbrush, big sagebrush, 

broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae), sand sagebrush (Artemisia filifolia) pricklypear cactus (Opuntia spp.), 

yucca (Yucca spp.), Indian ricegrass, and blue grama. It is typically found on alluvial fans and flats with moderate 

to deep soils. This sub-community is dominant throughout the Project Area. The two access roads and Baca #7 

well sites are located within this vegetation sub-community. 

The Greasewood Shrubland Alliance is found mostly on the west side of the Project Area, with the dominant 

species being greasewood, four-wing saltbush, alkali sacaton, saltgrass, and spike-rush (Eleocharis palustris). 

This sub-community typically has saline soils, a shallow water table, and floods intermittently, but remains dry for 

most of the growing season. In both sub-communities, exotic species also are common including cheat grass 

(Bromus tectorum) and crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum).

Special Status Plant Species 

Special status species are those species for which state or federal agencies afford an additional level of 

protection by law, regulation, or policy. Included in this category are federally listed and federally proposed 

species that are protected under the Endangered Species Act or are considered as candidates for such listing by 

the Service, and those species that are state-listed as threatened or endangered. 

Within the Project Area, the globally rare Slender spiderflower (Cleome multicaulis) is the only rare plant species 

found. Slender spiderflower is an annual that inhabits saline or alkaline soils at the edge of wetlands or moist 

meadows, especially where the water table nears the surface. A member of the caper family, population size 

fluctuates considerably from year-to-year. The species was once found in suitable habitats in south-central 

Colorado, and from southeastern Arizona to western Texas and to northern New Mexico, and one distinct 

population in central Wyoming (CNHP 2005a). Drainage of wetlands throughout its range is thought to have 

decreased the amount of habitat available. This species now occurs almost exclusively in the San Luis Valley, 

commonly found in the transition area between the Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance and the Rabbitbrush 

Shrubland Alliance, where it thrives in moist, slightly saline conditions (USFWS 2005). Sizeable populations of 

this rare plant are known to occur in the Project Area. 

Invasive and Noxious Weeds 

Subsequent to disturbance, vegetation communities may be susceptible to infestations of noxious species. These 

species are most prevalent in areas of prior surface disturbance, such as agricultural areas, roadsides, existing 

utility rights-of-way, and wildlife concentration area. The prevention of the introduction or spread of noxious and 

invasive weeds is a high priority to federal, state and county agencies. Under Executive Order (EO) 13112 of 

February 3, 1999 – Invasive Species, federal agencies shall not authorize, fund, or carry out actions likely to 

cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species in the U.S. or elsewhere unless it has been 
100

determined that the benefits of such actions outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species and that all 

feasible and prudent measures to minimize the risk of harm will be taken in conjunction with the actions. 

The terms ―noxious weed‖ and ―invasive weed‖ are often used interchangeably to describe any plant that is 

unwanted and grows or spreads aggressively. The term ―noxious weed‖ is legally defined under both federal and 

state laws. Under the Federal Plant Protection Act of 2000 (formally the Noxious Weed Act of 1974 [7 USC SS 

2801-2814]), a noxious weed is defined as ―any plant or plant product that can directly or indirectly injure or cause 

damage to crops, livestock, poultry, or other interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation, the natural resources of 

the United States, the public health, or the environment‖ (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 2000; 

Institute of Public Law 1994). The Federal Plant Protection Act contains a list of 137 federally restricted and 

regulated federal noxious weeds, as per CFR Title 7, Chapter III, Part 360, including 19 aquatic and wetland 

weeds, 62 parasitic weeds, and 56 terrestrial weeds. Each state is federally mandated to uphold the rules and 

regulations set forth by this Act and manage their lands accordingly. 

In addition to federal noxious weed lists, Colorado regulates noxious and invasive species through the Colorado 

Noxious Weed Act, which classifies noxious weeds into three lists, A, B, and C (§§35 5.5-101 through 119, CRS 

[2003]). Each list has specific control requirements, with the most stringent requirements for those species found 

on List A. Only List A species are required by law to be controlled (Colorado Department of Agriculture [CDA] 

2010). The species that are managed and regulated by the State of Colorado are included in Table 3-5. 

Noxious weeds of primary concern in the Project Area include: 

 Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense);

 Perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium);

 Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens);

 Salt cedar (Tamarisk spp.) 

Salt cedar is found primarily along the west side of the playa wetlands in disturbed areas (e.g., roads) in the 

project vicinity. Russian knapweed is primarily found in the northwest portion of the Project Area, while perennial 

pepperweed is found farther south and is often found in conjunction with Baltic rush communities. Yellow toadflax 

(Linaria vulgaris) has been reported in the Refuge. 

3.6 Wildlife and Fisheries 

Recreationally and Economically Important Species and Nongame Wildlife 

As discussed in Section 3.5, Vegetation and Habitats, wildlife habitat within the project vicinity consists primarily 

of semi-desert shrubland, semi-desert grassland, wet meadows, and non-woody riparian habitats. Semi-desert 

shrubland and semi-desert grassland are the most common wildlife habitats within the Project Area. The project 

vicinity is characterized by flat to low rolling terrain with intermittent streams, wet meadows, and wetlands. 

Baseline descriptions of both resident and migratory wildlife include species that have either been documented or 

that may occur in the Project Area based on habitat associations. Wildlife species are typical of the high mountain 

semi-desert shrublands of the San Luis Valley. Riparian/wetland habitats found along the drainages and ponds 

within the project vicinity support a greater diversity and population density of wildlife species than habitat types 

occurring in the Project Area. However, both Baca #5 and Baca #7 are considered to be in important areas for 

wintering concentrations of pronghorn, mule deer, and elk by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). The 

COGCC also uses this information on sensitive wildlife habitat (see Appendix VIII at http://cogcc.state.co.us/) to 

assist in regulating oil and gas activities in Colorado. 

Information regarding wildlife species and habitat within the Project Area was obtained from a review of existing 

published sources, USFWS, CDOW, COGCC, CNHP database information, and a site-specific biological 

assessment on the Baca Grande property 2 miles east of the proposed Project Area (CNHP 2006). The biological 

assessment is relevant due to its close proximity to the Project Area and information on special status wildlife 

species in the San Luis Valley. The survey was conducted by the CNHP in the summer of 2005 and examined the 

existing use of the Baca Grande by terrestrial and aquatic vertebrates and special status species. 
101

Table 3-12. Noxious Weeds Potentially Occurring within the Project Area 

Common Name Scientific Name Federal 

List1

Colorado 

Noxious 

Weed 

List2,3

Primary 

Concern for the 

Refuge

Velvetleaf Abutilon theophrasti C

Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens B X

Jointed goatgrass Aegilops cylindrical B

Camelthorn Alhagi pseudalhagi A

Spurred anoda Anoda cristata B

Corn chamomile Anthemis arvensis B

Mayweed chamomile Anthemis cotula B

Common burdock Arctium minus C

Absinth wormwood Artemisia absinthium B

Downy brome Bromus tectorum C

Hoary cress Cardaria draba B X

Plumeless thistle Carduus acanthoides B

Musk thistle Carduus nutans B

Wild caraway Carum carvi B

Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa B

Spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa B

Meadow knapweed Centaurea pratensis A

Yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis A

Squarrose knapweed Centaurea virgata A

Rush skeleton weed Chondrilla juncea A

Oxeye daisy Chrysanthemum 

leucanthemum

B

Chicory Cichorium intybus C

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense B X

Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare B

Chinese clematis Clematis orientalis B

Poison hemlock Conium maculatum C

Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis C

Common crupina Crupina vulgaris X A

Houndstongue Cynoglossum officinale B

Yellow nutsedge Cyperus esculentus B

Common teasel Dipsacus fullonum B

Russian-olive Elaeagnus angustifolia B

Quackgrass Elytrigia repens B

Redstem filaree Erodium cicutarium C

Cypress spurge Euphorbia cyparissias A

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula B

Myrtle spurge Euphorbia myrsinites A

Halogeton Halogeton glomeratus C

Dame’s rocket Hesperis matronalis B

Venice mallow Hibiscus trionum B

Orange hawkweed Hieracium aurantiacum A

Hydrilla Hydrilla verticillata X A

Black henbane Hyoscyamus niger B

Common St. Johnswort Hypericum perforatum C

Dyer’s woad Isatis tinctoria A

Perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium B X

Sericiea lespedeza Lespedeza cuneata A
102

Table 3-12. Noxious Weeds Potentially Occurring within the Project Area (continued) 

Common Name Scientific Name Federal 

1 List

Colorado 

Noxious 

Primary 

Concern for the 

Weed 

2,3 List

Refuge

Dalmatian toadflax, broad-leaved Linaria dalmatica B

Dalmatian toadflax, narrow-leaved Linaria genistifolia B

Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris B

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria A

Scentless chamomile Matricaria perforate B

Eurasian watermilfoil Myriophyllum spicatum B

Scotch cottonthistle Onopordum acanthium B

Bull cottonthistle Onopordum tauricum B

Wild proso millet Panicum miliaceum C

African rue Peganum harmala A

Sulfur cinquefoil Potentiall recta B

Mediterranean sage Salvia aethiopis A

Giant salvinia Salvinia molesta X A

Bouncingbet Saponaria officinalis B

Tansy ragwort Senecio jacobaea A

Perennial sowthistle Sonchus arvensis C

Johnsongrass Sorghum halepense C

Medusahead Taeniatherum caputmedusae A

Salt Cedar Tamarisk spp. B X

Common tansy Tanacetum vulgare B

Puncturevine Tribulus terrestris C

Moth mullein Verbascum blattaria B

Common mullein Verbascum Thapsus C

1 Each state is federally mandated to uphold the rules and regulations set forth by the Federal Plant Protection Act 

of 2000 (formerly the Noxious Weed Act of 1974 [7 USC SS 2801-2814]). 

2

 In the Colorado Noxious Weed Act (§ 35 5.5-101 through 119, CRS [2003]), noxious weeds are classified into 

three lists, A, B, and C. Each list has specific control requirements, with the most stringent requirements for those 

species found on List A. List A includes noxious weeds targeted for eradication and for which management plans 

have been developed for their control. Control of these species is required by law. If these species were found 

within the Project Area, Lexam will be required to follow the prescribed management techniques stipulated by 

Colorado’s Noxious Weed Act. These techniques must be applied for the duration of the seed longevity for the 

particular species. List B species are recommended for control, but management plans have not yet been 

developed for these species and control is not required by law. List C species are generally considered too 

widespread to effectively control, and control of List C species is not required (CDA 2010).

3

 Saguache County follows the Colorado Noxious weed list.. 

Source: USDA-APHIS 2010; CDA 2010.

Big Game 

Elk, mule deer, and pronghorn are the primary big game species within the Project Area (CDOW 2007a). The 

Project Area occurs in game management unit 82. In 2009, a total of 449 elk, 125 mule deer, and 88 pronghorn 

were harvested in unit 82 (CDOW 2010a). Details on each big game species are presented below. 

A large herd of resident elk occurs within the vicinity of the Project Area. Elk use a variety of habitat types within 

the Project Area but primarily occur in wet meadows and shrub-dominated habitats (USFWS 2005). Elk 
103

populations within the Project Area usually peak during winter months (November-March), with populations 

highest during severe winters (USFWS 2005). The entire Project Area is considered summer range, while the 

eastern portion of the Project Area is considered severe winter range (CDOW 2007c). Two small areas located in 

the eastern portion of the Project Area are considered winter concentration areas by CDOW. These areas occur 

along Crestone, Cottonwood, Spanish, and Willow creeks (CDOW 2007c). Figure 3-30 presents the designated 

elk winter range located within the Project Area. 

Mule deer are typically found in riparian areas and abandoned agricultural fields (USFWS 2005). The eastern 

portion of the Project Area is considered winter range (CDOW 2007c). Figure 3-31 presents the designated mule 

deer winter range located within the Project Area. 

Pronghorn occur throughout the Project Area year-round. Use of the Project Area by pronghorn is highly 

dependent on water and forage availability. The entire Project Area is considered pronghorn winter range (CDOW 

2007c). A small area located in the northern portion of the Project Area is considered a winter concentration area 

by CDOW (CDOW 2007c). Figure 3-32 presents the designated pronghorn winter range located within the 

Project Area. 

Big game population numbers fluctuate slightly from year-to-year based on weather and habitat conditions. Water 

availability and the amount of quality winter habitat are the limiting factors within the Project Area. Water 

availability, forage quality, cover, and weather patterns typically determine the level of use and movement of big 

game species through the Project Area. 

Mountain lion and black bear also are classified as big game species in Colorado (CDOW 2007a). Both of these 

species are fairly common in south-central Colorado and occupy the higher elevations of the Sangre de Cristo 

mountain range east of the Project Area (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Due to the lack of preferred habitat (i.e., 

canyons, mesas, brushy hillsides), occurrence within the Project Area by these species would be limited to 

dispersing individuals. 

Small Game and Furbearers 

Small game species that occur within the Project Area are mourning dove, cottontail, and white-tailed jackrabbit 

(USFWS 2005). Currently, there are no upland game birds other than mourning dove found within the project area 

due to the absence of suitable habitat. Mourning doves are found in a wide range of habitats in close proximity to 

water and are most likely to occur within the Project Area during spring, summer, and early fall. Furbearers that 

may occur within the Project Area include the coyote, badger, red fox, bobcat, beaver, muskrat, skunk, and 

raccoon (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). 

The Project Area contains important nesting habitat for waterfowl as well as important staging habitats that are 

utilized during migration (USFWS 2005). Common species found within the Project Area include Canada goose, 

mallard, Northern pintail, gadwall, American wigeon, cinnamon, green-winged and blue-winged teal (USFWS 

2005). Waterfowl are found throughout the project vicinity in appropriate habitats such as wetlands, ponds, wet 

meadows, and riparian areas. 

Nongame Species 

A diversity of nongame species (e.g., small mammals, passerines, raptors, and reptiles) occupy a wide range 

of trophic levels and habitat types within the Project Area. Habitats (e.g., semi-desert shrublands, wet meadows) 

support a variety of resident and seasonal nongame species. Nongame mammals include such species as deer 

mouse, silky pocket mouse, meadow vole, Ord’s kangaroo rat, thirteen-lined ground squirrel, Gunnison’s prairie 

dog, and northern pocket gopher (USFWS 2005). The Gunnison’s prairie dog is uncommon and is only found in 

small colonies in the San Luis Valley and south-central Colorado (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). The Gunnison’s prairie 

dog is currently considered a candidate species for protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The 

northern pocket gopher is a Colorado species of concern, Special Status Wildlife Species. Small mammals 

provide a substantial prey base for the areas predators including mammals (e.g., coyote, badger, skunk), raptors 

(eagles, hawks, falcons, owls), and reptile species. Migratory birds potentially occurring in the Project Area are 

discussed below. 
104

Several bat species may occur within the Project Area including Brazilian free-tailed bat, western small-footed 

myotis, long-eared myotis, long-legged myotis, hoary bat, and Townsend’s big-eared bat (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). 

The Townsend’s big-eared bat is a Colorado species of concern and is discussed below under Special Status 

Species. 
105
106
107

The Project Area contains important nesting habitat for shorebirds and waterbirds as well as important staging 

habitats that are utilized during migration (USFWS 2005). Common species found within the Project Area include 

greater sandhill crane, greater and lesser yellowlegs, American avocet, white-faced ibis, Wilson’s phalarope, 

snipe, sora, and Virginia rail. Shorebirds and waterbirds are found throughout the Project Area in appropriate 

habitats such as wetlands, ponds, wet meadows, and riparian areas. 

Other important nongame species that are found within the Project Area include several species of reptiles and 

amphibians. These species include the short-horned lizard, bull snake, western garter snake, tiger salamander, 

chorus frog, Great Plains toad, Woodhouse’s toad, Plains spadefoot toad, and northern leopard frog (CDOW 

2007c; CNHP 2006; Service and Lexam Explorations 2007; USFWS 2005). The northern leopard frog is a 

Colorado species of concern and as discussed under Special Status Species. 

Migratory Birds 

Nongame birds within the project region include a wide range of migratory bird species including neotropical 

migrants - birds that breed in North America and winter in the neotropical region of South America. These birds 

are considered integral to natural communities and act as environmental indicators based on their sensitivity to 

environmental changes caused by human activities. Representative bird species breeding in the project region 

include yellow warbler, song sparrow, western wood pewee, black-billed magpie, American crow, western 

meadowlark, and a number of raptor species (see below) [; USFWS 2005; Garcia 2007; USFWS and Lexam 

Explorations 2007]. Migratory birds are protected under the MBTA (16 USC 703 711) and EO 13186, 

Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds (66 Federal Register 3853). 

The San Luis Valley hosts an array of hawks, falcons, owls, and eagles throughout the year. Abundant food 

sources (e.g., rodents, waterfowl) are found throughout the numerous wetlands, wet meadows, ponds, lakes, and 

streams that occur in the San Luis Valley (Service and Lexam Explorations 2007). Details on raptor species found 

within the project vicinity are presented below. 

 

Prairie falcons are common year-round residents within the Project Area and use various habitats extensively for 

feeding and resting. Red-tailed hawks, Swainson’s hawks, and American kestrels nest in the vicinity of the Project 

Area, primarily in trees and snags scattered along creeks and water delivery canals (Garcia 2007; USFWS and 

Lexam Explorations 2007). 

Northern harriers and short-eared owls likely nest in dense vegetation found in wet meadows and marshes 

(Garcia 2007; USFWS and Lexam Explorations 2007). Great horned and long-eared owls likely nest in the project 

vicinity in deciduous trees found along riparian areas and are likely to occur in the banks of incised creeks and 

water delivery ditches (USFWS and Lexam Explorations 2007). 

Species such as ferruginous hawk, rough-legged hawk, northern harrier, short-eared owl, and golden and bald 

eagles are common winter residents within the Project Area (Service and Lexam Explorations 2007). The hawks, 

owls, and golden eagles forage for rodents, small mammals, and other prey in riparian areas, uplands, and shortemergent wetlands where cover is abundant. Details on the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and ferruginous hawk 

are discussed below under Special Status Species. 

Passerine or songbird species occupy the entire range of habitats found within the Project Area. However, due to 

the higher level of plant diversity and structure, more abundant potential nest sites, and greater food base, the 

riparian areas and wetlands support the highest diversity of bird species within the seismic survey area. 

Information on sensitive species such as southwestern willow flycatcher, western yellow-billed cuckoo, mountain 

plover, and long-billed curlew, as discussed under the Special Status Species section below. 

Fisheries 

Crestone Creek is inhabited by four native fish species: Rio Grande sucker (Catostomus plebeius), Rio Grande 

chub (Gila pandora), fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), and longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae) 

(Service and Lexam Explorations 2007). The Rio Grande sucker and Rio Grande chub are discussed in detail 

under Special Status Species section below. 
108

Special Status Species 

Special status species are those species for which state or federal agencies afford an additional level of 

protection by law, regulation, or policy. Included in this category are federally listed species that are protected 

under the ESA, species designated as state endangered or threatened by CDOW, and state species of concern 

identified by CDOW. 

A total of 28 special status species (21 terrestrial and 7 aquatic) were identified as potentially occurring within the 

Project Area (CDOW 2010b; CNHP 2007; USFWS 2007b, USFWS 2007c). These species, their associated 

habitats, and their potential for occurrence within the Project Area are summarized in Table 3-13. Occurrence 

potential within the Project Area and cumulative effects area was evaluated for each species based on their 

habitat requirements and/or known distribution. Based on these evaluations, 10 special status species have been 

eliminated from detailed analyses based on their habitat requirements and/or known distributions (Table 3-13). 

These species include wolverine, Canada lynx, Gunnison’s sage grouse, Mexican spotted owl, boreal toad 

(2007f), Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly, bonytail chub, razorback sucker, humpback chub, and Colorado 

pikeminnow. The 18 special status species identified as potentially occurring within the Project Area are described 

below. 
109

Table 3-13. Special Status Species Identified for the Environmental Assessment of Lexam’s Proposed Oil 

and Gas Exploration

Common 

Name/ 

Scientific 

Name

Status Range/ Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence 

on or Near the Project 

Area

Eliminated 

from Detailed 

Analysis

Mammals

Townsend’s 

big-eared bat 

(Corynorhinus

townsendii)

SC Range: Occurs throughout the western 

U.S.

Habitat: Highly associated with caves 

and mines. Very susceptible to 

disturbance at roost sites. Periodically 

moves to alternate roosts and actively 

forages and drinks throughout the winter. 

Foraging associations include edge 

habitats along streams, adjacent to and 

within a variety of wooded habitats.

Moderate. Suitable 

foraging habitat exists 

within the Project Area.

No.

Northern 

pocket 

gopher 

(Thomomys 

talpoides 

agrestis)

SC Range: This subspecies occurs in the 

San Luis Valley north and east of the Rio 

Grande River.

Habitat: A wide variety of vegetation 

communities including semidesert 

shrublands, grasslands, forests, and 

alpine tundra.

High. This species has 

been documented 

approximately 2 miles 

east of the Project Area

on the Baca Grande.

No.

Black-footed 

ferret 

(Mustela 

nigripes)

FE, 

SE

Range: Isolated locations in South 

Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado.

Habitat: Prairie dog colonies. Uses the 

burrows as living quarters and nurseries.

Low. Suitable habitat 

occurs within Gunnison’s 

prairie dog colonies within 

the Project Area. 

However, the nearest 

known population is 

located in northwest 

Colorado.

Yes.

Wolverine 

(Gulo gulo)

SE Range: Throughout boreal forest and 

tundra regions of North America. Several 

historical records exist for Colorado, 

although their status is currently 

unknown.

Habitat: Boreal forests, bogs, lowlands, 

and tundra. Dens are typically in log 

jams, under rocks and boulders, or under 

tree roots.

None. Yes. Lack of 

suitable 

habitat occurs 

within the 

Project Area.
110

Table 3-13. Special Status Species Identified for the Environmental Assessment of Lexam’s Proposed Oil 

and Gas Exploration (Continued) 

Common 

Name/ 

Scientific 

Name

Status Range/ Habitat Requirements Potential for 

Occurrence on or Near 

the Project Area

Eliminated 

from Detailed 

Analysis

Canada lynx 

(Lynx 

Canadensis)

FT, 

SE

Range: Found throughout Canada and 

Alaska as well as the high elevation 

forests of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, 

Montana, and Idaho.

Habitat: Coniferous forests such as 

spruce-fir with well-developed 

understories. Uneven aged stands of 

spruce-fir with rock outcrops and large 

boulders are the preferred habitat. Dens 

are typically under ledges, trees, 

deadfalls, or occasionally in caves.

None. Yes. Lack of 

suitable 

habitat occurs 

within the 

Project Area.

Gunnison’s 

prairie dog 

(Cynomys 

gunnsoni)

FC Range: Found in central and southcentral Colorado to north-central New 

Mexico.

Habitat: Gently sloping grasslands and 

semi-desert and montane shrublands at 

elevations of 6,000 to 12,000 feet.

High. The only colony 

within the exploration 

Project Area is 

approximately three miles 

north-northwest of Baca 

#5. This small colony is 

approximately two acres 

in size and is on either 

side of the main access or 

―Lexam‖ road that is used 

by Refuge staff, Refuge

permittees and by Lexam.

No.

Birds

Bald eagle 

(Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus)

SC Range: Throughout Colorado, however 

most breeding occurs along the front 

range and western parts of the state.

Habitat: Generally nests and roosts in

close proximity to large water bodies

including rivers, lakes, and reservoirs.

Nests in large trees such as cottonwood

and ponderosa pine. Breeding season is

February 15-July 15.

Moderate. Occurrence is 

limited migrating and 

wintering individuals. 

Most of the bald eagle 

use is along Crestone 

Creek northeast of the 

Project Area.

No.
111

Table 3-13. Special Status Species Identified for this Draft Environmental Assessment (Continued) 

Common 

Name/ 

Scientific 

Name

Status Range/ Habitat Requirements Potential for 

Occurrence on or Near 

the Project Area

Eliminated 

from Detailed 

Analysis

Ferruginous

hawk

(Buteo regalisi)

SC Range: Throughout the Great Plains and 

grassland/shrub-steppe areas of 

western North America.

Habitat: Open grassland and shrubsteppe habitats. Nests on the ground,

usually on a hill or rock outcrop. Forages

over open country. Breeding season is

March 15-July 15.

High. This species has 

been documented 

foraging around wetlands 

and marshes within the 

Project Area. However, 

no known nesting habitat 

occurs within the vicinity 

of the Project Area.

No.

American

Peregrine

Falcon

(Falco

peregrinus

anatum)

SC Range: Primarily found in western

Colorado but breeding pairs also are

found along the front range.

Habitat: Foothill and mountain cliffs

surrounded by pinyon-juniper or

ponderosa pine woodlands. Nest sites

consist of a small depression on a cliff

ledge. Breeding season is March 15-

July 15.

High. This species has 

been documented 

foraging around wetlands 

and marshes within the 

Project Area. However, 

no known nesting habitat 

occurs within the vicinity 

of the Project Area.

No.

Gunnison

sage-grouse

(Centrocercus

minimus)

FC, 

SC

Range: In Colorado, this species is 

found primarily in Gunnison county with 

small scattered populations in Montrose, 

San Miguel, Mesa and Saguache 

counties.

Habitat: Sagebrush grasslands. Leks 

are located in open areas in close 

proximity to escape cover. Nests are 

located in sagebrush habitat, typically 

within 2 miles of the lek. Broods are 

raised in wet, grassy areas near 

sagebrush. Winter habitat consists of 

south and east facing slopes with 

minimal snow cover. Breeding season is 

March 15-July 1.

None. Yes. The 

nearest 

population is a 

small 

introduced 

population 

restricted to an 

area 

approximately 

25 miles 

northwest of 

the Project 

Area.

Greater 

sandhill crane 

(Grus 

canadensis 

tabida)

SC Range: In Colorado, this species breeds

in the northwest portion of the state and

migrates through the San Luis Valley in

the fall and spring.

Habitat: Flooded fields, wetlands,

marshes, meadows, and agricultural

fields. Breeding season is April 1-July 

15.

High. A large number of

greater sandhill cranes, 

part of the Rocky 

Mountain population, 

migrate through the San 

Luis Valley in the fall

and spring.

No.
112

Table 3-13. Special Status Species Identified for this Draft Environmental Assessment (Continued) 

Common 

Name/ 

Scientific 

Name

Status Range/ Habitat Requirements Potential for 

Occurrence on or Near 

the Project Area

Eliminated 

from Detailed 

Analysis

Western 

snowy plover

(Charadrius 

alexandrinus)

FT, 

SC

Range: Found along manmade 

reservoirs in southeast Colorado and 

alkali-covered playas in the San Luis 

Valley.

Habitat: sandy beaches, dry salt flats, 

river bars, and alkali covered playas. 

Breeding season is April 1 – July 15.

High. This species has 

been documented

approximately 15 miles 

south of the Project Area

near San Luis Lake.

.

No.

Mountain

plover

(Charadrius

montanus)

FP, 

SC

Range: Western North America with the

largest breeding populations found in

Colorado and eastern Montana.

Habitat: Native short-grass prairie,

stunted shrublands, agricultural fields,

and overgrazed pastures. Breeding

season is April 1-July 15.

High. Very few records 

exist for the San Luis 

Valley although this 

species was observed 

east of the Project Area

on the Baca Grande in

2005. Suitable habitat 

occurs

within the Project Area.

No.

Long-billed

curlew

(Numenius

americanus)

SC Range: Found primarily in southeastern

Colorado with isolated populations in the

northeast and northwest Colorado.

Habitat: Short-grass prairie with 

scattered playas. Feeds along lake and 

reservoir edges during migration. 

Breeding season is April 1-July 15.

Moderate. This species 

has been documented 

migrating through the 

Project Area. Suitable 

nesting habitat occurs

within the Project Area.

No.

Western

yellow-billed

cuckoo

(Coccyzus

americanus)

FC, 

SC

Range: In Colorado, this species is

primarily found west of the continental

divide along riparian areas.

Habitat: Old growth riparian woodlands

with dense understory. Nests are

typically located high in trees with closed

canopies. Breeding season is April 15-

July 15.

Low. This species has 

been documented in 

dense, old- growth

cottonwood forests on

McIntire Springs 

approximately 35 miles 

south of the Project Area. 

Suitable habitat occurs in

the vicinity of the Project 

Area.

No.
113

Table 3-13. Special Status Species Identified for this Draft Environmental Assessment (continued) 

Common 

Name/ 

Scientific 

Name

Status Range/ Habitat Requirements Potential for 

Occurrence on or Near 

the Project Area

Eliminated 

from Detailed 

Analysis

Mexican

spotted owl

(Strix

occidentalis

lucida)

FT, 

ST

Range: In Colorado, this species is

found in the south-central and southwest

portions of the state.

Habitat: In south-central Colorado, this

species prefers deep rocky canyons with

tall old growth conifers such as white 

pine and Douglas fir. In southwest 

Colorado, this species is found in narrow 

slick-rock canyons that cut through 

pinyon-juniper woodlands. Breeding 

season is March 15-July 15.

None. Yes. Lack of 

suitable 

habitat (i.e., 

deep rocky 

canyons with 

tall conifers) 

occurs within 

the Project 

Area.

Burrowing owl

(Athene

cunicularia)

ST Range: Found primarily in eastern

Colorado as a summer resident

although small populations occur in the 

western Colorado and the San Luis 

Valley.

Habitat: Open country from desert scrub

to grasslands. Often found in or around

prairie dog colonies. Nests in burrows.

Breeding season is March 15-August 

15.

High. This species has 

been documented nesting 

at several locations in the 

vicinity of the Project 

Area.

No.

Southwestern 

willow

flycatcher

(Empidonax

traillii extimus)

FE, 

SE

Range: Southwestern U.S. and Mexico.

In Colorado, this species has been 

found in the southwest corner of the 

state and the San Luis Valley.

Habitat: Riparian areas with a well

developed willow component. Breeding

season is April 15-July 15.

Low. This species has 

been documented at Rio 

Grande and Higel State 

Wildlife Areas

approximately 25 miles

southwest of the Project 

Area. Suitable habitat 

occurs in the vicinity of 

the Project Area.

No.

Amphibians

Boreal toad

(Bufo boreas

boreas)

SE Range: In Colorado, this species is

restricted to the Rocky Mountains and is

found at elevations between 7,000 and

12,000 feet.

Habitat: Restricted to areas with suitable

breeding habitat in spruce-fir forests and

alpine meadows. Breeding habitat

includes lakes, marshes, ponds, and

bogs with sunny exposures and quiet,

shallow water. Breeding season is April

15-August 15.

None. Yes. Lack of 

suitable 

habitat (e.g., 

high elevation 

spruce-fir 

forests, alpine 

meadows) 

occurs within 

the Project 

Area.
114

Table 3-13. Special Status Species Identified for this Draft Environmental Assessment (Continued) 

Common 

Name/ 

Scientific 

Name

Status Range/ Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence 

on or Near the Project 

Area

Eliminated 

from Detailed 

Analysis

Northern

leopard frog

(Rana pipiens)

SC Range: Once the most widespread frog

species in North America, this species

has been drastically declining in the last

50 years. In Colorado, this species is

found statewide except for the 

southeast and east-central portion of the 

state.

Habitat: Typical habitats include wet

meadows and the banks and shallows 

of marshes, ponds, glacial kettle ponds,

beaver ponds, lakes, reservoirs, 

streams, and irrigation ditches. Breeding 

season is April 15-August 15.

High. Suitable habitat 

exists within the Project 

Area.

No.

Invertebrates

Uncompahgre

fritillary

butterfly

(Boloria

Acrocnema)

FE Range: This butterfly is endemic to the

high alpine meadows of the San Juan

Mountains in southwestern Colorado.

Habitat: This species of butterfly lives in

patches of snow willow (Salix spp.) at

high elevations as well as moist tundra

with dwarf willows above 13,000 feet.

None. Yes. Project

area is outside 

of species 

range and a 

lack of suitable

habitat occurs

within the 

Project Area.

Fish

Bonytail chub

(Gila elegans)

FE, 

SE

Range: Historically, bonytail chub were

present in the Colorado River system,

which includes the Yampa, Green,

Colorado and Gunnison rivers. Today,

there are no known populations in

Colorado. They can be found in the

Green River drainage in Utah and

Mohave Reservoir on the ArizonaNevada border.

Habitat: This fish typically lives in large,

fast-flowing waterways of the Colorado

River system.

None. Yes. The 

Project Area

does not occur 

within the 

known range 

of this species.
115

Table 3-13. Special Status Species Identified for this Draft Environmental Assessment (continued) 

Common 

Name/ 

Scientific 

Name

Status Range/ Habitat Requirements Potential for 

Occurrence on or Near 

the Project Area

Eliminated 

from Detailed 

Analysis

Razorback

sucker

(Xyrauchen

Texanus)

FE, 

SE

Range: Originally widespread in the

Colorado River system, wild populations

were reduced to a small number of

individuals in the Yampa, Colorado and

Gunnison rivers in Colorado.

Reproducing populations remain only in

the middle Green River in Utah and in 

an off-channel pond in the Colorado 

River near Grand Junction.

Habitat: This species is found in deep,

clear to turbid waters of large rivers and

some reservoirs over mud, sand or

gravel.

None. Yes. The 

Project Area

does not occur 

within the 

known range 

of this species.

Humpback

chub

(Gila cypha)

FE, 

ST

Range: The historic range of the

humpback is similar to the Colorado 

pikeminnow, occurring in great numbers 

throughout the Colorado River system 

from Green River in Wyoming to the 

Gulf of California in Mexico. Today, they 

can be found in deep, canyon-bound 

portions of the Colorado River system 

such as Black Rocks and Westwater 

canyons on the Colorado River and 

Yampa Canyon inside Dinosaur National 

Monument.

Habitat: This species prefers deep, fast

moving, turbid waters often associated

with large boulders and steep cliffs.

None. Yes. The 

Project Area

does not occur 

within the 

known range 

of this species.

Colorado

pikeminnow

(Ptychocheilus

lucius)

FE, 

ST

Range: Historically, the Colorado 

pikeminnow occurred in great numbers 

throughout the Colorado River system 

from Green River in Wyoming to the 

Gulf of California in Mexico. In Colorado, 

they are currently found in the Green, 

Yampa, White, Colorado, Gunnison, 

San Juan and Dolores rivers.

Habitat: This species thrives in swift

flowing muddy rivers with quiet, warm

backwaters.

None. Yes. The 

Project Area

does not occur 

within the 

known range 

of this species.
116

Table 3-13. Special Status Species Identified for this Draft Environmental Assessment (continued) 

Common 

Name/ 

Scientific 

Name

Status Range/ Habitat Requirements Potential for 

Occurrence on or Near 

the Project Area

Eliminated 

from Detailed 

Analysis

Rio Grande

sucker

(Catostomus

Plebeius)

SE Range: Historically, this species was

found throughout the Rio Grande river

system. In Colorado, this species is now

limited to several small tributaries of the

Rio Grande River.

Habitat: This species prefers small

streams with clear water, pools, and

riffles.

High. This species was

documented near the 

Project Area in Crestone 

Creek by CDOW in 2005.

No.

Rio Grande 

chub (Gila 

Pandora)

SC Range: In Colorado, this species range 

is restricted to the Rio Grande Basin.

Habitat: This species prefers pools of

small to moderate streams near areas of

current.

High. This species was

documented near the 

Project Area in Crestone 

Creek by CDOW in 2005. 

It also has been 

documented 1.5 miles

north of Weisman Lake.

No.

Rio Grande 

cutthroat trout 

(Oncorhynchus 

clarki 

virginalis)

FC, 

SC

Range: In Colorado, this species range 

is confined to the headwaters of the Rio

Grande surrounding the San Luis 

Valley.

Habitat: This species like other cutthroat

trout species prefers clear, cold streams

and lakes.

Moderate. This species is

known to occur in the

Saguache Creek 

drainage west of the 

Project Area and in the 

San Luis Creek drainage

northwest of the Project 

Area.

No. This

species

occurs in

perennial

streams, but

has never

been

documented

in Crestone

Creek, the

only perennial

stream in the

Project Area.

1 Status: 

FE - Federally Endangered 

FT - Federally Threatened 

FC - Federal Candidate 

FP - Federally Proposed 

SE - State Endangered 

ST - State Threatened 

SC - State Species of Concern 

Source: Butterfly Conservation Initiative 2007; Black-footed Ferret Recovery Program 2007; CDOW 2010b, 

2007a,b,c,e,f, 2003, 2002; CNHP 2007, 2006; Ellison et al. 2003; Fitzgerald et al. 1994; Garcia 2007; 

Gray 1998; Gunnison’s Sage-grouse Rangewide Steering Committee 2005; Johnsgard 1990; Kingery 

1998; USFWS and Lexam Explorations 2007; USFWS 2007b,c; USFWS 2005; Woodling 1985). 
117

Mammals 

Townsend’s big-eared Bat (SC). The Townsend’s big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii) occurs throughout 

Colorado but is largely absent for the eastern plains (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). This species is most commonly 

found in desert shrublands, pinyon-juniper woodlands, and open montane forests (Fitzgerald et al. 1994).This 

species is highly associated with caves and mines. The Townsend’s big-eared bat is very susceptible to 

disturbance at roost sites (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). This species periodically moves to alternate roosts and actively 

forages and drinks throughout the winter. Common foraging associations include edge habitats along streams, 

adjacent to and within a variety of wooded habitats (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Although this species has not been 

documented within the Project Area (Garcia 2007), suitable foraging habitat occurs within the Project Area. The 

potential for this species to occur within the Project Area is considered moderate. 

Northern Pocket Gopher (SC). The northern pocket gopher (Thomomys talpoides agrestis) occurs in the San 

Luis Valley north and east of the Rio Grande River (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). This species inhabits a wide variety 

of habitats including desert shrublands, grasslands, forests, and alpine tundra. This species was documented 

in 2005 by CNHP on the Baca Grande 1 mile east of the Project Area (CNHP 2006). The potential for this species 

to occur within the Project Area is considered high. 

Black-footed Ferret (FE, SE). The black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) is known only from a reintroduced 

population in northwestern Colorado (CDOW 2007d). Black-footed ferrets are considered obligate associates 

to prairie dogs, which constitute their primary food source and provide burrows for shelter (Black-footed Ferret 

Recovery Program 2007; CDOW 2007d; Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Although the Refuge occurs within the historic 

range of the black-footed ferret, this species is presently restricted to reintroduced populations in Arizona, 

northwestern Colorado, Montana, South Dakota, north-central Utah, and Wyoming; however, remnant ferret 

populations may exist in portions of its former range (Black-footed Ferret Recovery Program 2007). Potentially 

suitable habitat within Gunnison’s prairie dog colonies occurs within the Project Area. No designated critical 

habitat has been established for the ferret. Based on the current distribution of this species, the potential for this 

species to occur within the Project Area is considered low. 

Gunnison’s prairie dog (FC). The Gunnison’s prairie dog (Cynomys gunnisoni) in the montane portion of its range 

is considered a candidate for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act. The montane portion of the range 

is generally described as the San Luis Valley, Gunnison Basin and South Park in Colorado, extending south into 

north-central New Mexico, (Seglund, A.E. and P.M Schnurr. 2010). Sylvatic plague has been identified as the 

only significant factor affecting the future conservation of the species (Federal Register. 2008b.) The Baca 

National Wildlife Refuge is the site of a number of Gunnison’s prairie dog colonies and therefore the potential for 

this species to occur within the Project Area is considered high. The only colony within the exploration Project 

Area is approximately three miles to the north-northwest of Lexam’s of the proposed Baca #5 exploration well. 

This small colony of approximately two acres in size is on either side of the Lexam road that is used by Refuge 

staff, Refuge permittees and by Lexam. 

Birds 

Bald Eagle (SC). The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is primarily a winter migrant throughout Colorado, 

although bald eagle nests have been documented throughout Colorado, primarily along river, lakes and 

reservoirs. Primary wintering areas for this species in Colorado include the South Platte, Arkansas, White, 

Colorado, and Yampa rivers (Gray 1998). Bald eagles typically select very large, open canopy trees such as 

cottonwood and ponderosa pine for nesting (Johnsgard 1990; Kingery 1998). Within the Project Area, bald eagles 

primarily feed on waterfowl and carrion. Most of the bald eagle use near the Project Area occurs along Crestone 

Creek (Service and Lexam Explorations 2007). CDOW considers the entire Project Area winter range and a small 

area northeast of the Project Area along Crestone Creek as roosting habitat. No known nest sites occur within the 

vicinity of the Project Area (CDOW 2007e). The potential for this species to occur within the Project Area is

considered moderate. 

Ferruginous Hawk (SC). Ferruginous hawks (Buteo regalis) are found throughout the Great Plains and 

shrubsteppe areas of western North America (Johnsgard 1990; Kingery 1998). In Colorado, this species is 

typically found in arid to semiarid regions, as well as grasslands and agricultural areas. Most breeding records 
118

occur on the eastern plains, northwest Colorado, and San Luis Valley (Kingery 1998). This species forages over 

open country and typically nests on cliff faces, rock outcrops, and grassy knolls but may also nest in pinyonjuniper woodlands (Johnsgard 1990; Kingery 1998). In Colorado, nesting can begin as early as mid-March and 

last through July (Kingery 1998). This species has been documented nesting in the vicinity of the Project Area 

(Garcia 2007; USFWS and Lexam Explorations 2007). The potential for this species to occur within the project 

area is considered high. 

American Peregrine Falcon (SC). The peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) is found throughout western Colorado 

in areas of suitable habitat. This species prefers areas with suitable nesting habitat (i.e., ledges on tall cliffs) with 

pinyon-juniper or ponderosa pine woodlands nearby (Johnsgard 1990; Kingery 1998). In Colorado, peregrine 

falcons arrive at their nesting areas in March and typically begin nesting by April (Kingery1998). This species 

hunts for shorebirds and other small water birds in the wetlands and short-emergent vegetation wetlands within 

the Project Area during spring and fall migration (Service and Lexam Explorations 2007). There are no known 

nesting areas in the immediate vicinity of the Project Area (CDOW 2007e). Suitable foraging habitat occurs within 

the Project Area. The potential of this species to occur within the Project Area is considered moderate. 

Greater Sandhill Crane (SC). In Colorado, the greater sandhill crane (Grus canadensis) breeds in northwest 

Colorado and migrates through the San Luis Valley in the spring and fall in route to wintering grounds in New 

Mexico (Kingery 1998). This species inhabits a wide variety of habitats including wetlands, flooded fields, 

beaver ponds, marshes, wet meadows. Greater sandhill cranes arrive in the San Luis Valley in late February 

and begin courtship in March (Kingery 1998). This species has been documented using flooded meadows and 

wetlands within the Project Area (USFWS 2005). The potential for this species to occur within the Project Area 

is considered high. 

Western Snowy Plover (FT, SC). The western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus) is considered a rare 

migrant and rare breeder in Colorado. This species utilizes broad, alkali beaches of manmade reservoirs and 

typically nests within a shallow depression (Kingery 1998). This species has successfully adapted to nesting on 

the shores of irrigation storage reservoirs. Western snowy plovers arrive in Colorado in early April and typically 

nests in late April and May. Nests have been documented at several southeastern Colorado reservoirs along the 

Arkansas River and in the San Luis Valley (Kingery 1998). This species has been documented nesting at San 

Luis Lake approximately 15 miles south of the Project Area (Kingery 1998). The potential for this species to occur 

within the Project Area is considered low as habitat for this species is not present in Project Area. 

Mountain Plover (FP, SC). In Colorado, mountain plovers (Charadrius montanus) are found on the eastern plains 

and intermountain parks and valleys including North Park, South Park, and the San Luis Valley (Kingery 1998). 

Breeding habitat for the mountain plover in the San Luis Valley is characterized as semi-desert shrublands 

(Kingery 1998). In the San Luis Valley, mountain plovers use flat, sparsely vegetated areas with stunted shrubs 

and widely spaced dwarf rabbitbrush (Kingery 1998). This species generally arrive on their breeding grounds from 

mid-March through mid April. Nests are typically built in a slight depression on bare or open ground (Kingery 

1998). Eggs are typically laid in May, averaging three per clutch. Mountain plovers typically migrate from their 

breeding grounds in early August to late September to wintering grounds located from Texas to southern 

California (Kingery 1998). This species was documented in 2005 by CNHP on the Baca Grande east of the 

Project Area (CNHP 2006). The potential for this species to occur within the Project Area is considered high. 

Long-billed Curlew (SC). The long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) is found mainly in southeastern Colorado 

with additional small populations found in northeastern and northwestern Colorado (Kingery 1998). This species 

prefers open, sparsely vegetated habitats such as short-grass prairie with scattered wetlands and playas. Adults 

typically arrive on breeding grounds in April and lay eggs by May. Very few breeding records exist for the San 

Luis Valley, although suitable nesting habitat occurs within the Project Area (USFWS 2005). This species has 

been documented migrating through the Project Area (Garcia 2007). The potential for this species to occur within 

the Project Area is considered to be high in the Project Area. 

Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo (FC, SC). The western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) is limited to 

west of the Continental Divide in Colorado although small scattered populations occur in the San Luis Valley 

(USFWS 2005). Typical habitat of the western yellow-billed cuckoo consists of old growth riparian woodlands with 

dense understory (Kingery 1998). Nests are typically located high in trees with closed canopies. Nesting peaks 
119

later (mid-June through August) than in most co-occurring bird species, and may be triggered by an abundance of 

the cicadas, katydids, caterpillars, or other large prey that form the bulk of their diet. The species is inconspicuous 

on its breeding range, except when calling to attract or to contact mates (Kingery 1998).This species has been 

documented in the San Luis Valley in dense, old-growth cottonwoods on McIntire Springs approximately 35 miles 

south of the Project Area (USFWS 2005). Suitable habitat occurs in the vicinity of the Project Area for this species 

along riparian areas (USFWS 2005). The potential for this species to occur within the Project Area is considered 

low. 

Burrowing Owl (ST). The burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is typically associated with prairie dog colonies and 

heavily grazed tracts of mixed-grass prairie. In Colorado, this species is found on the eastern plains, 

intermountain parks and valleys, and western portions of the state including areas around Cortez and Grand 

Junction (Kingery 1998). Habitat typically consists of desert-shrublands and grasslands with sparse vegetation 

and abundant burrows (Kingery 1998). This species arrives in Colorado in late March or early April and begins 

nesting by late April (Kingery 1998). The breeding season is typically March 15-August 15. Burrowing owls nest in 

rodent burrows in areas with sparse vegetation and several nesting records have been recorded in the San Luis 

Valley (Kingery 1998). This species has been documented nesting in the vicinity of the Project Area (Garcia 2007; 

USFWS and Lexam Explorations 2007). The potential for this species to occur within the Project Area is 

considered high. 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (FE, SE). The Service (1995a) listed the southwestern willow flycatcher 

(Empidonax trailli extimus) as an endangered species on February 27, 1995. The breeding range of the 

southwestern willow flycatcher includes southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, extreme southern portions 

of Nevada and Utah, far western Texas, southwestern Colorado, and extreme northwestern Mexico (Service 

2007b). The southwestern willow flycatcher historically nested primarily in willows, buttonbush, and coyote brush, 

with a scattered overstory of cottonwood (USFWS 2005). This species nests in dense riparian habitats from sea 

level to approximately 8,500 feet in Arizona and southwestern Colorado. This species still nests in native 

vegetation where available, but has been known to nest in thickets dominated by Tamarisk spp. (Service 2007b). 

The southwestern willow flycatcher typically builds a nest near surface water or the damp soil of intermittent 

streams that support the riparian vegetation. Nests are cup-shaped made constructed of plant material usually 3 

to 15 feet aboveground in a fork or on a horizontal branch of a medium-sized bush or small tree with dense 

vegetation above and around the nest (USFWS 2005). The southwestern willow flycatcher arrives on breeding 

grounds in late April and May, nesting typically begins in May and June and young usually fledge from late June 

into mid-August (USFWS 2007b). Surveys to document the presence of southwestern willow flycatcher within the 

Project Area have not been conducted to date. Suitable habitat occurs in the vicinity of the Project Area for this 

species along riparian areas (USFWS 2005). This species has been documented by CDOW at Rio Grande and 

Higel State Wildlife Areas approximately 25 miles southwest of the Project Area and Alamosa NWR 

approximately 30 miles south of the Project Area (CDOW 2003, 2002). The potential for this species to occur 

within the Project Area is considered low. 

Amphibians 

Northern Leopard Frog (SC). The northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) was once considered the most widespread 

frog species in North America. In Colorado, this species is found throughout the state except for the southeast 

and east-central portions of the state (CDOW 2007c). This species prefers wet meadows and the banks and 

shallows of marshes, ponds, glacial kettle ponds, lakes, reservoirs, streams, and irrigation ditches (CDOW 

2007c). The breeding season for this species is April 15-August 15. The potential for this species to occur within 

the Project Area is considered high. 

Fish 

Rio Grande Sucker (SE). The Rio Grande sucker (Catostomus plebeius) occurs exclusively in the Rio Grande 

basin from Colorado to Mexico (CDOW 2007e; Woodling 1985). In Colorado, this species is limited to small 

creeks and springs within the San Luis Valley such as Hot Creek and McIntyre Springs (CDOW 2007e; Woodling 

1985). This species prefers backwaters and pools near rapidly flowing water (Woodling 1985). The Rio Grande 

sucker typically spawns from February to April and may spawn a second time in late summer (Woodling 1985). 
120

This species was documented near the Project Area in 2005 by CDOW in Crestone Creek and laterals in the 

Project Area (CNHP 2006). The potential for this species to occur within the Project Area is considered high. 

Rio Grande Chub (SC). The Rio Grande chub (Gila pandora) occurs in a single area in Texas, and north through 

the Rio Grande and Pecos River drainages of New Mexico into southern Colorado (Woodling 1985). In Colorado, 

this species is found exclusively in the Rio Grande basin in pools of small streams and creeks. The Rio Grande 

chub prefers streams with undercut banks, overhanging bank vegetation, and aquatic vegetation (CDOW 2007e; 

Woodling 1985). The spawning period for this species is largely unknown although it most likely mimics that of the 

Rio Grande sucker. This species was documented near the Project Area in 2005 by CDOW in a ditch associated 

with Crestone Creek and at a spring 1.5 miles north of Weisman Lake (CNHP 2007, 2006). The potential for this 

species to occur within the Project Area is considered high. 

Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout (FC, SC). The Rio Grande cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki virginalis) occurs in 

the headwaters of the Rio Grande River surrounding the San Luis Valley. This species prefers clear, cold streams 

and lakes, and shallow riffles and runs for spawning (CDOW 2007e). The spawning period for this species is 

roughly March-July depending on water temperature (CDOW 2007e). The Rio Grande cutthroat trout is known to 

occur in the Saguache Creek drainage west of the Project Area and in the San Luis Creek drainage northwest of 

the Project Area (CDOW 2007c). The potential for this species to occur within the Project Area is considered 

moderate. The Rio Grande Cutthroat trout was determined by the Service to be warranted for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act but precluded from listing due to higher priorities. Consequently it is considered a 

―Candidate‖ for listing and a proposed listing rule will be developed when priorities allow (Federal Register 2008). 

3.7 Cultural Resources 

Regulatory Framework 

Cultural resources on all federal lands are regulated by a series of federal laws enacted to protect these 

resources from damage or loss due to federally funded activities or private undertakings on federally managed 

lands. The public’s recognition that these non-renewable resources are important and should be protected began 

very early in the 20th century and continues to the present. Three of the most important laws are the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended; the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) of 

1978; and the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979. EO 11593 also provides necessary 

guidance on protection and enhancement of cultural resources. New legislation and emphases that have come to 

the forefront over the past 20 years include the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

NAGPRA) of 1990, EO 13007, the consideration of historic and traditional landscapes, and the increased 

awareness of and consultation for traditional cultural properties. 

Section 106 of NHPA, outlining the process for identifying, evaluating, conducting consultation, determining 

effects, and resolving impacts to historic properties, was followed during Lexam activities on the Refuge and will 

continue to be followed for future activities. This was accomplished by inventorying proposed disturbance areas or 

area of potential effect (APE), evaluating site importance and eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP), assessing the effect of the Preferred Alternative on NRHP-eligible sites, and consulting with appropriate 

historic preservation agencies. The APE for the Lexam project includes the proposed well pads, plus a 100-foot 

buffer, and the proposed access roads, plus a 50-foot buffer on either side of each road. . 

Cultural Resources Investigations 

Cultural studies were conducted on the Refuge in 2006 and 2007 and the results of those studies are discussed 

below. 

In the fall of 2006, TRC Mariah Associates Inc. (TRC Mariah) conducted cultural resource investigations on 

portions of the Refuge on behalf of the Service, Region 6, and Lexam (TRC Mariah 2006). These investigations 

included Class I and Class III inventories. Class I inventories are a review of reports containing the results of 

previously conducted surveys in the proposed Project Area, as well as library and archival sources for regional 
121

prehistory and history. Class III inventories are intensive field surveys of areas in which potential impacts are 

anticipated or are likely to occur. 

On September 20, 2006, TRC Mariah conducted a Class I file search using the Compass on-line cultural 

resources database of the Colorado Historical Society. The file search indicated that no cultural resource 

inventories were previously conducted, and no sites have been previously documented within the APE. 

From September 29 through October 1, 2006, TRC Mariah conducted a Class III cultural resource inventory of 

the proposed Baca #5 well pad and access road within the Refuge. The survey boundary consisted of a 10-acre 

block centered on the proposed well pad location and a 100-foot-wide corridor centered on the access road 

centerline. A total of 37.6 acres was inventoried on federal land administered by the Service. 

As a result of the Class III inventory, a total of two sites (5SH3146 and 5SH3147.1) and four isolates (5SH3148, 

5SH3149, 5SH3150, and 5SH3151) were recorded. The sites included a prehistoric lithic scatter and historic 

canal. All of the isolates are prehistoric. 

Site 5SH3146 consists of a sparse disperse lithic scatter that included one basalt and four obsidian flakes. No 

features, diagnostic artifacts, or other unique artifacts were located during the inventory. Intensive inspection of 

the sand sheet in and around the site boundary did not reveal any evidence of buried cultural deposits or soils. 

two shovel tests were dug within the site boundary to a depth of approximately 20 inches. Neither shovel test 

encountered any buried cultural deposits or soils. As a result of the inventory and shovel testing, the site was 

recommended by the Service as not eligible for the NRHP, and in a letter dated December 7, 2006, the Colorado 

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred with the eligibility determination (Contiguglia 2006). 

Site 5SH3147.1 is a canal that measures approximately 3 to 4 feet wide and 1 foot deep and will be crossed by a 

proposed access road. The canal is a named, adjudicated canal listed in the 1901 Decree Book, Water District 

No. 25, Saguache County, Colorado, and is part of the irrigation system associated with the post-Spanish period 

settlement and homesteading of the San Luis Valley. The canal was recommended by the Service as eligible for 

the NRHP, and the SHPO concurred with the eligibility determination (Contiguglia 2006). 

Four isolates were located during the Class III inventory. Isolate 5SH3148 consists of a single piece of limestone 

heat-altered rock. Isolate 5SH3149 consists of a basalt projectile point base. The remaining two isolates, SH3150 

and 5SH3151, consist of a white chert projectile point and a brown chert modified flake, respectively. All four of 

the isolates are not eligible for the NRHP (Contiguglia 2006). 

Subsequent to the Class III inventory conducted for the proposed Baca #5 well pad and access road, TRC Mariah 

conducted a Class III inventory for Lexam’s Baca 3D Seismic Project, which encompasses

the currently proposed well pads and access roads (TRC Mariah 2007). A total of 325.9 miles (2,607 acres) of 

proposed seismic lines, access roads, and fence lines were inventoried within the Refuge. The inventory was 

conducted from mid-October to mid-November 2006. 

A total of 61 sites and 96 isolated finds were recorded during the Baca 3D Seismic Project Class III inventory. A 

total of 39 of the sites are prehistoric open camps, 5 are historic sites (cow camp, bridge, and artifact scatters), 3 

sites are multi-component sites containing both prehistoric and historic components, and 14 are segments of 

historic canal systems. The isolated finds primarily are prehistoric lithic, groundstone, or heat-altered rock 

remains, and a few are historic trash. 

All of the canals segments were recommended by the Service as eligible for the NRHP. A total of 37 of the 

remaining 47 sites were unevaluated prehistoric sites and 1 was an unevaluated historic site. Additional data were 

recommended for these 38 sites in order to determine their NRHP eligibility. A total of 9 sites and the 96 isolated 

finds were recommended as not eligible for the NRHP. In a letter dated January 29, 2007, the Colorado SHPO 

concurred with the NRHP eligibility determination for the 9 sites and 96 isolated finds and that additional data 

were necessary to determine the eligibility of the 38 sites (Contiguglia 2007). 

The 38 sites that were either eligible for the NRHP or needed additional data were avoided during seismic 

activities by rerouting those activities around the sites. To avoid impact to the NRHP-eligible canals by seismic 
122

vehicles, the vehicles were driven over the canals when the ground was frozen. This protection measure was 

reviewed by the Service and submitted to the SHPO for review and concurrence prior to initiation of seismic 

activities. In a letter dated January 29, 2007, the Colorado SHPO concurred that no adverse effects will occur 

to the canals since vehicular traffic would take place when the ground was frozen (Contiguglia 2007). 

From September 24 through September 27 2007, Western Cultural Resource Management, Inc. (WCRM) 

conducted a Class III cultural resource study of the Baca #7 drill pad, associated access road and a water line 

route (Mehls and Lennon. 2007). The survey boundaries consisted of a 10-acre block centered on the proposed 

well pad and a 100-foot-wide corridor centered on the access roads center line. 

As a result of the Class III inventory, eight new sites and five previously recorded site segments were 

documented. The newly recorded sites are laterals associated with three previously recorded irrigation ditches: 

the Willow Creek Ditch Lateral (5SH3336), the Baca Grant No. 4, Ditch 17 (5SH3341), and the Baca Grant No. 4, 

Ditch 18 (5SH3342). These sites (5SH3336.2, 5SH3336.3, 5SH3341.2, 5SH3341.3, 5SH3341.4, 5SH 3341.5, 

5SH3341.6, and 5SH3342.4) are recommended eligible to the NRHP as contributing elements in the overall ditch 

systems. These ditches are part of an active irrigation system. 

The five re-evaluated segments had not been previously recorded as segments; the entire ditch had been noted 

(Byers 2006; Lowe and Schneider 2007). Where these ditches crossed the previous Project Area surveyed by 

TRC Mariah, they were not given official segment numbers. Rather, the entire ditches were identified; the ditches 

consisted of the Baca Grant No. 4, Ditches 15, 16, and 17. Subsequently, the entire ditches have been officially 

determined eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The segments of the previously noted ditches located in the WCRM 

study area include: one segment of the Baca Grant No. 4 Ditch 15 (5SH3339.10), three segments of the Baca 

Grant No. 4, Ditch 16 (5SH3340.2, 5SH3340.3, and 5SH3340.4), and one segment of the Baca Grant, Ditch 17 

(5SH3341.7). The re-evaluated segments have been recommended not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP; they no 

longer have a physical presence in the locations where they were originally recorded and, as a result, do not 

contribute to the significance of their affiliated ditch systems. 

3.8 Native American Traditional Values 

Federal law and agency guidance require federal agencies to consult with Native American tribes concerning the 

identification of cultural values, religious beliefs, and traditional practices of Native American people that may be 

affected by actions on federal lands. This consultation includes the identification of places (i.e., physical locations) 

of traditional cultural importance to Native American tribes. Places that may be of traditional cultural importance to 

Native American people include, but are not limited to, locations associated with the traditional beliefs concerning 

tribal origins, cultural history, or the nature of the world; locations where religious practitioners go, either in the 

past or the present, to perform ceremonial activities based on traditional cultural rules or practice; ancestral 

habitation sites; trails; burial sites; and places from which plants, animals, minerals, and waters possessing 

healing powers or used for other subsistence purposes, may be taken. Additionally, some of these locations may 

be considered sacred to particular Native American individuals or tribes. 

The Service will consult with 16 Native American tribes upon the release of the Draft EA on Jan. 7, 2011 to 

identify any cultural values, religious beliefs, and traditional practices of Native American people that may be 

affected by the proposed action on the Refuge. 

In 1992, the NHPA was amended to explicitly allow that ―properties of traditional religious and cultural importance 

to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization may be determined to be eligible for inclusion on the NRHP.‖ If 

a resource has been identified as having importance in traditional cultural practices and the continuing cultural 

identity of a community, it may be considered a traditional cultural property (TCP). The term ―traditional cultural 

property‖ first came into use within the federal legal framework for historic preservation and cultural resource 

management in an attempt to categorize historic properties containing traditional cultural significance. National 

Register Bulletin 38: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties (Parker and King 

1989) defines a TCP as ―one that is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP because of its association with cultural 

practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that community’s history, and (b) are important in 

maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community.‖ To qualify for nomination to the NRHP, a TCP must 
123

be more than 50 years old, must be a place with definable boundaries, must retain integrity, and must meet 

certain criteria as outlined for cultural resources in the NHPA. 

In addition to the NRHP eligibility, some places of cultural and religious importance also must be evaluated to 

determine if they should be considered under other federal laws, regulations, directives, or policies which include, 

but are not limited to, EO 13007 of 1996, the AIRFA of 1978, and the NAGPRA of 1990. 

In compliance with the NHPA, as amended, the Service will initiate government-to-government consultation for 

Lexam’s proposed oil and gas exploration by sending letters and a copy of the Draft EA on January 7, 2011, to 

several Native American tribal groups. The letters will be sent to inform the tribal groups of the proposed 

exploration on the Refuge and to solicit any comments the tribes may have concerning TCPs or places of cultural 

and religious importance to the tribes in the Project Area. Table 3-14 lists the Native American groups that are 

planned to be contacted upon release of the Draft EA to solicit any concerns they have regarding the proposed oil 

and gas exploration on the Refuge. 

Table 3-14 List of Native American Tribes to be consulted upon release of the Draft Environmental 

Assessment. 

Name of Tribe

Southern Ute Indian Tribe San IIdefonso Pueblo

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Pueblo of Nambe

Jicarilla Apache Tribe Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo

The Hopi Tribe Pueblo of Santa Clara

Uintah & Ouray Tribe Pueblo of Jemez

Navajo Nation Pueblo of Picuris

Pueblo of Santa Ana Pueblo of Taos

Pueblo of Santo Domingo Pueblo of Zuni

Pueblo of Acoma Pueblo of Cochiti

Pueblo of Isleta Pueblo of Laguna

Pueblo of Pojoaque Pueblo of Sandia

Pueblo of Santa Ana Pueblo of Zia

San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe
124

3.9 Recreation 

The Refuge, pending the development of a CCP, is currently closed to all public uses, unless prescribed for 

management reasons. As such, there are no recreational opportunities at the Refuge or in the Project Area. 

Recreational opportunities are available in areas near the Refuge at GSDNPP, Zapata Falls Recreation Area, San 

Luis Lakes State Park and Wildlife Area, The Zapata Ranch, and San Isabel National Forest. Common 

recreational activities at some, but not all of these areas include: camping, hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, 

observation, fishing, and hunting. 

3.10 Social and Economic Environment 

Because the Refuge is federal land currently not accessible to the public, there are limited direct economic or 

social considerations associated with the Project Area. Because the Refuge is owned by the federal government, 

there is revenue sharing with Saguache County since Saguache County doesn't generate tax money off the land 

as required by the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (16 U.S.C. 715s). According to FY2008 info which was paid in 

2009, the Refuge paid $43,503 to Saguache County. While the potential project would not affect this, the Refuge 

itself does provide economic benefits even with no recreational opportunities. Therefore, the influence area for 

economic and social considerations associated with the proposed exploration by Lexam is viewed within a 

regional context and includes a portion of southern Saguache County in south-central Colorado and the City of 

Alamosa in Alamosa County. Alamosa was included in the region of influence as it is the most likely location for 

the drill rig crews and other project personnel to be stationed during the project. The region is predominately rural 

with several small communities (i.e., Crestone, Moffat, Hooper, and Center) nearby. 

Population 

Saguache County had a population of 7,097 residents in 2009. The U.S. Census Bureau estimated a 19.9 percent 

increase in population between April 1, 2000 and July 1, 2009 (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). Center and Saguache 

are the county’s two largest communities, an estimated 2,339 and 592 residents, respectively, in 2009 (Colorado 

State Demography Office 2010). The majority of Saguache County residents (3,676 est.) lived in unincorporated 

areas, including the Baca Grande subdivision. Other communities in the region include Bonanza City, Crestone, 

and Moffat (U.S. Census Bureau 2005). 

Population growth in Saguache County has primarily occurred from lifestyle migration into the Baca Grande and 

Crestone communities, and the settlement in Center of agricultural households employed across the San Luis 

Valley. 

The City of Alamosa is located approximately 32 miles southwest of the Refuge and has a current estimated 

population of 8,972, up from 7,960 recorded in the 2000 census (Colorado State Demography Office 2010). 

Demographic Characteristics 

Race and ethnicity percent for Saguache County differ from the state in many ways. Most notable is the higher 

percentage of persons of Hispanic or Latino origin – 47.8 percent in 2009 in Saguache County, whereas the state 

was 20.3 percent, also in 2009 (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). Additionally in 2009, the percent of American Indian 

persons was 2.3% higher in Saguache County than the state, respectively (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). 

Apaches, Navajos, and Utes were the most commonly reported Native American tribal affiliations in 2000. No 

established American Indian reservations are located in Saguache County. 

Over 14 percent of Saguache County residents in 2000 were foreign born and 36.5 percent of the county’s 

residents had another language other than English spoken at home (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). This is likely a 

result of the high percentage of Hispanic/Latino origin residents. 
125

Economic Overview 

Total employment, including full- and part-time, in Saguache County continued to increase from 2001 to 2008, 

from 2,619 jobs in 2001 to 2,893 jobs in 2008, a 10.5 percent increase (Bureau of Economic Analysis [BEA] 

2010). Employers in Saguache County include the federal and local government (NPS, USFWS, USFS, U.S. 

Postal Service, NRCS, and others), farmers and ranchers, recreational and tourism outlets and sites, and the 

service industry. In 2008, 570 jobs were government employees, with 505 of those being state and local 

government positions (BEA 2010). Farm employment has seen a downward trend from 620 jobs in 2001 to 430 

in 2008, a decrease of 190 jobs (BEA 2010). Between 2002 and 2007, the number of farms in Saguache County 

decreased by 4 percent, from 252 farms in 2002 to 242 farms in 2007, but market value of products sold 

increased 12 percent, from $81,852,000 to $91,456,000, with 86 percent of market value coming from crop sales 

(NASS 2010). Overall, average earnings per job have increased between 2001 and 2008, from $21,183 to 

$26,703 respectively (BEA 2010). 

Recreation and tourism also have a substantial role in the regional economy, and attractions in the San Luis 

Valley include: the Great Sand Dunes National Park; portions of the Rio Grande National Forest; the Cumbres 

and Toltec Scenic Railway (a steam-powered excursion railroad); Monte Vista, and Alamosa Refuges; San Luis 

Lakes State Park and multiple state wildlife management areas; Los Caminos Antiguos Scenic Byway; Fort 

Garland Historic Fort and Museum; multiple spiritual, new age, and retreat centers in Crestone and the Baca 

Grande subdivision; Shrine of the Stations of the Cross in San Luis; numerous local museums and historical 

sites; and the annual Sandhill crane migration and festival. Visitors and travelers support numerous jobs in the 

region’s retail trade, accommodations and dining, and entertainment and other affiliated industries. 

The City of Alamosa bills itself as the lodging hub of the San Luis Valley and offers many lodging and dining 

establishments that cater to the tourists who visit San Luis Valley attractions. 

Income, Poverty, and Unemployment 

Total personal income in Saguache County was $136.8 million in 2008 (BEA 2010). This amount is quite lower 

than other counties in Colorado, ranking 51st in the state. Per capita income (PCPI) in the county also is behind 

many other counties, with Saguache County ranked 63rd with a PCPI of $19,496 (BEA 2010). The percent of 

persons below the poverty limit in 2008 for Saguache County was higher than for Colorado as a whole, 29.8 

percent for the county and 11.2 percent for the state (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). This is an increase from 1999, 

which saw Saguache County 22.6 percent of persons below the poverty limit (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). 

In 2009, the unemployment number was 288, a 90 percent increase from 2000 which was 151 (Bureau of Labor 

Statistics [BLS] 2010). Over the 9 year period of 2000 to 2009, unemployment numbers tend to start rising in 

June with highest rates usually occurring in July and August (BLS 2010). December and January also tend to see 

an increase in numbers (BLS 2010). The unemployment rate has risen from 2000, with a rate of 8.8 percent in 

2009, up from 5.6 percent in 2000 (BLS 2010). The unemployment rate follows a similar trend to the 

unemployment numbers in terms of monthly rates. 

Environmental Justice 

On February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued EO 12898, ―Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.‖ This EO is designed to focus the attention of federal agencies 

on the human health and environmental conditions in minority communities and low-income communities. It 

requires federal agencies to adopt strategies to address environmental justice concerns within the context of 

agency operations. In an accompanying Presidential memorandum, the President emphasized that existing laws, 

including NEPA, should provide opportunities for federal agencies to address environmental hazards in minority 

and low-income communities. 

The Crestone/Baca Grande subdivision area does not comprise a minority or low-income community. 

 
126

Housing 

At the time of the 2000 census, more than 25 percent of all units were reported vacant in Saguache County. 

However, 46 percent of the vacant units (361 units) were reported as being for seasonal, recreational, or 

occasional use. The latter includes about 75 units located in Crestone, the Baca Grande subdivision, and nearby 

areas. Recent population growth and migration are reflected in levels of new residential construction. An 

estimated 454 new homes were reported in Saguache County (nearly a 15 percent increase in 5 years). Many of 

these units are located in the Baca Grande subdivision, a proposed community consisting of 15,000 acres divided 

into approximately 4,200 lots. The community includes parks, a recreational vehicle park, tennis courts, ballfields, 

and greenbelts. Baca Grande is accessed via County Road T. 

Traffic 

The primary highway access through the region to the Project Area is via State Highway (SH) 17, a key northsouth regional highway in the San Luis Valley, to Saguache County Road (CR) T to Lexam Road on the Refuge. 

Saguache CR T is a paved road that extends east from SH 17 and terminates at two destinations — Crestone 

and the Baca Grande subdivision; therefore, traffic on CR T is related primarily to these destinations. The 

Crestone destination includes the Town of Crestone (population 83 in 2007) and three USFS trailheads. The 

Baca Grande destination includes a small Colorado College satellite facility, a restaurant and several other small 

businesses, over 600 residences, and many spiritual retreat centers.

The City of Alamosa is reached by Highways 285 and 160 and by SH 17. Commuters from Alamosa to the 

project site would take SH 17 to CR T, a commute of over 50 miles each way. 

Emergency Services 

In Saguache County, the County Sheriff responds to accidents and incidents on CRs. Troop 5B of the Colorado 

State Patrol, headquartered in Alamosa, handles incidents on SHs 150 and 17. 

The San Luis Valley Regional Emergency Medical Services/Trauma Advisory Council (SLV RETAC) 

encompasses six counties located in the south-central portion of Colorado; these counties include Alamosa, 

Conejos, Costilla, Rio Grande, Mineral, and Saguache. There are 10 Emergency Medical Service transport 

services in the San Luis Valley. The SLV RETAC includes a fully trained Hazmat team that has dealt with 

incidents that have involved explosives, fuel spills, unknown white powders, methamphetamine labs, school 

chemicals, and numerous other incidents. 

Emergency medical service for Saguache County and Alamosa, including ambulance transport, is dispatched 

from the San Luis Valley Regional Medical Center. The San Luis Valley Regional Medical Center is the major 

trauma center in the San Luis Valley and includes a Level III trauma center, a six-bed intensive care unit, 24-hour 

lab and imaging services, and an in- and out-patient surgery unit. Other area hospitals include the Conejos 

County Hospital in La Jara and the Rio Grande Hospital in Del Norte, both Level IV trauma centers. 

The Crestone and Baca Grande Volunteer Fire Departments (6 and 30 volunteers, respectively) provide primary 

structural fire protection for their communities. The Kundalini Fire Management (a 20-member department) also 

serves the Baca Grande subdivision and surrounding area. 

In 2007, the Town of Crestone applied for and received $638,210 in Energy and Mineral Impact Assistance 

program money from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA), specifically mentioning Lexam’s proposed 

exploration in the application. The money (of which $500,000 is an outright grant and the remaining $138,210 is a 

loan) is intended to provide for a water system to deliver potable drinking water and for fire fighting. The program, 

founded by the state legislature in 1977, was designed provide assistance to local communities that are impacted 

by boom and bust cycles in the energy and mineral extraction industries (DOLA 2007). A water system in nearby 

Crestone would increase the preparedness to deal with fire emergencies. 
127

Land Use and Ownership 

The land use and ownership in the Project Area is a NWR, administered by the Service. Regional land uses 

include agriculture, forested areas, and areas supporting wildlife, rural residential, residential, commercial, and 

industrial land uses. The Baca Grande subdivision and Crestone are included in the rural residential development 

category. The majority of Saguache County has been zoned as agricultural, with residential uses allowed ―by 

right.‖ Other uses on private lands in unincorporated areas require approvals from the respective zoning 

administrators and commissions. Federal lands account for approximately 69 percent of the lands in Saguache 

County. Another 4 percent of the land in the county is managed by the state, and 27 percent is privately owned. 

The latter includes a small amount of land managed by local public entities such as municipalities or school 

districts. 

3.11 Aesthetics 

Visual Resources 

Regional Physical Setting 

The proposed exploration by Lexam would be conducted in the Refuge, which is located in Saguache County, in 

the northern San Luis Valley, approximately 15 miles northwest of Great Sand Dunes National Park, 

approximately 19 miles east of U.S. Highway 285, approximately 6 miles southwest of Crestone, approximately 8 

miles southeast of Moffat, and approximately 32 miles north of Alamosa, Colorado. The San Luis Valley is located 

within the Southern Rocky Mountain Physiographic Province, which is characterized by long, north-south-trending 

mountain ranges separated by broad valleys. 

Project Area Physical Setting 

The Project Area is located along Spanish and Willow Creeks approximately 1 to 3 miles west of Camino del Rey 

on the Baca Grande subdivision. The site contains scenic resources comparable to other areas of the region with 

similar habitats and features, and its overall level of scenic quality is considered moderate to high. 

The Project Area is situated at an elevation of approximately 7,600 feet above mean sea level. The immediate 

area is dominated by a single large cottonwood tree (Populus deltoides), and a variety of vegetation communities 

including desert shrublands, grasslands, wet meadows, and playa wetlands. Please see Section 3.5, Vegetation 

and Habitats, for detailed descriptions of communities. 

The Project Area has distant views to and from trails and recreation areas of the Rio Grande National Forest in 

the Sangre de Cristo mountain range (approximately 8.0 miles to the east), Kit Carson peak (approximately 10.5 

miles to the east), and trails and recreation areas of the Rio Grande National Forest (approximately 30.0 miles to 

the west). 

The greatest potential for public views of the proposed project is from the gate at Lexam Road and CR T which is 

to the north of the proposed project and from Camino del Rey Road on the Baca Grande subdivision to the east. 

Other viewing opportunities are from residences, religious sites, recreation areas, and roads in the San Luis 

Valley and higher elevations to the east, north, and west of the well sites and at substantial distances (3 to 30 

miles away). 

The nearest residences with views to the project site are located approximately 3 miles to the east, along Camino 

del Rey Road. Residences in the Baca Grande subdivision along the base of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains 

would have views at a distance of 4.5 or more miles. 
128

Noise 

Acoustical Environment 

The acoustical environment is a measure of all the physical sound sources in a given area. At any location, both 

the magnitude and frequency of environmental sound may vary considerably over the course of the day. Variation 

is caused both by changes in the sound source, and by changes in weather conditions. The magnitude of a 

change in sound level is measured in decibels. A three-decibel change is a 100 percent increase or decrease in 

the sound level, and a ten-decibel change is a 1,000 percent increase or decrease in the sound level. Sound 

levels in decibels are measured in dBA, a-weighted decibel, which is a-weighted sum of sound energy across the 

range of human hearing. The A-weighted dB scale (dBA) is the most widely used for environmental noise 

assessments. Table 3-15 lists some common sources of sound and their associated dBA. 

Table 3-15. Common A-weighted (dBa) outdoor sound sources (USFWS 2006b) 

Sound Source Sound Level Pressure (dBA) Typical Response

Carrier deck – jet operation 140 Painfully loud

Auto horn at 3 feet 120 Threshold of feeling and pain

Jet takeoff at 2,000 feet 110 Very annoying

Pneumatic Drill at 50 feet 90 Hearing damage (8-hour duration)

Helicopter at 500 feet 80 Annoying

Freeway traffic at 50 feet 70 Intrusive

Normal Speech at 15 feet 50 Quiet

Soft whisper at 15 feet 30 Very Quiet

10 Just audible

0 Threshold of hearing

Sound sources in rural areas are predominantly natural and include insects, birds, wind, weather, and livestock. 

Existing human-caused noise sources that occur in and around the proposed Project Area include, but are not 

limited to residents, visitors, vehicles, motorized and mechanical equipment, overhead aircraft, and surrounding 

residential and agricultural noise influences (NPS 2007). Noise is defined as unwanted, intrusive, or unpleasant 

sound. 

Typical noise-sensitive receptors include residences, schools and day care facilities, hospitals, long-term care 

facilities, places of worship, libraries, and parks and recreational areas specifically known for their solitude and 

tranquility such as wilderness areas. Noise sensitive receptors near the proposed Project Area include rural 

residences, low-density residential clusters, schools, places of worship, libraries, and areas specifically valued for 

solitude and tranquility. 

The Project Area occurs in a rural area. Background sound levels in rural areas typically range between 35 and 

45 dBA (EPA 1974). Background sound levels are approximately 40 dBA in rural residential areas and 45 dBA in 

agricultural cropland with equipment operating. 

Two studies have been conducted by the National Park Service (NPS) on Great Sand Dunes National Park and 

Preserve near the Refuge: 

The first NPS study was conducted July 1993 and October 1994 found background ambient noise levels 

averaged less than 45 dBA for 99 percent of the study, less than 40 dBA for 90 percent of the duration, 

and less than 35 dBA for 50 percent of the study. These findings are compatible with the EPA data 

described above for rural residential and agricultural areas (EPA 1974). 

The second study was conducted from September 24 to October 10, 2008. The NPS deployed an 

acoustic monitoring system in the northwest corner of Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve 

adjacent to Baca National Wildlife Refuge. Data were collected on both existing and natural ambient 

sound levels. All sounds measured from natural and extrinsic sources were considered the existing 
129

ambient (L50) level. All sounds excluding those caused by humans were considered the natural ambient 

sound level (NPS 2008b). Natural ambient sound level (Lnat) provides a reliable baseline condition for 

evaluating the actual soundscape (NPS 2006). Results from short-term monitoring indicate that the day 

and night sound existing ambient levels (20.5 dBA, 15.0 dBA) and natural ambient levels (17.3 dBA, 14.7 

dBA) are low during autumn near Refuge. However, the report did not provide natural ambient sound 

level information that allowed for comparison of temporal variation (e.g., seasonal, annual), which is 

influenced by climatic conditions (e.g., wind speed, precipitation, storm events), topography, human 

activity, fluctuations animal abundance and activity (e.g., presence and signing-rates of migratory birds 

[Alldredge 2007]) and vegetation density and structure. 

Data from these studies (EPA 1974, NPS 2008b) indicate that existing mean ambient sound levels near 

the Refuge likely range from 15 to 35 dBA. 

Loud noises do have the potential to influence wildlife activity patterns. Wildlife may temporarily avoid otherwise 

suitable habitat in response to noise or have reduced breeding success if a species relies on sound to secure a 

mate. 

Sound resulting from anthropogenic disturbance also can affect a persons’ perception of their environment. The 

disruption of natural sounds can affect an individual’s ability to enjoy the solitude a protected area (e.g., 

wilderness, National Wildlife Refuge) and varies depending upon the individual’s attitude towards the source of 

the noise, magnitude and duration of the noise, time of day, and activities they pursue. 

Regulatory Framework 

Federal Regulations 

The Noise Control Act of 1972 required the EPA to established noise emission criteria and testing methods that 

applied mainly to transportation effects of noise. In 1974, the EPA issued guidance levels for the protection of 

public health and welfare in residential land use areas. The guidance levels specified an outdoor Ldn of 55 dBA 

and an indoor Ldn of 45 dBA. The 55 dBA threshold for outdoor environmental noise is considered to be an 

acceptable level to be used for evaluating noise effects when data is lacking for a particular area (EPA 1974). 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) also determined that 55 dBA is the maximum noise level to 

be heard from an established sensitive receptor (e.g., residences, schools) from a new compressor station at the 

well pad site. Sound levels below 55 dBA are not suspected to have negative effects to public health and welfare 

from any identified noise source 

OSHA regulations are designed to protect workers from occupational noise exposure. OSHA’s regulations provide 

for permissible noise level exposures as a function of the amount of time during which the worker is exposed. 

State Regulations 

Colorado Statute 25-12-103 provides for maximum permissible noise levels for applicable activities that will be 

conducted in a manner so that any noise produced is not objectionable due to intermittence, beat frequency, or 

shrillness. The statute provides limits for sound levels of noise radiating from a property line (Refuge boundary) at 

a distance of 25 feet or more for certain time periods. Those limits are provided below in Table 3-16. 

Table 3-16. Maximum Permissible Noise Levels (COGCC 2009) 

Zone 7:00 a.m. to next 7:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. to next 7:00 a.m.

Residential 55 dBA 50 dBA

Commercial 60 dBA 55 dBA

Light Industrial 70 dBA 65 dBA

Industrial 80 dBA 75 dBA
130

4.0 Environmental Consequences 

4.1 Introduction 

This chapter summarizes and compares the potential effects of implementing the three alternatives listed in 

Chapter 2–Description of Alternatives. The environment that would be affected by the alternatives is described in 

Chapter 3–Affected Environment. For the purposes of this Draft EA, the Service will analyze the potential effects 

of implementing each alternative to all resources protected by the Refuge, including the following: 

Alternative A – No Additional Protective Measures Provided by the Service Alternative (no action 

alternative) – under this alternative, the Service would not request any additional protective measures be 

included in Lexam’s Plan of Operations. The Service would decide that protective measures that are 

standard to the oil and gas industry for exploration, as regulated by federal, state, and local agencies, 

would be adequate to protect the surface and subsurface resources on the Refuge. Drilling would occur 

from two vertical wells, one at Baca #5 and one at Baca #7. 

Alternative B – Acquisition of the Mineral Estate Alternative – under this alternative, the Service would 

acquire the mineral estate as a result of three possible scenarios, 1) through purchase of the mineral 

estate by an outside party where the estate is then donated to the federal government, 2) direct donation 

of the mineral estate to the federal government, and 3) direct purchase of the mineral estate by the 

federal government. 

Alternative C – Maximum Protection of Refuge during Exploration Alternative (preferred alternative) –

under this alternative, the Service would require that specific protective measures and standards be 

followed during all phases of oil and gas exploration being proposed by Lexam, including the intended 

drilling of two exploratory gas wells on the Refuge, to ensure that the surface estate of the Refuge and 

associated resources are not unreasonably degraded or impacted. Drilling would occur sequentially from 

two vertical wells, first at Baca #5 and then at Baca #7. 

The scope of this Draft EA does not address potential future production of oil and gas from any of the wells 

described above. If Lexam determines that production is viable as a result of exploration, then a separate analysis 

pursuant to NEPA would be required 

Since the Service has not developed specific management plans for the Project Area, no reasonably 

foreseeable future actions (RFFAs) have been identified. However, the Service could enforce any oil and gas 

exploration activity that causes disturbance to the Refuge in an unreasonable manner. Such ground disturbing 

activities would be subject to all regular Refuge management strategies in future plans (e.g., Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan [CCP]) and all applicable rules and regulations whereby the Service would have the right to 

enforce under the designating authorization, Public Law 106-530, also known as the Great Sand Dunes National 

Park and Preserve Act of 2000, which provides permanent protection of the Refuge. 

4.2 Analysis Method 

Under each topic (resource) the actions or things that could affect that resource are discussed for each 

Alternative A, B, and C. Then, alternatives A, B, and C are compared to evaluate potential outcomes for each 

topic (Table 4-3). This includes determining if the potential environmental effects are negative or beneficial and 

whether the effects are direct, indirect, or cumulative with other independent actions. The evaluation of 

environmental consequences also uses the duration of an effect, whether it is long-term or short-term. 

Direct effects are those where the impact on the resource is immediate and is a direct result of a specific action or 

activity. Examples of a direct effect might include the short-term increased traffic associated with construction of 

the access road and well pad to Baca #5. 
131

Indirect, or secondary, effects are those that are induced by implementation action, but occur later in time or 

farther removed from the place of action through a series of interconnected effects. An example of an indirect 

effect might be that plant communities on the improved access road and well pad to Baca #5 could take several 

years to return to their original state following the initiation of reclamation of the site. 

A cumulative effect is defined as ―the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the 

action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency 

(Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes the actions‖ (40 CFR 1508.7). Following the discussion of direct 

and indirect effects, the anticipated cumulative impacts of each alternative are discussed. 

Effects also are described in terms of their context intensity, and duration: 

 Negligible – The effect would be at the lower levels of detection (less than 5-percent change 

compared to existing conditions); 

 Minor – The effect would be detectable (a change of 5-24%);

 Moderate – The effect would be readily apparent, and it would have the potential to become 

major (a change of 25-50%);

 Major – The effect would be severe, or if beneficial, it would have exceptional beneficial effects (a 

change of more than 50 percent).

The duration of effects also are described as short-term or long-term. Short-term effects have the potential to 

persist for up to two years. However, activities directly associated with drilling (e.g., road traffic, construction of 

well site infrastructure) would occur over a period not to exceed 180 days. Long-term effects would last more than 

2 years after the initiation of exploration. 

The cumulative impact study area for resources discussed in this Draft EA includes the Project Area, the northern 

portion of the Refuge from the Project Area to CR T, the town of Crestone, the Baca Grande Subdivision, and 

areas immediately adjacent to the Refuge north of CR T, unless stated otherwise for a particular resource. No 

reasonably foreseeable projects were determined for this area (mines, oil and gas drilling, major construction 

projects). 

In compliance with the provisions of NEPA and department and bureau policies, the Service has made a thorough 

assessment of the environmental effects using available science to quantify the degree of effect. Wherever 

possible, the degree of effect was quantified based on empirical information, modeled estimates, or research 

findings. Where sufficient numeric information was not available, qualitative or relative assessments were made 

using scientific literature or professional field experience. 

4.3 Geology, Mineral Resources, and Soils 

Effects on Geology 

The major geologic structure below the proposed exploration wells is complex and characterized by intersecting 

vertical fault lines that primarily occur in the Baca Graben and the Alamosa Horst, to a lesser degree. These 

structural elements along with the Monte Vista Graben influence groundwater flow and the thickness of each 

aquifer unit within the multi-tiered aquifer. Effects of the two proposed exploration wells proposed by Lexam are 

expected to be negligible and are not expected to change the physical structure of the Baca Graben, Alamosa 

Horst, or Monte Vista Graben. 

Effects on Mineral Resources 

There is not definitive scientific evidence to indicate to the Service that there are significant oil and gas reserves 

beneath the Refuge, therefore there are no effects on mineral resources from the proposed exploration by Lexam. 

If Lexam discovers that commercially producible hydrocarbons do exist beneath the Refuge, a new NEPA 

analysis would be required to evaluate the potential effect of production on all resources protected by the Refuge 

and the human environment. 
132

Effects on Soils 

Construction of roads and drill pads is expected to cause minimal long-term impacts to soils; the maximum 

amount of disturbance for Lexam’s proposed exploration program is 11.7 acres of soils that would be disturbed 

from construction of Lexam’s access roads and drill pads. Potential impacts to soils from proposed exploration

activities include the removal of vegetation, soil compaction, increased susceptibility of the soils to wind and water 

erosion, loss of topsoil productivity, and contamination of soils with hazardous materials. Disturbance is expected 

to be short-term since reclamation would commence as soon as drilling activities are concluded. At minimum, 

roads and well pad sites would be reclaimed if production of oil and gas is not viable following COGCC and 

CDPHE rules and regulations. 

As discussed in Chapter 1, the COGCC Series 1000 Rules and the CDPHE storm water permit rules provide for 

specific soil handling and reclamation procedures. The stormwater permit requires revegetation goals that must 

be followed in order to terminate coverage under the permit. Because of the erosive nature of the soils and the 

semi-arid climate, complete revegetation and reclamation outlined in the CDPHE SWMP (70 percent of original 

vegetation) may be a long-term undertaking. 

In addition to the impact of road and drill pad construction, soils could be impacted by any spills of hazardous 

materials (petroleum fuels, lubricants, paints, and additives). The SPCC requires immediate containment of spills 

or releases. Because of the temporary nature of the operations, the quantity of materials (oils and fuels) on-site 

would be relatively small. Impacts from spills would be short-term and limited to the immediate vicinity of the spill 

and impacted soil would have to be removed and disposed off-site in accordance with applicable rules. 

Alternative A 

Under this alternative, the Service would not require any additional protective measures to be followed during oil 

and gas exploration activities. Lexam would follow all applicable federal, state (e.g., COGCC and CDPHE) and 

local regulations that regulate surface disturbance and site reclamation. Because there would be no NRAs or 

input from Service into the site reclamation process and no restrictions on off-road vehicle use, there is a potential 

for greater impacts to the Refuge’s soils under alternative A than alternative C. Soil contamination and erosion 

would be regulated by the SWMP and SPCC plans. The potential for soils to be eroded or contaminated by 

hazardous material spills is greater than Alternative C because no additional protective measures (e.g., NRAs) 

would be required by the Service. 

Alternative B 

If the mineral estate was acquired by the Service, there would be no impacts because the proposed exploration 

activities would not occur. However, the entire mineral estate must be acquired to preclude exploration by parties 

holding an outstanding mineral interest. 

Alternative C 

The Service would require that specific protective measures be followed by Lexam during exploration to ensure 

that the proposed activities do not unreasonably degrade resources protected by the Refuge. Any impacts would 

be reduced to negligible short-term levels because of the implementation of protective measures required by the 

Service, in addition to COGCC and CDPHE rules. Protective measure #5 and #7 would require that soils are 

monitored before, during, and after construction to establish baseline conditions and reduce potential pollutants or 

contaminants impact to negligible short-term impacts. Protective measure #11 (construction to facilitate 

revegetation in accordance with COGCC rules with input from Service), #23 (requirement that no off-Refuge top 

soils are brought onto the Refuge), and #30 (restoration to original site conditions) reinforces COGCC’s site 

reclamation requirements and the Service would add Refuge-specific conditions including, but not limited to 

control of noxious weeds and usage of native plant seed endemic to the San Luis Valley, #34 (requirement of 

catch pans or other liner systems), and #42 (restriction of vehicles to existing and proposed access roads) would 

reduce soil erosion in the Project Area. The provision for NRAs required by protective measure #3 (trained NRAs) 

would help ensure that protective measures required by the Service, COGCC, and CDPHE are adhered to and 
133

that operations are conducted in a manner that reduces potential issues associated with erosion, sedimentation, 

and stability of creek crossings. Spills of hazardous materials would be contained and remediated according to 

applicable rules and regulations of the COGCC and CDPHE; NRAs required by the Service protective measure 

#3 would further ensure that hazardous material spills are adequately contained and remediated. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Alternative A

No cumulative impacts have been identified for geology, minerals, or soils. The proposed project would add 11.7 

acres of roads and two well pads to existing infrastructure of the Refuge. In addition to the Lexam Road, there are 

various existing gravel and unpaved roads used to access Refuge offices, pastures, water wells, and irrigation 

equipment. These roads would continue to be used for Refuge administration, maintenance and management. 

The proposed exploration wells would be the only oil and gas wells drilled on the Refuge to date. A total of 18 

exploratory oil and gas wells have been drilled in all of Saguache County, only a few of which had hydrocarbon 

shows and there is no hydrocarbon production in the county (Cappa and Wallace 2007). There are no other 

reasonably foreseeable future activities (RFFA) regarding oil and gas in the cumulative effects study area as there 

are no other permitted oil or gas wells in Saguache County (COGCC 2010). There are no RFFAs regarding road 

building or construction activities in the cumulative effects study area. Any additional proposals for oil and gas 

activities, including the production of the two proposed wells, will be subject to additional NEPA. 

Alternative B 

There would be no cumulative impacts because no mineral exploration activities would occur. 

Alternative C 

There would be no cumulative impacts for the same reasons discussed in alternative A. 

4.4 Air Quality 

Effects on Air Quality 

The CDPHE Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) regulates sources of air pollutant emissions in Colorado. The 

method of registering air pollutant emission sources occurs through the filing of an Air Pollution Emission Notice 

form (APEN), and/or through a construction permit application. There are several exemptions from the 

requirement to file an (APEN) and a construction permit application. The exemptions from APEN requirements 

are outlined in Regulation No. 3, Part A, II.D (CDPHE 2008). Sources are exempted because either individually, 

or cumulatively as a category, they are deemed to have a negligible impact on air quality. 

Reg. 3, Part A.II.D.1.lll states: ―Oil and gas exploration and production operations (well site and associated 

equipment) shall provide written notice to the COGCC of proposed drilling locations prior to commencement of 

such operations. Air Pollutant Emission Notices are not required until after exploration and/or production drilling, 

workovers, completions, and testing are finished.‖

The exemptions from construction permit requirements are outlined in Regulation No. 3, Part B, II.D. Reg. 3, 

Part B.II.D.1.a, which states that sources exempted from APEN filing requirements in Section II.D. of Part A of 

the regulation are exempt from having to obtain an air quality construction permit. Once the well is drilled and if 

production does not occur, the owner or operator shall submit written notice to the APCD indicating that the well 

was plugged, or that emissions are otherwise not reportable. 

COGCC and CDPHE rules direct oil and gas operators to take appropriate actions to reduce dust emissions from 

their activities. Dust emissions may result from traffic on unpaved roads and locations. CDPHE rules specifically 

exempt reporting of dust emissions for developments that total less than 25 contiguous acres of disturbance and 
134

less than 6 months in duration. However, operators are required to implement a fugitive dust control plan, which 

can include but are not limited to watering roads, graveling roads, and controlling vehicle speeds. 

Control measures to suppress dust emissions should minimize impacts. If water has to be hauled to the Project 

Area, there is increased likelihood of higher dust emissions from the additional road traffic. However, even under 

this scenario, the fugitive dust control plan would help limit these emissions to short-term, minimal impacts. 

State and Local regulatory programs work in conjunction with federal review. In order to address the federal 

responsibility to protect Class I areas, the Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related Values Work Group 

(FLAG) guidance document was published in December of 2000 (NPS 2005). The FLAG work group, consisting 

of representatives from the USFWS, NPS, and USFS, set a goal for FLAG to provide consistent policies and 

processes both for identifying air quality related values (resources sensitive to changes in air quality, including 

visibility), and for evaluating the effects of air pollution on AQRVs in Federal Class I air quality areas. The Federal 

Land Managers (FLM) also share concern about resources in Class II parks and wilderness areas because they 

have other mandates to protect those areas as well. The information and procedures outlined in the FLAG 

document are generally applicable to evaluating the effect of air pollution sources on the AQRVs in both Class I 

and Class II areas, including the evaluation of effects as part of the review of Environmental Assessments and 

Environmental Impact Statements under the NEPA. FLAG guidance was therefore used as much as possible in 

evaluating impacts in and around the Refuge with added emphasis on the Class I area inside GSDNPP. 

Due to the extensive and detailed analysis associated with Class I impact and to ensure that potential impacts 

to the GSDNPP Class I area are minimized, control measures proposed by Lexam (Appendix B) were included 

in source description and modeling analysis. 

Source Characterization 

Lexam is proposing to drill two exploratory wells within the Refuge. Drilling will last for up to 90 days per well, so 

the proposed exploration would be temporary, lasting less than 180 days. Drilling will be performed with electric 

rigs, powered by portable diesel-fuelled generators. The combined disturbed areas needed for the two well pads 

and access roads would be approximately 11.7 acres. Location of the proposed drilling in relationship to the 

mandatory Class I area is depicted in Figure 4-1. Specifically, the two wells are to be located at least 16 km (10 

miles) to the northwest of the closest mandatory Class I area boundary. Since the impact analyses are primarily 

short-term (daily) and impacts from ground level sources generally decrease with distance from the source, worstcase impacts on GSDNPP are estimated using the drill site #7 location for the source (the closer of the two drill 

holes to the Class I area). 

Sources of air emissions from Lexam’s proposed exploration of two wells would include tailpipe exhaust from the 

diesel generators and trucks; fugitive dust from the drilling process; and wind and tire-generated fugitive dust from 

the exposed surfaces of the drill pads and access roads. More specifically, the emission units at each well 

location will consist of: 

 A pair of non-road engines (separate from the drilling rig) comprising the power generators; 

 An electrical-drive drilling rig with a potential for fugitive dust emissions from the drilling mechanical 

action; 

 Mobile service and maintenance trucks with (tailpipe) combustion emissions; 

 Mobile supervisory pickup trucks with (tailpipe) combustion emissions; and 

 Mobile source vehicle activity on the access road and site resulting in fugitive dust emissions from 

exposed surfaces. 
135

Figure 4-1. Map of Proposed Project Relative to GSDNPP Class I Area 

The following are mitigation activities that will minimize emissions from the sources described above: 

 The power generators will be Tier 2 engines; 

 The diesel fuel used in the generators and all other locally fuelled non-road engines will be ultra-lowsulfur 

(15 ppm or less sulfur; i.e., ultra-low sulfur diesel available in Colorado); 

 The disturbed areas will be watered to control the fugitive dust; and 

 The drilling will be a wet process and negligible fugitive dust will be generated from the mechanical 

drilling action.

The emissions from Lexam’s proposed exploration, including the above-listed controls, are estimated using 

maximum expected usage rates and EPA-provided emission factors (USEPA 2008a). The calculations and 

references for all assumptions are provided in Appendix H. Emissions calculations of several HAPs also are 

provided in Appendix H. 

The generator engines are expected to be operated at about 40 percent of capacity, on an average day, 

according to the drilling supervisor’s experience. For this analysis, to ensure a high-side estimate of daily 

generator emissions, the average operating rate is assumed to be half way between this expectation (i.e., 40 

percent capacity) and 100 percent capacity, which is equal to an average of 70 percent of capacity. With this highside estimate, the pair of generators is estimated to emit 24 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx) per drill hole over a 

maximum of a 90-day drilling program. 

There may be a startup engine used to start the larger generator engines. If this is the case, it will be used for less 

than 1 hour per startup. Additionally, it will be exercised about once per week, for less than 1 hour. The startup 

engine will be sized at 500 hp or less and will be a Tier 2 engine. 

Mobile source activity is estimated from similar previous drilling projects. The fleet is expected to consist of about 

six service vehicles, including a watering truck, a lube and fuel truck, drill mud removal and miscellaneous other 

trucks. There are expected to be about six supervisory transport trucks used for each of the two 10-hour shifts 

each day. The trucks will be parked much of the time. These vehicles will have diesel engines manufactured after 
136

1996 and will be equipped with, at least, Tier-1 grade engines and emissions. Dust from travel across the 

exposed road and other surfaces (i.e., drill pads) are estimated in the following way: the exposed surfaces are 

principally the roadway from the north and west to the site and around the drilling activities, which will be graveled 

for an improved surface. Fugitive emissions will be reduced by approximately 75 percent using water as a control 

at times of dust generation. The roadways will be approximately 4 miles in length, and there are expected to be 

about 15 round-trips to and from the site per day for all vehicles combined. Surface dust generated is estimated 

using a simplified and generic dust generating equation provided by the USEPA AP-42, as provided in Appendix 

H. 

Fugitive dust from drilling itself will be minimal because the drilling is a wet process, and drill cuttings will come to 

the surface in the form of mud.

The emissions of the pollutants of greatest interest are summarized in Table 4-1. The total proposed project 

emissions of NOx are 51 tons, emitted over about a 180-day period, while carbon monoxide (CO) emissions will 

amount to about 30 tons. The remaining constituents are emitted in much lower quantities. Emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants of interest from internal combustion engines are provided in Appendix F. 

Table 4-1. Lexam’s Proposed Exploration Program Emissions (estimated from USEPA 2008a)

Pollutant Drill 

Generators 

(tons/180-

day 

duration)

Mobile 

Sources 

(tons/180-

day 

duration)

Un-paved 

Roads 

(tons/180-

day 

duration)

Drilling 

(tons/180-

day 

duration)

Total 

Emissions 

(tons/180-

day 

duration)

Total 

Emissions 

(lbs/day)

NOx 47.3 3.7 - - 51.0 566.9

VOC 9.6 0.5 - - 10.1 112.6

CO 25.9 4.6 - - 30.5 338.7

PM10 1.5 0.2 1.29 0.0001 3.0 33.2

PM2.5 1.5 0.2 0.129 0.0000 1.8 20.3

SO2 0.05 0.003 - 0.1 0.6

If Lexam’s two proposed vertical wells intersect gas reserves of interest, it is likely that a drill stem test (DST) 

would be performed on each well. The DST will involve the flaring of the field gas, which is a test that normally 

lasts about 3 hours. The gas from the DST will be routed through a separator (for removal of the condensate and 

produced water) then to the flare, with a release point about 20 feet above the ground. Flaring rate is expected to 

be between 125 and 2,500 MCF of a methane / ethane mixture over this 3-hour period. Because flaring follows 

separation, it should contain only trace amounts of the heavier hydrocarbon compounds, so there should be little 

if any visible plume.

Using the EPA generic emission factor of 0.068 lb/106 Btu for NOx (USEPA 2008a), the range of NOx emissions 

(at a gas heat content of 1050 Btu/SCF, AP-42, page A-5) is from 9 to 179 lb per three-hour flare event. With two 

potential DSTs, the total proposed project (and annual) flare emissions should range from 18 to 358 lbs of NOx. 

Emission factors for soot from a flare range from: 0 lb/106 Btu (non-smoking); 40 lb/106 Btu (lightly smoking); 177 

lb/106 Btu (average smoking flares); and 274 lb/106 Btu (heavily smoking flares). 

The flare will be operating only at times when drilling will have ceased and the generators will be operating at a 

very low level, if at all, so there will be no additive effect with the generator plume while the generators are being 

run at load. For emissions estimation purposes, assuming full-time use of the generators instead of developing 

scenarios for DST flaring provides a conservatively high value for projected air pollution that will be produced by 

this project. Table 4-1, below, reflects this conservative estimation, and therefore does not list the DST flares 

separately. Impacts of the remaining hazardous air pollutants are not estimated because their emissions are 

extremely low. 
137

Impact Analysis 

Impacts from potential AQRV impairing pollutants will take into consideration ambient air concentrations, 

atmospheric deposition, and visibility degradation resulting from the proposed project. The criteria for determining 

the significance of the potential air quality impacts is provided by absolute and relative measures. These criteria 

include the CAAQS and the NAAQS, which set maximum limits for pollutant concentrations; the Class I PSD 

increments, which limit the incremental increase of specific air pollutants (including NO2, PM10, and SO2) above 

legally defined baseline concentration levels; and for atmospheric deposition and visibility (and other AQRVs), 

FLAG identifies single source contribution significance for potential impacts. 

Concentration 

Air pollution concentration impacts from the proposed project have been evaluated using EPA’s AERMOD model 

(American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model), pursuant to the USEPA’s recommendations in the 

AERMOD Implementation Guide (USEPA 2008b). The construction of the model inputs for the AERMOD analysis 

is provided in this section. 

For the concentration impact analysis, the most recent version (07026) of the AERMOD was used. AERMOD is 

an advanced modeling system that incorporates the boundary layer theory, turbulence, and effects of terrain 

features into air dispersion simulations. It is the USEPA-recommended guideline model to be used for this type of 

application. 

The modeled emissions and source characteristics for the AERMOD modeling are provided in Appendix H. Two 

point sources (the electric generators) and one volume source (representing the fugitive sources) were 

considered in the analysis. The two generators are modeled with the exhaust characteristics typical of these 

engines within a typical structure representing the physical size of the engines with cooling fans and generators. 

The fugitive sources include emissions from the mobile sources, unpaved roads, and drilling activities and are 

emitted over 14 acres of disturbance, which includes two drill sites and 4 miles of access road. For modeling 

purposes, these fugitives are characterized as being released from a 7-acre volume source surrounding the 

location of the generators on the drill pad, even though a substantial portion of the emissions will be released from 

portions of the access road located in areas relatively distant from the drill pad(s) and where the plumes would not 

be additive. The proposed project is assumed to occur for 180 days and sometime between August and April. For 

modeling, it is assumed that the emissions from both holes occur at the drill hole location which is nearest to the 

Class I area. 

Building downwash from the generator structures was incorporated into the AERMOD runs. The 06341 version of 

AERMOD contains PRIME (Plume Rise Model Enhancements) algorithms for downwash calculations. The most 

recent version of the Building Profile Input Program (BPIP) with PRIME (BPIPPRM, version 04274) was used to 

calculate building downwash parameters for input to AERMOD. Appendix H includes detailed information on 

source and structure layouts for the proposed project. 

Specific receptors are placed inside the GSDNPP Class I area for the modeling analysis (see Figure 4-1). These 

receptors are the standard Class I receptors provided by the NPS for GSDNPP (NPS 2008a).

All coordinates for modeling are characterized in the UTM, North American Datum 1983, Zone 13 coordinate 

system. 

AERMOD requires receptor terrain processing with the AERMAP pre-processor to extract receptor elevations and 

estimate hill height scale values. AERMAP uses U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute digital elevation 

model files for this purpose. The elevations provided in the NPS coordinate files where retained and AERMAP 

was then run to generate the necessary hill heights for AERMOD. 

EPA recommends that a minimum of five years of representative meteorological data be used when estimating 

pollutant concentrations with an air quality model. Consecutive years from the most recent and readily available 5-

year period are preferred. Meteorological conditions from the airport in Alamosa (WMO ID: 72462, WBAN ID: 

23061) are representative of the San Luis Valley and the proposed project locations. Since the proposed project 
138

would occur between August and April, 6-years of representative Alamosa surface meteorological data (fall and 

winter for 2001-2006) was utilized in the modeling analyses. The data format of the surface data is the integrated 

surface hourly format from the National Climatic Data Center. 

For upper air data, concurrent data from the Albuquerque, New Mexico station (WMO ID: 72365, WBAN ID: 

23050) were obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) Forecast System

Laboratory (FSL) web site (roab.fsl.noaa.gov). This station is the nearest upper air station to Alamosa with data 

available during the same time period as the surface meteorological data (2001-2006). The Denver and 

Albuquerque upper air stations are equidistant from Alamosa and are located at similar elevations to each other 

(~5,300 feet above sea level). However, Albuquerque was chosen as the upper air station, rather than Denver, 

because Albuquerque, like Alamosa, also has large mountains to its east while Denver is located on the leeward 

side of the Rocky Mountains. The upper air station in Albuquerque also has better data capture rates than 

Denver.

The hourly Alamosa surface data and Albuquerque upper air data were processed using the AERMET 

Meteorological Preprocessor (version 06341) to generate AERMOD-compatible hourly surface and profile 

meteorological files. AERMET requires the input of three surface boundary layer parameters: albedo, Bowen 

ratio, and surface roughness length. These parameters are dependent on the land use and vegetative cover of 

the area. USEPA’s AERSURFACE tool was developed to help obtain realistic and reproducible surface 

characteristic values for input to AERMET. The tool uses publicly-available national land cover datasets and 

look-up tables of surface characteristics that vary by land cover type and season. 

The modeling results predict impacts for the proposed project’s emissions to ambient air pollutant concentrations 

to be below Class I Significant Levels for all pollutants. Thus, no violations of applicable state, tribal, or federal air 

quality regulations or standards are expected to occur. Table 4-2 provides a summary of concentration impacts 

from the proposed project on the GSDNPP Class I area. 

Table 4-2. Summary of Maximum Estimated Concentrations at GSDNPP Class I Area and 

Applicable Standards (adapted from USEPA 2008b) 

1

 The modeled concentration (no background included) compared to the PSD Class I Significant Levels and the PSD 

Class I Increment Levels.l 

2

 The total concentration (background included) compared the NAAQS and CAAQS. 

3

 To be conservative, assume that 100% of the modeled NOx impact equals NO2. 

SILs = Significant Impact Levels 
139

Deposition and HAPs 

Atmospheric deposition occurs when air pollutants are transferred from the air to terrestrial and/or water 

resources. While deposition can be significant source of pollutants, it is also typically recognized to result from 

activities of long duration. In this case, the proposed project is relatively small is size and will take place over a 

maximum period of six months (180 days) and, therefore, it should not have a significant contribution to long-term 

depositional effects. 

HAPs also are typically recognized to result in impacts when exposure is long term. Of more concern would be 

short term or acute air quality impact in and around the drill rig. In this case, due to the relatively small duration 

and size of the drilling activity and because of the need to protect against local exposure, no significant impacts 

are expected. 

Visibility 

FLAG prescribes procedures for visibility impact evaluation of emissions from proposed major stationary sources 

and major modifications to stationary sources. Because of the proximity of the Project to the GSDNPP, the 

concern regards ―plume blight,‖ which occurs when a visible plume could be perceptible against a viewing 

background (e.g., the sky or a terrain feature such as a mountain) to a casual observer. EPA’s VISCREEN model 

(USEPA 2008c) is designed to assess the visual effects of a plume (from NOx, primary SO4, and PM emissions) 

as observed from a given vantage point (in this case the GSDNPP). 

As described in the Workbook for Plume Visual Impact Screening and Analysis (Revised) (USEPA 1992), there 

are two levels of analysis in VISCREEN, Level 1 and Level 2. Level 1 screening is designed to provide a 

conservative estimate of the plume’s visual impacts. Level 1 screening assumes a default particle size and 

density, as well as worst-case meteorological conditions (1.0 m/sec wind speed and F stability) which are 

assumed to persist for 12 hours with a wind direction that would transport the plume directly adjacent to the 

observer. If the Level 1 results exceed the visibility threshold values, then a Level 2 analysis is typically required. 

Level 2 screening uses a more probable representation of actual meteorological conditions associated with the 

plume, observer, and receptors. 

For the proposed exploration, mobile tailpipe emissions and dust emissions (e.g., drilling emissions, emissions 

from unpaved roads, etc.) are fugitive in nature and would be spread over large areas. The plumes from the 

generators are the only likely coherent plumes from the proposed project. However, to be conservative, the 

emissions from all project sources, including mobile sources and fugitive emissions, were considered as a 

coherent plume in the model. The maximum daily emissions (adjusted to hourly values) were used in the 

VISCREEN analysis as they are most representative of the short-term operations and emissions from the 

proposed exploration program. The annual natural background visual range for GSDNPP of 249 km was used for 

ISCREEN input (NPS 2005).

The Level 2 VISCREEN analysis showed that the maximum calculated absolute contrast (|C|) for both a sky and 

terrain background is 0.018 which is less than the FLAG threshold value of 0.05. The maximum calculated 

difference in color contrast (ΔE) for both a sky and terrain background is 1.191 which is less than the FLAG 

threshold value of 2.0. A Level 2 analysis was necessary due to slightly elevated Level 1 values. The final 

VISCREEN analysis employed the 2nd most conservative conditions of 1.0 m/s wind speed and E stability and 

showed that the proposed project was within FLAG screening thresholds for visual impacts inside the GSDNPP 

Class I area. 

Again, since emissions from the DST operation are not concurrent with drill operations and are at significantly 

lower emission rates, it is assumed that these emissions would also not produce an impact above threshold 

values. 

Alternative A 

Lexam’s proposed exploration program would be conducted under applicable federal, state (e.g., COGCC and 

CDPHE), and local rules and regulations. Since the proposed exploration activities would be conducted in 
140

compliance with applicable COGCC and CDPHE rules as described above, it’s assumed that the impacts would 

be greater than alternative C because it would not include the Service protective measures #21, #28, or #38 that 

would reduce impacts to air quality. Also, emissions would be approximately twice that of alternative C because 

alternative A proposes two vertical wells compared to one vertical well under alternative C.

Alternative B 

If the mineral estate was acquired by the Service, there would be no impacts because the proposed exploration 

activities would not occur. However, the entire mineral estate must be acquired to preclude exploration by parties 

holding an outstanding mineral interest. 

Alternative C 

The Service would require that specific protective measures be followed by Lexam during exploration to ensure 

that the proposed activities do not unreasonably degrade resources protected by the Refuge. The Service’s

protection measures specifically address dust emissions, engine standards, and specific fuel requirements. As 

shown by the impacts analysis associated with implementation of two vertical wells, air quality impacts would be 

minimized with emission impacts on the GSDNPP Class I area below levels of adverse impacts. Specific 

protective measures that would be required by the Service under this alternative include: 

 Protective measure #3 - Lexam will provide trained NRAs, approved by the Service, who will continue to 

serve as liaisons between the Refuge Manager, construction contractor, and drill rig personnel and 

ensure that all operations are conducted in a manner that minimizes surface impacts. 

NRAs required by protective measure #3 would help ensure that protective measures required by the 

Service, EPA, COGCC, and CDPHE are adhered to and that operations are conducted in a manner that 

reduces emissions and any potential impacts to air quality. 

 Protective measure #21 – To protect special status species such as the Rio Grande Sucker and Rio 

Grande Chub, USFWS and Lexam would: 

- Establish a 0.25-mile buffer zone of no activity around potential and identified habitat; 

- Limit vehicle crossings to existing or pre-approved crossings; 

- Sample waterways for particulate matter creating a baseline and regular monitoring during period 

of activity; 

- Assess stability and suitability of road water crossings prior to road construction and drilling 

activities and perform upgrades, if needed. Conduct periodic monitoring of crossings during 

activities and documentation of any deficiencies that may occur that may be indicative of potential 

structural failure. 

- Provide dust suppression in the vicinity of waterway crossings. 

 Protective measure #28 – Dust levels on regularly traveled access routes must be kept to a minimum. 

The Operator shall have a water truck and operator(s) readily available to perform dust abatement as 

needed, or as directed by the Refuge Manager or his authorized representative. Only water will be 

allowed for dust suppression efforts. Dust control measures shall be implemented throughout the traveled 

areas of the Project Area in addition to the dust abatement requirement in measure #15. 

Protective measure #38 – Lexam must implement the recommendations that were the basis for the air 

quality report analysis set forth in the ―Lexam Baca Drilling Project Visibility Impact Evaluation,‖ Air 

Sciences Inc., April 30, 2008: (a) power generators will be Tier 2 engines; (b) diesel fuel used in 

generators and all other non-road engines will be ultra-low-sulfur (less than 0.05 percent sulfur); and (c) 

disturbed areas will be watered to control the fugitive dust.
141

Cumulative Impacts 

Alternative A 

In this case, there are no known or expected past or present activities other than the proposed project that are not 

represented in the current air quality monitoring data presented in Section 3.3. There have been no nearby 

petroleum exploration or production activities within the past 7 years. The dominant existing and forecast land 

cover types in the San Luis Valley are grasslands and shrublands, with agricultural uses in the southern and 

western portions of the Valley. While a low density of mobile source emissions (and fugitive dust) are present, 

there are relatively few other emission sources (i.e., industrial facilities and residential emission sources are 

limited, and typically related to, respectively, small communities and towns, and isolated ranches and farms). As a 

result, potential air quality impacts from the proposed drilling activity added to the existing background monitoring 

should not be significant. 

If future production activities result from information gained by drilling the proposed exploratory wells, the possible 

impacts (whether direct, indirect, or cumulative) from that production will be addressed in a separate and 

comprehensive NEPA process.

Alternative B 

There would be no cumulative impacts because no mineral exploration activities would occur. 

Alternative C 

There would be no cumulative impacts for the same reasons listed in alternative A.

4.5 Water Resources 

Effects on Surface Water 

Three types of potential impacts to surface water resources could occur as a result of Lexam’s proposed 

activities: 

 Increased sedimentation and turbidity of surface water as a result of ground disturbance and increased 

erosion into surface waters via runoff; 

 Effects on water quality (i.e., potential contamination of surface water resources with drilling fluids, petroleum, 

or other chemicals used for natural gas drilling); 

 Disruption of normal flow patterns of surface water from the presence of roads and drill pads; 

The potential for adverse impacts would be greatest in the short-term after the start of construction activities and 

would likely decrease in time due to natural stabilization, reclamation, and revegetation. The magnitude of these 

potential impacts to surface water resources depends on slope aspect and gradient, soil type, the duration and 

timing of the activities, and the success or failure of reclamation and protection measures.

Alternative A 

Under this alternative, Lexam’s proposed exploration program would be conducted under applicable federal (e.g., 

EPA), state (e.g., COGCC, and CDPHE) and local (Saguache County) rules and regulations. Potential impacts to 

surface water would be minimized through the implementation of the SWMP and SPCC Plan. COGCC permit 

conditions regarding protection of water resources would not include any additional protective measures required 

by the Service. Although the Project Leader of the Refuge would decide that federal and state rules and 

regulations would provide an adequate level of protection, impacts to surface water could be greater than 

alternative C because no NRAs would be on-site to identify potential spill or erosion events. 
142

Alternative B 

If the mineral estate was acquired by the Service, there would be no impacts because the proposed exploration 

activities would not occur. However, the entire mineral estate must be acquired to preclude exploration by parties 

holding an outstanding mineral interest. 

Alternative C 

Under the Maximum Protection of Refuge during Exploration Alternative, the Service would require specific 

protective measures be followed by Lexam during exploration to reduce impacts to surface waters to negligible 

levels. Potential impacts from the proposed exploration to surface water quality include sedimentation due to 

runoff and erosion and contamination of surface water from spills. The SWMP and SPCC Plan for the activities 

would provide a moderate level of protection for reducing the likelihood negative impacts. For example, the 

COGCC and CDPHE rules concerning erosion control and sedimentation, when fully incorporated in the SWMP 

and SPCC, would minimize impacts to surface water quality. However, specific protective measures required by 

the Service are intended to eliminate or minimize potential short- and long-term impacts to surface water. 

Surface water would be protected from contamination by establishing protective measures such as buffers 

between surface water and surface activities. Proper handling of hazardous materials in accordance with 

applicable rules and regulations also would minimize potential impacts. The primary hazardous materials to be 

used are fuels (diesel and gasoline), drilling mud additives, and cement. 

In the event the protective measures are not fully followed, impacts to surface water have the potential to degrade 

surface water quality both within the Project Area and downstream, depending upon the nature of the spill or 

erosion event. Negative impacts may occur in the immediate Project Area, in surface water and in nearby 

wetland/riparian areas. In addition, because stream flow through the Project Area is to the east toward San Luis 

Creek and the valley center, these uncontrolled events have the potential to impact areas far beyond the Project 

Area. Although surface water in the Project Area does not flow year round, deposition of additional sediment or 

contaminants from uncontrolled spills could be washed downstream when the intermittent streams are flowing 

and especially during peak flow events. 

The following protective measures would be required by the Service to be followed by Lexam during their 

exploration activities to ensure that the risks of hazardous spills or erosion events are minimized to negligible 

levels: 

 Protective measure #3 – Lexam will provide trained NRAs, approved by the Service, who will continue to 

serve as liaisons between the Refuge Manager, construction contractor, and drill rig personnel and 

ensure that all operations are conducted in a manner that minimizes surface impacts. 

Protective measure #5 – Lexam will provide a resource monitoring plan which must be approved by 

USFWS. This plan should include a schedule for gathering data before, during, and after construction 

and/or drilling activities occur. It should include an assessment of baseline water quality of surface 

waters, the near-surface unconfined aquifer and the deeper confined aquifers in proximity to the proposed 

well locations (both up-gradient and down-gradient). In addition, it should include provisions for resampling in the event of anomalous detections. 

 Protective measures #13 & 14 – Lexam shall provide a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) and a 

Spill Prevention and Countermeasures Plan (SPCC) approved by Service to ensure protection of surface 

and groundwater on the Refuge. 

 Protective measure #21 - Sample waterways for particulate matter, creating a baseline and establish a 

regular monitoring regimen during all periods of activity. Also, assess road water crossing stability 

throughout exploration to minimize potential impacts of erosion and sedimentation. 
143

 Protective measures #32, 33, 34, 35, and 36 – These measures will require Lexam to identify and contain 

all potential hazardous materials, construction equipment supplies, refuse and other produced waste 

products in a safe manner and transport all waste products used for drilling away off the Refuge to a 

state-approved facility. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Alternative A 

If proper procedures are followed as identified in the CDPHE SWMP and SPCC Plan, no cumulative impacts to 

water resources would occur. In addition, other than annual irrigation practices, no water projects have been 

identified in the cumulative effects study area that would create water-related cumulative impacts. COGCC permit 

conditions regarding protection of water resources would not include any additional protective measures required 

by the Service. Although the Project Leader of the Refuge would decide that federal, state, and local rules and 

regulations would provide an adequate level of protection, impacts to surface water could be greater than 

alternative C because of potential erosion or spill events which would be minimized by protective measures in 

alternative C. 

If SWMP and SPCC procedures are not followed, there is the potential that cumulative impacts could occur 

through repetitive erosion or spill events. These repetitive events, if they were to occur, would result in cumulative 

deposition and seasonal flushing of sediment or contaminants that would negatively impact surface water quality 

both in the Project Area and downstream to the valley center. 

Alternative B 

There would be no cumulative impacts because no mineral exploration activities would occur. 

Alternative C 

There would be no cumulative impacts for the same reasons listed in alternative A. 

Effects on Ground Water 

The nature of the deep confined aquifer has been studied, but because of the limited number of wells it is not fully 

understood. The primary use of groundwater in the San Luis Valley is from agriculture in the unconfined and 

shallow confined aquifers. The deep confined aquifer is not used extensively and no wells were found near the 

Project Area when the USGS database was searched for wells with water level data. 

Studies indicate that the recharge areas along the Sangre de Cristo mountain front provide sufficient head to drive 

water to the surface and that this zone of active vertical upward flow may be up to 3,000 feet below the surface. 

The upward vertical movement may be enhanced by fault zones, although at depths below 3,000 feet this effect 

may be diminished by decreasing transmissibility of the aquifer and subsurface discharge to the south and out of 

the valley (HRS 1987). However, isotopic data analysis indicates that water in the deep confined aquifer is very 

old and travel times are slow, suggesting water traveling from the deep confined aquifer to shallower units takes 

thousands of years (HRS 1987). 

Potential impacts to groundwater resources could include the four following scenarios: 

 Contamination of aquifers during drilling through the introduction of drilling fluids; 

 Cross-contamination of aquifers from the introduction of drilling fluids into one aquifer that travels 

upward into shallower units due to improperly sealed well casings; 

 Localized depletion of unconfined groundwater availability from pumping at SW-5; 

 Progressive contamination of the deep confined, shallow confined and unconfined aquifers if the 

deep confined aquifer is not completely cased off from deeper units. 
144

Impacts to groundwater from drilling would be short-term until protective casing is run and stops the fluid 

infiltration from the drilling mud. Provided that initial drilling terminates in the confining unit separating the 

unconfined and confined aquifers, and that proper procedures are followed for cementing casing, crosscontamination of aquifers will not occur. The 350 feet of drilling specified for the initial drilling should be 

considered an approximate depth, with the exact depth determined from logging of geologic materials. 

Failure to completely seal off the deep confined aquifer from deeper units could result in hydrocarbon 

contamination of the deep confined aquifer. Because of groundwater flow from the deep confined units to 

successively shallower units, it is critical that the aquifer be cased to the bottom of RGDSS (2002) Layer #4 to 

prevent contamination. The bottom of the deep confined aquifer can be identified with detailed logging of 

lithological characteristics during drilling. 

Figure 4-2 provides a visual reference of the bottom elevation of Layer #4 the deep confined aquifer. This 

modeled estimate was conducted by the Colorado Division of Water Resources (CDWR) as a decision support 

system for the Rio Grande Basin. The elevations displayed on the map are the estimate at the bottom of Layer #4 

of the confined aquifer. For example, the surface elevation at Baca #7 is 7,581 feet and on Figure 4-2 the 

elevation at the bottom of the deep confined aquifer at Baca #7 is approximately 3,750 feet. Therefore, an 

approximate casing depth for Baca #7 under alternative C would equal 3,831 feet plus 500 feet of extended 

casing and the total intermediate casing needed of 4,331 feet. With 4,331 feet of intermediate casing at Baca #7, 

the Service would decrease the risk of contamination of aquifer to negligible levels under alternative C. 

Alternative A 

Lexam’s proposed exploration activities would be conducted under applicable COGCC and CDPHE rules and 

regulations. Potential impacts to groundwater would be minimized through the implementation of the SWMP and 

SPCC Plan. Lexam’s SWMP specifies a depth of 3,000 feet for the intermediate casing, which would not fully 

protect the deep confined aquifer that could extend to a depth of 4,500 feet. Although the Project Leader of the 

Refuge would decide that Federal and State rules and regulations would provide an adequate level of protection, 

impacts to groundwater could be greater than alternative C because the intermediate casing would not extend 

500 feet beyond the bottom of the deep confined acquired as required by alternative C. 

Lexam’s SWMP specifies that about 3,000 feet of casing would be run to protect the confined aquifer. The casing 

string will be fixed in place with cement pumped into the annular space between the casings and the borehole and 

nested inside the larger-diameter casing set in the unconfined aquifer. The cement will fill the annular space from 

the depth where the casing is set to the surface to ensure that the aquifers are not only protected during drilling, 

but also are isolated from each other. However, alternative A does not protect an estimated additional 789 feet of 

the deep confined aquifer at Baca #5 and 831 feet at Baca #7, plus an additional 500 feet of protective casing 

extending below the identified bottom depth of the deep confined aquifer (Layer #4) that would be protected under 

alternative C,. 

The 3,000-foot depth specified does not appear to be based upon specific lithologies, but instead on information 

from previous studies suggests that with depth, water quality becomes poor and well yields decrease. This is 

supported by the fact that the depth of wells in the USGS database that penetrate the deep confined aquifer 

range are 2,300 feet deep or less. 

Alternative B 

If the mineral estate was acquired by the Service, there would be no impacts because the proposed exploration 

activities would not occur. However, the entire mineral estate must be acquired to preclude exploration by parties 

holding an outstanding mineral interest. 
145

Alternative C 

Groundwater Quality 

To protect groundwater quality in the unconfined and confined aquifers, several protective measures would be 

required by the Service. Primary concerns for potential impacts to groundwater include the use of drilling mud and 

sealing off the aquifers as they are drilled through. The use of drilling mud is designed to lessen the impact to 

porous and permeable formations. The use of drilling mud is an accepted practice for drilling all types of wells 

including water wells, environmental monitoring wells, and utility borings. Drilling mud is designed to seal the 

sides of the borehole and minimize the infiltration of the fluid component of the mud into porous and permeable 

layers. Impacts are expected to be limited to less than a few feet from the borehole. 

After drilling, the use of cement to case the borehole would seal porous zones from further infiltration of drilling 

fluids. If the well is plugged and abandoned, COGCC rules require that cement plugs be placed over porous and 

permeable zones to protect aquifers. Over a period of time, the filtrate would disperse into the formation by 

movement of groundwater. The impact of the mud filtrate is expected to be negligible. Impacts to water quality 

would be less than significant because of compliance with COGCC rules and protective measures required by the 

Service (e.g., #12 – extending intermediate casing 500 feet beyond bottom of aquifer). 

Unconfined Aquifer 

Potential impacts to the unconfined aquifer would be minimized through implementation of the SWMP and SPCC 

Plan in addition to the additional protective measures required by the Service. For example, a closed-loop mud 

system would be used to eliminate the need for a drilling reserve pit, and drilling fluids and drill cuttings would be 

disposed of off-site. 

About 350 feet of surface casing would be run to protect the unconfined aquifer. Although not clearly specified, 

this depth should be verified by review of drilling cuttings to assure the appropriate depths are used for sealing off 

the aquifer units. The casing string will be fixed in place with cement pumped into in the annular space between 

the casing and the borehole. The cement will fill the annular space from the depth where the casing is set to the 

surface. 

Upward gradients have been documented throughout the San Luis Valley and also in the vicinity of the Project 

Area. As a result of these gradients, the movement of potential contaminants could be accelerated if the wells are 

not properly sealed at the appropriate depth, which is in the confining unit separating the unconfined and confined 

aquifers. If contaminants are introduced into the unconfined aquifer, they would migrate towards the center of the 

valley and upward into surface water and wetlands. However, alternative C requires that the entire aquifer be 

cased, which should negate potential movement of contaminants within the aquifer and to the center of the valley. 

Confined Aquifer 

Potential impacts to the confined aquifer include impacts from drilling mud and from the potential introduction of 

oil and gas from the proposed exploration production zone. The use of drilling mud was addressed above and is 

considered to be a localized, minor, and temporary impact. 

Water quality in the deep confined aquifer diminishes below 2,500 to 3,000 feet because of TDS concentrations of 

greater than 3,000 mg/L as compared to 300 to 500 mg/L above the 2,500- to 3,000-foot depth range. The 

decrease in water quality limits the potential use of water from depths greater than 3,000 feet (HRS 1987). 

To put these water quality data into perspective, a TDS concentration limit of 500 mg/L is a secondary maximum 

contaminant level for drinking water (CDPHE 2007d). Concentrations above that level are acceptable but not 

optimal for human consumption mainly due to taste and palatability. Water with a TDS concentration greater than 

2,000 mg/L is generally unsuitable for irrigation (Fipps 2003). TDS concentrations of between 3,000 and 5,000 

mg/L are satisfactory for use for most livestock but can cause problems for sensitive animals such as poultry. 

However, concentrations between 7,000 and 10,000 mg/L are risky for several types of livestock (Soltanpour and 

Raley 1993).
146

Figure 4-2. Colorado Division of Water Resources Decision Support System Modeled Elevation 

Estimate of Aquifer Layer #421

 

21 Figure 4-2 contains resource grade information that was geographically superimposed on the map produced by the CDWR 

by the Service. Interpretation of the map is intended only as an approximate visual reference and not for absolute accuracy.
147

The information on the deep confined aquifer indicates that it is not and will not likely be used for water supply 

because of its degraded water quality and low well yields. Further, groundwater flow from that layer into shallower 

and more commonly used aquifers is likely to be very slow, except along vertical fractures where groundwater 

flow would increase between layers. However, there is evidence that the bottom of Layer #4 of the deep confined 

aquifer extends beyond a depth of 3,500 feet in the Baca Graben area (CDWR 2004). If the entire deep aquifer is 

not cased off, the potential for contaminants to enter the aquifer and migrate into shallower units becomes much 

higher. 

All of this information on the deep confined aquifer suggests that the 3,000-foot intermediate casing, implemented 

by alternative A, cannot definitively provide protection to the deep confined aquifer. Information on the deep 

confined aquifer indicates water does flow upward into shallower units. The upward flow is very slow in most 

places, but can be accelerated where faulting is present; therefore, potential contamination of the deep confined 

aquifer would present a threat to shallower units sooner or later. In addition, if contamination does make it into the 

unconfined and shallower aquifer Layers #2 and #3, the impact would spread down-gradient toward the valley 

center based on groundwater flow directions beneath the Project Area. 

The Service will require that the aquifer is cased to the bottom of the Layer #4 of the deep confined aquifer under 

protective measure #12, to reduce any risk of contamination to the aquifer from the proposed exploration to 

negligible levels. An independent professional geologist that is approved by the Service will be required to be 

present to confirm when the appropriate depth has been reached based on lithographic data collected from 

drilling logs. 

Water Use 

There are two options for Lexam to acquire the approximately 15 acre-feet of water they need for drilling: 1) water 

could be withdrawn from a well (SW-5) owned by the Service if Lexam can provide an in-kind match of an 

equivalent amount of water to another portion of the Refuge (Figure 4-3), or 2) Lexam could haul the required 

truckloads of water from an off-Refuge site to the Refuge to be used during drilling operations. 

Under alternative A and C, withdrawal of the 15 acre-feet of water from a well owned by the Service (SW-5) would 

result in no net impact to water supply on the Refuge because Lexam would be required to offset the depletion of 

water it uses. However, pumping water from SW-5 could result in a short-term minor impact from any localized 

depletion of the unconfined aquifer and surface water. If water is brought in from an outside source, there would 

be no impacts to surface water or groundwater on the Refuge under alternative A or C. 

Protection Measures 

The following protective measures would be required by the Service to be followed by Lexam during their 

exploration activities to ensure protection of groundwater underneath the Refuge: 

 Protective measure #3 – Lexam will provide trained NRAs, approved by the Service, who will continue to 

serve as liaisons between the Refuge Manager, construction contractor, and drill rig personnel and 

ensure that all operations are conducted in a manner that minimizes surface impacts. 

Protective measure #5 – Lexam will provide a resource monitoring plan which must be approved by 

USFWS. The plan should also include a schedule for gathering data before, during, and after construction 

and/or drilling activities occur. It should include an assessment of baseline water quality of surface 

waters, the near-surface unconfined aquifer and the deeper confined aquifers in proximity to the proposed 

well locations (both up-gradient and down-gradient). In addition, it should include provisions for resampling in the event of anomalous detections. 

 Protective measures #13 & 14 – Lexam shall provide a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) and a 

Spill Prevention and Countermeasures Plan (SPCC) approved by Service to ensure protection of surface 

and groundwater on the Refuge. 
148

 Protective measures #32, 33, 34, 35, and 36 – These measures will require Lexam to identify and 

maintain all potential toxic construction equipment supplies and refuse and other produced waste 

products in a safe manner and transport all waste products used for drilling away off the Refuge to a 

state-approved facility. Proper storage and handling of hazardous substances would ensure that no 

contaminants be spilled onto the soil or into surface waters. These protective measures, along with # 14, 

and #14, would minimize the risk of hazardous substances moving from surface waters to the lower 

unconfined and confined layers of the aquifer. 

 Protective measure #41 – A minimum of one up-gradient and two down-gradient monitoring wells will be 

installed around each drill pad. The wells will be completed in the shallow unconfined aquifer. The 

locations and elevations of the wells will be surveyed and depth to water will be measured. Water 

samples will be collected for chemical analysis before the wells are spud and at predetermined intervals 

thereafter, which will agreed to by the Service and Lexam. If spills or releases of drilling related chemicals 

at sites occur, then the sampling frequency may be increased to a frequency agreed to by the Service, 

Baca Grande Water and Sanitation District, and Lexam. 

Figure 4-3. Location of Water Well SW-5 on Baca National Wildlife Refuge 

Cumulative Impacts 

Alternative A 

No cumulative impacts to surface or groundwater resources have been identified by the Service. In addition, other 

than annual irrigation practices, no water projects have been identified in the cumulative effects study area that 

would create water-related cumulative impacts. 
149

Alternative B 

There would be no cumulative impacts because no mineral exploration activities would occur. 

Alternative C 

There would be no cumulative impacts for the same reasons listed in alternative A. 

4.6 Vegetation and Habitats 

Effect on Vegetation and Habitat 

In general, impacts can occur directly or indirectly and be short-term, long-term, or permanent. Direct impacts are 

the result of the physical destruction or degradation of a resource. An example of a direct impact is the excavation 

and grading of riparian/wetland habitat during the construction of a road. Indirect impacts are foreseeable effects 

that are somewhat distant from the project in time and/or space (40 CFR 1508.8). A relatively common example 

of an indirect impact is the introduction and establishment of noxious weeds on newly disturbed soils. The noxious 

weeds become established and begin to out-compete native plant species and can eventually lead to the 

degradation of riparian/wetland habitats. 

Short-term impacts are temporary and usually restored to pre-impact functionality in less than 5 years. When not 

permanent, direct impacts to emergent wetlands are often considered short-term because these communities 

typically recover more quickly than plant communities possessing a woody plant component. Long-term impacts 

take longer than 5 years to revert to pre-impact functionality but do eventually recover from the impact. Long-term 

impacts can be expected to occur more frequently in riparian/wetland areas with a tree and shrub component 

because these woody plants generally take longer to become established and grow to maturity than herbaceous 

species. No woody riparian/wetland areas are expected to be directly impacted as a result of the proposed 

project. 

Permanent impacts are those impacts where a complete change in functionality occurs (i.e., land conversion) and 

persist for the lifetime of the facility. 

Indirect Impacts 

Indirect impacts are foreseeable effects that occur away from the proposed project in time, space, or both. By 

their very nature, indirect impacts are difficult to quantify before a project is designed. The general types of 

indirect impacts to riparian/wetland habitat are discussed below. 

Changes in Drainage or Flow Routes. The proposed exploration activities could change the way water is 

routed across the landscape resulting in higher, lower, or no substantial change in surface water or 

groundwater levels. These changes could be caused by increasing the total amount of impervious cover (i.e., 

road surface) in an area, and thereby increasing stormwater runoff; crossing natural drainages and 

interrupting sheetflow on a hillside so that water runs down a roadside ditch instead of down a hillside; 

constructing roadside ditches to carry stormwater runoff to designated discharge points; or other 

unforeseeable consequences. An increase in water availability at a riparian/wetland area could cause a shift 

in plant species toward those more adapted to relatively higher soil moistures or lower soil oxygen regimes. A 

decrease in water availability at a site would likely result in the site drying and a shift in dominance to species 

that are better adapted to relatively drier conditions (i.e., higher levels of soil oxygen). 

Decrease in Water Quality. Decreased water quality could affect the plant and animal species that inhabit a 

particular area; for example, an increase in sediment from road runoff could preclude amphibian species from 

using a particular marsh or water body. Water quality may be degraded adjacent to disturbed areas as earth 

moving equipment removes vegetation and exposes soils to erosive forces. This type of impact is typically 

temporary and is addressed in the SWMP that specifies BMPs to minimize these types of impacts. 
150

Introduction of Invasive Plant Species. Seeds and plant parts of noxious weeds and other invasive plant 

species could be carried into the Project Area on construction equipment (Fleming, 2005); existing weed 

seeds can be spread during construction; and/or natural distribution methods (such as animals and wind) 

could deliver weed seeds to newly disturbed soils. These different ways for weeds to be spread in 

construction areas facilitate both weed establishment and spread. Once established, weeds can spread into 

nearby undisturbed areas and would slowly degrade habitat quality for various wildlife species and result in a 

shift in the plant and animal species composition found in a particular area.

Loss of Functionality. In some cases, direct impacts to riparian/wetland habitat could have indirect impacts on 

the functions performed. For example, the clearing of vegetation could change site hydrology (drier or wetter), 

which would directly alter flood flow attenuation, water storage, and wildlife functionality, and could indirectly 

alter nutrient cycling, food chain support, and/or water quality improvement functions. 

Habitat Fragmentation. Habitat fragmentation occurs directly through splitting a formerly contiguous habitat 

block into one or more pieces. This type of impact would occur to upland habitats as a result of the proposed 

new access road to Baca 5, though not to wetlands. In general, habitat fragmentation also could occur 

indirectly as a result of increased noise, odors, and/or dust, increased presence of humans or livestock, and 

other more subtle changes to the environment causing wildlife to avoid otherwise suitable habitats. 

Temporary indirect habitat fragmentation can be expected during drilling operations due to the increased level 

of traffic and activity along the main north-south Lexam Road. The impact of this temporary indirect habitat 

fragmentation can be partially mitigated by the timing of the construction and drilling operations (e.g., outside 

of the primary breeding/nesting season) outlined in alternative C. 

Direct Impacts 

Review of access roads and well pad locations relative to NWI mapping suggests that no direct impacts to 

riparian/wetland areas or non-wetland waters of the United States (e.g., streams) would occur during construction 

of access roads and well pads. Because no riparian/wetland areas have been identified under alternative C, a 

permit from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) would not be required. If riparian/wetland areas have the 

potential to be disturbed under alternative A, a permit would be required by the USACE. 

Although unlikely, direct impacts to riparian/wetland areas could occur from a spill event associated with 

exploration. Should a spill occur, the severity of the impact to riparian/wetland areas would depend on several 

factors including, but not limited to, the spill size and location, time of year, the presence or absence of surface 

water, site-specific soil textures, and speed of remedial actions. If a spill occurs, Lexam will follow their SPCC 

under both alternatives A and C, to minimize and remediate impacts to riparian/wetland areas and/or non-wetland 

waters of the United States. These actions typically involve the use of on-site containment (e.g., berms), 

absorbent booms and materials, and removal of contaminated soils and vegetation. 

Exploration under alternative A would directly impact 11.7 acres of the San Luis Valley Playa Lake Megasite. The 

Baca Grande and Reserve PCA would not be impacted. The Baca Grande and Reserve PCA is located roughly 

600 feet southeast of the Baca 5 well pad location and roughly 200 feet east of the Baca 7 well pad location. 

Direct impacts would also include loss of native vegetation at disturbed sites, soil compaction, potential increased 

soil erosion, and fragmentation of important habitat to wildlife. These effects would result from the creation of 

access roads and pad locations. Effects to vegetation in disturbed areas may be long-term given the semi-arid 

climate and erosive nature of the soils. 

Alternative A 

To minimize the potential for direct effects to vegetation communities, construction and drilling activities would be 

conducted in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations and follow all of the COGCC. 

Potential impacts to wetlands and riparian areas would be minimized through the implementation of the SWMP 

and SPCC Plans under state authority. Because Baca #5 is located in close proximity to wetlands, potential 

impacts could be greater than to important habitat than at Baca #7 which already has an existing access road to 
151

the area designated for the well pad. All disturbed areas would be reclaimed according to the COGCC permit 

requirements and CDPHE regulations. 

Impacts to sensitive plant species or communities would be greater than alternative C since protective measures 

such as the required re-routing of Baca #5 access road to avoid dense populations of the slender spiderflower 

would not take place. Well sites and associated roads may be not avoid sensitive wet meadow wetlands under 

alternative A, thus impeding sheet water flows and potentially altering plant species composition and/or vigor. 

To minimize the introduction of noxious and invasive plant species, the COGCC regulations would be 

implemented. According to COGCC regulations, all disturbed areas shall be kept free of noxious weeds as 

practicable. However, impacts are potentially greater than alternative C because there would be no on-site 

monitoring to ensure that vehicle decontamination is done properly, no requirement allowing the Refuge manager 

to approve all construction material brought in and no requirement preventing the importation of top soils onto the 

Refuge. 

Alternative B 

If the mineral estate was acquired by the Service, there would be no impacts because the proposed exploration 

activities would not occur. However, the entire mineral estate must be acquired to preclude exploration by parties 

holding an outstanding mineral interest. 

. 

Alternative C 

In addition to the laws and regulations of other governmental agencies, impacts to vegetation communities would 

be minimized through the implementation of Service protective measures including the addition of NRAs; noxious 

weed control; use of existing roads as much as possible; extra law enforcement personnel to enforce state, 

federal, Refuge, and wildlife laws; maintenance of historic drainage patterns; reclamation of original site contours 

when site is abandoned; use of a Service-approved native seed mix in site reclamation; additional requirements 

as requested by the Service; implementation of the SWMP and SPCC Plan; and the modification of drilling 

activities as necessary to avoid conflicts with other Refuge management activities. Consideration of future 

reclamation activities has resulted in access road and well pad layouts and construction methods that best 

facilitate the complete reclamation of the disturbed areas once Lexam activities have ceased. In addition to these 

measures, it is recommended that an on-site wetland delineation be completed in the Project Area prior to site 

disturbance. Riparian areas that do not fit the stricter definition of wetlands should also be mapped so that the 

extent and quality of this resource is specifically identified. Well sites will not be located in wetlands and will be 

located as far from sensitive wet meadow wetlands as practicable and timing restrictions will prohibit construction 

during periods when temporary or seasonal wet meadows are occupied by nesting migratory birds. 

Areas temporarily disturbed by construction and operation activities would be reclaimed as described above. In 

3 to 5 years following initiation of reclamation, these areas would provide food, cover and nesting wildlife habitat. 

However, it may require up to 15 to 20 years for vegetation communities, especially shrub communities, to return 

to pre-disturbance levels. Vegetation disturbed by construction and operation activities would not be available 

following construction, but reclamation would ensure that vegetation is restored to its pre-construction conditions. 

Therefore, impacts to vegetation and wetlands would be less than significant under alternative C. 

The following protective measures will be required by the Service to reduce impacts to vegetation: 

 All vehicles and equipment from outside the Refuge will be decontaminated per USFWS 

procedures to prevent the introduction of noxious weeds to the Refuge (#1); 

 Trained NRAs (#3); 

 Impacts to sensitive habitat, wildlife, plants or other sensitive natural or cultural resource 

features will be avoided to the extent possible while constructing the access road and well pads 

(#4); 
152

 Lexam will provide a resource monitoring plan which must be approved by Service. The plan 

should include a schedule for gathering data before, during, and after construction and/or drilling 

activities occur to determine the impact of exploration on natural resources.;

 Testing of soils for potential contaminants prior to rig-up operations, soil testing upon 

abandonment, and testing of soil removed from the site (#7); 

 Lexam shall conduct a detailed wetland delineation of Project Area vicinity (#8); 

 All construction of roads and pads will occur in a way that best facilitates their subsequent 

complete removal and reclamation once Lexam activities have ceased at these sites. This 

includes separating and stockpiling topsoil layers on-site to be replaced during reclamation. All 

disturbed areas will be reclaimed per the COGCC permit requirements and with USFWS input. 

Only endemic plants and seed mixtures are to be used in reclamation (#11);

 Implementation of a closed loop mud and drill cuttings system will be used to minimize impacts 

to surrounding habitats (#15);

 Limit activities to periods outside of active growing season (#19); 

 All materials brought in to the Refuge to build up the location pad will be authorized by the 

Refuge Manager or his authorized representative. To minimize the spread of invasive species no 

top soils will be brought in from off Refuge (#23);

 The Operator will upgrade and maintain all access routes, roads and bridges designated for its 

use across the Refuge in accordance with acceptable specifications and standards (#27);

 Upon completion of drilling operations, the Refuge Manager or his authorized representative 

must be advised within 120 days whether the well is to be retained or plugged. If the well site is 

to be abandoned, the well is to be plugged according to state law, all above ground structures 

removed and the site and road restored as directed by the Refuge Manager or his authorized 

representative. Any damage to existing surface vegetation, water channels, or other physical 

features shall be restored to original site conditions. All costs shall be born by the Operator 

(#28); 

 Limit size of disturbance; drill pads may not exceed 90,000 square feet (#29); 

 No discharge of wastewater allowed (#35); 

 Prohibition of fires (#42).

Cumulative Impacts 

Alternative A 

 No cumulative impacts to vegetation or habitat have been identified by the Service. In addition, other than annual 

irrigation practices, no water projects have been identified in the cumulative effects study area that would create 

wetland-related cumulative impacts. 

Alternative B 

There would be no cumulative impacts because no mineral exploration activities would occur. 

Alternative C 

There would be no cumulative impacts for the same reasons listed in alternative A. 

4.7 Wildlife and Fisheries 

Effect on Wildlife and Fisheries 

The primary issues related to wildlife and fisheries resources include the loss or alteration of native habitats, 

increased habitat fragmentation, animal displacement, direct loss of wildlife, and impacts associated with water 

crossings at Crestone and Willow creeks. However, the effects on wildlife species and their habitats would 

depend on factors such as the sensitivity of the species, seasonal use patterns, type and timing of project activity, 

and physical parameters (e.g., topography, cover, forage, and climate).
153

Alternative A 

Under alternative A, impacts on terrestrial wildlife, aquatic species, and special status species would be assessed 

based on standard rules and conditions of approval imposed by the COGCC. Under these rules, Lexam would 

only be required to avoid adverse disturbances to wildlife when it is cost-effective and technically feasible. Lexam 

would be required to consult with the CDOW to identify specific sensitive habitats as part of the of COGCC 

approval. However, Lexam would not be required to follow 10 of the 40 protective measures that specifically apply 

to protection of big game, small game, non-game species, migratory birds, fisheries, and special status species 

on the Refuge under alternative C. 

Impacts to wildlife would be greater under alternative A than under alternative C. For example, No restrictions on 

timing of drilling activities would result in some breeding birds being more limited in their ability to temporarily 

relocate during periods of disturbance because of fidelity to nests and unfledged young. This could result in nest 

abandonment and failure. Secondly, there would be no buffer zone around surface waters excluding construction 

activities and no monitoring of surface waters to monitor for potential impacts to fisheries. Construction activities 

also could cause mortalities to amphibians during their occurrence in terrestrial habitats. 

Potential impacts to special status species would be greater than under alternative C. Because there would be no 

protective measures required by the Service, direct impacts to special status species would include the 

incremental disturbance of habitat and increased habitat fragmentation. Impacts also could include mortalities of 

less mobile species (e.g., small mammals and amphibians), nest abandonment, and loss of eggs or young as a 

result of increase predation or crushing from vehicles and equipment. However, overall impacts would be minimal 

because of the limited Project Area and temporary nature of the proposed project. 

Alternative B 

If the mineral estate was acquired by the Service, there would be no impacts because the proposed exploration 

activities would not occur. However, the entire mineral estate must be acquired to preclude exploration by parties 

holding an outstanding mineral interest. 

Alternative C 

Under this alternative, the Service has developed a number of protection measures in order to mitigate surface 

impacts to terrestrial wildlife, aquatic species, and special status species within the Project Area. However, there 

may be some unavoidable direct impacts to wildlife such as a reduction or alteration of vegetation, habitat 

fragmentation, and animal displacement. Additionally, there may be an increase in indirect impacts such as noise, 

human presence in sensitive habitats, and vehicle-related mortalities in areas with special status species. Impacts 

to wildlife and fisheries resources as a result of the proposed project would be minimized to negligible levels by 

implementation of Service protective measures. 

Big Game 

Direct impacts to big game species (elk, mule deer, and pronghorn) would result from the incremental disturbance 

of habitat, increased habitat fragmentation, and increased activity associated with exploration. The loss of 

available vegetation would be long-term (greater than 20 years), although herbaceous species may become 

established within 3 to 5 years, depending on reclamation success and future weather conditions. In most 

instances, suitable habitat adjacent to the disturbed areas would not be available for these species until grasses 

and woody vegetation were reestablished within the disturbance areas. 

Other impacts to big game species would include increased animal disturbance as a result of increased noise 

levels and human presence. As a result, big game animals may decrease their use within 0.5 mile of surface 

disturbance activities (Ward 1976). Any decreased use near well sites would be less than significant to big game 

because of the temporary period (<180 days) when exploration would occur. 
154

Seasonal restrictions on activities would eliminate disturbance to birthing animals and animals caring for 

newborns. Fences would be used, if needed, to prevent animals from coming in direct contact with machinery and 

hazardous materials. Other measures would include restricting vehicle traffic to existing Refuge roads and 

reducing habitat fragmentation and habitat loss by limiting the construction of new roads. Preconstruction surveys 

and frequent population monitoring for wildlife species including big game would occur in areas where the access 

roads and well pads would be built. Vehicle speed restrictions would reduce potential for road kill accidents. 

Impacts to mountain lions and black bears also would be expected to be minimal, based on the infrequent 

occurrence of these species within the Project Area. 

Because of the above conditions, impacts to big game species would be less than significant. 

Small Game 

Impacts to small game would be greater than those to large game because they are limited in their ability to 

temporarily relocate during periods of disturbance because of their smaller size. Temporary disturbances and 

habitat losses could cause unnatural movements of these species away from the disturbance and altered 

habitats, which may result in an increased vulnerability to predators. Service protective measures would minimize 

impacts to small game species. Seasonal restrictions on activities would eliminate disturbance to birthing animals 

and animals caring for newborns. Vehicle traffic would be restricted to existing Refuge roads or new access 

roads, thereby reducing habitat fragmentation and habitat loss by limiting the construction of new roads. Vehicle 

speed restrictions would reduce potential for road kill accidents. 

Non-game Species 

Impacts to non-game species are expected to be minimal because of Service protective measures. Vehicle traffic 

would be restricted to existing Refuge or new access roads, thereby reducing habitat fragmentation and habitat 

loss. Seasonal timing restrictions would eliminate disturbance to birthing animals and animals caring for newborn. 

Preconstruction surveys and frequent population monitoring of non-game species, would occur in areas where the 

access roads and well pads would be built, and sensitive habitat (e.g., wet meadows and riparian areas) would be 

avoided whenever possible. Vehicle speed restrictions would reduce potential for road kill accidents. 

Migratory Birds 

Impacts to migratory birds (waterfowl, shorebirds, passerines and raptors) are expected to be minimal because of 

Service protective measures. Vehicle traffic would be restricted to existing Refuge or new access roads, thereby 

reducing habitat fragmentation and habitat loss. Seasonal timing restrictions would eliminate disturbance to 

nesting birds and those with unfledged young. Preconstruction surveys for wildlife species, including migratory 

birds, would occur in areas where the access roads and well pads would be built, and sensitive habitat (e.g., wet 

meadows and riparian areas) would be avoided whenever possible. Vehicle speed restrictions would reduce 

potential for road kill accidents.

Fisheries 

Impact issues evaluated for aquatic communities (i.e., fish and amphibians) and sensitive fish species (i.e., Rio 

Grande sucker, Rio Grande chub) included potential effects of project activities on water quality and quantity and 

habitat in the Crestone Creek drainage. The occurrence of nongame fish is limited to Crestone Creek within the 

Project Area. The aquatic stages of amphibians could occur in Crestone, Willow, and Spanish creeks as well as in 

wet meadows during spring and fall months. Migrating amphibians in their terrestrial stages may still be occurring 

during the months of August over many wetter portions of the Project Area. Impacts to migrating amphibians in 

their terrestrial stages would be minimized by seasonal restrictions resulting in no activity being allowed on the 

Refuge during the peak migration times of June and July. 

Impacts to fisheries would be minimized by implementation of Service protective measures. Construction activities 

would be required to control fugitive dust and maintain a distance of at least 0.25 mile from sensitive water 

crossings such as Crestone Creek. Vehicle traffic would be restricted along water crossings with fish present. 

Water quality monitoring would be conducted in waterways near construction activities to determine the presence 
155

of impacts due to the proposed project and to enable implementation of protective measures to mitigate potential 

problems.

Special Status Species 

The Service protective measures also would minimize impacts to special status species. Vehicle traffic would be 

restricted to existing Refuge roads and the new access roads, thereby reducing habitat fragmentation and habitat 

loss by limiting the construction of new roads. Preconstruction surveys for wildlife species including special status 

species, would occur in areas where the access roads and well pads would be built, and sensitive habitat (e.g., 

wet meadows and riparian areas) would be avoided. Therefore, impacts to special status species would less than 

significant 

Service Protective Measures #3, #4, #5, #8, #15, #16, #19, #21, #39, #40, and #42 would provide for the following 

requirements: 

 Trained environmental monitors (#3); 

 Impacts to sensitive habitat, wildlife, or other sensitive natural resource features will be avoided while 

constructing the access road and well pads (#4); 

 Frequent water, soil, vegetation, and sound monitoring to assess wildlife sensitivities (#5); 

 Lexam shall conduct a detailed wetland delineation to avoid sensitive wetland habitat (#8); 

 Implementation of a closed loop mud and drill cuttings system will be used to minimize impacts to 

surrounding habitats (#15); 

 Drilling operations will be modified, as necessary at the direction of USFWS, to reduce conflicts with other 

Refuge management activities (#16); 

 Seasonal restrictions (May 1 through July 31) on construction and drilling activities would avoid conflicts 

with birthing and/or nesting and the fledging of young birds (#19); 

 Establish a 0.25-mile buffer zone of no activity around potential and identified sensitive species fisheries 

habitat (#21); 

 Mufflers on drilling rig engines (#39); 

 Assist CDOW to manage the needs of any wintering big game temporarily displaced by exploration (#40); 

 All vehicle access will be restricted to developed roads and two-tracks (#42);

 Vehicle speed restrictions would reduce potential for road kill accidents (#42).

Cumulative Impacts 

Alternative A 

The cumulative impact study area for wildlife resources is the Refuge. In the absence of known RFFAs on the 

Refuge, there would be no cumulative impacts to wildlife resources. 

Alternative B 

There would be no cumulative impacts because no mineral exploration activities would occur. 

Alternative C 

There would be no cumulative impacts for the same reasons listed under alternative A. 

4.8 Cultural Resources 

Effect on Cultural Resources 

The TRC Mariah Class III inventory identified a total of one prehistoric site (5SH3146), one historic canal 

(5SH3147.1) and four isolated finds (TRC Mariah 2007). Site 5SH3146 and all four of the isolates were 
156

recommended as not eligible for the NRHP; no further work is recommended for these resources. The historic 

canal was recommended as eligible for the NRHP. 

The WCRM Class III inventory identified a total of eight new sites and five previously recorded site segments 

were documented. The newly recorded sites are laterals associated with three previously recorded irrigation 

ditches: the Willow Creek Ditch Lateral (5SH3336), the Baca Grant No. 4, Ditch 17 (5SH3341), and the Baca 

Grant No. 4, Ditch 18 (5SH3342). The entire ditches have been officially determined eligible for inclusion in the 

NRHP. These sites (5SH3336.2, 5SH3336.3, 5SH3341.2, 5SH3341.3, 5SH3341.4, 5SH 3341.5, 5SH3341.6, and 

5SH3342.4) are recommended eligible to the NRHP as contributing elements in the overall ditch systems. These 

ditches are part of an active irrigation system. 

The segments of the previously noted ditches located in the WCRM study area include: one segment of the Baca 

Grant No. 4 (5SH3339.10), three segments of the Baca Grant No. 4, Ditch 16 (5SH3340.2, 5SH3340.3, and 

5SH3340.10), and one segment of the Baca Grant, Ditch 17 (5SH3341.17). The re-evaluated segments have 

been recommended not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. 

Direct effects to historic properties that could occur as a result of Lexam’s proposed exploration program include 

disturbance or destruction of historical properties as a result of road or well pad construction. Indirect effects 

include vandalism, illegal collecting, or inadvertent destruction due to increased numbers of people (i.e., 

construction personnel) in the Project Area and increased erosion due to soil disturbance associated with 

construction activities. 

Alternative A 

Lexam’s proposed exploration program would be conducted under applicable COGCC rules and regulations as 

well as the specific conditions that have already been incorporated into Lexam’s survey and drilling permits. No 

cultural resource monitors would be present during ground disturbing activities which would increase the chance 

of impacts to historic resources in the event of unanticipated discoveries during construction.

Alternative B 

If the mineral estate was acquired by the Service, there would be no impacts because the proposed exploration 

activities would not occur. However, the entire mineral estate must be acquired to preclude exploration by parties 

holding an outstanding mineral interest. 

Alternative C 

Under this alternative, the Service would require protective measures to ensure that Lexam’s exploratory drilling 

project does not unreasonably degrade or impact environmental resources. Lexam proposes to install a culvert to 

allow vehicular traffic to cross the NRHP-eligible canal (5SH3147.1) without affecting the historic character of the 

resource. Therefore, no direct adverse effects to the historic canal would occur as a result of alternative A or C. 

Section 106 of NHPA would be followed in conjunction with exploration activities on the Refuge, to minimize the 

potential for indirect effects to historic properties, project personnel would be requested to perform contract 

operations in a careful and conscientious manner and to perform all work in accordance with all laws and 

regulations. Little or no indirect effects to historic properties from modifications to erosion/sedimentation rates 

during drilling activities are anticipated. All construction of roads and pads would occur in a way which best 

facilitates their complete removal and reclamation once Lexam activities have ceased at these sites. All disturbed 

areas would be reclaimed based on COGCC rules and regulations and additional protective measures required 

by the Service. 

Given the sand deposits throughout the area and specifically at the well pad and access road locations, 

monitoring of all proposed ground disturbance would be conducted by a qualified archaeologist. If any previously 

unknown cultural resources are discovered during well pad and access road development, all construction 

activities would cease within the vicinity of the discovery and the Service Authorized Officer would be notified of 
157

the find. Steps would be taken to protect the site from vandalism or further damage until the Service Authorized 

Officer can evaluate the nature of the discovery as outlined in an Unanticipated Discoveries Plan and construction 

would not resume in the area of the discovery until the Service Authorized Officer has issued a notice to proceed. 

If construction or other project personnel discover what may be human remains, funerary objects, or items of 

cultural patrimony, construction would cease within the vicinity of the discovery, and the Service Authorized 

Officer would be notified of the find. Any discovered Native American human remains, funerary objects, or items 

of cultural patrimony would be handled in accordance with NAGPRA. Non-Native American human remains would 

be handled in accordance with Colorado law. Construction would not resume in the area of the discovery until the 

Service Authorized Officer has issued a notice to proceed. 

All known historic properties identified within the APE would be avoided by project construction. Cultural resource 

monitors would be present during ground-disturbing activities in the event subsurface materials are discovered. 

Any previously unknown historic properties that may be discovered during ground-disturbing Activities would be 

protected in accordance with the Unanticipated Discoveries Plan. 

The following Service protective measures would be required #2, #3, and #4: 

On-site cultural resource monitoring during all ground-disturbing activities (#2); 

On-site NRAs (#3);

 Avoidance of sensitive historical sites (#4)

Cumulative Impacts 

Alternative A 

The cumulative impact study area for cultural resources encompasses the Refuge. Under this alternative, no 

adverse effects to historical properties would occur; therefore, there would be no incremental impact to historic 

properties when added to past, present, and RFFAs within the cumulative impact study area.

Alternative B 

There would be no cumulative impacts because no mineral exploration activities would occur. 

Alternative C 

There would be no cumulative impacts for the same reasons listed in alternative A. 

4.9 Native American Traditional Values 

Effect on Native American Traditional Values 

The effects of federal undertakings on traditional cultural properties (TCPs) or places of religious and cultural 

significance to contemporary Native Americans are given consideration under the provisions of EO 13007, 

AIRFA, NAGPRA, and recent amendments to the NHPA. As amended, the NHPA now integrates Indian tribes 

into the Section 106 compliance process, and also strives to make the NHPA and NEPA procedurally compatible. 

Furthermore, under NAGPRA, culturally affiliated Indian tribes and federal agencies jointly may develop 

procedures to be taken when Native American human remains are discovered on federal lands. 

Potential direct and indirect impacts to Native American traditional values as a result of the Lexam’s proposed 

exploration program would be the same as those described for cultural resources in section 4.8. Government togovernment consultation between the Service and tribal representatives will be initiated upon release of this Draft 

EA on January 7, 2011. To date, no TCPs or places of cultural and religious importance to the tribes have been 

identified during the cultural resources inventory. 
158

If a TCP or place of cultural and religious importance is identified by tribal representatives, no surface disturbance 

would occur within or immediately adjacent to the boundary of the property prior to completion of all consultation 

required by law. If data recovery or other form of mitigation is required at a TCP or place of cultural and religious 

importance, a data recovery or mitigation plan would be reviewed and approved by the Service and SHPO. Tribal 

representatives would be asked to participate in the development of any such data recovery or mitigation plan. 

Therefore, no adverse effects to Native American traditional values are anticipated as a result of Lexam’s 

proposed exploration program. 

Alternative A 

Potential direct and indirect impacts to Native American traditional values as a result of this alternative would be 

the same as those described for Lexam’s proposed exploration program in section 4.8.

Under this alternative, Lexam’s proposed exploration program would be conducted under applicable COGCC 

rules and regulations, the provisions of EO 13007, AIRFA, NAGPRA, and recent amendments to the NHPA, as 

well as the specific conditions that have already been incorporated into Lexam’s survey and drilling permits. 

Alternative B 

If the mineral estate was acquired by the Service, there would be no impacts because the proposed exploration 

activities would not occur. However, the entire mineral estate must be acquired to preclude exploration by parties 

holding an outstanding mineral interest. 

Alternative C 

Protective measures under this alternative would be the same as described in section 4.8, alternative C. No 

expected impacts are expected because there have not been any TCPs identified by previous cultural resource 

surveys. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Alternative A 

The cumulative impact study area for Native American traditional values encompasses the Refuge. To date, no 

TCPs or places of cultural and religious importance have been identified by tribal representatives. If any 

properties of tribal importance are identified, the properties would be protected under the same laws and 

regulations that protect important cultural resources. Therefore, no adverse effects to Native American 

traditional values are anticipated as a result of this alternative and no incremental impacts to these values would 

occur when added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the cumulative impact study 

area. 

Reasonably foreseeable future actions that may occur within the cumulative impact study area would be subject 

to federal and state laws that protect TCPs and places of cultural and religious importance to Native Americans. 

Class III inventories and government-to-government consultation would be completed for any future proposed 

development, and potential adverse effects to any Native American traditional values would be avoided or 

mitigated as appropriate. 

Alternative B 

There would be no cumulative impacts because no mineral exploration activities would occur. 

Alternative C 

There would be no cumulative impacts for the same reasons listed in alternative A. 
159

4.10 Recreation 

Effects on Recreation 

Lexam’s proposed oil and gas exploration would have no impacts to recreation resources within the Refuge 

because the Refuge is not currently accessible to the public. The proposed activities would not diminish 

recreational opportunities outside of the Refuge, such as at GSDNPP. 

Alternative A 

There would be no impacts to recreation because the Refuge is not accessible to the public. 

Alternative B 

No impacts would occur under this alternative because the proposed oil and gas exploration by Lexam would not 

occur. 

Alternative C 

There would be no impacts to recreation because the Refuge is not accessible to the public. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Alternative A 

There would be no impacts to recreation because the Refuge is not accessible to the public. 

Alternative B 

No cumulative impacts would occur under this alternative because the proposed oil and gas exploration by Lexam 

would not occur.

Alternative C 

There would be no impacts to recreation because the Refuge is not accessible to the public. 

4.11 Social and Economic Environment Impacts 

Effects on Social and Economic Environment 

Economy

Lexam’s proposed exploration program is expected to employ approximately 20 personnel on-site for the duration 

of approximately 4 to 5 months. The exploration itself would be contained within the Refuge; however, project 

personnel are likely to lodge in Alamosa for the duration of the project. The presence of project personnel in 

Alamosa would generate a small amount of additional income for local businesses; motels, dining establishments, 

gas stations, etc. Alamosa County generates about $100,000 in lodging tax revenue (Colorado State Cooperative 

University Extension 2006), and the additional income would be a small fraction of that revenue. However, the 

additional room receipts and other personal expenditures would be a minor beneficial impact.

Traffic

Lexam’s proposed exploration program would generate additional traffic on local roads, notably CR T, and 

temporary traffic delays may occur when large equipment is moved to the proposed drill sites. Movement of large 
160

equipment would be regulated by the Colorado DOT and may involve temporary lane closures or traffic detours to 

accommodate wide loads. Depending on the day of the week and time of day, such disruptions may cause a 

temporary negative impact on existing local traffic patterns. 

In the event water is required to be trucked in to the drill sites, as many as 250 tanker truck loads per well may be 

required and will increase the impact on existing local traffic patterns.

Emergency Services 

Local emergency services may potentially be called upon during Lexam’s proposed exploration program in the

event that an emergency situation develops. The local emergency response team’s capabilities and assets

include Emergency Medical Service transport services, a fully trained Hazmat team, police and firefighters, and a 

Level III trauma center. 

Other Socioeconomic Resources 

Lexam’s proposed exploration program would not have an impact on regional demographics, housing, or land 

use. There are no Environmental Justice issues relating to Lexam’s proposed exploration, as Crestone and 

The Baca Grande subdivision area does not comprise a low income or minority population. 

Alternative A 

Lexam would conduct their exploratory project within standard federal, state, and local rules and regulations. 

Alternative B 

If the mineral estate was acquired by the Service, there would be no impacts because the proposed exploration 

activities would not occur. However, the entire mineral estate must be acquired to preclude exploration by parties 

holding an outstanding mineral interest. 

Alternative C 

Lexam would conduct their proposed oil and gas exploration by implementing all Service protective measures and 

by following all applicable federal, state, and local rules and regulations. Two of the protective measures are 

relevant to the local community emergency response: 

 Protective measures #13 and #14 – SWMP and SPCC plans that outline potential hazards associated 

with exploration. 

 Protective measure #26 – Prior to rig-up, Lexam will prepare an Emergency Preparedness Plan covering 

exploratory drilling, well control, materials hauling, spill response, and fire evacuation. The plan will be 

provided to the Refuge Manager and discussed in a pre-operation meeting to be held with local 

governments. The plan shall contain a telephone list naming key contacts for emergency operations and 

activation. 

No additional protective measures have been identified because impacts to socioeconomics are expected to be 

temporary (<180 days) and less than significant, as verified by the United States Geological Survey (Appendix I). 

Cumulative Impacts 

Alternative A 

Because no RFFAs have been identified in the cumulative effects area and socioeconomic impacts are 

anticipated to be minimal and temporary, there would be no cumulative impacts.
161

Alternative B 

There would be no cumulative impacts because exploration would not occur.

Alternative C 

There would be no cumulative impacts for the same reasons listed in alternative A. 

4.12 Aesthetics 

There were numerous concerns about the effects of Lexam’s two exploration wells on aesthetic resources 

surrounding the Project Area. The visual aspects and quietness are highly prized values for area residents. The 

issues addressed under aesthetics, visual resources and noise, address the potential impacts to the values 

expressed by residents of the area.

Effect on Visual Resources 

This section discusses potential visual impacts associated with the project’s drill rig, facility lighting, drill pads (2), 

upgraded access roads, and associated infrastructure. Exploration activities would be temporary, lasting 

approximately 120 to 180 days. The dominant facility would be the drill rig, which would be approximately 135 feet 

in height. The project would create night-time glare from the light of the drill rig and facilities that would be seen 

from viewers in the surrounding viewshed, but will vary depending upon the distance and direction where the rig 

was viewed from. 

The drill rig, facility lighting, roads, and drill pads, which may be visible by viewers at a distance of 2.0 miles or 

greater, would create an adverse aesthetic impact. This visual impact is estimated to be less than significant due 

to the middle ground to background viewing distances. While night-time glare from facility lighting would have an 

adverse affect on viewers, it is estimated that the impact would be less than significant. This glare would reduce 

the darkness of the night sky and degrades viewers’ enjoyment of the night-time sky from secluded residences, 

trails, and recreation areas. It is possible that lighting may also have an effect on wildlife. The glare is 

incompatible with the mostly dark night-time sky of the undeveloped areas near the Project Area. However, the 

lights are needed to allow for the safe operation of the facility at night and to comply with OSHA regulations. 

Although shielded lighting could potentially reduce the nighttime glare, even the most rigorously mitigated lighting 

plan would not completely eliminate nighttime glare from a facility that must comply with OSHA’s lighting 

requirements. 

The drilling rig would be visible during clear days, but differing vantage points would affect visibility. The tallest 

object in the Project Area is a tall cottonwood tree that is an estimated 53 feet tall and is visible for long distances. 

The rig being over 2 times taller than this tree also would be visible over distances of several miles. It would be 

especially visible from north of the Project Area along CR T. Looking down from the higher elevations to the east, 

the rig may not stand out above the horizon at a distance of more than a few miles. Atmospheric conditions such 

as wind-blown dust and haze also would affect view of the rig. On cloudy, windy or snowy days, the rig would be 

less visible or not visible. 

Diminishment of the viewshed is a concern with regard to visitors to the GSDNPP located adjacent to the Refuge. 

The closest proposed location (Baca #7) is 2 miles from the extreme northern boundary of the park (Figure 1-1), 

but is about 18 miles northwest of the park visitor center. The vast majority of visitors to the park will be at the 

visitor center and immediate environs. Although the rig would not be viewable at a distance of 18 miles, the 

elevation of the dunes immediately to the north and northwest would preclude viewing from the visitor center. The 

nearest that potential visitors traveling to the park would be to the Project Area is if they were traveling on State 

Highway 17. From the nearest point on Highway 17, travelers would be at least 6 miles due west of the Project 

Area. At that distance, the rig would be hard to discern by the casual viewer. At night, lights from the Project Area 

would not likely be distinguishable from the lights of Crestone and the Baca Grande Subdivision that are directly 

in the line of sight to the east and northeast of the Project Area. It is possible that a few park visitors could view 

the rig from the northern extent of the park, but as stated above, the park boundary is at least 2 miles from the 
162

closest proposed location and it is not likely that many visitors would be present in that part of the park. Fugitive 

dust emissions from vehicle traffic also would present visual effects. 

The presence of the drill rig, facility lighting, roads, and drill pads, by viewers from the perimeter of the Refuge, 

could create an adverse short-term aesthetic impact; however, viewing at distances of 2.0 miles or more would 

diminish the impact. The impacts would be temporary in nature. Therefore, visual impacts would be less than 

significant.

Alternative A 

Lexam would follow applicable rule and regulations implemented by federal (EPA, OSHA) and state (COGCC 800 

series rules; COGCC 2009) guidelines to reduce visual impacts. Impacts are expected to be less than significant 

because exploration would be short-term, lasting 120 to 180 days. 

Alternative B 

If the mineral estate was acquired by the Service, there would be no impacts because the proposed exploration 

activities would not occur. However, the entire mineral estate must be acquired to preclude exploration by parties 

holding an outstanding mineral interest. 

Alternative C 

The Service requires that the following conditions be implemented by Lexam to reduce visual impacts: 

 Lexam should ensure to the extent possible for safety purposes that lights on the drilling rig and location 

are directed to work areas. 

 The air quality protective measure #28 of wetting down roads would reduce the visual effects of dust 

emissions. 

 Selection of a paint color for the drilling rig and associated infrastructure that blends in with the natural 

landscape background. 

Effects on Acoustical Environment 

Road construction, vehicle operation, and drilling equipment operation would be the sources of noise above 

ambient levels. The proposed exploration program is located in a setting that can be characterized as rural, where 

ambient noise levels range from 15 to 45 dBA. Noise is attenuated as the distance from the source to the receptor 

increases. 

Noise monitoring results of natural gas drilling rigs at the Pinedale Anticline in Wyoming recorded the highest 

average noise levels of 66.8 dBA at 130 feet from the drilling rig in various directions around the rig (ENSR 2007). 

The drilling activity that is most likely to produce the highest noise levels is drill pipe moving in or out of the hole 

(tripping). Based on the average 66.8 dBA reading 130 feet from the derrick, noise attenuation calculations 

(Engineering Page 2007) indicate that at a distance of 2,000 feet from the rig, noise levels would attenuate to 43.1 

dBA, within the ambient noise range for the setting of the proposed project and well below the Colorado statutory 

maximum permissible noise level in a nighttime residential setting (50 dBA). Because noise effects would be at 

ambient levels at 2,000 feet or less from the rig, and the activities would be temporary in nature, the effects of 

noise from the project are expected to be less than significant. Noise may have an impact on wildlife, but beyond 

2,000 feet from the source, those impacts are also expected to be less than significant. 

It is expected that Lexam will use a drilling rig (if available) equipped with a diesel-electric conversion type power 

system. A diesel electric power system uses diesel engines to power electric motors, which are the prime movers 

for the system. The use of the system allows for fewer spikes in noise when the rig is pulling heavy loads, as for 

instance, when tripping drill pipe out of the hole. It is not possible to remove all sources of noise, but Lexam will 

strive to obtain muffling equipment on all engines that will reduce sound levels to reasonable minimums.
163

Alternative A 

Lexam would follow applicable rule and regulations implemented by federal (EPA, OSHA) and state (COGCC 800 

series rules; COGCC 2009) guidelines to reduce noise impacts. Impacts are expected to be less than significant 

because exploration would be short-term, lasting 120 to 180 days. 

Alternative B 

If the mineral estate was acquired by the Service, there would be no impacts because the proposed exploration 

activities would not occur. However, the entire mineral estate must be acquired to preclude exploration by parties 

holding an outstanding mineral interest. 

Alternative C 

The Service requires that Lexam implement protective measures #5 to monitor noise levels associated with 

exploration activities and #39 which requires the use of mufflers on all internal combustion engines and certain 

compressor components to attenuate noise emissions during all exploration activities. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Alternative A 

Because the visual and noise effects are temporary for the proposed oil and gas exploration and because no 

RFFAs in the cumulative impacts study area have been identified, there would be no cumulative impacts.

Alternative B 

There would be no cumulative impacts because no mineral exploration activities would occur. 

Alternative C 

There would be no cumulative impacts for the same reasons in alternative A. 

4.13 Resource Inventory and Monitoring Plan 

Under alternative C, the Service is requiring that Lexam follow a Resource Inventory and Monitoring Plan (RIMP) 

to determine baseline conditions and quantify any changes from the existing physical environment that may be 

affected during the construction and drilling of exploration wells, Baca #5 and Baca #7. Lexam would be required 

to gather data before, during, and/or after construction of access roads and well pads and drilling of wells Baca #5 

and Baca #7 depending on the type of resource (e.g., soil, air quality, water, vegetation, visual, and sound 

resources) that may be affected during each step of the proposed exploration. The Service would require that 

Lexam’s Plan of Operations be modified to minimize negative impacts, if monitoring indicates the need. . Lexam 

will be required to submit a RIMP to the Service for approval prior to the initiation of exploration activities.

Inventory 

The Service defines inventory as a survey to determine the presence, relative abundance, status, and distribution 

of abiotic resources, species, habitat, or ecological communities at a particular point in time (Service Manual, 701 

FW 2, USFWS 1995b). Inventories are generally designed to gain baseline information through a survey on a 

given abiotic or biotic natural resource. For example, an inventory could be conducted to determine vegetation 

composition and structure at a particular site prior to an application initial management treatment or before 

vegetation is altered by anthropogenic disturbance to determine proper site characteristics for future reclamation. 
164

To determine the effect of an action on a resource, an inventory survey establishes baseline conditions that are 

followed by a monitoring protocol to evaluate potential changes over time. 

Monitoring

The Service defines monitoring as a survey repeated through time to determine changes in the status and 

demographics of abiotic resources, species, habitats, or ecological communities (Service Manual, 701 FW 2, 

USFWS 1995b). Monitoring is conducted on a regular or systematic basis, involves collecting data by sampling, 

and generally follows a trend of a particular indicator variable (e.g., soil quality) over time typically following a 

management treatment or in response to a potential change in environment. 

Inventory and Monitoring Protocol 

Natural resource inventory and monitoring is important when assessing potential impacts to the environment. A 

well designed inventory and monitoring plan is essential to identify and prevent further deleterious effects of 

anthropogenic disturbances to natural resources. 

Under alternative C, protective measure #5 (Appendix D), the Service will require that Lexam submit a RIMP to, 

and for approval by the Service to ensure that Refuge resources receive maximum protection during the proposed 

exploration. The Service will require that all information collected during inventory and monitoring for the proposed 

exploration activities be submitted in a final report, which includes raw data files. 

The RIMP is designed to safeguard the Refuge from unforeseen negative impacts during the proposed oil and 

gas exploration. The following conditions are required by the Service and will provide the basis for the Inventory 

and Monitoring Plan to be submitted by Lexam for approval:

Soils – Prior to soil disturbance, Lexam will be required to collect soil samples on all access roads and 

well pads to determine baseline conditions before the proposed exploration begins. A sufficient number of 

soil core samples (to be determined by consultation with a NRCS Soil Scientist) should be collected on all 

soils prone to disturbance, and sent to a professional soil-testing laboratory to determine if heavy metals, 

chemical pollutants, or other contaminants exist in soils before disturbance occurs. Each soil core sample 

site should be recorded using a GPS with an accuracy of ±1 meter.

Following the completion of construction of the drilling rig, Lexam will be required to conduct duplicate soil 

core sample tests at recorded GPS waypoints and submit the samples to the same soil testing laboratory 

used for initial tests. Finally, a duplicate soil monitoring test will be required at six months following 

construction of the drilling rig or upon abandonment of the Baca #5 and/or Baca #7.

If contaminated soils are identified after initial soil monitoring, Lexam will be required to follow protective

measures #7, 13, 14, and 33 to properly remove affected soils. After contaminated soils are removed, 

Lexam will be required to conduct duplicate soil sampling to ensure that all affected soils have been 

removed and the affected area has returned to pre-disturbance conditions.

Air Quality – Air pollution concentration impacts have been modeled for Lexam’s proposed exploration 

using the EPA’s AERMOD model (USEPA 2008b) based on 6-years of representative meteorological 

data collected at the Alamosa airport station (WMO ID: 72462, WBAN ID: 23061) and upper air data 

obtained from NOAA’s FSL in Albuquerque, New Mexico (WMO ID: 72365, WBAN ID 23050). The results 

of the AERMOD model predicted that impacts from Lexam’s proposed exploration emissions to ambient 

air pollutant concentrations to be below Class I Significant Levels for all pollutants. Because the effects of 

Lexam’s proposed exploration on air quality are not expected to impact the GSDNPP Class I area due to 

the temporary period (<180 days) of operations, implementation of protective measures #3, 21, 28, and 

38 required by the Service would ensure that potential impacts to air quality would be less than 

significant. Thus, no additional air quality monitoring would be required by the Service.
165

Water Resources – Surface water was extensively sampled on South Crestone, Deadman, Cottonwood, 

Spanish, and Willow creeks in and around the Project Area in 2008 (Table 3-5, Figures 3-13 and 3-14)

by Lexam to determine baseline surface water quality conditions. Results of the surface water sampling 

indicate that conditions have not changed significantly compared to data obtained from the USGS water 

database (USGS 2010) that was sampled during 1967-1968. Therefore, no additional surface water 

sampling will be required by the Service prior to soil disturbance for the proposed exploration.

During construction and drilling activities, the Service will require that Lexam collect surface water 

samples at WC-W, WC-B5, WC-E near Baca #5 and at SC-W and SC-E near Baca #7 at monthly 

intervals until drilling is complete. Then, the Service will require Lexam to collect duplicate surface water 

samples at the same sites initially sampled in 2008 following the completion of drilling or upon the 

abandonment of Baca #5 and/or Baca #7.

Groundwater sampling of the unconfined and confined aquifers was conducted in 2008 by Lexam to 

establish baseline conditions (Table 3-7, Figures 3-24 and 3-25). Results from the 21 wells (8 in the 

unconfined aquifer, 13 in the confined aquifer) sampled indicate that there were no VOCs detected, no 

presence of gasoline or diesel fuel, TDS values are generally less than 500 mg/L (a secondary maximum 

contaminant level for drinking water [CDPHE 2007b]), no unusual concentrations of metals, but methane 

and ethane were present and likely originated from decomposition of organic matter (Mayo et al. 2006). 

The Service will require that Lexam install a minimum of one up-gradient and two down-gradient 

groundwater monitoring wells around each drill pad (Baca #5 and Baca #7) as outlined by protective 

measure #41. The wells will be completed in the shallow unconfined aquifer. The locations and elevations 

of the wells will be surveyed and depth to water will be measured. Water samples will be collected for 

chemical analysis (as outlined below) before the wells are completed and at predetermined intervals 

thereafter, which will agreed to by the Service and Lexam. If spills or releases of drilling related chemicals 

at sites occur, then the sampling frequency may be increased to a frequency agreed to by the Service, 

Baca Grande Water and Sanitation District, and Lexam. Additionally, the Service will require that Lexam 

collect and analyze duplicate groundwater samples at the same 21 wells initially sampled in 2008 if a spill 

or release of drilling related chemicals are detected in the monitoring wells. 

Following is a list of general guidelines for designing the groundwater monitoring wells around 

each drill pad: 

1. Monitoring wells shall be of sufficient diameter and depth to adequately purge and obtain 

a representative groundwater sample. Wells shall be screened from full depth to above the 

highest elevation of expected groundwater fluctuation. It is important that the well screen extends 

above the groundwater level in the well. 

2. Monitoring wells shall be placed as close as possible to the potential source(s), but far 

enough away to remain safe and undisturbed during site activities/operations. Knowledge of site 

operations is helpful to place wells appropriately. 

3. Initially three wells should be placed surrounding the source(s) with the goal of setting at 

least one up-gradient and one down-gradient well. After placement of the three initial wells, 

measure groundwater elevation and determine flow direction. Once flow direction is verified, 

additional wells may be needed to insure that there are sufficient down-gradient well locations to 

adequately monitor potential contamination from the source(s). At least one true up-gradient well 

is required to monitor baseline conditions. 

4. Once the alarm-well system is completely established, water quality monitoring should be 

initiated with baseline sampling prior to any other site activity occurring. Once site activity is 

initiated, wells shall be monitored regularly during site activities to provide adequate warning if 

contamination of groundwater occurs. For example, if the well installation takes approximate one 

month, a weekly sampling and testing period might be appropriate and following any activity 

which could impact groundwater, such as a spill. 
166

5. The suite of analyses to be conducted should include all parameters listed in Table 2 of 

the Water Sampling Plan Memorandum, dated September 29, 2006 prepared by Telesto 

Solutions, Inc. Semi-Volatile Organic Carbons (SVOC) should be added to the list of parameters 

to be analyzed. These parameters can be effectively monitored at or near the surface of the 

shallow groundwater aquifer. 

6. Lexam Explorations, Inc. shall provide a list of all products that are to be utilized in the 

site activities and verify that all constituents of concern are being tested, based on process to be 

utilized. From this list, it can be determined if monitoring near the groundwater surface is the best 

for all constituents of concern. 

Vegetation – Prior to soil disturbance, Lexam will be required to determine site composition, structure, 

and species richness of vegetation along access road routes and well pads. To characterize vegetation 

throughout areas where soil is disturbed, the Service will require that Lexam provide the inventory of 

vegetation data summarized for individual sample plots and among all sampled plots. At minimum, Lexam 

should collect canopy cover using 20 x 50-cm Daubenmire frames (e.g., Daubenmire 1959) for all 

individual species and collect information on vegetation structure (e.g., maximum vegetation height, visual 

obstruction; Robel et al. 1970) readings at 5-m intervals along a 100-m transect (N = 20 per plot) at each 

individual sample plot. Individual sample plots should be randomly generated within the proposed area of

soil disturbance. A minimum of one sample plot per 1⁄4 acre (N = 920 total canopy cover estimates and N 

= 920 total vegetation structure estimates) should be sampled throughout the 11.7 acres to be disturbed 

during Lexam’s proposed exploration activities. 

This information is essential to collect prior to soil disturbance because it will allow for proper reclamation 

(i.e., seed mixture of endemic plants) of vegetation to pre-disturbance conditions. Also, this inventory 

would establish a baseline for noxious weed abundance prior to soil disturbance.

Lexam is also required to conduct a detailed wetland delineation in the Project Area vicinity using the 

USACE Hydrogeomorphic Method (Smith et al. 2005) to identify all wetlands that could be affected as a 

result of Lexam’s exploration activities. The wetland delineation must be completed prior to any soil 

disturbance.

Visual – A visual impact analysis of emissions from the proposed oil and gas exploration were evaluated 

using the EPA’s VISCREEN model (USEPA 2008c). The VISCREEN model is designed to provide a 

conservative estimate of the visual effects of a plume from all project sources (e.g., generator, mobile 

tailpipe, and fugitive dust emissions). The model uses maximum daily emissions for Lexam’s proposed oil 

and gas exploration to calculate an absolute contrast for both a sky and terrain background. The results 

or the VISCREEN model indicate that that the proposed exploration was within FLAG screening 

thresholds for visual impacts inside the GSDNPP Class I area. Therefore, if Lexam implements the 

Service’s protective measures and they do not deviate from their proposed Plan of Operations, no 

additional monitoring of visual emissions will be required for the two proposed wells, unless unforeseen 

circumstances arise.

Noise – The Service requires that Lexam deploy an acoustic monitoring station (e.g., NPS 2008b) at the

Baca #5 well pad for a minimum 30 days prior to the initiation of any construction activities to establish a

baseline for the Project Area. Lexam may need to consult with a professional acoustic monitoring team 

(e.g., NPS Natural Sounds Program) to determine the proper information to collect (i.e. sound pressure 

levels in the form of A-weighted decibel (dBA) readings by the second, natural and existing ambient 

sound levels) to establish baseline conditions.

The same acoustic monitoring station should be deployed to collect information for the duration of 

Lexam’s proposed exploration activities to ensure that noise levels are maintained below COGCC’s 

maximum permissible levels (Table 3-16). Data should be interpreted by a professional acoustic 

monitoring team on a monthly basis to ensure that noise thresholds are not exceeded.
167

Table 4-3 Summary of environmental consequences for actions of the Draft Environmental 

Assessment alternatives for the proposed oil and gas exploration by Lexam Explorations 

(U.S.A) Inc. on Baca National Wildlife Refuge. 

Alternative A

No Additional Protective 

Measures

Alternative B

Acquisition of the Mineral Estate

Alternative C

Maximum Protection of Refuge 

during Exploration

Geology

Negligible overall effect on 

geology.

No effect Same as A.

Minerals

Negligible because any removal 

of minerals would only be to test 

the viability of the well for future 

production potential. 

No effect. Same as A.

Negligible because any testing 

of minerals during exploration 

would be short-term (<180 days)

No effect. Same as A.

Soils

Minor short-term negative effects 

from removal of top soil and 

vegetation along access roads 

and well pads.

No effect Same as A, except negligible to 

minor short-term negative 

effects due to increased 

protective measures. 

Negligible short-term effects due 

to construction of drilling rig and 

associated facilities at well pad 

site.

No effect Same as A.

Minor to moderate short-term 

negative effects from soil 

compaction. Soil conditions 

would be restored to original 

condition upon reclamation.

No effect Same as A, except negligible to 

minor short-term negative 

effects due to increased

protective measures.

Negligible to minor short-term 

effects due to potential for wind 

or water erosion. 

No effect Erosion would be minimized to 

negligible levels by frequent site 

monitoring and implemented 

protective measures. 

Negligible effects due to minor 

loss in soil productivity.

No effect. Same as A.

Negligible to minor short-term 

risk of potential soil 

contamination from exploration. 

Implementation of the Storm 

Water Management Plan 

(SWMP) and Spill Prevention 

Control and Countermeasures 

(SPCC) reduces this risk.

No effect. Implementation of SWMP and 

SPCC along with soil testing and 

monitoring will decrease risk of 

soil degradation to negligible 

levels from heavy metals, 

chemical pollutants, and other 

contaminants resulting from 

exploration.
168

Table 4-3 Summary of environmental consequences for actions of the Draft Environmental 

Assessment alternatives for the proposed oil and gas exploration by Lexam Explorations 

(U.S.A) Inc. on Baca National Wildlife Refuge (Continued). 

Alternative A

No Additional Protective 

Measures

Alternative B

Acquisition of the Mineral Estate

Alternative C

Maximum Protection of Refuge 

during Exploration

Soils (continued)

Negligible to minor short-term 

risk of sedimentation to adjacent 

wetlands or riparian zones due 

to wind or storm water erosion of 

soil disturbed to construct 

access roads and well pads.

No effect. Negligible short-term effect 

because sedimentation would be 

controlled by protective 

measures and frequent 

monitoring of road and creek 

crossings.

Air Quality

Motorized equipment used for 

construction of infrastructure 

associated with exploration 

would have negligible to minor 

short-term negative effect on air 

quality.

No effect. Protective measures including 

requiring: exploration at only one 

well, Tier II engines, ultra-low 

sulfur diesel fuel, and control of 

fugitive dust will reduce negative 

effects to a negligible level.

Minor short-term effects of dust 

emissions from traffic on 

unpaved roads and well pads. 

Lexam to follow COGCC and

CDPHE rules on dust emissions.

No effect. Negligible effects because of 

protective measures that reduce 

dust emissions.

Approximately 51 tons of Nitrous 

Oxide and 15 tons of Carbon 

Monoxide emitted by drilling at 

two wells. Effect of these 

emissions will be short-term and 

negligible to minor.

No effect Same as A.

Negligible effect of air pollution 

because emissions would be 

below Class I Significant Levels 

for all pollutants.

No effect. Same as A.

Water Resources

Minor to moderate short-term 

effect on water quality of surface 

water from sedimentation, 

erosion, or potential 

contamination.

Only the COGCC and CDPHE 

rules limit these effects.

No effect. Negligible to minor short-term 

effect on water quality of surface 

water because protective 

measures would reduce the 

potential for sedimentation, 

erosion, or contamination during 

exploration.

Moderate to major potential 

long-term impacts to aquifer 

because well casing would not 

be required to protect Layer #4 

of the deep confined aquifer 

under COGCC regulations.

No effect. Protective measure #12 would 

require that well casing extend 

500 feet beyond the bottom of 

Layer #4 of the deep confined 

aquifer to reduce any potential 

impacts to groundwater to 

negligible levels.
169

Table 4-3 Summary of environmental consequences for actions of the Draft Environmental 

Assessment alternatives for the proposed oil and gas exploration by Lexam Explorations 

(U.S.A) Inc. on Baca National Wildlife Refuge (Continued).

Alternative A

No Additional Protective 

Measures

Alternative B

Acquisition of the Mineral Estate

Alternative C

Maximum Protection of Refuge 

during Exploration

Water Resources

Minor to moderate short-term 

effect on water quality of surface 

water from sedimentation, 

erosion, or potential 

contamination.

Only the COGCC and CDPHE 

rules limit these effects.

No effect. Negligible to minor short-term 

effect on water quality of surface 

water because protective 

measures would reduce the 

potential for sedimentation, 

erosion, or contamination during 

exploration.

Moderate to major potential 

long-term impacts to aquifer 

because well casing would not 

be required to protect Layer #4 

of the deep confined aquifer 

under COGCC regulations.

No effect. Protective measure #12 would

require that well casing extend 

500 feet beyond the bottom of 

Layer #4 of the deep confined 

aquifer to reduce any potential 

impacts to groundwater to 

negligible levels.

Negligible to minor effects on 

water usage during exploration.

No effect. Same as A.

No additional protective 

measures outside of regulatory 

agency rules and regulations.

No effect. Surface and groundwater 

protective measures #3, 5, 7, 8, 

9, 13, 14, 15, 19, 21, 28, 29, 31, 

32, 33, 34, 35, and 42 required 

by the Service would reduce any 

potential degradation of water 

resources to negligible shortterm levels.

Vegetation and Habitat

All areas disturbed during 

exploration would be reclaimed 

based on the SWMP and 

COGCC guidelines resulting in 

moderate long-term effects from 

invasion of noxious weeds, 

erosion, or difficulty in reestablishing vegetation.

No Effect. In addition to COGCC and 

SWMP guidelines, protective 

measures would reduce spread 

of noxious weeds, erosion, or 

increase the success of 

reclamation of vegetation. This 

would reduce the effect to minor 

long-term levels.

Moderate to major long-term risk 

of noxious weed invasion on any 

disturbed soils.

No effect. Negligible to minor short-term 

effect, as noxious weeds would 

controlled by implementing 

protective measures #1, 3, 11, 

19, 23, and 29.
170

Table 4-3 Summary of environmental consequences for actions of the Draft Environmental 

Assessment alternatives for the proposed oil and gas exploration by Lexam Explorations 

(U.S.A) Inc. on Baca National Wildlife Refuge (Continued). 

Alternative A

No Additional Protective 

Measures

Alternative B

Acquisition of the Mineral Estate

Alternative C

Maximum Protection of Refuge 

during Exploration

Vegetation and Habitat (continued)

Minor to moderate long-term risk 

for degradation of vegetation 

near access roads and well pads 

due to exploration. 

No effect. Vegetation inventory and 

monitoring before, during, and 

after construction required by 

protective measure #5 would 

reduce long-term effects to 

minor levels. Inventory would 

provide basis for appropriate site 

composition during reclamation.

Wetland delineation would not 

be required of the entire Project 

Area by regulatory agencies and 

short or long-term moderate 

effects could occur depending 

on the level of disturbance.

No effect. The Service would require a 

wetland delineation be 

conducted on all wetlands in the 

Project Area under protective 

measure #8 to ensure effects on 

wetlands are held to negligible 

levels from exploration.

Potential degradation or loss of 

native habitat on disturbed 

access roads or well pad sites.

No effect. Protective measures to reclaim 

disturbed sites following 

exploration would reduce 

degradation of native habitats to 

negligible levels.

Access road to Baca #5 may not 

be re-routed and moderate to 

major long-term effects could 

occur.

No effect. Access road to Baca #5 would 

be re-routed to avoid dense 

populations of slender 

spiderflower or other sensitive 

habitat.

Habitat fragmentation could 

cause moderate short-term 

effects to wildlife species that 

respond negatively to habitat 

fragmentation.

No effect. Same as A.

Wildlife and Fisheries

No wildlife population monitoring 

would occur resulting in minor to 

moderate short-term effects to 

wildlife.

No effect. Service Biologists would survey 

wildlife activity and abundance in 

the Project Area before, during, 

and after construction to 

document sensitivities from 

exploration resulting in negligible 

effects to wildlife.
171

Table 4-3 Summary of environmental consequences for actions of the Draft Environmental 

Assessment alternatives for the proposed oil and gas exploration by Lexam Explorations 

(U.S.A) Inc. on Baca National Wildlife Refuge (Continued). 

Alternative A

No Additional Protective 

Measures

Alternative B

Acquisition of the Mineral Estate

Alternative C

Maximum Protection of Refuge 

during Exploration

Wildlife and Fisheries (continued)

State COGCC and CDPHE 

guidelines will be used for 

fugitive dust control. Short-term 

effects of dust emission would 

be minor to moderate to for 

known areas containing Rio 

Grande sucker and Rio Grande 

chub.

No Effect. Protective measures including: 

0.25-mile buffer zone around 

habitat, specific vehicle 

crossings with structural 

monitoring to ensure stability, 

sampling waterways, and dust 

suppression will reduce shortterm effects to negligible levels 

for Rio Grande sucker and Rio 

Grande chub.

Some wildlife species could be 

displaced by exploration to less 

suitable habitat. Effect would be 

short-term and minor to 

moderate.

No effect. Same as A.

Effect of sedimentation or 

alternation of habitat at Crestone 

and Willow creek crossings on

associated fisheries would be 

short-term and minor.

No effect. Effect would be reduced to 

negligible levels because of 

protective measures that would 

minimize erosion or severe 

habitat alternation.

No seasonal restrictions would 

occur and effects could be 

moderate to major to wildlife on 

the Refuge.

No effect. Protective measures would limit 

exploration beginning Aug. 1 

and ending Apr. 30 to reduce 

effect of disturbance to 

negligible levels for all wildlife 

populations.

Moderate short-term effects on 

big game. Disturbance of habitat 

could alter activity patterns and 

habitat use.

No effect. Same as A.

Moderate short-term effects on 

small game due to their lack of 

movement potential away from 

disturbed areas.

No effect. Same as A.

Moderate short-term effects on 

non-game species.

No effect. Protective measures would 

reduce disturbance to nesting 

bird and impact to sensitive 

habitat to negligible levels.
172

Table 4-3 Summary of environmental consequences for actions of the Draft Environmental 

Assessment alternatives for the proposed oil and gas exploration by Lexam Explorations 

(U.S.A) Inc. on Baca National Wildlife Refuge (Continued). 

Alternative A

No Additional Protective 

Measures

Alternative B

Acquisition of the Mineral Estate

Alternative C

Maximum Protection of Refuge 

during Exploration

Wildlife and Fisheries (continued)

Moderate short-term effects on 

fisheries.

No effect. Protective measures would 

reduce impact to water quality 

and important habitat to 

negligible levels

Moderate short-term effects on 

special status species.

No effect. Preconstruction surveys and 

restrictions to critical habitats 

would reduce effect of 

exploration to negligible levels.

Cultural Resources

Exploration would only be 

subject to federal and state 

regulatory agency rules and 

regulations.

No effect. Known historical sites would be 

avoided during all phases of 

exploration because of 

monitoring during exploration.

Native American Traditional Values

Exploration would only be 

subject to federal and state 

regulatory agency rules and 

regulations.

No effect. Known historical sites would be 

avoided during all phases of 

exploration because of 

monitoring during exploration.

Recreation

Exploration would have no 

impact to recreation because the 

Refuge is not open to the public.

Same as A. Same as A.

Socioeconomic Resources

Minor short-term benefit to 

economy due to temporary 

employment and additional 

revenue to local gas stations, 

dining establishments, and 

motels.

This benefit may be offset by 

minor short-term negative

impacts to local businesses that 

rely on aesthetic resources.

No effect. Same as A

Minor to moderate short-term 

effect of increased traffic to local 

roads or traffic delays caused by 

temporary road closures or 

detours.

No effect. Same as A.

Minor to moderate short-term 

negative effect of increased 

demand for emergency 

responders.

No effect. Similar as A.
173

Table 4-3 Summary of environmental consequences for actions of the Draft Environmental 

Assessment alternatives for the proposed oil and gas exploration by Lexam Explorations 

(U.S.A) Inc. on Baca National Wildlife Refuge (Continued). 

Alternative A

No Additional Protective 

Measures

Alternative B

Acquisition of the Mineral Estate

Alternative C

Maximum Protection of Refuge 

during Exploration

Socioeconomic Resources

Minor short-term benefit to 

economy due to temporary 

employment and additional 

revenue to local gas stations, 

dining establishments, and 

motels.

This benefit may be offset by 

minor short-term negative

impacts to local businesses that 

rely on aesthetic resources.

No effect. Same as A

Minor to moderate short-term 

effect of increased traffic to local 

roads or traffic delays caused by 

temporary road closures or 

detours.

No effect. Same as A.

Minor to moderate short-term 

negative effect of increased 

demand for emergency 

responders.

No effect. Similar as A.

Exploration would have a 

negligible short-term effect on 

regional demographics, housing, 

or land use.

No effect. Same as A.

Aesthetic Resources

Negligible overall effect from 

exploration infrastructure.

No effect. Same as A.

Moderate short-term effect 

(<180 days) of night-time glare 

from the light of the drilling rigs.

No effect. Same as A.

Moderate short-term effect 

(<180 days) of daytime visibility 

of drilling rig.

No effect. Same as A.

Moderate short-term effect 

(<180 days) of noise from road 

construction, vehicle operation, 

and drilling equipment.

No effect. Same as A.

No additional measures to 

reduce effects of noise.

No effect. The Service would require 

mufflers on drilling rig engines to 

reduce noise emissions.
174

5.0 List of Preparers and Coordination 

5.1 Introduction 

The Service is the lead agency for this EA. Saguache County is the only cooperating agency (Appendix J). 

Table 5-1 List of Preparers - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Staff on Planning Team 

Name Position Contribution

Chris Swanson Planning Team Leader, Region 6, Lakewood, 

Colorado

Project coordination, organization, 

writing, and review

Mike Blenden Project Leader, San Luis Valley NWR Complex, 

Alamosa, Colorado

Project oversight, writing and review

Ron Garcia Refuge Manager, Baca National Wildlife Refuge, 

Alamosa

Project oversight, writing and review

David Lucas Chief, Division of Refuge Planning, Region 6, 

Lakewood, Colorado

Project oversight, writing and review

Rick Coleman Assistant Regional Director, Region 6, 

Lakewood, Colorado

Refuge System policy guidance

Mark Ely GIS Specialist, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado GIS map preparation

Barbara Boyle Refuge Supervisor, Region 6, Lakewood, 

Colorado

Refuge System policy guidance

Meg Van Ness Archaeologist, Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado Assistance with cultural resources

Megan Estep Chief, Division of Water Resources, Region 6, 

Lakewood, Colorado

Assistance with water resources.

Laurie Shannon Planning Team Contributor, Region 6, Lakewood, 

Colorado

NEPA and alternatives review

Sue Oliveira Chief, Division of Realty, Region 6, Lakewood, 

Colorado

Writing and review

Steve Schuck Realty Operations Manager, Region 6, 

Lakewood, Colorado

Writing and review

Table 5-2 List of Preparers - Other Consultants 

Name Position Contribution

Lynne Koontz Economist, USGS, Fort Collins Science Center, 

Fort Collins, Colorado

Review of socioeconomic impacts

Jessica Montag Social Scientist, USGS, Fort Collins Science 

Center, Fort Collins, Colorado

Review of socioeconomic impacts

Nancy Smith Senior Program Manager, PBS&J Consulting, 

Colorado Springs, Colorado

Project management and 

preparation of technical report

Rich McEldowney Wetland/Riparian Scientist, PBS&J Consulting, 

Colorado Springs

Writing and review for technical 

report

Gary Andres Hydrogeologist, PBS&J Consulting, Colorado 

Springs

Writing and review for technical 

report

Chris Miller Project Director Energy, PBS&J Consulting, 

Colorado Springs

Writing and review for technical 

report

Tyler Etzel Project Manager/Senior. Scientist- Hazardous 

Waste, PBS&J Consulting, Colorado Springs

Writing and review for technical 

report
175

6.0 References 

Air Sciences Inc. 2008. Lexam Baca Drilling Project Visibility Impact Evaluation. Prepared for Lexam 

Explorations (U.S.A.), April 30, 2008. 

Alldredge, M. W., T. R. Simons, and K. H. Pollack. 2007. Factors affecting aural detections in songbirds. 

Ecological Applications 2007:948-955.

Anderson, D.C. 2007. Road Impacts on the Baca National Wildlife Refuge Colorado, With Emphasis on Effects 

to Surface- and Shallow Ground-Water – A Literature Review. U.S. Geological Survey Open file Report 

2007-1052, 31 p. 

Applegate Group. 2008. Lexam Baca Exploration Wells Storm Water Management Plan. Prepared for Lexam 

Explorations Inc. by Applegate Group Inc. 

Black-footed Ferret Recovery Program. 2007. Ferret Facts. http://www.blackfootedferret.org/facts.html. Site 

accessed September 6, 2007. 

Butterfly Conservation Initiative. 2007.Uncompahgre Fritillary Butterfly. http://www.butterflyrecovery.org/ 

species_profiles/uncompahgre_fritillary/. Site accessed August 23, 2007. 

Byers, D. 2006. Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of Lexam Exploration Inc.’s Baca #5, Baca #5 Alternate,

and Baca #6 Well Pads and Access Roads, Saguache County, Colorado. TRC Mariah Associates for 

Baca National Wildlife Refuge, Service, Region 6 and Lexam Exploration. 

Cappa, J. A. and C. A. Wallace. 2007. Geology and Mineral Resources of Saguache County, Colorado. 

Colorado Geological Survey Resource Series, No. 44. 

Cappa, J.A., G. Young, J.R. Burnell, C.J. Carrol, and B. Widman. 2007. Colorado Mineral and Energy industry 

Activities, 2006. Colorado Geological Survey Information Series 75. 

Colorado Department of Agriculture. 2010. http://www.colorado.gov/ag/weeds. Site accessed on October 20, 

2010. 

Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA). 2007. Energy and Mineral Impact Assistance Fund. 

http://www.dola.state.co.us/dlg/fa/eiaf/index.html#overview. Site accessed November 30, 2007. 

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). 2008. Air Pollution Control Division Index to 

Regulations. http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/ap/regoverview.html. Site accessed October 20, 2008. 

_____. 2007a. Stormwater Fact Sheet - Construction at Oil and Gas facilities, Revised July 2007. 

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/PermitsUnit/stormwater/OGfactsheet.pdf. 

_____. 2007b. Stormwater Discharge Associated with Construction Activity. General Permit Application and 

Stormwater Management Plan Preparation Guidance. Water Quality Control Division– Stormwater 

Programs. State of Colorado. Denver, Colorado. http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/permitUnits/ Site 

accessed November 2010. 

_____. 2007c. CDPHE Basic Standards for Groundwater; Water Quality control Commission 5CCR 1002-41,

Regulation No. 41. Available at website: http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/regulations/wqccregs/

100241basicstandardsforgroundwater.pdf. Standards effective March 22, 2005. Site accessed 

September 5, 2007. 

_____. 2007d. Colorado Primary Drinking Water
176

Regulations. http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/drinkingwater/pdf/

CPDWRDistributionCopySept_30_2007Regs.pdf. Site accessed April 14, 2008.

Colorado Division of Water Resources (CDWR). 2004. Rio Grande Decision Support System, Phase 4 Ground 

Water Model Documentation-Preliminary Draft. Prepared by Colorado Division of Water Resources for 

Colorado Water Conservation Board and Colorado Division of Water Resources.

Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2010. Harvest Survey Statistics. 

http://wildlife.state.co.us/Hunting/BigGame/Statistics/ Site accessed December 13, 2010.

_____. 2010b. Threatened and Endangered List. 

http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/SpeciesOfConcern/ThreatenedEndangeredList/ListOfThreatened

AndEndangeredSpecies.htm. Site accessed October 20, 2010.

_____. 2007a. Black-footed Ferret Overview. http://wildlife.state.co.us/

WildlifeSpecies/SpeciesOfConcern/Mammals/BlackfootedFerret.htm. Site accessed September 5, 2007.

_____. 2007b. Colorado Herpetofaunal Atlas. http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/ herpatlas/coherpatlas/. Site

accessed August 23, 2007.

_____. 2007c. Endangered, Threatened, and Species of Special Concern. http://wildlife.state.co.us/

WildlifeSpecies/SpeciesOfConcern/Fish/FishOfConcern.htm. Site accessed August 23, 2007.

_____. 2007d. Big Game Harvest Survey Statistics & Hunting Recap Summaries.

http://wildlife.state.co.us/Hunting/BigGame/Statistics/. Site accessed August 23, 2007.

_____. 2007e. Boreal Toad. http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/Profiles/ReptilesAndAmphibians/

Boreal.htm. Site accessed August 20, 2007.

_____. 2007f. Natural Diversity Information Source GIS Data. http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/. Site accessed

August 15, 2007.

_____. 2003. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Surveys in the San Luis Valley, Colorado 2003. Available online

at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/ SpeciesDocs/SWWF/Scoping_PCH/15_G002%20R3.PDF. Site accessed August 27, 2007.

_____. 2002. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Surveys in the San Luis Valley, Colorado 2002. Available online

at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/ SpeciesDocs/SWWF/Scoping_PCH/13_G002%20R3.PDF. Site accessed August 27, 2007.

Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2007. Response to Request for Information Letter from

M. Menefee, CNHP to M. Brekke, ENSR. August 31, 2007.

_____. 2006. Baca Grande Biological Assessment 2005. Prepared for

the Crestone/Baca Land Trust. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Fort Collins, Colorado. 95 pp.

_____. 2005a. Intermountain Basins Playa Ecological System – Ecological Integrity Assessment. CNHP,

Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.

_____. 2005b. Data Dictionary for Potential Conservation Area. Transcription Reports from the Colorado Natural 

Heritage Program. July 2005. 9 p.

Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC). 2010. COGIS - Approved Drilling Permits. 

http://cogcc.state.co.us/ Site accessed January 1, 2011.

_____. 2009. COGCC Rules; available at http://www.oilgas.state.co.us/. Site accessed September 30, 2010.
177

Colorado State Cooperative University Extension. 2006. A Lodging Tax for Huerfano County? Issues and

Answers. Economic Development Report 06-02.

Colorado State Demography Office. 2010. Population Estimates: Colorado Counties. 

https://dola.colorado.gov/dlg/demog/pop_cnty_estimates.html Site accessed December 24, 2010.

Contiguglia, G. 2007. Concurrence letter from G. Contiguglia, Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer, to

Meg Van Ness, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Archaeologist. January 29, 2007.

_____. 2006. Concurrence letter from G. Contiguglia, Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer, to Meg

Van Ness, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Archaeologist. December 7, 2006.

Coons, L.M., and T.E. Kelly. 1984. Regional Hydrogeology and the Effect of Structural Control on the Flow of 

Ground Water in the Rio Grande Trough, Northern New Mexico. New Mexico Geological Society, Annual 

Field Conference Guidebook No. 35, pp 241-244.

Davidoff, R., and J. Cornellisson. 2011. Chief and Mining Engineer, Office of Minerals Evaluation, Denver, 

Colorado. Personal communication with D. Lucas, USFWS. January 3, 2011. 

Daubenmire, R. 1959. A canopy-coverage method of vegetational analysis. Northwest Science 33:43-64.

Ellison, L. E., M. B. Wunder, C. A. Jones, C. Mosch, K. W. Navo, K. Peckham, J. E. Burghardt, J. Annear,

R. West, J. Siemers, R. A. Adams, and E. Brekke. 2003. Colorado Bat Conservation Plan. Colorado

Committee of the Western Bat Working Group. Available at http://www.wbwg.org/colorado/colorado.htm.

Encyclopedia Britannica. 2008. Orographic Precipitation., from Encyclopedia Britannica Online:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/433062/orographic-precipitation. Site accessed October 16,

2008.

Engineering Page. 2007. Noise Calculator. http://www.engineeringpage/engineering/noise.html. Site accessed

September 10, 2007.

ENSR. 2007. Noise Monitoring Report for a Drilling Pad Located in the Pinedale Anticline Development Area,

Pinedale, Wyoming. Report prepared by ENSR Corporation for Ultra Petroleum, February 9, 2007.

Ernst and Young LLP. 2010. Exploration Costs associated with the Baca Project from Inception to 2009. A 

report prepared for Lexam Explorations, Inc. February 22, 2010.

Federal Register. 2008. US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Status Review for Rio Grande

Cutthroat Trout, Wednesday May 14, 2008, p. 27900 to 27925, 50 CFR Part 17. http://www.fws.gov/

southwest/es/Documents/R2ES/RGCT%20Finding%20E8-10182.pdf. Site accessed September 25,

2008.

Federal Register. 2008b. US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Gunnison’s Prairie Dog as Threatened or 

Endangered, Tuesday, February 5, 2008, p. 6660 to 6684, 50 CFR Part 17. http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/species/mammals/gunnisonprairiedog/ . Site accessed December 2, 2010.

Fipps, G. 2003. Irrigation Water Quality Standards and Salinity Management. Texas Cooperative Extension

Bulletin B1667, Texas A&M University, April 2003. http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/drinkingwater/pdf/

CPDWRDistributionCopySept_30_2007Regs.pdf. Site accessed April 14, 2008.

Fitzgerald, J. P., C. A. Meaney, and D. M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver Museum of

Natural History and University Press of Colorado. 467 pp.
178

Garcia, R. 2007. Refuge Manager, Baca National Wildlife Refuge, Service. Email Correspondence to

M. Brekke, ENSR. August 27, 2007.

Grant, T. A., E. M. Madden, R. K. Murphy, M. P. Nenneman, and K. A. Smith. 2004. Monitoring native prairie 

vegetation: the belt transect method. Ecological Restoration 22:106-111.

Gray, M. T. 1998. The Guide to Colorado Birds. Westcliffe Publishers, Inc. Englewood, Colorado. 256 pp.

Guilinger, J. R and J. W. Keller. 2000. Directory of Active and Permitted Mines in Colorado – 2002. Colorado

Geological Survey Information Series 68.

Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Steering Committee. 2005. Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide

Conservation Plan. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado, USA.

Grossman D. H., D. Faber-Langendoen, A. S. Weakley, M. Anderson, P. Bourgeron, R. Crawford, K. Goodin,

S. Landaal, K. Metzler, K. D. Patterson, M. Pyne, M. Reid, and L. Sneddon. 1998. International

Classification of Ecological Communities: Terrestrial Vegetation of the United States. Volume I, The

National Vegetation Classification System: Development, Status, and Applications. The Nature

Conservancy: Arlington, Virginia.

Howard, P. H. 1989. Handbook of Environmental Fate and Exposure Data for Organic Chemicals. Lewis

Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan; 574 p.

HRS Consultants, Inc and R.E. Moran. 1987. San Luis Valley Confined Aquifer Study Phase I Final Report.

Prepared by HRS Water Consultants for the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development

Authority, August 1987.

Institute of Public Law. 1994. Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974. University of New Mexico School of Law.

http://ipl.unm.edu/CWI/fedbook/fedweed.html. Site accessed October 15, 2007.

Johnsgard, P. A. 1990. Hawks, Eagles, & Falcons of North America: Biology and Natural History. Smithsonian

Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Kappen, B., Sanford, W., and J. Sanderson. 2004. Ground and Surface Water Interaction in Ephemeral Wetlands, 

San Luis Valley, Colorado. In AGU Hydrology Days 2004 conference proceedings, March 10–March 12, 

2004. Pg 120-132.

Kingery, H. E. 1998. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of

Wildlife, Denver, Colorado. 636 pp.

Lewis, L., Clark, L., Krapf, R., Manning, M., Staats, J., Subirge, T., Townsend, L., Ypsilantis, B. Riparian area 

management: 2003. Riparian-wetland soils. Technical Reference 1737-19. Denver, CO: Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM); 2003. BLM/ST/ST-03/001+1737. 109 p. Available from: 

http://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/pdf/FinalTR1737-19.pdf. Site accessed January 2007.

Levings, G.W., Healy, D.F., Richey, S.F., and L.F. Carter. 1998. Water Quality in the Rio Grande Valley, 

Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas, 1992-95. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1162.

Lowe, J. and E. Schneider. 2007. A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of Lexam Exploration Inc.’s Baca 3-D

Seismic Project, Saguache County, Colorado, TRC Mariah Associates for Baca National Wildlife

Refuge, Service, Region 6 and Lexam Exploration.

Martin, G. 2007. Aquifer Underground Pumped Hydro. CERI Research Report.

Mayo, A. L., A. Davey, and D. Christiansen. 2006. Groundwater Flow Patterns in the San Luis Valley,
179

Colorado, USA revisited: An Evaluation of Solute and Isotopic Data.

McCalpin, J. P. 1996. General Geology of the Northeast San Luis Valley, Colorado in Geological Society of

America – Colorado Geological Survey Field Trip Guidebook: Geologic Excursions to the Rocky

Mountains and Beyond. Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, October 1996, Denver,

Colorado.

Mehls, Steven F. and T. J. Lennon. 2007. A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of Lexam Explorations, Inc.

Alternate Well Pad Baca #6, Well Pad Baca #7, and Associated Access Roads and Water Line Routes,

Baca National Wildlife Refuge, Saguache County, Colorado. Prepared for Lexam Explorations, Inc.,

Lakewood, Colorado, and Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Baca National Wildlife Refuge

and Region 6, Denver, Colorado.

Moore, P. L. 1974, Drilling Practices Manual, PennWell Books; Tulsa, Oklahoma; 448 p.

National Agricultural Statistical Services, 2010. 2007 Census of Agriculture County Profile:

Saguache County, Colorado. 

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/County_Profiles/Colorado/index.asp

Site accessed December 27, 2010.

National Park Service. 2008. Class I Receptors., Map Download Page. http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/maps/

Receptors/index.cfm. Site updated September 28, 2008. Site accessed October 20, 2008.

_____. 2008b. Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve Acoustic Monitoring Report. Natural Resource 

Report NPS/NRPC/NRTR-2008/001. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Fort Collins, Colorado.

_____. 2007. Final General Management Plan/Wilderness Study/Environmental Impact Statement, Great Sand

Dunes national Park and Preserve. Alamosa and Saguache Counties, Colorado. July 2007.

_____. 2006. Management Policy 4.9: Soundscape management. 

http://www.nps.gov/policy/mp/policies.html#_Toc157232745. Site accessed December 10, 2010.

_____. 2005. Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Work Group (FLAG) Phase I Report

(December 2000). http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Permits/flag/flagDoc/index.cfm. Website updated

July 31, 2005. Site accessed October 20, 2008.

Parker, P. L. and T. F. King. 1989. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties.

National Register Bulletin 38. National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, Department of the

Interior, Washington D.C. [Undated publication issued in 1989.]

RGDSS, 2001. RGDSS–Task 8.1 Review of Previous Water Budgets. Final Memorandum prepared for Ray 

Bennett, Ray Alvarado, and Andy Moore. April 24.

Robel, R.J., J.N. Briggs, A.D.,Dayton, and L.C., Hulbert. 1970. Relationships Between Visual Obstruction

Measurements and Weight of Grassland Vegetation, Journal of Range Management 23:295-297.

Robson, S. G. and E. R. Banta. 1995. Groundwater Atlas of the United States, Segment 2: Arizona, Colorado,

New Mexico, and Utah. U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 730-C.

Rondeau, R.J., D. Sarr, M.B. Wunder, P.M. Pineda, G.M. Kittel. 1998. Saguache County, Closed Basin Biological 

Inventory Volume I: A Natural Heritage Assessment Final Report. Colorado Natural Heritage Program. 

Prepared for The Nature Conservancy, San Luis Valley Program. Saguache, Colorado. February 1998. 249 

p.

Rupert, M. G, and L. N. Plummer. 2004. Ground-Water Age and Flow at Great Sand Dunes National
180

Monument, South-Central Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2004-3051, July 2004.

Sangres.com. 2007. Crestone, Colorado. http://www.sangres.com/colorado/saguache/crestone.htm. Site

accessed November 30, 2007.

Saguache County. 2001. The Saguache County Resource Guide & Business Directory.

Seglund, A. E., and P. M. Schnurr. 2010. Colorado Gunnison’s and white-tailed prairie dog conservation strategy. 

Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado.

Smith, R.D., A. Ammann, C. Bartoldus, M.M. Brinson. 1995. An Approach for Assessing Wetland Functions Using 

Hydrogeomorphic Classification, Reference Wetlands, and Functional Indices. Technical Report WRP-DE-9. 

U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. 88 p.

Soltanpour, P. N. and W. L. Raley. 1993. Livestock Drinking Water Quality. Colorado State University

Extension NO 4.198. http://www.ext.colostate.edu/Pubs/livestk/04908.html. Site accessed April 14, 2008.

Telesto. 2007. Baseline Chemistry Compilation. Technical memorandum to Lexam Explorations U.S.A. from

Telesto Solutions, inc. September 26, 2007.

Topper, R., Spray, K.L., Bellis, W.H., Hamilton, J.L., and P.E. Barkmann. 2003. Ground Water Atlas of Colorado. 

Colorado Geological Survey Special Publication 53.

TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 2007. A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of Lexam Exploration Inc.’s Baca 3-D 

Seismic Project Saguache County, Colorado. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Region 6, and Lexam Exploration Inc. January 2007.

_____. A class III Cultural Resource Inventory of Lexam Exploration Inc.’s Baca #5, Baca #5 Alternate, and Baca 

#6 Well Pads and Access Roads, Saguache County, Colorado. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service., Region 6, and Lexam Exploration Inc. November 2006.

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2010. Regional Economic Information System. U.S. Department of

Commerce. Tables CA25, CA30.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2010. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. Series ID: LAUCN08109003.

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv?la Site accessed December 24, 2010.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Saguache County. State and County quick facts. 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/08/08109.html. Site accessed December 24, 2010. 

_____. 2007. Saguache County. State and County quick facts. 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/08/08109.html.

_____. 2005. Annual Estimates of the Population for Counties of Colorado, April 1, 2000 to

July 1, 2004. http://www.census.gov/popest/counties. Site accessed October 15, 2007.

_____. U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. DP-3: Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 2000. Geographic

Areas: Saguache County, CO.

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP3&-

ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-_lang=en&-_sse=on&-geo_id=05000US08109 . Site accessed December 

24, 2010.

U.S. Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 2010. Federal Noxious Weed List. 

http://aphis.gov/plant_health/permits/organism/federal_noxious_weeds.shtml. Site accessed October 20, 

2010.

_____. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 2000. Plant Protection. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/
181

plant_health/plant_pest/infoweeds/downloads/PPAtext.pdf. Site accessed October 15, 2007. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 2010. Web Soil 

Survey, Saguache County Colorado. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm Site 

accessed November 2010. 

_____. 2007. Hydric soil definition. http://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric/intro.html Site accessed January 2007. 

_____. 2006. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 6.0. G.W. Hurt and L.M. Vasilas (eds.). 

USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. 

_____. 1984. Soil Survey of Saguache County Area, Colorado. Issued November 1984, 203 p. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Appraisal Services Directorate. 2008. Self-Contained Appraisal Report: State 

Land Subject FWS Parcels 26-47 Located Northeast of Alamosa, Alamosa and Saguache Counties 

Colorado. Prepared by John Frome and Associates and Headquarters West, Ltd. September 30, 2008. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008a. Transfer Network Clearinghouse for Inventories & 

Emissions Factors; Emissions Factors and AP-42. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html. 

Website updated September 5, 2008, Site accessed October 20, 2008. 

_____. 2008b. Technology Transfer Network Support Center for Regulatory Atmospheric Modeling; 

Preferred/Recommended Models. http://www.epa.gov/scram001/dispersion_prefrec.htm. Site accessed 

October 20, 2008. 

_____. 2008c. Technology Transfer Network Support Center for Regulatory Atmospheric Modeling; Screening 

Models. http://www.epa.gov/scram001/dispersion_screening.htm. Site accessed October 20, 2008. 

_____. 2007a. San Luis Watershed – 13010003 Watershed Profile available at USEPA Surf your Watershed 

website: http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/huc.cfm?huc_code= 13010003. Site updated September 5, 2007. Site 

accessed September 5, 2007. 

_____. 2007b. National Assessment Database 305(b) Lists/Assessment Unit Information Year 2002 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/enviro_v2.wcontrol?p_ id305b=CORGCB03_5600. Site accessed 

September 5, 2007. 

_____. 2007c. San Luis Valley Household Wells Focus of EPA Safe Drinking Water Effort. 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/89745a330d4ef8b9852572a000651fe1/7a57668cb150dd4d8 

52572b900725c0d!OpenDocument. Site accessed September 13, 2007. 

_____. 1992. Workbook for Plume Visual Impact Screening and Analysis (Revised) (EPA-450/4-92-023,

October 1992. 154p. 

_____. 1988. Regulatory Determination for Oil and Gas and Geothermal Exploration, Development and 

Production Wastes 53 Federal Register 25447, July 6, 1988. 

_____. 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare 

with an Adequate Margin of Safety,‖ EPA/ONAC 550/9-74-004, March, 1974. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007a. Service Manual, 612 FW, Oil and Gas. Available at website 

http://www.fws.gov/policy/612fw2.html. Site updated July 27, 2007. Site accessed August 21, 2008.

_____. 2007b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the 

Gunnison’s Prairie Dog as Threatened or Endangered. Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 166 / Tuesday,

August 28, 2007. 
182

_____. 2007c. Southwestern willow flycatcher. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/life_histories/B094.html. Site accessed 

August 24, 2007. 

_____. 2007d. Response to Request for Information Letter from S. Linner, Colorado Field Supervisor, Service 

to J. Clark, Clark Mining Services, LLC, Lakewood, Colorado. July 18, 2007. 

_____. 2006a. Service Manual 603 FW 1, Appropriate Refuge Uses. http://fws.gov/policy/603fw1.html Site 

updated July 26, 2006. Site accessed December 21, 2010. 

_____. 2006b. Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Review: Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company San Joaquin Valley Operations and Maintenance Program, Habitat Conservation Plan. 

_____. 2005. Conceptual Management Plan Baca National Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Lakewood, Colorado. 55 p. 

_____. 2000. Service Manual, 603 FW 2, Compatibility. http://www.fws.gov/policy/603fws.html Site updated 

November 17,, 2000. Site accessed December 21, 2010. 

_____. 1995a. Endangered and Threatened Species: Southwestern Willow Flycatcher; Final Rule, Federal 

Register/Vol. 60, No. 38/Monday, February 27, 1995. 

_____. 1995b. Service Manual, 701 FW 2, Inventory and Monitoring of Populations. 

http://www.fws.gov/policy/701fw2.html Site updated October 6, 1995. Site accessed January 2, 2011. 

_____. 1990. National Wetlands Inventory mapping Classification System. 

Service Mountain-Prairie Region. 2007. Endangered Species-Colorado. 

http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/endspp/CountyLists/COLORADO.htm. Site accessed August 17, 

2007. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Lexam Explorations. 2007. Draft Negotiated Operating Plan for Conducting 

Hydrocarbon Exploration and Development Activities on the Baca National Wildlife Refuge. March 2007. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2010. USGS Water-data site information for Colorado. 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/co/nwis/si Site accessed January 1, 2011. 

U.S. General Accounting Office. 2003. National Wildlife Refuges: Opportunities to improve the management and 

oversight of oil and gas activities on federal lands. GAO-03-517.

Ward, A. L. 1976. Elk Behavior in Relation to Timber Harvest Operations and Traffic on the Medicine Bow 

Range in South-central Wyoming. In Proceedings Elk-logging-roads Symposium, ed. S.R. Hieb. 

Pp. 32-43. Moscow, University of Idaho. 142 pp. 

Watkins, T., J. Belcher, R. Gries, and M. Longacre. 1995. The Surprising Discovery of Oil and Mesozoic 

Sediments in the San Luis Basin, Saguache County, Colorado (abstract). Colorado Scientific Society 

website http://www.coloscisoc.org/abstracts/abstracts95.html. Site accessed September 30, 2007. 

Watts, Griffis, and McOuat Limited Consulting. 2006. A Summary Review Including a Work Plan and Budget 

Proposal to Test Oil and Gas Prospects on the San Luis Basin Property, Colorado, USA, for Lexam 

Explorations, Inc. http://www.lexamexplorations.com/reports/Lexam_summary_report_june_2006.pdf

Site accessed December 16, 2010. 

Western Regional Air Partnership. 2008. Draft White Paper, Revised 8-Hr Ozone NAAQS & Implications for 

the Western States, prepared by ENVIRON International Corporation, July 16, 2008. 

Western Regional Climate Center. 2010. Great Sand Dunes N M, Colorado (053541), Period of Record Climate 
183

Summary. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?co3541. Site accessed October 13, 2010. 

_____. 2009. Climate Narratives of the States. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/CLIMATEDATA.html. Site accessed May 

7, 2009. 

Woodling, J. 1985. Colorado’s Little Fish: A Guide to the Minnows and Other Lesser Known Fishes in the

State of Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado. 77 pp. 
184

Appendix A 

Service Manual, Land Use Series, 612 FW 2, Oil and Gas 
185

612 FW 2, Oil and Gas

FWM#: 107 (new) 

Date: Oil and Gas 

Series: Natural and Cultural Resources Management 

Part 612: Minerals Management 

Originating Office: Division of Realty

2.1 Purpose. This chapter provides standard policy guidance and background information on 

management of oil and gas activities on Service lands. 

2.2 Scope. This chapter provides the basic information regarding the statutes, regulations, and 

procedures relating to all oil and gas activities conducted on Service lands. 

2.3 Policy. The policy of the Service is governed by authorities for leasing oil and gas on Federal lands 

as found in the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of August 7, 1947, as amended; for public 

domain lands, the Mineral Leasing Act of February 25, 1920, as amended; and in Alaska, Section 1008 

of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3148). Leasing is at the discretion of 

the Secretary of the Interior who has delegated the Bureau of Land Management authority to administer 

the laws, but has by regulation restricted oil and gas leasing on lands of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System to those involving drainage (43 CFR 3101.5-1 and 3100.2). 

In conformance with the policy set forth in 50 CFR 27 (National Wildlife Refuge System), 50 CFR 60.3 

(Patuxent Wildlife Research Center), and 50 CFR 70.4 (National Fish Hatcheries), the Service usually 

recommends against leasing when the Bureau of Land Management asks for comments. 

In the case of non-federally owned oil and gas rights, it is the policy of the Service to protect project 

resources to the maximum extent possible without infringing upon the rights of sub-surface owners. 

2.4 Objectives. The objectives of oil and gas management on Service lands are to: 

A. Protect wildlife populations, habitats, and other resources. 

B. Provide for the exercise of non-federal oil and gas rights while protecting Service resources to the 

maximum extent possible. 
186

2.5 Authorities.

A. National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. This Act established the standard of 

"compatibility" which requires that uses of National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) lands must be 

determined to be compatible with the purposes for which individual units were established. (See 16 

U.S.C. 668dd-668ee, as amended). 

B. Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA). This act includes 

provisions for resource assessments and oil and gas leasing on Federal lands in Alaska. (See 16 U.S.C. 

3101 et seq.). 

(1) Section 304 sets forth the requirement for completion of Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCP) 

to determine compatibility for oil and gas activities. 

(2) Section 1002 authorizes an inventory and assessment of the fish and wildlife resources of the coastal 

plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It authorizes an analysis of the impacts of oil and gas 

exploration, development, and production, and exploratory activity within the coastal plain in a manner 

that avoids significant adverse impacts on fish and wildlife and other resources. In addition, this section 

provides that all public lands within the coastal plain are withdrawn from all forms of entry or 

appropriation under the mining laws, and from operation of the mineral leasing laws, of the United 

States. 

(3) Section 1003 prohibits the leasing of oil and gas within the boundaries of the Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge until authorized by a further act of Congress. 

(4) Section 1008 authorizes oil and gas leasing on Federal lands in Alaska. Oil and gas activities 

(including leasing) may be prohibited when so designated by the law or by the Secretary of the Interior. 

The Secretary may, after having considered the national interest, determine that exploration, 

development, or production of oil and gas would be incompatible with the purpose for which the unit 

was established. 

(5) Section 1310 provides for mission purposes of the Department of Defense and other agencies with 

prior withdrawals on existing or new refuges in Alaska. Except for the mission of the Department of 

Defense, ANILCA mandated refuge withdrawals primary for all Alaska refuges. No leasing can be 

allowed unless the Service determines that such leasing would be compatible with the purposes for 

which the areas were established (43 CFR 3101.5-1 and .5-3). 

C. Mineral Leasing Acts.

(1) The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) authorizes the leasing of oil and gas on 

Service lands withdrawn from the public domain. This Act provides for the disposition of all money 

received from leasing activity to be paid into the Treasury. Revenues derived from leases outside of 

Alaska are distributed as follows: 50 percent, State of origin; 40 percent, Reclamation Fund; and 10 

percent deposited in the General Fund. 
187

(2) The Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947 (30 U.S.C. 351 et seq.) authorizes the leasing 

of oil and gas on Service lands which were acquired by the United States. All funds derived from a 

leasing activity on acquired lands are paid into the Treasury to be distributed under the provisions of the 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (16 U.S.C. 715s.) 

(3) Almost all Service lands are subject to one or both of these mineral leasing laws. 

D. Other Laws Relating to Oil and Gas Activity on NWRS Lands. 

(1) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) Refer to 550 FW, National 

Environmental Policy Act. 

(2) Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979. (16 U.S.C. 470aa-470ee). Refer to 614 FW, 

Cultural Resources Management. 

(3) Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929. (16 U.S.C. 715 et seq). Section 715e provides statutory 

authority for regulation of reserved mineral rights on refuge lands (it subordinates oil and gas interests to 

such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary from time to time.) 

(4) Endangered Species Act of 1973. (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) as amended. 

(5) Wilderness Act of 1964. (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). 

E. Regulations. 

(1) Oil and Gas Leasing on NWRS Lands (43 CFR 3101.5.) This regulation established guidelines 

covering oil and gas leasing on NWRS lands. 

(2) Mineral Operations on NWRS Lands (50 CFR 29.32.) This regulation sets forth general rules 

governing the exercise of reserved and excepted mineral rights on NWRS lands. 

(3) Geological and Geophysical Exploration of the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge, Alaska (50 CFR Part 37.) This regulation establishes guidelines governing geological and 

geophysical exploration for oil and gas within the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 

2.6 Definitions. 

A. Abandonment. To cease production of oil and gas from a well when it becomes unprofitable, 

including but not limited to plugging. 

B. Development. The construction of all necessary facilities for collection, treatment, storage, and 

transportation of oil and gas. 

C. Drainage. A process in which petroleum resources in a geologic formation in land controlled by, in 

this case the Service, are depleted by the extraction of petroleum from the same formation by an 

operation located on adjacent land of another owner. 
188

D. Excepted Rights. Oil and gas rights outstanding in third parties when the United States (Service) 

acquires title to the lands. 

The owner of excepted (outstanding) oil and gas rights has the right to sell, lease, explore for, and 

remove those minerals subject to the terms of the instrument by which that interest was acquired or 

reserved and to the State laws governing protection of the surface and the rights of the surface owner. 

The project leader is responsible for obtaining proof of legal right to enter for oil and gas operations, 

(deed, lease agreement, title evidence, etc.). Close cooperation with the operator is necessary to 

minimize disturbance and damage to the Project Area. Conditions found during inspections should be 

documented. (See 612 FW 2.9(B).) 

E. Exploration. Geological exploration or geophysical exploration or both, and all related activities and 

logistics associated with either or both. 

F. Production. Operation, maintenance, and termination of yielding oil and gas wells and related 

support facilities. 

G. Reserved Rights. A clause in a conveyance, such as a deed, where the seller or grantor retains oil 

and gas rights on the property sold to the United States on behalf of the Service. 

The owner of oil and gas rights reserved, when selling land to the United States, has the right to sell, 

lease, explore for, and remove those minerals in accordance with the conditions in the deed to the United 

States and with pertinent State laws. Close cooperation with the operator is necessary to minimize 

disturbance and damage to the Project Area. Conditions found during inspections should be 

documented. (See 612 FW 2.9(B).) 

2.7 Responsibilities.

A. The Director provides national policy guidance on procedures governing all uses of Service lands, 

including oil and gas activity. 

B. Regional Directors. 

(1) Review determinations of project leaders in appeals filed in accordance with 50 CFR 25.45 (refuge 

permits). 

(2) Ensure that project leaders adhere to law and policy when making decisions concerning oil and gas 

activities. 

C. Project Leaders. 

(1) Administer all oil and gas activities. 

(2) Comply with all applicable laws, policies, and guidance when administering oil and gas activities. 

(3) Protect Service lands against all unnecessary damage resulting from oil and gas activities. 
189

(4) Where reserved or excepted mineral rights exist, the project leader is responsible for ensuring that 

his/her actions do not result in an illegal taking of private property. 

2.8 Regulations and Policies Relating to Oil and Gas Activities on NWRS Lands. 

A. NWRS Lands Outside of Alaska. 

(1) Public Domain and Acquired Lands Within a Withdrawal Boundary. Federally-owned oil and 

gas rights on NWRS lands embraced in the withdrawal of public domain and acquired lands of the 

United States are not available for leasing (43 CFR 3101.5-1) except where drainage occurs (43 CFR 

3100.2). In a decision by the Interior Board of Land Appeals (57 IBLA 319) in 1981, it was determined 

that the prohibition against oil and gas leasing on "refuge lands" did not include lands acquired from 

other sources. (On January 31, 1984, Congress was informed that the Department had no plans to pursue 

leasing of non-Alaska refuge lands.) Some forms of exploration may be permitted on these lands subject 

to Regional direction. If so permitted, the applicant seeking exploration privileges must justify the need. 

Reserved or excepted rights may exist within the embrace of this type of withdrawal on acquired 

sections. When this situation occurs, the persons holding those privileges have the full right to develop 

their minerals subject to provisions for maximum protection of wildlife and other resources. 

(2) Acquired Lands. Acquired lands are open to oil and gas leasing under the Mineral Leasing Act for 

Acquired Lands of 1947, but units of the National Wildlife Refuge System are closed under 

Departmental policy. Exploration of federally-owned minerals on these lands is also subject to Regional 

direction and justification. Reserved and excepted rights on acquired lands are subject to the same 

provisions as public domain. 

(3) Coordination Lands. Coordination lands, which are withdrawn or acquired lands made available to 

States by cooperative agreement, may be made available for oil and gas leasing under Departmental 

regulations. Representatives of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Service, in cooperation 

with State game commissions, determine by agreement which coordination lands are not closed to oil 

and gas leasing (43 CFR 3101.5-2). Regardless of whether an agreement is reached on leasing, some 

forms of exploration may be permitted. Exploration may occur in accordance with Regional mandates, 

justification of need by the applicant, and consultation with the applicable State game commission. The 

exercise of reserved or excepted rights on coordination lands is the same as described in public domain 

and acquired lands. 

B. NWRS Lands in Alaska. Refuges in Alaska, other than the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, may be 

open to oil and gas leasing if such use is found to be compatible with the purpose for which they were 

established. The determination of compatibility is fulfilled through the development of refuge 

comprehensive conservation plans. Exploration of NWRS lands in Alaska is also permitted when 

compatible. Reserved and excepted rights occurring on refuge lands are administered in the same 

manner as those described in NWRS lands outside of Alaska. 

C. Drainage. If drainage of NWRS lands is suspected, the project leader should consult with the Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) to determine whether drainage is actually occurring. If drainage from oil 

and gas wells drilled on adjacent lands is confirmed, those affected NWRS lands may be leased under 

exceptions for drainage described in Departmental regulations and policies (43 CFR 3001.2). In such 
190

situations, leases should stipulate "no surface occupancy" (directional drilling) where possible. 

Alternatively, an authorized officer and the BLM may execute agreements with the mineral right owners 

of adjacent lands providing compensation for losses incurred in drainage. 

2.9 Procedural Requirements for Permitting Oil and Gas Activities.

A. Plan of Operations. Operational plans detailing oil and gas activities will be required for federallyowned rights and requested on reserved and excepted rights. The proposed plan of operations shall 

include, as appropriate, the following: 

(1) Names, addresses, and phone numbers of owner(s) and operator. 

(2) Proof of mineral rights in the form of a copy of the lease, deed, designation of operator, or 

assignment of rights. 

(3) Map(s) showing the location of mineral rights. 

(4) Maps showing the location of proposed activity and facilities. 

(5) Estimated timetable for completion and periods of activity. 

(6) Description of potential hazards to persons and/or environment. 

(7) Methods for disposal of all waste including drilling mud. 

(8) Provisions for rehabilitation. 

(9) Any additional information required by the project leader for evaluation of the operation. 

The proposed plan of operations is submitted to the project leader for review. Within 30 days of the 

receipt of the plan, the project leader will notify the operator of approval or rejection. If rejected, he/she 

will describe the reason for the rejection and recommend any corrective action if applicable. 

B. Managing Private Rights. The mineral holder has a responsibility to show reasonable regard for the 

surface estate as required by State law. Project leaders should adhere to the following guidelines in 

managing private mineral activities on Service lands: 

(1) On Service lands where mineral activity is occurring or anticipated, the deed should be examined to 

determine whether the Service's right to require a Special Use Permit was recognized. If recognized, a 

permit will be required. Such other rules and regulations as may be specifically set out in a given deed 

will also be strictly enforced. A permit will not be mandatory in other instances. A deed restriction 

recognized in 16 U.S.C. 715e that subordinates oil and gas interests as may be prescribed by the 

Secretary from time to time may require a legal interpretation before a permit can be issued. Unusual 

deed language or other questions should be referred to Regional Realty staff and the Solicitor for review. 
191

(2) Where a deed does not recognize permitting authority, the project leader should seek to clarify the 

Service's power as a holder of the surface estate under State law. State statutes or case law may give 

powers beyond the usual common law rights of landowners. Moreover, when an intended use would 

severely impair or destroy the surface interest, and is a use the Service would not have foreseen at the 

time of purchase, it may be outside the mineral owner's rights under the deed. 

(3) Absent a permitting requirement in the deed, the project leader should pursue voluntary permitting 

arrangements with the mineral interest owner to specify the reasonable limits of his/her intended 

operations. The mineral interest owner's inducement for entering into such an agreement is a degree of 

protection from later being found to have acted unreasonably and to possibly be subjected to civil or 

criminal liabilities. 

(4) If neither mandatory nor voluntary permitting is possible, the mineral owner should be given written 

notice of all reasonable alternatives which would minimize impacts of the activity. This will enable the 

project leader to establish, if necessary, that these less-damaging alternatives were disregarded without 

due consideration of the Service's interests as surface owner should damage occur. 

(5) When the owner of the mineral interest exceeds the boundaries of what is reasonably necessary to 

recover his/her minerals, or fails to take reasonable precautions to minimize the surface damage, the 

Service may take legal action for damages, secure an injunction, and where appropriate, seek criminal 

penalties. 

(6) The Service's authorities regarding taking of migratory birds or endangered species apply to mineral 

operators on Service lands. Civil or criminal sanctions should be sought when appropriate. 

(7) The key factors in successfully balancing the development of private mineral interests and the 

protection of wildlife and other resources on Service lands are early and frequent communication and 

cooperation between the Service and the mineral rights owner, and a commitment to reasonableness on 

the part of both parties. 

(8) Current Service policy does not allow the reservation of minerals other than oil and gas. Great care is 

to be taken to expressly state in the deed what restrictions will be placed on oil and gas reservations. The 

provisions should be designed to allow the Service the greatest flexibility possible in dealing with future 

unforeseen conditions. 

C. Performance Bond. A performance bond or certificate of insurance will be required for exploration, 

development, and production activities. If an operator possesses an existing State or national bond of 

sufficient coverage, a new bond may not be required. The project leader will determine the potential 

costs involved should it become necessary for the Service to pay for restoration of damaged areas. These 

costs will be fully covered by the performance bond or certificate of insurance. Documentation of the 

existence of the required bond or certificate and its coverage of the Service must be submitted to the 

project leader prior to issuance of a Special Use Permit. 

D. Cost Recovery. The Service has no legal authority to charge an owner for the right to develop 

outstanding or reserved oil and gas rights. However, charges can be assessed if other than reasonable 

surface damage occurs. Charges assessed for Special Use Permits should reflect administrative costs 
192

incurred in processing where federally owned oil and gas are involved (drainage). Additional charges 

may be assessed to cover costs incurred in monitoring these activities. 

2.10 Designing Permit/Lease Stipulations and Background Information. The diverse nature of 

Service projects does not allow for the complete standardization of stipulations and conditions to be 

imposed on oil and gas operations. Consequently, oil and gas activities must be managed on an 

individual unit basis, with protective stipulations developed in a site-specific manner. Generally, 

stipulations attached to the lease or Special Use Permit should include protection of air quality, soils, 

water, wildlife, wildlife habitat, and other Service resources. 

A. Leasing. Where leasing is permitted on Service lands, it will be coordinated with the BLM. 

Coordination with the BLM, which is responsible for issuing leases, allows the Service to provide input 

on necessary stipulations to be included in the lease agreement. 

B. Access. Regulations pertaining to access to Service lands are covered in 50 CFR Part 26. A Special 

Use Permit may be issued to persons requiring access to their oil and gas rights. Access should be 

restricted to a specified area in accordance with the provisions of the lease. 

C. Exploration. 

(1) Geological and Geophysical Surveys.

(a) Geological exploration is often utilized where the bedrock geology of an area is well exposed. When 

this condition occurs, it is often possible to predict oil and gas potential. This type of exploration is 

usually performed with little surface damage since heavy equipment is not required. Geophysical 

exploration may be used in conjunction with geological exploration. Three subsurface characteristics are 

usually measured by geophysical methods: gravitational field, magnetic field, and seismic 

characteristics. 

(b) Gravitational surveys detect variations in gravity caused by differences in the densities of various 

types of subsurface rock. This is usually done with small, portable instruments called gravimeters. This 

type of activity normally causes very little surface disturbance. 

(c) Magnetic surveys may be used alone or as a supplement to gravitational surveys. Magnetic surveys 

reveal upwarped geological structures (likely to yield oil and gas) because such structures show strong 

magnetic responses. This type of activity normally causes little surface disturbance. 

(d) Seismic surveys are the most commonly used geophysical methods and are reported to give the most 

reliable results. Seismic surveys gather subsurface geological information through the generation and 

receipt of impulses from an artificially generated shock wave. 

(e) Seismic methods are usually referred to by the method which is utilized to generate the shock wave. 

The thumper method involves dropping a steel slab weighing about 2.73 metric tons (three tons) to the 

ground several times along a predetermined line. The vibroseis method involves vehicles equipped with 

vibrator pads and recording devices. The pads are lowered to the ground and the vibrators triggered 

electronically from the recorder truck. The dinoseis method can be used with a variety of vehicles, 
193

however. Its shock wave producing device consists of a bell shaped chamber mounted underneath a 

vehicle. The seismic energy is imparted into the ground through the spark ignition of a propane and 

oxygen mixture confined in the chamber. 

(f) Explosives have been the most widely used way to generate seismic shock waves. Explosives are 

used in two different methods: subsurface and surface. In the subsurface method, 2.27 - 22.68 kilograms 

(5-50 pounds) of explosive charge are detonated at the bottom of a 7.62 - 60.96 meters (25-200 foot) 

drill hole. Drilling of holes may be accomplished by drill rigs mounted on trucks or portable drills 

depending on access and topography. Up to 1.82 meter (6 foot) craters may result from this method. The 

surface explosive method involves the placing of explosives directly on the ground. 

(g) Vehicular traffic associated with seismic surveys is potentially the most environmentally damaging 

aspect of seismic activities. Temporary disturbance to wildlife may be accompanied by habitat loss 

through changes in water, soil, and vegetative characteristics from heavy equipment damage. Use of 

ground vehicles may result in long term vegetation change and scenic impacts, where trees are clear cut 

along a straight compass line. This may be mitigated by requiring helicopter transport of the device 

producing the seismic wave or drilling equipment (when subsurface explosives are used). 

(2) Exploratory Drilling.

(a) When geological and geophysical surveys are favorable for oil and gas, exploratory drilling may be 

justified. There are basically two types of exploratory drilling: core drilling and wildcat tests. Core 

drilling involves drilling relatively shallow holes to supplement seismic data. The holes are usually 

34.48 to several hundred meters (100 to several thousand feet) deep. Wildcat tests involve drilling in 

unproven territory to provide information about whether the area actually contains oil and gas. Core 

drilling apparatus is readily helicopter transportable. 

(b) Typical drilling facilities consist of access road(s), drill pad, drill rig, mud pumps, mud pit, 

generators, pipe rack, and tool house. Other requirements include 4,730 to 14,191 liters (5,000 to 15,000 

gallons) of water a day for mixing drilling mud, cleaning equipment, cooling engines, et cetera. Mud pits 

should always be lined to prevent fluid loss, or portable containers should be utilized instead. Drill muds 

are used to lubricate the drill bit and remove cuttings. Muds are mixed on-site to match downhole 

physical properties. They may contain heavy metals and other hazardous materials. Cuttings may 

contain minerals which become contaminants when oxidized on the surface. 

(c) Most exploratory wells are drilled relatively straight and vertical. However, in a situation where the 

drill site cannot be situated directly over the subsurface drill target, directional drilling may be 

employed. There may be serious physical, economic, and technical constraints on the use of directional 

drilling. Directional drilling may, in certain instances, present the project leader with a viable alternative 

method for reconciling oil and gas activities with resource values. When federally owned oil and gas 

rights are the issue, the project leader may determine that directional drilling is the only method which 

protects Service resources adequately. In the case of reserved or excepted rights, it may be more difficult 

to stipulate that directional drilling would be required. In this case, the project leader may have to 

demonstrate that there is no alternative if Service resources are to be adequately protected. Where 

surface values would be destroyed by construction of access roads to exploratory sites, exploratory wells 
194

can be drilled by helicopter transportable rigs. In Alaska, temporary winter ice roads can provide access 

for the drill rig. 

D. Development.

(1) If an exploratory well becomes a discovery well; i.e., a well that yields commercial quantities of oil 

and gas, additional wells may be drilled to confirm the discovery, to establish the extent of the field, and 

to efficiently chart the reservoir. Spacing of wells drilled under Federal lease is usually a minimum of

16.19 hectares (40 acres) for oil and between 64.78 and 259.11 hectares (160 and 640 acres) for natural 

gas. Spacing of wells drilled in accordance with reserved or excepted rights would vary by State. 

(2) The project leader may decide to designate a temporary road system before a permanent system is 

decided upon. Permanent road systems may be determined after productive wells are identified and 

potential production ascertained. In addition to roads, other facilities required in development may 

include flowlines, storage tanks, separators, treaters, and injection wells. 

(3) Occasionally, developers of adjacent mineral rights may enter into agreement to "unitize" the field, 

which may involve private as well as Service lands. "Unitizing" involves the development and operation 

of a field as a unit, disregarding separate ownerships. Costs and benefits would be allocated according to 

agreed terms. 

(4) Usually, 10.26 to 15.38 centimeters (4-to-6-inch) diameter pipelines are used to transport the 

petroleum between the well, treating and separating facilities, and central collection points. These lines 

may be on the surface, buried, or elevated. Pipelines are usually buried because of flow problems in 

winter and mechanical damage that may occur on the surface. Two methods are used separately or in 

conjunction to transport oil out of a lease or unitized area: tanker trucks and pipelines. Oil may be 

transported by truck from small fields but pipelines are the most common method of transporting oil and 

gas. Oil and gas must be transported separately because of their different physical characteristics. 

E. Production.

(1) Production begins just after the discovery well is completed and is usually concurrent with 

development operations. Temporary facilities may be used at first, but as development proceeds and 

reservoir limits are determined, permanent facilities are installed. 

(2) Many wells require artificial lift to bring oil to the surface. Two methods of artificial lift are 

generally used: gas lift and pumping. Gas lift involves forcing high pressure gas down the drill hole. 

Fluid that is standing in the hole is displaced by mixing with gas and rises to the surface. Pumping is the 

main method of artificial lift with various types of pumps utilized. Pumps are usually powered by 

electric motors or internal combustion engines on the surface. Electric motors make less noise and 

require less maintenance but electric power is often not available. One commonly used type of artificial 

lift device is a rod pump which uses an electric motor (or internal combustion engine) to run a surface 

device ("pumping jack") that imparts an up-and-down motion to a string of steel rods (sucker rods) 

which in turn is connected to and operates the bottomhole pump. 
195

(3) Most gas wells produce by normal flow and do not require pumping. Surface use at a flowing gas 

well is usually limited to a fenced area 6.1 meters (20 feet) square containing a gas well "Christmas 

tree". On site facilities include those described under development. 

F. Abandonment and Rehabilitation. 

(1) The life spans of oil and gas fields vary with such factors as reserves; reservoir characteristics; nature 

of petroleum; subsurface geology; and political, economic, and environmental constraints. Dry wells and 

those that formerly produced are often plugged with cement, with the casing sometimes filled with 

heavy mud. After plugging, all related above-ground support facilities must be removed from the site. 

Removal of subsurface facilities, such as pipelines, is subject to State laws and project leader discretion. 

(2) Restoration stipulations will be incorporated into any permits issued, supplemented by detailed 

information on rehabilitation procedures in the operational plan. Depending on the site, drilling mud 

may be injected into the well and buried or hauled away in accordance with State law. All hazardous 

substances will be removed from the site and disposed of in an approved hazardous material dumping 

site. The permittee shall, unless otherwise directed by the project leader, restore access roads and sites to 

original surface contours and revegetate with appropriate native flora. 

2.11 Ensuring Compliance with Permit Conditions. To ensure that operations are carried out in a 

reasonable manner, resulting in no unnecessary adverse effects, the project leader shall initiate a written 

record of activities from initial contact through completion of the oil and gas activity. This file will 

generally contain records of conversations, correspondence, photos, evaluations, and test results (if 

required). This record serves an integral function in documenting violations should they occur. 

2.12 Coordination and Review. Oil and gas activities may require consultation with other agencies or 

offices by regulation or as a source of information. 

A. Service Offices (Regional Director, Realty, Ecological Services, Law Enforcement). The Regional 

Director is usually consulted on controversial issues or appeals. Realty is a source of information when 

the location or ownership of mineral rights is in question. Ecological Services must be consulted when 

section 404 permits, for dredged or fill material (33 U.S.C. 1344), are required due to wetland 

alterations. Ecological Services field offices may provide expert advice on oil and gas management 

plans, project design, and special use permit stipulations. Law Enforcement may be needed when there 

is a violation of a permit. 

B. Other Department Offices (Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 

Solicitor). Legal questions may be answered or clarified by the Solicitor's office. The BLM is 

responsible for the issuance of leases on federally owned oil and gas rights. The BLM and USGS may 

be helpful in designing stipulations or determining drainage. 

C. Other Agencies (Corps of Engineers, State agencies). The Corps of Engineers issues 404 permits 

protecting wetlands. A variety of State agencies may be helpful in the management of oil and gas 

activities on Service lands, particularly conservation and minerals management sections. 
196

2.13 Preparation of an Oil and Gas Management Plan. An oil and gas management plan is 

recommended on Service lands where oil and gas activity is projected or active. The format of such a 

plan should be in accordance with Regional guidelines. At a minimum, the plan should include the 

following: 

A. Current project maps (operational and topographic) and aerial photos. 

B. Mineral ownership information by tract. 

C. Names and telephone numbers of Federal, State, and local agencies or personnel overseeing oil and 

gas activities. 

D. Descriptions of project purposes and objectives. 

E. Descriptions of project populations, habitat and programs including identification of sensitive species 

and areas. 

F. A list of applicable regulations and policies (Federal, 

State, and project). 

G. Excerpts from deeds regarding mineral rights status. 

H. Descriptions of past, present, and proposed oil and gas activities on the unit. 

I. A list of suggested standard permit stipulations. 

J. Potential impacts and protective and corrective measures. 

2.14 Selected References and Sources of Information. The following list of references represents a 

small selection of source data which may be helpful in managing oil and gas activities on Service lands. 

The references may be especially useful in designing stipulations to protect resources. 

(A) A Primer of Oil Well Service and Workbook, p.106; Petroleum Extension Service, University of 

Texas, Austin, TX; 1979. 

(B) Controlled Directional Drilling, p.49; Petroleum Extension Service, University of Texas; Austin, 

TX; 1984. 

(C) Drilling, a Source Book on Oil and Gas Well Drilling from Exploration to Completion; J. A. 

Short/Pennwell Publishing Company; Tulsa, OK; 1983. 

(D) Drilling Mud, p.71; Petroleum Extension Service, University of Texas; Austin, TX; 1984. 

(E) Facts About Oil, p.44; American Petroleum Institute; Washington, DC; 1984. 
197

(F) Geophysics in Petroleum Exploration, p.24; American Petroleum Institute; Washington, DC. 

(G) Introduction to Oil and Gas Production, p.81; American Petroleum Institute; Washington, DC; 1983. 

(H) Managing Oil and Gas Activities in Coastal Environments, p.541; W.F. Longley, R. Jackson and B. 

Snyder/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, DC; 1981. Also see 

FWS/OBS - 78/54 Managing Oil and Gas Activities in Coastal Environments, p.66. 

(I) Natural Resources Protection and Petroleum Development in Alaska, p.305; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Biological Services Program, Washington, DC; FWS/OBS - 80/22; 1984. Also see FWS/OBS -

80/23 Handbook for Management of Oil and Gas Activities on lands in Alaska, p.64. 

(J) Oil and Gas Guide, Northern Region, Training Guide; US Department of Agriculture; US Forest 

Service, R-l; 1979. 

(K) Oil and Gas Use Characterization, Impacts, Guidelines, p.148; US Department of Commerce; 

Louisiana State University; Baton Rouge, LA; See Grant Publication No. LSU-J-76-006; 1976. 

(L) Pipeline Construction, p.123; M. Hosmanck/Petroleum Extension Service, University of Texas; 

Austin, TX; 1984. 

(M) Seismic Exploration Fundamentals, p.85; J.A. Coffeen/PennWell Publishing Company; Tulsa, OK; 

1978. 
198

Appendix B 

Lexam Explorations (U.S.A.) Inc. Proposed Terms and Conditions 
199

LEXAM EXPLORATIONS (U.S.A.) INC. 

CONDITIONS AND PROTECTIVE MEASURES RELATING TO LEXAM 

EXPLORATION (BACA WELL #5 AND BACA WELL #7) ON 

THE BACA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

United States Fish and Wildlife (“Service”) Terms and Conditions

To minimize and mitigate the potential impacts of its exploration program on the surface and subsurface 

resources of the Baca National Wildlife Refuge, Lexam Explorations (U.S.A.) Inc. (―Lexam‖ or the ―Operator‖) 

shall implement the following measures. These measures shall be equally applicable to Lexam’s employees, 

representatives, consultants, contractors and subcontractors. 

1) All vehicles and equipment from outside the Refuge will be decontaminated per Service procedures to prevent 

the introduction of noxious weeds to the Refuge. Decontamination will include removal of skid plates for 

inspection and cleaning if necessary. 

2) All ground-disturbing activities associated with drilling operations and setup will require on-site cultural resource 

monitoring which will be provided by Lexam. In addition, once timing of road and pad construction activities is 

determined, Service biologists will survey affected areas to document current wildlife activity and sensitivities to 

be addressed and/or avoided. 

3) Lexam will provide trained environmental monitors, approved by Service, who will continue to serve as liaisons 

between the Refuge Manager, construction contractor, and drill rig personnel and ensure that all operations are 

conducted in a manner that minimizes surface impacts. 

4) Impacts to sensitive habitat, wildlife, plants, other sensitive natural or historical resource features will be 

avoided to the extent possible while constructing the access road and well pads. 

5) All construction of roads and pads will occur in a way that best facilitates their subsequent complete removal 

and reclamation once Lexam activities have ceased at these sites. This includes separating and stockpiling 

topsoil layers on-site to be replaced during reclamation. All disturbed areas will be reclaimed per the requirements 

imposed by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (―COGCC‖) and with Service input. Only 

endemic plants and seed mixtures are to be used in reclamation. 

6) A baseline water quality study of the near-surface unconfined aquifer, deeper aquifers, and surface water in 

proximity to the proposed well locations will be conducted prior to drilling. In addition, at least three monitoring 

wells will be installed near each well pad to monitor potential spills or releases. 

7) Casings will be set with COGCC-approved cement to 3,000 feet below the surface which will fully protect the 

aquifers from contamination through communication in the borehole. 

8) A closed loop mud and drill cuttings system will be used to minimize impacts to surrounding habitats. In 

addition, drill cuttings will be isolated in an above-ground tank during drilling. Cuttings will be removed from the 

Refuge and disposed of off-site in accordance with state regulations. 

9) Drilling operations will be modified, as necessary, to reduce conflicts with regular Refuge management 

activities. 

10) A gate guard will be provided by Lexam, and approved by the Service, to document traffic entering and exiting 

the Refuge and to eliminate potential illegal entry onto the Refuge. 
200

11) Arrangements for additional Service law enforcement personnel will be made in the event it is deemed 

necessary to effectively enforce state, federal, Refuge, and wildlife laws and regulations during drilling activities. 

12) Construction and drilling activities will be conducted from August 1 through April 30 in order to avoid conflicts 

with wildlife and limit ground disturbance activities to periods of low precipitation to minimize impacts to soil. 

13) Well sites will be located as far from sensitive wet meadow wetlands as practicable. 

14) Drill pads will be fenced if necessary to prevent large ungulates from gaining access to 

the sites. 

15) To protect special status species such as the Rio Grande Sucker and Rio Grande 

Chub, Service and Lexam will: 

− Establish a 0.25-mile buffer zone of no activity around potential and identified habitat. 

− Limit vehicle crossings to existing or pre-approved crossings. 

− Sample waterways for particulate matter, creating a baseline and regular monitoring during period of 

activity. 

− Assess stability and suitability of road water crossings prior to road construction and drilling activities 

and perform upgrades, if needed. Conduct periodic monitoring of crossings during activities and 

documentation of any deficiencies that may occur that may be indicative of potential structural failure. 

− Provide dust suppression in the vicinity of waterway crossings. 

16) Pre- and post-drilling aerial photographs will be taken of the proposed drilling and road construction area. The 

photographs will be color and will provide complete coverage of the drilling and road construction area. The presurvey documentation shall be submitted within 10 days of initiation of the drilling, the post-survey documentation 

shall be submitted within 110 days of completion along with a digitized version of the pre-survey photographs. 

These photographs will become the property of the Refuge. 

17) The Operator shall provide detailed maps or plats to the Refuge Manager or his authorized representative of 

the proposed project layout, showing routes, staging areas, construction areas, and work locations. 

18) All materials brought into the Refuge to build up the location pad will be authorized by the Refuge Manager or 

his authorized representative. To minimize the spread of invasive species, no top soils will be brought in from off 

the Refuge. 

19) Summaries of all the results generated from the water quality sampling, cultural resource work and any other 

sampling or monitoring, including the results of Lexam’s exploratory drilling, will be provided to the Refuge 

Manager upon completion and summation. 

20) The Operator’s drilling activities will be restricted to the period of August 1 through April 30. Any field 

operations conducted during the Refuge's migratory bird closure period (May 1 through July 31) must be 

coordinated and authorized by the Refuge Manager or his authorized representative. Service will consider 

allowing Lexam to continue work in early May if allowing access is necessary to complete activities and 

such activities would not impact the Refuge and resources greater than what is anticipated in the EA. Rig up and 

rig down operations can only be conducted during daylight hours. Drilling operations will be conducted 24 hours 

per day. 

21) The Operator shall designate an onsite representative for field operations who shall be present during all 

phases of the Operator's operation and be the sole representative of the Operator and subcontractors regarding 

all communications and decisions of the Refuge Manager or his authorized representative. The Operator shall 
201

keep the Refuge Manager or his authorized representative informed if there is any change of designated 

representative for field operations. 

22) Refuge officials will conduct an on-site meeting before rig-up with representatives of the Operator, drilling 

contractor, subcontractors, suppliers and service companies. The purpose of the meeting is to go over regulations 

and such conditions that apply to work crew conduct on the Refuge. 

23) Prior to rig-up, an Emergency Preparedness Plan covering exploratory drilling, well control, materials hauling, 

spill response, and fire evacuation, will be provided to the Refuge Manager and discussed in a pre-operation 

meeting to be held with local governments. The plan shall contain a telephone list naming key contacts for 

emergency operations and activation. 

24) The Operator will upgrade and maintain all access routes, roads and bridges designated for its use across the 

Refuge in accordance with acceptable specifications and standards. The Operator shall have road maintenance 

equipment and operator(s) readily available to perform road repairs and maintenance as needed, or as directed 

by the Refuge Manager or his authorized representative. 

25) Dust levels on regularly traveled access routes must be kept to a minimum. The Operator shall have a water 

truck and operator(s) readily available to perform dust abatement as needed, or as directed by the Refuge 

Manager or his authorized representative. Only water will be allowed for dust suppression efforts. Dust control 

measures shall be implemented throughout the traveled areas of the Project Area in addition to the dust 

abatement requirement in measure #15. 

26) The drill site and immediate access roads shall be constructed of Refuge approved material for all drilling 

locations. Drill pads may not exceed 90,000 square feet in area. All existing drainage patterns within roads to be 

constructed shall be maintained uninterrupted by the use of culverts, bridges or other applicable techniques as 

specified and authorized by the Refuge Manager or his authorized representative. 

27) The soils at the location site will be tested using approved standards to determine levels of heavy metals, 

chemical pollutant, and other contaminants, prior to rig-up operations. Duplicate tests will be conducted before 

completion or at abandonment. If the exit test reveals levels above the background established by pre-drilling test, 

cleanup will be required. The most practical method of clean up is soil removal. Any quantity of soil removed will 

be replaced to the original contours. 

28) Upon completion of drilling operations, the Refuge Manager or his authorized representative must be advised 

within 120 days whether the well is to be retained or plugged. If the well site is to be abandoned, the well is to be 

plugged according to state law, all above ground structures removed and the site and road restored as directed 

by the Refuge Manager or his authorized representative. Any damage to existing surface vegetation, water 

channels, or other physical features shall be restored to original site conditions. All costs shall be born by the 

Operator. 

29) Pits, ponds and/or open tanks are prohibited. Portable tanks must be used in circulating operations for the 

temporary storage of all drilling fluids, cuttings, mud, and contaminants. All drilling fluids, cuttings, mud, 

contaminants, portable tanks, and other equipment must be transported off Refuge to a state approved facility 

upon cessation of drilling activity. It is highly recommended that an auger tank be used for transferring drill 

cuttings and sand to a vehicle for off Refuge transport. 

30) All toxic construction and equipment supplies and refuse (oil, grease, gasoline, diesel, paint, and other 

petrochemical derivatives) shall be centrally stored. Wastes shall be disposed off Refuge immediately following 

completion of drilling operations. In the event of an accidental spill or discharge of oil, brine, or any other 

petrochemical substance, the Operator shall immediately notify the Refuge Manager or his authorized 

representative. The Operator shall remove contaminated soils for proper disposal off Refuge, and replace such 

soils with the same type soils or of a type specified and approved by the Refuge Manager or his authorized 

representative. A site reclamation plan may be required by the Refuge Manager or his authorized representative. 
202

31) Catch pans or other liner systems approved by the Refuge Manager are required for equipment and locations 

such as mud pumps, bulk mud additive tanks, fuel tanks, mixing shed, generators, accumulator and lines, and 

under the entire rig floor. The catch pans will cover the entire surface area under the equipment. The rig floor 

catch pan will be tied to allow for wash down and mud drainage from drill pipe. The catch pans will be kept free 

and clean from accumulated debris and spill materials. 

32) The Operator will be responsible for providing all water needed for drilling operations. No waste water will be 

discharged onto Refuge lands, ditches, or water bodies. The operator will provide a containerized or temporary 

septic system for domestic sewage disposal during drilling operations, which shall be removed upon completion of 

drilling. Use of portable toilets at drill site or the installation of a septic system, or similar treatment system or 

tanks will be required for any trailer or quarters on site. No surface discharge of septic system or portable toilet 

water is permitted. Septic tanks must be inspected weekly during operations and pumped as necessary. Upon 

completion of operations, the septic tanks must be pumped out and all material hauled away. 

33) All disposable type materials and trash brought onto the Refuge or generated at the drill site shall be removed 

from the Refuge on a biweekly basis and upon completion of the drilling activities. The drill site and operational 

area shall be kept free of debris and trash at all times. Trash shall be contained securely at the drill site in such a 

manner (fully enclosed trash cages) as to prevent trash from being spread by wind or wildlife. No trash may be 

disposed of or buried on the Refuge. 

34) General Refuge access conditions : 

− Access is to allow Lexam and/or its contractors access to portions of the Refuge or the purpose of 

carrying out drilling of oil and gas exploration wells Baca #5 and Baca #6 or Baca #5 and Baca #7 (either 

#6 or #7 would be drilled, but not both). 

− The Refuge Manager is the coordinating official having immediate jurisdiction and administrative 

responsibility for oil and gas operations on the Baca National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) lands and 

property, all entry upon the Refuge must be coordinated with the Refuge Manager or his authorized 

representative The Refuge Manager must be advised at least 48 hours in advance of initial activity. 

− The failure of the United States to require strict performance of the terms, conditions, covenants, 

agreements, or stipulations of this permit for access to conduct exploration activities on national wildlife 

Refuge lands, shall not constitute a waiver or relinquishment of the right of the United States to strictly 

enforce thereafter such terms, conditions, covenants, agreements, or stipulations which shall, at all times, 

continue in full force and effect. 

− Lexam and/or its contractors shall save, hold harmless, defend, and indemnify the United States , its 

agents and employees for loss, damages, or judgments and expenses on account of bodily injury, death 

or property damage, or claims for bodily injury, death or property damage of any nature whatsoever, and 

by whomever made, arising out of the Operator, his employees, subcontractors or agents with respect to 

the exploration of any and all mineral rights within the lands administered by the Refuge. 

− All applicable federal and state regulations apply and will be in force. Operator shall be responsible for 

the actions of all exploration and support personnel. Violations of applicable laws or regulations will 

subject the operator and/or his employees to prosecution under state and/or federal laws. Individuals 

utilizing the Refuge under the Operator's authorization are subject to inspections of vehicles and their 

contents by federal and state law enforcement officers. 

− Proof of general liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 must be furnished to repair/mitigate any 

damages. This does not limit the liability for damages to this amount. 

− Operators will act in a manner that is respectful of Refuge habitats, wildlife, and property. Gates are to 

be locked or unlocked as they are found. 
203

− All vehicle access will be restricted to developed roads and two-tracks. All terrain vehicle use and 

deviations to vehicle use must be pre-approved by the Refuge Manager in writing prior to any action 

taken. 

− Vehicle speed limits will be set at the discretion of Refuge Manager and limits will be strictly adhered to. 

− No pets will be allowed on the Refuge. 

− Possession of firearms, alcoholic beverages or drugs is strictly prohibited on the Refuge. 

− Fires are strictly prohibited in any areas of the Refuge. 

− Operators are not to be considered agents of the Service and are not to represent the Service in any 

matters. 

− Operators will perform all work in accordance with the highest standards of the industry and to the 

satisfaction of the Service. 

− Operators will perform all work in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations and will obtain all 

necessary permits or licenses when required to do so. 

− All personnel and activities shall be restricted to the immediate drilling area and the direct access road 

to the drill site. 

− Feeding wildlife species is prohibited. Molesting or destroying the home or dens of wildlife is prohibited. 

If dens are found during the normal course of operations, distinctive flagging will be used to alert all 

personnel of the den location. Adverse impacts on fish, wildlife and the environment shall be kept to an 

absolute minimum. All road kills will be reported to the Refuge Manager or his authorized 

representative. 

− Littering is prohibited. All cans, bottles, lunch papers, and operations trash must be removed. Cigarette 

butts are considered litter. All vehicles will be equipped with a container to carry out trash. 

− All necessary permits, contacts and clearances must be completed or obtained by Lexam prior to the 

start of the activity. 

− No overnight quarters will be permitted on the Refuge unless authorized by Refuge Manager. 

35) Implement the recommendations contained in the report entitled ―Existing Conditions Report for a Portion of 

the Lexam Road, Saguache County, Colorado,‖ prepared by Russell Surveyors and Associates, Inc., March 30, 

2008, with input from the Service. 

36) Implement the recommendations that were the basis for the air quality report analysis set forth in the ―Lexam 

Baca Drilling Project Visibility Impact Evaluation,‖ Air Sciences Inc., April 30, 2008: (a) power generators will be 

Tier 2 engines; (b) diesel fuel used in generators and all other non-road engines will be ultra-low-sulfur (less than 

0.05 percent sulfur); and (c) disturbed areas will be watered to control the fugitive dust. 

37) Upon CDOW recommendation, Lexam has agreed, that in the event of a severe winter, to assisting the 

CDOW with managing for the needs of any wintering big game temporarily displaced by Lexam’s activities within 

the designated areas, especially if the temporary displacement results in the potential for a decline in overall 

physiological health of the animals or in increased game damage claims by private landowners. This assistance 

could occur as a Lexam funded baiting program, feeding program or other form of distribution management as 

determined appropriate by CDOW within the severe winter range area. 

If Lexam discontinues or fails to perform any of the preceding terms and conditions, and 

the Refuge Manager believes such failure will lead to unreasonable damages to Refuge 
204

resources, the Service may assess penalties pursuant to 50 C.F.R. Part 28 and may 

require Lexam to cease exploration activities until the risk of damage to Refuge resources 

has been removed or mitigated in the sole discretion of the Service. 

Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (“COGCC”) Terms and Conditions

The following are the terms and conditions are imposed by the COGCC in Permit No. 2006A069 (Baca Well #5), 

Permit No. 2006A070 (Baca Well #6) and that certain Sundry Notice changing the location of Well #6, dated April 

30, 2008, and Permit No. 20075486 (Baca #7). Terms and conditions Nos. 19 and 20 were added to the Baca #7 

permit and apply to Baca #5 and #6 as well. Certain of the COGCC terms and conditions are duplicative of terms 

and conditions imposed by the Service and described above. 

1) Notify David Shelton - COGCC Engineering Supervisor (303-894-2100 x 108) or David Dillon - COGCC 

Engineering Manager (303-894-2100 x 104) 48 hours prior to moving onto the location with drilling equipment. 

Advise Mr. Shelton or Mr. Dillon at least 24 hours prior to running any casing string to provide COGCC 

Field Inspectors sufficient notification time to witness cementing operations and pressure testing of blowout 

preventers. If the well is a dry hole, notify Mr. Shelton or Mr. Dillon 24 hours prior to plugging and abandoning this 

well. 

2) Any changes to the approved drilling plan and procedures must be approved in writing by the COGCC. 

3) Immediately notify the COGCC of any major problems encountered during the drilling, cementing, or 

completion process. 

4) Conductor casing and surface casing will be cemented to surface. 

5) Surface casing depth will be set at a depth of 3000 feet. This depth was determined by COGCC staff based 

upon review of available relevant data, including data from the deep water well located approximately one mile 

from the drill sites, and after consultation with the Division of Water Resources staff. 

6) Prior to commencing operations, an inventory of all chemicals and products that will be used or stored on site 

must be provided to the COGCC, the surface owner, and local emergency response personnel prior to bringing 

those substances on to the Baca National Wildlife Refuge. If additional chemicals or products are required, then 

information about these substances must be provided to the COGCC, the surface owner, and the local 

emergency response personnel prior to bringing them on to the Baca National Wildlife Refuge. 

7) Prior to commencing operations, a meeting with the local emergency response personnel will be held to 

establish an adequate safety and response plan for drilling, completion, and production activities. 

8) A closed loop mud and cutting system will be used and cuttings will be placed in an above ground and lined 

enclosure, unless landowner approval to use an alternative mud and cutting system is obtained in writing. 

9) The drill cuttings will not be left at or buried on the drill site or elsewhere on the Baca National Wildlife Refuge, 

unless landowner approval is obtained in writing. Cuttings will be disposed in accordance with COGCC Rule 907. 

10) Formation temperatures will be recorded and the data provided to the COGCC and the surface owner. 

11) If pumping tests are conducted on discrete zones below deepest neighboring water well (2,180 feet below 

surface), then water samples will be collected for basic water quality tests, including TDS, dissolved metals, 

common anions, pH and alkalinity. The analytical results will be provided to the COGCC and the surface owner. 

12) If production casing is run, then all hydrocarbon and water bearing formations must be covered with cement 

and a cement bond log must be run to verify coverage. Cementing requirements will be determined by COGCC 

staff from open-hole logs and other well information obtained during the drilling of the well. 
205

13) If the well is plugged as a dry hole, then the COGCC must be contacted for plugging instructions, which will 

be based on log and geologic data, and the actual wellbore configuration. Cement plugs will be set to confine all 

fluids to the reservoirs in which they originally occurred. The plugging procedure will assure that all aquifers are 

properly isolated and protected. 

 

14) A guard, provided by Lexam, shall be stationed at the property gate on County Road T during all drilling and 

completion activities. The guard will limit access to the property to Lexam employees, Lexam contractors, and 

other authorized personnel. 

15) Baseline water quality data will be acquired from both near surface (unconfined aquifer) and deeper aquifers 

in proximity to proposed wells prior to the spud of the wells and again within six months after the wells are 

completed and/or plugged. Sampling and analysis procedures must be approved by the COGCC staff prior to 

conducting this work. Data will be provided to the COGCC and the surface owner. Data will used to assess any 

possible long-term effects on groundwater quality. 

16) A minimum of one up-gradient and two down-gradient monitoring wells will be installed around each drill pad. 

The wells will be completed in the shallow unconfined aquifer. The locations and elevations of the wells will be 

surveyed and depth to water will be measured. Water samples will be collected for chemical analysis before the 

wells are spud and at predetermined intervals thereafter, which will agreed to by the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service) and Lexam. If spills or releases of drilling related chemicals at sites occur, then the 

sampling frequency may be increased to a frequency agreed to by the Service, Baca Grande Water and 

Sanitation District, and Lexam. 

17) Equipment and vehicles brought onto the Baca National Wildlife Refuge from outside the San Luis Valley 

must be cleaned and decontaminated to minimize introduction of non-native species and noxious weeds. 

18) Lexam will insure that all drilling and completion operations will be supervised by a WellCAP IADC certified 

supervisor. All blow prevention equipment shall be rated for 5000 psi and will be installed and tested in 

accordance with U.S. Bureau of Land Management Onshore Order #1. 

19) Approval of the APD is limited to drilling and completion operations and permission shall be obtained from the 

Director of the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission prior to commencing production from the Baca Wells #5, 

#6, or #7. 

20) Any conditions related to protection of public health, safety, welfare and the environment that are developed 

as a result of the federal Environmental Assessment process and that are under the jurisdiction of the Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission shall be applied to the drilling and completion operations of the Baca Wells #5, #6, or 

#7.

Saguache County Agreement Terms and Conditions 

The following terms and conditions are summarized from that certain ―Agreement between Saguache County and 

Lexam Explorations (U.S.A.) Inc. Related to Drilling and Exploration Activities,‖ dated April 17, 2007.

1) The County will provide certain signage, at specified locations, as may be agreed to by Lexam and the County 

and that Lexam will pay the County Road and Bridge Department the sum of a minimum of $100.00 for that 

signage. 

2) Lexam, to comply with the County road weight limitations, will weigh each truck that it owns, contracts for, or 

controls and uses for its activities within the County, and that will use any road in the County road system. 

3) Lexam or its contractors will provide a copy of the weight ticket for each vehicle used or participating in its 

activities within the County, for each trip that the subject vehicle makes on the County road system, to the 

County’s Road and Bridge Department.
206

4) Lexam agrees to pay to the County the sum of $4.29 for each ton of weight that the vehicles subject to this 

Agreement exceed the County road weight limit of 54,000 pounds. 

5) Lexam agrees to purchase a County Road Access Permit for accessing Saguache County Roads, from the 

Saguache County Road & Bridge Department, at the same cost charged by the County to other, similar users of 

County roads. 

6) All sums payable under the Agreement will be paid to the County on a monthly basis. 

7) In order to minimize the cost and effort involved in disposing of cuttings from the drill sites and to minimize the 

impact that the drilling activities may have on Saguache County, Lexam agrees that it will voluntarily test the 

―cuttings‖ which arise from the drilling of any exploration well or other exploration activities within the County of 

Saguache. Such testing shall be limited to those cuttings that visually exhibit substances other than dirt and rocks 

and for which Lexam proposes to permanently dispose in the County. These tests will be in addition to, or 

concurrent with, any other testing which may be required by Federal or State authority. The purpose of this testing 

is to determine if the cuttings can be safely used as wellsite cover and/or road base materials, as well as to assist 

in determining if any special precautions are required for the permanent disposal of the cuttings. The testing will 

include: 

• Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH);

• Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR);

• Heavy metal concentrations;

• pH level;

• Conductivity.

Lexam agrees that it will provide a report of the above tests and all other tests performed on the cuttings and 

fluids produced results from the drilling operation, as required by Federal or State agencies, to the County Land 

Use Department. Said testing will conform to the generally acceptable testing standards for the industry. 
207

Appendix C 

Scoping Notice and Comments
208
209

Scoping Results 

The following summarizes the methods for comment collection and analysis, the number and source of comments 

received and a summary of the comments. Comments were received through the public meeting, letters, and 

email. 

Methods for Comment Collection and Analysis 

The objective of the scoping process is to gather the full range of comments, questions and concerns that the 

public has about the proposed action. All comments, questions, or issues, whether from written submissions or 

recorded at the public meetings were organized by topic into a spreadsheet and coded for organizational 

purposes. Every effort was made to document all issues, questions, and concerns. Regardless of whether 

comments and questions were general in nature or about specific points of concern, they were added to the 

spreadsheet one time. 

Number and Source of Comments Received 

During the course of the public scoping process, the Service received 35 questions and comments during the 

public meeting and 7,231 written responses in the form of letters or emails from the 30-day public scoping period. 

Overall, 35 questions and comments were read at the public meeting, 7,114 form letter comments (no 

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

% Total Comments

Category of Public Scoping Comments

Individual Form Letter
210

organizational affiliation), 13 from agencies and organizations (Table A-1), and 104 individual letters or emails, 

respectively. 

Table A-1. List of Agencies and Organizations that Submitted Comments 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Lexam Explorations (U.S.A.), Inc.

U.S. National Park Service Crestone Baca Land Trust

Saguache County Conejos County Clean Water, Inc

San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council Samten Ling Retreat Center

San Luis Valley Citizens Alliance Dharma Ocean Foundation

Shumei International Institute Haidakhandi Universal Ashram

Crestone Spiritual Alliance

Summary of Scoping Comments 

Below is a summary of the issues, questions, and comments raised during public scoping. Comments were 

submitted in writing during the 30-day public scoping period that ended November 10, 2010 and/or offered at the 

public meeting held on October 26, 2010 in Alamosa, Colorado. 

Purpose and Need 

General comment that Refuge needs to be protected; exploration would disrupt and/or contaminate the 

environment; exploration is unreasonable; exploration is not in the best interest of the public; concern that deep 

exploration could impact natural resources; interagency cooperation in the San Luis Valley could be impacted by 

exploration activities; a compatibility determination should be completed on proposed action; general comment 

that disapproves of exploration on Refuge. 

Statutes, Regulations, and Plans 

Comment suggesting Service should purchase and retire mineral rights from Lexam; exploration should not be 

considered until an accurate CCP assessment is complete; the analysis is premature since a CCP has not been 

completed; the proposed action is contradictory to Refuge purpose; the mineral rights should be sold to an 

organization for wilderness protection; a lack of a CCP will create difficulty for Refuge staff to manage Refuge; 

exploration could impact trust resources on federal lands; Lexam can provide documentation of their willingness 

to sell their mineral interest; mineral exploration will generate important information for CCP development; the 

Service should consider compliance with Section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act. 

NEPA/Analysis 

Comment that Service should begin an EIS instead of Draft EA; EIS is required or should be prepared; Service 

should postpone Lexam's plans to drill in the Refuge until impacts are known; purchasing and retiring mineral 

rights should be the preferred alternative in the Draft EA; Service should postpone Lexam's plans to drill in the 

Refuge until CCP and EIS are completed; a site-specific analysis through an EIS is required to determine impact 

to all natural/cultural/economic resources; a production analysis should be completed in Draft EA; exploration 

could lead to future actions having significant impacts; under current CEQ NEPA section 1508.27, significant 

impacts have potential to exist for 8 of 10 factors; an EIS is required to assess potential future production impacts; 

an EIS should be required beyond assessment of two exploration wells; an analysis of reasonably foreseeable 

energy development be included in the Draft EA; all resources on the Refuge need to be inventoried to determine 

impact; an Draft EA cannot address long-term impacts of production to the Refuge; the NEPA process should 

consider cumulative impacts; an EIS is required to assess larger ecological boundary of surrounding 

watersheds/airshed; the drilling of exploratory wells should be considered the federal action; the alternative of 

mineral exploration with no surface protective measures be excluded from Draft EA; the no action alternative 

should be no exploration based on purchase of mineral interest; the Service should consider but not select drilling 

until CCP is complete, directional drilling, and drilling one well instead of two as alternatives; comment asking if 

Lexam is the driving force for the Draft EA; comment asking what Lexam’s involvement with the Draft EA is; is the 

former NEPA process invalid; comment asking if the Service can say no to drilling at a later date; how will the new 

Draft EA be different from the previous Draft EA; comment questioning the Service's definition for the proposed 

action; comment asking how comfortable the Service is with the current project timeline; how many resources are 
211

being used by the Service; comment asking who is writing the Draft EA; comment that Draft EA does not address 

people inside of the Refuge. 

Wildlife/Fisheries 

General comment that exploration will negatively impact wildlife populations; exploration could affect threatened 

and endangered species; concern for potential impacts to Gunnison's prairie dog; a CCP and EIS are needed to 

address potential impacts to endangered species; concern about potential impacts to wildlife movements, elk 

calving areas, foraging patterns, and habitat fragmentation; an EIS should be prepared including a inventory of all 

wildlife on the Refuge; comment that migratory birds require unpolluted water resources during migration; concern 

about the health of the aquifer in relation to the ecosystem and wildlife; the impact to native species should be 

assessed in the Draft EA; exploration activity will impact feeding, breeding, and migration patterns of wildlife; 

exploration could cause incidental take of threatened or endangered species; exploration activities could increase 

sedimentation from roads to riparian habitat to Rio Grande sucker; an EIS should be prepared to determine the 

effect of exploration to wildlife at landscape scale; an EIS is needed to assess impacts to migratory birds; general 

concern about impact to natural resources; have southwestern willow flycatchers been documented on the 

Refuge? 

Habitat 

Comment that exploration will impact wildlife habitat; a monitoring protocol with regulations should be put in place 

to avoid negative impacts to Refuge resources; concerned about impact to wetland, riparian, and/or aquatic 

habitat; directional exploration away from sensitive habitats should be considered; exploration will impact 

wilderness in the San Luis Valley; exploration could impact habitat to native fishes; wildlife habitat be inventoried 

before exploration; comment requesting an alternative for no exploration near riparian habitat. 

Socioeconomic Resources 

Concern about the potential impact to local economy; the proposed exploration by Lexam will lead to additional 

industrial development in area; exploration would impact personal livelihood/lifestyle; exploration will impact the 

human environment; local emergency responders do not have resources to respond to a accident associated with 

exploration; general concern about impact to the local community; concern about potential impact to tourism; an 

EIS should be prepared to evaluate impacts to local residents; concern to local property values; exploration could 

impact socioeconomic resources; comment that temporary exploration (approx. 6 months) would impact natural 

resources causing failure of local businesses; exploration by Lexam would have long term impacts to local 

economy; an analysis of emergency responders capability to handle oil field fire or explosion; the health of the 

aquifer sustains that local economy; exploration would impact sustainable living practices to local community; 

request that an EIS be prepared to evaluate the potential for a environmental disaster caused by exploration; 

exploration could damage food production in San Luis Valley; additional recreational use of the Refuge would 

provide economic opportunities to local communities; an EIS is needed because of unique local community and 

cultural resources; an EIS is needed to assess impact to human welfare; an economic analysis of spiritual centers 

is necessary; an analysis of the socioeconomic influence of exploration to local spiritual groups is needed; 

Cultural Resources 

Comment that all historical and cultural sites be preserved; concern about impact of exploration noise to spiritual 

functions; all archaeological sites should be inventoried and protected; cultural and aesthetic resources are 

interrelated; a CCP is required to evaluate potential impacts (including archeological surveys) to cultural 

resources; comment questioning if Lexam will be liable for any damage to cultural resources; an EIS is necessary 

to analyze cultural uniqueness and religious practices. 

Air Quality 

Comment that proposed exploration would contaminate air quality; air quality should be monitored during 

exploration; the Service should consult with NPS to ensure minimal air pollution during exploration; air quality 

would be impacted by full scale production in future; an additional air quality and potential pollutant study be 

initiated. 

Aesthetics 

Concern about noise caused by exploration activities; general comment about the effect on aesthetic resources; 

concern about traffic associated with proposed exploration; exploration would degrade the pristine nature and 
212

solitude of area; exploration with cause pollution to light levels; visual resources will be impacted during 

exploration; concern about the change in ambient sound levels and impact to nearby town and rural residents; an 

EIS is necessary to assess aesthetic resources (visual & sound) including cumulative impacts. 

Water Resources 

General concern about contamination to water resources; concern that exploration would contaminate aquifer; 

comment that exploration would negatively impact groundwater; Comment that water resources should be 

protected in the Rio Grande Basin; concerned about the efficacy of casing to prevent contamination to aquifer 

during exploration; concern that chemicals used during exploration could contaminate aquifer; comment 

questioning the cost to mitigate and restore a aquifer that could potentially be contaminated during exploration; 

concern that exploration could deplete or alter water resources; an EIS is needed to evaluate impacts to water 

resources; concern for any impact to drinking water; concern that deep exploration could affect hydrology of 

system; questioning why casing depth is to 3,000 ft and not beyond this depth; deep exploration could affect 

hydrology of system; there should be a monitoring plan to assess groundwater during exploration including 

conductivity, dissolved and suspended solids, metals, pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, physical aquatic habitat 

parameters, and sensitivity of impact; wetlands be should be restored including appropriate mitigation measures; 

an analysis of legal protections relative to water resources should be analyzed; the layered structure of the 

confined aquifer should be assessed; cumulative impacts to groundwater and aquifer should be addressed; 

exploration would negatively affect the Rio Grande Compact; exploration by Lexam has unknown risks to aquifer; 

the Draft EA should analyze how the lower part of aquifer (beyond 3,000 ft) should be protected from 

contamination; Draft EA should analyze potential impact of casing design, cementing, and pit liner requirements 

to groundwater; the adequacy of casing be discussed with the Rio Grande Water Conservation District; comment 

asking who the responsible party will be if contamination of water resources occurs from exploration; wetlands 

should be inventoried and mapped in Project Area; comment that Draft EA include how Service mitigate for 

wetlands under Section 404b of Clean Water Act; the Draft EA should describe groundwater resources within 

Project Area including quality/quantity of aquifer; Draft EA should describe groundwater in vicinity of BNWR 

including location of domestic, irrigation, stock, & public supply; Service should require a minimum of 2 to 1 

mitigation for disturbed wetland/stream/riparian habitats; Service require avoidance of disturbance to any fen 

wetland; Service require 100 ft buffer zones surrounding wetland/riparian habitat; an analysis of potential 

downstream landowners should be included in Draft EA. 

Geology, Mineral Resources, and Soils 

Comment that soil monitoring should take place during exploration activities; degradation of soil resources; 

comment that deep drilling may cause earthquakes; concern that deep drilling could affect the geology of the San 

Luis Valley by contaminating water resources; a study should be initiated to evaluate any impact to geology and 

hydrology from exploration activities; a study should be initiated to evaluate potential impacts to fault lines 

resulting from exploration; comment asking what the results of the seismic data were and are the results 

available to the public? 

Public Health 

Comment concerned about the potential impact of exploration chemicals to natural resources and public health; 

potential contamination of aquifer is a public health concern; general comment concerning potential impact of 

exploration to public health; impact to public safety from exploration; noise levels caused by exploration could 

affect public health; comment questioning if Lexam will be held liable for potential damages/accidents/health risks 

resulting from exploration; a list of drilling chemicals should be made public that would be used during exploration. 

Operational Plan 

Comment that mitigation measures should be used to protect resources on the Refuge if exploration occurs; 

request that the highest standards are upheld if hazardous materials are used during exploration; request that the 

highest standards for pollution control are implemented during exploration; a site-specific analysis should be 

completed for each well pad and associated infrastructure; comment that exploration will lead to production; the 

Draft EA analysis should consider directional exploration from an off-Refuge site; a performance bond should be 

acquired from Lexam prior to exploration; the size of a performance bond should be determined through an EIS; 

comment questioning who would be liable for any problems during exploration; speed limits should be restricted 

during specific time periods allowed for exploration; comment asking if roads will be repaired by Lexam if they 

cause damage; questioning if constant supervision will occur during exploration to ensure no mistakes take place; 
213

dust from exploration activity could have a negative impact to resources; provide a list of chemicals used by 

Lexam during exploration to public; an alternative access road away from Crestone Creek be used by Lexam; the 

Draft EA should consider reasonably foreseeable impacts from low probability catastrophic spills with appropriate 

spill prevention measures to prevent impacts; there should be strict guidelines for disposal of garbage by Lexam 

during exploration; Service compliance with OGCC Rules 209 , 317, and 317B; Service should discuss terms and 

conditions for environmental monitoring and enforcement for cessation of drilling activities; closed/enclosed 

systems should be used during exploration; best management practices proposed by Lexam during exploration in 

their operational plan are inadequate; an analysis of Lexam's operational plan is necessary; concerned about 

how casing will be maintained; analysis should include impact of exploration activity such as dust 

control, sediment runoff, & hazardous materials; Service should require a detailed plan for dust control 

in Project Area and surrounding roads; BMPs and mitigation measures should be used and included 

into alternatives under consideration; comment questioning what happens with the earthen pad after 

reclamation; concern regarding the level of disturbance if local water is used during exploration; comment asking 

if water is trucked, how many passes will occur during exploration and during a 24-hour period; comment asking if 

the two wells will be drilled sequentially; what has changed in this administration’s philosophy concerning drilling 

policies compared to the last administration; concern about whether fracturing techniques would be used during 

exploration; describe the closed-loop system; when would drilling commence. 

Miscellaneous 

Comment asking if there is a guarantee that damage to natural resources will not occur; switch the project to a 

solar project; the outcome of the Draft EA has already been decided; the previous Draft EA was biased towards 

exploration; exploration will contribute to global warming. 

Summary of Future Actions 

Although the formal scoping period is complete, an additional opportunity for official public involvement will be 

available during the 30-day public comment period on the Draft EA. At anytime during the NEPA process, the 

Service welcomes comments from the public. Additional comments, questions, or concerns can be directed to: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Attn: Baca NWR - Draft EA 

9383 El Rancho Lane 

Alamosa, Colorado 81101 

Phone: 719-589-4021 

Fax: 719-587-0595 
214

Appendix D 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Protective Measures Required Under 

Alternative C 
215

Under the Maximum Protection of the Refuge during Drilling Alternative (Alternative C), the Service would require 

that specific protective measures and standards be followed during all phases of oil and gas exploration being 

proposed by Lexam, including the proposed drilling of two exploratory oil and gas wells on the Refuge, to ensure 

that the surface estate of the Refuge and associated resources are not unreasonably degraded or impacted. 

These measures shall be equally applicable to Lexam’s employees, representatives, consultants, contractors and 

subcontractors. The Service also will require that Lexam resubmit a new Plan of Operations that addresses 

deficiencies identified in the current Plan of Operations and implements protective measures required by the 

Service. 

Under this alternative, drilling would occur from a vertical well at Baca #5 and a vertical well at Baca #7. However, 

at the request of the Service, Lexam has agreed to conduct their exploration activities including construction of 

roads and pads in sequential order, beginning first at their primary target (Baca #5). After Baca #5 is drilled, 

Lexam will make a decision on whether sufficient information was obtained, or if proceeding with construction and 

drilling at Baca #7 is necessary. The Service’s request for sequential exploration at Baca #5 then at Baca #7 does 

not affect the scope of the analyses in this Draft EA because the impacts of both wells (Baca #5 and Baca #7) 

have been assessed throughout Chapter 4.

Specific protective measures would be required by the Service to minimize and mitigate the potential effects of 

Lexam’s Plan of Operations on the surface and subsurface resources of the Refuge. These protective measures 

were developed by the Service through information obtained during public scoping, from the Final Settlement 

Agreement dated September 23, 2010 involving the litigation of the proposal by Lexam (Operator), and by new 

evidence outlining the potential impacts to resources protected by the Refuge. Of these, protection measures #5, 

8, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 32 included in the list below were modified or not included as conditions of approval for prior 

permits to drill on the Refuge. 

Under this alternative, Lexam would be required to implement the following protective measures and conditions 

outlined below. Specific reference to federal and state laws and regulations are not intended to be all inclusive. 

Therefore, all applicable federal and state laws in addition to those highlighted below would still apply to the 

proposed exploration activities. 

1) All vehicles and equipment from outside the Refuge will be decontaminated per Service procedures 

to prevent the introduction of noxious weeds to the Refuge. Decontamination will include removal of 

skid plates for inspection and cleaning if necessary. This measure is subject to the following rules: 

 COGCC rule 1004(e) – ―All areas being reclaimed shall be kept as free as practicable of all 

undesirable plant species designated to be noxious weeds. Weed control measures shall be 

conducted in compliance with the Colorado Noxious Weed Act, C.R.S. §35-5.5-115 and the 

current rules pertaining to the administration and enforcement of the Colorado Noxious Weed Act. 

It is recommended that the operator consult with the local weed control agency or other weed 

control authority when weed infestation occurs. It is the responsibility of the operator to monitor 

affected and reclaimed lands for noxious weed infestations. If applicable, the Director may require 

a weed control plan.‖

 Plants and animals or their parts taken elsewhere shall not be introduced, liberated, or placed on 

any national wildlife refuge except as authorized. (50 C.F.R. 27.52) 

2) In order to protect cultural resources Lexam will provide on-site cultural resource monitoring during all 

ground disturbing activities. This measure is subject to the following rules: 

 No person shall search for or remove from national wildlife refuges objects of antiquity except as 

may be authorized by 43 CFR part 3. (50 C.F.R. 27.62) 

 No person shall search for buried treasure, treasure trove, valuable semi-precious rocks, stones, 

or mineral specimens on national wildlife refuges unless authorized by permit or by provision of 

this subchapter C; Permits are required for archeological studies on national wildlife refuges in 

accordance with the provisions of this subchapter C. (50 C.F.R. 27.63) 
216

3) Lexam will provide trained natural resource advisors (NRAs), approved by Service, who will continue to 

serve as liaisons between the Refuge Manager, construction contractor, and drill rig personnel and 

ensure that all operations are conducted in a manner that minimizes surface impacts. NRAs have specific 

skills and duties when working on ―sensitive lands,‖ like a NWR, that enable them to identify deficiencies 

or negligent activities before issues arise that have the potential to cause unreasonable degradation of 

the surface and subsurface estate of the Refuge. 

4) Impacts to sensitive habitat, wildlife, plants, other sensitive natural or historical resources will be 

avoided to the extent possible while constructing the access road and well pads. This measure is subject 

to the following rules: 

 COGCC rule 1002(e) – ―Existing roads shall be used to the greatest extent practicable to avoid 

erosion and minimize the land area devoted to oil and gas operations. Roadbeds shall be 

engineered to avoid or minimize impacts to riparian areas or wetlands to the extent practicable. 

Unavoidable impacts shall be mitigated. Road crossings of streams shall be designed and 

constructed to allow fish passage, where practicable and appropriate.‖

5) Lexam will provide a resource monitoring plan which must be approved by Service. This plan should 

include a schedule for gathering data before, during, and after construction and/or drilling activities occur. 

It should include an assessment of baseline water quality of surface waters, the near-surface unconfined 

aquifer and the deeper confined aquifers in proximity to the proposed well locations (both up gradient and 

down gradient), as well as baseline information on soils, vegetation, air quality, sound (e.g., hourly sound 

pressure, ambient sound levels, etc.), and visual impacts. In addition, it should include provisions for resampling in the event of anomalous detections. 

6) Pre- and post-drilling aerial photographs will be taken of the proposed drilling and road construction 

area. The photographs will be color and will provide complete coverage of the drilling and road 

construction area. The pre-survey documentation shall be submitted within 10 days of initiation of the 

drilling, the post-survey documentation shall be submitted within 110 days of completion along with a 

digitized version of the pre-survey photographs. These photographs will become the property of the 

Refuge. This measure is subject to the following rule: 

 COGCC rule 303(d)(3) – ―A minimum of four (4) color photographs, one (1) of the staked location 

from each cardinal direction. Each photograph shall be identified by: date taken, well or location 

name, and direction of view.‖

7) The soils at the location site will be tested using approved standards to determine levels of heavy 

metals, chemical pollutant, and other contaminants, prior to rig-up operations. Duplicate tests will be 

conducted before completion or at abandonment. If the exit test reveals levels above the background 

established by pre-drilling test, cleanup will be required. The most practical method of clean up is soil 

removal. Any quantity of soil removed will be replaced to the original contours. This measure is subject to 

the following rules: 

 COGCC rule 1003(e)(2) – ―Revegetation of non-crop lands. All segregated soil horizons 

removed from non-crop lands shall be replaced to their original relative positions and contour as 

near as practicable to achieve erosion control and long-term stability, and shall be tilled 

adequately in order to establish a proper seedbed. The disturbed area then shall be reseeded in 

the first favorable season following rig demobilization. Reseeding with species consistent with the 

adjacent plant community is encouraged. In the absence of an agreement between the operator 

and the affected surface owner as to what seed mix should be used, the operator shall consult 

with a representative of the local soil conservation district to determine the proper seed mix to use 

in revegetating the disturbed area. In an area where an operator has drilled or plans to drill 

multiple wells, in the absence of an agreement between the operator and the affected surface 

owner, the operator may rely upon previous advice given by the local soil conservation district in 
217

determining the proper seed mixes to be used in revegetating each type of terrain upon which 

operations are to be conducted.‖

Interim reclamation of all disturbed areas no longer in use shall be considered complete when all 

ground surface disturbing activities at the site have been completed, and all disturbed areas have 

been either built on, compacted, covered, paved, or otherwise stabilized in such a way as to 

minimize erosion to the extent practicable, or a uniform vegetative cover has been established 

that reflects pre-disturbance or reference area forbs, shrubs, and grasses with total percent plant 

cover of at least eighty percent (80%) of pre-disturbance levels or reference areas, excluding 

noxious weeds. Re-seeding alone is not sufficient.‖

8) Lexam shall provide Service with a detailed wetland delineation, which shall be performed prior to any 

disturbance in the immediate Project Area vicinity. This determination should follow U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Hydrogeomorphic Method (Smith et al. 1995). Based on information gathered from the wetland 

delineation, well sites will be located as far from sensitive wet meadow wetlands as practicable. This 

measure is important to determine if the following rules apply: 

 COGCC rule 303(f) – ―Oil and gas locations in wetlands. In the event that an operator, 

otherwise required to file a Form 2A, acquires an Army Corps of Engineers permit pursuant to 

33 U.S.C.A. §1342 and 1344 of the Water Pollution and Control Act (Section 404 of the 

federal ―Clean Water Act‖) for construction of an oil and gas location, the operator shall so 

indicate on the Oil and Gas Location Assessment, Form 2A.‖

 COGCC rule 1002(e)(2) – ―Operators shall avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands and 

riparian habitats to the degree practicable.‖

9) Summaries of all the results generated from the water quality sampling, cultural resource work and any 

other sampling or monitoring, including the results of Lexam’s exploratory drilling, will be provided to the 

Refuge Manager upon completion and summation. This measure is subject to the following rule: 

 COGCC rule 608(b)(5) – ―Copies of all test results described above shall be provided to the 

Commission and the water well owner within three (3) months of collecting the samples. The 

analytical data and surveyed well locations shall also be submitted to the Director in an 

electronic data deliverable format.‖

10) Lexam will provide a detailed description of all best management practices that will be used during 

any aspect of the proposed exploration project. This measure is subject to the following rule: 

 COGCC rule 1002(f)(2&3) – Stormwater management - best management practices. 

11) All construction of roads and pads will occur in a way that best facilitates their subsequent complete 

removal and reclamation once Lexam activities have ceased at these sites. This includes separating and 

stockpiling and covering topsoil layers on-site to be replaced during reclamation. All disturbed areas will 

be reclaimed per the requirements imposed by the COGCC and with Service input. Only endemic plants 

and seed mixtures are to be used in reclamation. This measure is subject to the following rules: 

 COGCC rule 1002(b)(2) – ―The operator shall separate and store the topsoil horizon or the 

top six (6) inches, whichever is deeper, and mark or document stockpile locations to facilitate 

subsequent reclamation. When separating the soil horizons, the operator shall segregate the 

horizon based upon noted changes in physical characteristics such as organic content, color, 

texture, density, or consistency.‖

 COGCC rule 1002(c) – ―All stockpiled soils shall be protected from degradation due to 

contamination, compaction and, to the extent practicable, from wind and water erosion during 
218

drilling and production operations. Best management practices to prevent weed 

establishment and to maintain soil microbial activity shall be implemented.”

 COGCC rules 1003 & 1004 – ―Final reclamation of all disturbed areas shall be considered 

complete when all activities disturbing the ground have been completed, and all disturbed 

areas have been either built upon, compacted, covered, paved, or otherwise stabilized in 

such a way as to minimize erosion, or a uniform vegetative cover has been established that 

reflects pre-disturbance or reference area forbs, shrubs, and grasses with total percent plant 

cover of at least eighty percent (80%) of pre-disturbance or reference area levels, excluding 

noxious weeds, or equivalent permanent, physical erosion reduction methods have been 

employed. Re-seeding alone is not sufficient.‖

12) To fully protect the aquifers from contamination through communication in the borehole. The 

22 intermediate casing shall extend 500 feet beyond the bottom of Layer #4 of the deep confined aquifer . 

The bottom of Layer #4 must be determined by detailed logging of the lithology during drilling. Although, 

existing information suggests that the bottom of Layer #4 could be 3,500 feet below the surface, Lexam 

shall consult with an independent professional geologist (reference CRS-34-1-201) approved by the 

Service to confirm when the appropriate depth has been reached based on data collected from drill logs. 

 COGCC rule 317(d) – ―Casing program to protect hydrocarbon horizons and 

groundwater. The casing program adopted for each well must be so planned and 

maintained as to protect any potential oil or gas bearing horizons penetrated during drilling 

from infiltration of injurious waters from other sources, and to prevent the migration of oil, gas 

or water from one (1) horizon to another, that may result in the degradation of groundwater. A 

Sundry Notice, Form 4, including a detailed work plan and a wellbore diagram, shall be 

submitted and approved by the Director prior to any routine or planned casing repair 

operations. During well operations, prior verbal approval for unforeseen casing repairs 

followed by the filing of a Sundry Notice, Form 4, after completion of operations shall be 

acceptable.‖

 COGCC rule 317(e) – “Casing where subsurface conditions are unknown. In areas 

where pressure and formations are unknown, sufficient surface casing shall be run to reach a 

depth below all known or reasonably estimated utilizable domestic fresh water levels and to 

prevent blowouts or uncontrolled flows, and shall be of sufficient size to permit the use of an 

intermediate string or strings of casings. Surface casing shall be set in or through an 

impervious formation and shall be cemented by pump and plug or displacement or other 

approved method with sufficient cement to fill the annulus to the top of the hole, all in 

accordance with reasonable requirements of the Director.‖

13) Lexam shall provide a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) which must be approved by Service. 

This plan should be prepared according to SWMP guidelines prepared by the Colorado Department of 

Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). CDPHE guidelines for General Permit Application and 

Stormwater Management Plan Preparation Guidance and should include sufficient information and 

narrative descriptions regarding construction activities along the existing waterways, locations of all 

proposed potential discharges, identification of potential pollutant sources, maps detailing all ground 

disturbing activities at sites, and details and figures for proposed BMPs for these construction activities. 

An outline is available from CDPHE and should be followed. 

 COGCC rule 1002(f)(2&3) - ―Oil and gas operators shall implement and maintain Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) at all oil and gas locations to control stormwater runoff in a 

manner that minimizes erosion, transport of sediment offsite, and site degradation. BMPs shall be 

 

22 Lexam must case the entire deep confined aquifer (Aquifer Layer #4). The CDWR (2004) described five separate 

hydrogeological layers that comprise the aquifer in the San Luis Valley. Each layer is defined based on one or more lithologies 

with similar hydrogeologic characteristics. Layer #4 occurs within a Sante Fe formation that is predominantly sand and gravel 

and has up to 50% clay layers in most areas of the SLV. Approximate depth of Layer #4 is from 1,200 to 3,500 feet.
219

maintained until the facility is abandoned and final reclamation is achieved pursuant to Rule 1004. 

Operators shall employ BMPs, as necessary to comply with this rule, at all oil and gas locations, 

including, but not limited to, well pads, soil stock piles, access roads, tank batteries, compressor 

stations, and pipeline rights of way. BMPs shall be selected based on site-specific conditions, 

such as slope, vegetation cover, and proximity to water bodies, and may include maintaining inplace some or all of the BMPs installed during the construction phase of the facility. Where 

applicable based on site-specific conditions, operators shall implement BMPs in accordance with 

good engineering practices.‖

 The Water Quality Control Act (§25-8-501(1), C.R.S.) - Establishes a state water quality 

management program administered by the Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) which 

prohibits any person from ―discharg[ing]...any pollutant into any state water from a point source 

without first having obtained a permit from the division for such discharge . . .‖ Stormwater 

management for construction activities at oil and gas related sites is currently regulated under two 

separate agencies within the State of Colorado, the WQCD and the COGCC. 

14) Lexam shall provide a Spill Prevention and Countermeasures Plan (SPCC), which must be approved 

by Service. This plan shall include: a listing of secondary containment and/or diversionary structures or 

equipment for all oil handling containers, equipment, and transfer areas. It should also include a table 

identifying tanks and containers at the facility with the potential for an oil discharge; the mode of potential 

failure; the likely flow direction and potential quantity of the discharge; as well as, provide the secondary 

containment method and containment capacity. In addition, the plan should include the physical layout of 

the facility and a facility diagram, which must mark the location and contents of each container. The 

facility diagram must also include all transfer stations and connecting pipes. 

15) A closed loop mud and drill cuttings system will be used to minimize impacts to surrounding habitats. 

In addition, drill cuttings will be isolated in an above-ground tank during drilling. Cuttings and drilling fluids 

will be removed from the Refuge and disposed of off-site in accordance with state regulations (50 C.F.R. 

27.94; 50 C.F.R. 29.32). 

16) Drilling operations will be modified, as necessary, to reduce conflicts with regular Refuge 

management activities. 

17) A gate guard will be provided by Lexam, and approved by the Service, to document traffic entering 

and exiting the Refuge and to eliminate potential illegal entry onto the Refuge. 

18) Arrangements for additional Service law enforcement personnel will be made in the event it is 

deemed necessary to effectively enforce state, federal, refuge, and wildlife laws and regulations during 

drilling activities. 

19) The Operator’s construction and drilling activities will be restricted to the period of August 1 through 

April 30 to avoid conflicts with wildlife and limit ground disturbance activities to periods of low precipitation 

minimizing impacts to soil. Any field operations conducted during the Refuge's migratory bird closure 

period (May 1 through July 31) must be coordinated and pre-authorized by the Refuge Manager or his 

authorized representative. Service will consider allowing Lexam to continue work in early May if allowing 

access is necessary to complete activities and such activities would not impact the Refuge and resources 

greater than what is anticipated in the EA. Absolutely no activities will be permitted beyond May 15. Rig 

up and rig down operations can only be conducted during daylight hours. However, drilling operations can 

be conducted 24 hours per day. This measure is subject to the following rules: 

 COGCC rule 306(a) – ―Consultation with surface owner. In locating roads, production facilities, 

and well sites, or other oil and gas operations, and in preparation for reclamation and 

abandonment, the operator shall consult in good faith with the surface owner...Such good faith 

consultation shall allow the surface owner or appointed agent the opportunity to provide 

comments to the operator regarding preferences for the timing of oil and gas operations and 

preferred locations for wells and associated facilities.‖
220

 CDOW Actions to Minimize Adverse Impacts to Wildlife Resources - "Schedule construction, 

drilling, and completion activities to avoid particularly sensitive seasonal wildlife habitats.‖

20) Refuge Manager or his authorized representative may require drill pads to be fenced if necessary to 

prevent large ungulates from gaining access to the sites. 

 CDOW Actions to Minimize Adverse Impacts to Wildlife Resources - ―Fence livestock and/or 

wildlife out of newly reclaimed areas until reclamation standards have been met and plants are 

capable of sustaining herbivory.‖

21) To protect special status species such as the Rio Grande Sucker and Rio Grande Chub, the Service 

requires that Lexam: 

− Establish a 0.25-mile buffer zone of no activity around potential and identified habitat. 

− Limit vehicle crossings to existing or pre-approved crossings. 

− Sample waterways for particulate matter, creating a baseline and regular monitoring during 

period of activity. 

− Assess stability and suitability of road water crossings prior to road construction and drilling 

activities and perform upgrades, if needed. Conduct periodic monitoring of crossings during 

activities and documentation of any deficiencies that may occur that may be indicative of potential 

structural failure. 

− Provide dust suppression in the vicinity of waterway crossings.

22) The Operator shall provide detailed maps or plats, as required by COGCC the Refuge Manager or his 

authorized representative of the proposed project layout, showing routes, staging areas, construction 

areas, and work locations. This measure is subject to the following rules: 

 COGCC rule 303 (c) - ―Attached to and part of the Permit-to-Drill, Form 2, as filed shall be a 

current 81⁄2" by 11" scaled drawing of the entire section(s) containing the proposed well location 

with the following minimum information: 

(1) Dimensions on adjacent exterior section lines sufficient to completely describe the 

quarter section containing the proposed well shall be indicated. If dimensions are not field 

measured, state how the dimensions were determined. 

(2) The latitude and longitude of the proposed well location shall be provided on the 

drawing with a minimum of five (5) decimal places of accuracy and precision using the 

North American Datum (NAD) of 1983 (e.g.; latitude 37.12345 N, longitude 104.45632 

W). If global positioning system (GPS) technology is utilized to determine the latitude and 

longitude, all GPS data shall meet the requirements set forth in Rule 215. a. through h. 

(3) For directional drilling into an adjacent section, that section shall also be shown on the 

location plat and dimensions on exterior section lines sufficient to completely describe the 

quarter section containing the proposed productive interval and bottom hole location shall 

be indicated. (Additional requirements related to directional drilling are found in Rule 

321.) 

(4) For irregular, partial or truncated sections, dimensions will be furnished to completely 

describe the entire section containing the proposed well. (5) The field-measured 

distances from the nearer north/south and nearer east/west section lines shall be 

measured at ninety (90) degrees from said section lines to the well location and 

referenced on the plat. For unsurveyed land grants and other areas where an official 

public land survey system does not exist, the well locations shall be spotted as footages 

on a protracted section plat using GPS technology and reported as latitude and longitude 

in accordance with Rule 215. 

(6) A map legend. 

(7) A north arrow. 

(8) A scale expressed as an equivalent (e.g. - 1" = 1000'). 

(9) A bar scale. 
221

(10) The ground elevation. 

(11) The basis of the elevation (how it was calculated or its source). 

(12) The basis of bearing or interior angles used. 

(13) Complete description of monuments and/or collateral evidence found; all aliquot 

corners used shall be described. 

(14) The legal land description by section, township, range, principal meridian, baseline 

and county. 

(15) Operator name. 

(16) Well name and well number. 

(17) Date of completion of scaled drawing.‖

 COGCC rule 303 (d)(3)(D) - "A topographic map showing all surface waters and riparian areas 

within one thousand (1,000) feet of the proposed oil and gas location, with a horizontal distance 

and approximate bearing from the oil and gas location.‖ 

 COGCC rule 303 (d)(3)(E) - "An 8 1/2‖ by 11‖ vicinity or U.S. Geological Survey topographic map 

showing the access road from the highway or county road providing access to the proposed oil 

and gas location.‖

23) All materials brought into the Refuge to build up the location pad will be authorized by the Refuge 

Manager or his authorized representative. To minimize the spread of invasive species, no top soils will be 

brought in from off the Refuge. (50 C.F.R. 27.52; 50 C.F.R. 29.32) 

24) The Operator shall have an on-site independent oil and gas consultant present during all phases of 

exploration and they shall be the sole representative of the Operator and subcontractors regarding all 

communications and decisions of the Refuge Manager or his authorized representative. The consultant’s 

sole responsibility is to ensure daily compliance with Refuge, ensure that all oil and gas laws and 

regulations are followed, report all accidents and/or injuries and keep the Project Leader informed daily. 

The Operator shall keep the Refuge Manager or his authorized representative informed if there is any 

change of designated independent oil and gas consultant. (50 C.F.R. 25.72) 

25) Refuge officials will conduct an on-site meeting before rig-up with representatives of the Operator, 

drilling contractor, subcontractors, suppliers and service companies. The purpose of the meeting is to go 

over regulations and conditions that apply to work crew conduct on the Refuge. 

26) Prior to rig-up, an Emergency Preparedness Plan covering exploratory drilling, well control, materials 

hauling, spill response, and fire evacuation, will be provided to the Refuge Manager and discussed in a 

pre-operation meeting to be held with local governments. The plan shall contain a telephone list naming 

key contacts for emergency operations and activation. This measure is subject to the following rules: 

 COGCC rule 306 - Consultation. The operator shall consult in good faith, as provided . . .[with] 

local governments that have appointed a local governmental designee and have indicated to the 

Director a desire for consultation shall be given an opportunity to engage in such consultation.‖

 COGCC rule 317(l) - "Flaring of gas during drilling and notice to local emergency dispatch. 

Any gas escaping from the well during drilling operations shall be, so far as practicable, 

conducted to a safe distance from the well site and burned. The operator shall notify the local 

emergency dispatch as provided by the local governmental designee of any such flaring. Such 

notice shall be given prior to the flaring if the flaring can be reasonably anticipated, and in all 

other cases as soon as possible but in no event more than two (2) hours after the flaring occurs.‖

 COGCC rule 317(B)(d)(6) - "An emergency spill response program that includes employee 

training, safety, and maintenance provisions and current contact information for downstream 

Public Water System(s) located within fifteen (15) stream miles of the DCPS Operation, as well 

as the ability to notify any such downstream Public Water System(s) with intake(s) within fifteen 

(15) stream miles downstream of the DCPS operations.‖
222

27) The Operator will upgrade and maintain all access routes, roads and bridges designated for its use 

across the Refuge in accordance with acceptable specifications and standards. The Operator shall have 

road maintenance equipment and operator(s) readily available to perform road repairs and maintenance 

as needed, or as directed by the Refuge Manager or his authorized representative. 

28) Dust levels on regularly traveled access routes must be kept to a minimum. The Operator shall have a 

water truck and operator(s) readily available to perform dust abatement as needed, or as directed by the 

Refuge Manager or his authorized representative. Only water will be allowed for dust suppression efforts. 

Dust control measures shall be implemented throughout the traveled areas of the Project Area in addition 

to the dust abatement requirement in measure #15. This measure is subject to the following rule: 

 COGCC rule 1002(e)(1) - In order to reasonably minimize land disturbances and facilitate future 

reclamation, well sites, production facilities, gathering pipelines, and access roads shall be 

located, adequately sized, constructed, and maintained so as to reasonably control dust and 

minimize erosion, alteration of natural features, removal of surface materials, and degradation 

due to contamination. 

29) The drill site and immediate access roads shall be constructed of Refuge approved material for all 

drilling locations. Drill pads may not exceed 90,000 square feet in area. All existing drainage patterns 

within roads to be constructed shall be maintained uninterrupted by the use of culverts, bridges or other 

applicable techniques as specified and authorized by the Refuge Manager or his authorized 

representative. This measure is subject to the following rule: 

 COGCC rule 1002(d) - The drilling location shall be designed and constructed to provide a safe 

working area while reasonably minimizing the total surface area disturbed. Consistent with 

applicable spacing orders and well location orders and regulations, in locating drill pads, steep 

slopes shall be avoided when reasonably possible. The drill pad site shall be located on the most 

level location obtainable that will accommodate the intended use. If not avoidable, deep vertical 

cuts and steep long fill slopes shall be constructed to the least percent slope practical. Where 

feasible, operators shall use directional drilling to reduce cumulative impacts and adverse impacts 

on wildlife resources. 

30) Upon completion of drilling operations, the Refuge Manager or his authorized representative must be 

advised within 120 days whether the well is to be retained or plugged. If the well site is to be abandoned, 

the well is to be plugged according to state law, all above ground structures removed and the site and 

road restored as directed by the Refuge Manager or his authorized representative. Any damage to 

existing surface vegetation, water channels, or other physical features shall be restored to original site 

conditions. All costs shall be born by the Operator. This measure is subject to the following rules: 

 COGCC rule 1001(a) - The rules and regulations of this series establish the proper reclamation of 

the land and soil affected by oil and gas operations and ensure the protection of the topsoil of 

said land during such operations. The surface of the land shall be restored as nearly as 

practicable to its condition at the commencement of drilling operations. 

 Upon the cessation of operations the area shall be restored as nearly as possible to its condition 

prior to the commencement of operations. (50 C.F.R. 29.32) 

31) Pits, ponds and/or open tanks are prohibited. Fully enclosed portable tanks must be used in 

circulating operations for the temporary storage of all drilling fluids, cuttings, mud, and contaminants. All 

drilling fluids, cuttings, mud, contaminants, portable tanks, and other equipment must be transported off 

Refuge to a state approved facility upon cessation of drilling activity. On-site disposal of drilling fluids is 

prohibited. It is highly recommended that an auger tank be used for transferring drill cuttings and sand to 

a vehicle for off Refuge transport. This measure is subject to the following rule: 
223

 COGCC rule 907(c)(2)(c) – Drilling Fluids. Treatment and Disposal. Drilling fluid may be disposed 

as follows: 

B. Disposal at a commercial solid waste disposal facility 

32) Lexam must provide Service with a written description of how potential produced water and 

condensate resulting from drill stem testing will be handled and disposed of, in the event that the 

proposed exploratory wells intersect gas reserves. On-site disposal of produced water is prohibited. 

Produced water may only be disposed of at an off-site state approved facility following: 

 COGCC rule 907(c)(2)(c) – Produced water disposal. Produced water may be disposed as 

follows: 

C. Disposal at permitted commercial facilities 

33) All toxic construction and equipment supplies and refuse (oil, grease, gasoline, diesel, paint, and 

other petrochemical derivatives) shall be centrally stored. Wastes shall be disposed off Refuge 

immediately following completion of drilling operations. In the event of an accidental spill or discharge of 

oil, brine, or any other petrochemical substance, the Operator shall immediately notify the Refuge 

Manager or his authorized representative. The Operator shall remove contaminated soils for proper 

disposal off Refuge, and replace such soils with the same type soils or of a type specified and approved 

by the Refuge Manager or his authorized representative. A site reclamation plan may be required by the 

Refuge Manager or his authorized representative. (50 C.F.R. 29.32) This measure is subject to the 

following rules: 

 CDPHE rule 6 C. C. R. 1007-2&3. Solid and Hazardous Waste Commission Regulations. 

Hazardous wastes require storage, treatment, and disposal practices in accordance with 6 C.C.R. 

1007-3. All non-hazardous/non-E&P wastes are considered solid waste, which require storage, 

treatment, and disposal in accordance with 6 C.C.R. 1007-2.

34) Catch pans or other liner systems approved by the Refuge Manager are required for equipment and 

locations such as mud pumps, bulk mud additive tanks, fuel tanks, mixing shed, generators, accumulator 

and lines, and under the entire rig floor. The catch pans will cover the entire surface area under the 

equipment. The rig floor catch pan will be tied to allow for wash down and mud drainage from drill pipe. 

The catch pans will be kept free and clean from accumulated debris and spill materials. (50 C.F.R. 27.94; 

50 C.F.R. 29.32) 

35) The Operator will be responsible for providing all water needed for drilling operations. No waste water 

will be discharged onto Refuge lands, ditches, or water bodies. The Operator will provide a containerized 

or temporary septic system for domestic sewage disposal during drilling operations, which shall be 

removed upon completion of drilling. Use of portable toilets at drill site or the installation of a septic 

system, or similar treatment system or tanks will be required for any trailer or quarters on site. No surface 

discharge of septic system or portable toilet water is permitted. Septic tanks must be inspected weekly 

during operations and pumped as necessary. Upon completion of operations, the septic tanks must be 

pumped out and all material hauled away. 

36) All disposable type materials and trash brought onto the Refuge or generated at the drill site shall be 

removed from the Refuge on a biweekly basis and upon completion of the drilling activities. The drill site 

and operational area shall be kept free of debris and trash at all times. Trash shall be contained securely 

at the drill site in such a manner (fully enclosed trash cages) as to prevent trash from being spread by 

wind or wildlife. No trash may be disposed of or buried on the Refuge. (50 C.F.R. 27.94) 

37) Lexam must implement the recommendations contained in the report entitled ―Existing Conditions 

Report for a Portion of the Lexam Road, Saguache County, Colorado,‖ prepared by Russell Surveyors 

and Associates, Inc., March 30, 2008, with input from the Service. 

38) Lexam must implement the recommendations that were the basis for the air quality report analysis set 

forth in the ―Lexam Baca Drilling Project Visibility Impact Evaluation,‖ Air Sciences Inc., April 30, 2008: (a) 
224

power generators will be Tier 2 engines; (b) diesel fuel used in generators and all other non-road engines 

will be ultra-low-sulfur (less than 0.05 percent sulfur); and (c) disturbed areas will be watered to control 

the fugitive dust. 

39) Lexam must use mufflers on all internal combustion engines and certain compressor components that 

are designed to further attenuate noise emissions during all exploration activities. 

 COGCC rule 802(b) - "Oil and gas operations at any well site, production facility, or gas facility 

shall comply with the following maximum permissible noise levels. Operations involving pipeline 

or gas facility installation or maintenance, the use of a drilling rig, completion rig, workover rig, or 

stimulation is subject to the maximum permissible noise levels for industrial zones. The type of 

land use of the surrounding area shall be determined by the Commission in consultation with the 

local governmental designee taking into consideration any applicable zoning or other local land 

use designation.‖

40) Upon CDOW recommendation, Lexam has agreed, that in the event of a severe winter, to assist the 

CDOW with managing for the needs of any wintering big game temporarily displaced by Lexam’s 

activities within the designated areas, especially if the temporary displacement results in the potential for 

a decline in overall physiological health of the animals or in increased game damage claims by private 

landowners. This assistance could occur as a Lexam funded baiting program, feeding program or other 

form of distribution management as determined appropriate by CDOW within the severe winter range 

area. 

41) A minimum of one up-gradient and two down-gradient monitoring wells will be installed around each 

drill pad. The wells will be completed in the shallow unconfined aquifer. The locations and elevations of 

the wells will be surveyed and depth to water will be measured. Water samples will be collected for 

chemical analysis before the wells are spud and at predetermined intervals thereafter, which will agreed 

to by the Service and Lexam. If spills or releases of drilling related chemicals at sites occur, then the 

sampling frequency may be increased to a frequency agreed to by the Service, Baca Grande Water and 

Sanitation District, and Lexam. 

42) General Refuge access conditions: 

− Access is to allow Lexam and/or its contractor’s access to portions of the Refuge for the 

purpose of carrying out drilling of oil and gas exploration wells Baca #5 and Baca #7. (50 C.F.R. 

26.22) 

− The Refuge Manager is the coordinating official having immediate jurisdiction and 

administrative responsibility for oil and gas operations on the Baca National Wildlife Refuge 

(Refuge) lands and property, all entry upon the Refuge must be coordinated with the Refuge 

Manager or his authorized representative The Refuge Manager must be advised at least 48 hours 

in advance of initial activity. (50 C.F.R. 26.22) 

− The failure of the United States to require strict performance of the terms, conditions, 

covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this permit for access to conduct exploration activities 

on National Wildlife Refuge lands, shall not constitute a waiver or relinquishment of the right of 

the United States to strictly enforce thereafter such terms, conditions, covenants, agreements, or 

stipulations which shall, at all times, continue in full force and effect. 

− Lexam and/or its contractors shall save, hold harmless, defend, and indemnify the United 

States, its agents and employees for loss, damages, or judgments and expenses on account of 

bodily injury, death or property damage, or claims for bodily injury, death or property damage of 

any nature whatsoever, and by whomever made, arising out of the Operator, his employees, 

subcontractors or agents with respect to the exploration of any and all mineral rights within the 

lands administered by the Refuge. 
225

− All applicable federal and state regulations apply and will be in force. Operator shall be 

responsible for the actions of all exploration and support personnel. Violations of applicable laws 

or regulations will subject the operator and/or his employees to prosecution under state and/or 

federal laws. Individuals utilizing the Refuge under the Operator's authorization are subject to 

inspections of vehicles and their contents by federal and state law enforcement officers. 

− Proof of general liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 must be furnished to 

repair/mitigate any damages. This does not limit the liability for damages to this amount. 

 COGCC rule 708 - General Liability Insurance. All operators shall maintain 

general liability insurance coverage for property damage and bodily injury to third parties 

in the minimum amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence. Such policies 

shall include the Commission as a ―certificate holder‖ so that the Commission may 

receive advance notice of cancellation. 

− Operators will act in a manner that is respectful of Refuge habitats, wildlife, and property. Gates 

are to be locked or unlocked as they are found. (50 C.F.R. 27.21; 50 C.F.R 27.51) 

− All vehicle access will be restricted to developed roads and two-tracks. All terrain vehicle use 

and deviations to vehicle use must be pre-approved by the Refuge Manager in writing prior to any 

action taken. (50 C.F.R. 27.31) 

− Vehicle speed limits will be set at the discretion of Refuge Manager and limits will be strictly

adhered to. (50 C.F.R. 27.31) 

− No pets will be allowed on the Refuge. (50 C.F.R. 28.42; 50 C.F.R. 28.43) 

− Possession of firearms, alcoholic beverages or drugs is strictly prohibited on the Refuge. (50 

C.F.R. 27.41; 50 C.F.R. 27.42; 50 CFR 27.81; 50 C.F.R. 27.82) 

− Fires are strictly prohibited in any areas of the Refuge. (50 C.F.R. 27.95) 

− Operators are not to be considered agents of the Service and are not to represent the Service 

in any matters. (50 C.F.R. 27.84) 

− Operators will perform all work in accordance with the highest standards of the industry and to 

the satisfaction of the Service. 

− Operators will perform all work in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations and will 

obtain all necessary permits or licenses when required to do so. (50 C.F.R. 25.13; 50 C.F.R. 

29.32) 

− All personnel and activities shall be restricted to the immediate drilling area and the direct 

access road to the drill site. (50 C.F.R. 26.22) 

− Feeding wildlife species is prohibited. Molesting or destroying the home or dens of wildlife is 

prohibited. If dens are found during the normal course of operations, distinctive flagging will be 

used to alert all personnel of the den location. Adverse impacts on fish, wildlife and the 

environment shall be kept to an absolute minimum. All road kills will be reported to the Refuge 

Manager or his authorized representative. (50 C.F.R. 27.51) 

− Littering is prohibited. All cans, bottles, lunch papers, and operations trash must be removed. 

Cigarette butts are considered litter. All vehicles will be equipped with a container to carry out 

trash. (50 C.F.R. 27.94) 
226

− All necessary permits, contacts and clearances must be completed or obtained by Lexam prior 

to the start of the activity. (50 C.F.R. 25.13) 

− No overnight quarters will be permitted on the Refuge unless authorized by Refuge Manager. 

(50 C.F.R. 27.92) 

− Re-route the access road to Baca #5 to avoid sensitive plant species and wet meadow habitat 

(Figure 2-1).

Under this alternative, if Lexam discontinues or fails to perform any of the preceding protective measures, and the 

Refuge Manager believes such failure will lead to unreasonable damages to Refuge resources, the Service may 

assess penalties pursuant to 50 CFR Part 28 or any of the aforementioned CFRs listed above. The Service may 

require Lexam to cease exploration activities until the risk of damage to Refuge resources has been removed or 

mitigated in the sole discretion of the Service. 
227

Appendix E 

Lexam Explorations(U.S.A) Inc. Letter from Consulting Geologist 
228
229
230

Appendix F

Agreement Between Saguache County and Lexam Explorations 

(U.S.A) Inc. 
231
232
233
234

Appendix G 

Baseline Surface Water and Groundwater Sampling Analytical 

Results 
235
236
237
238
239
240
241

Appendix H 

Air Quality Emissions Calculations
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250

Appendix I 

U.S. Geological Service Technical Review Memorandum to the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 
251

United States Department of the Interior

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Fort Collins Science Center 

2150 Centre Ave., Bldg.C 

Fort Collins, Colorado 80526-8118

January 6, 2011

TO: Chris Swanson, Ph.D. 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

 Kulm Wetland and Management District 

 Kulm, ND 

FROM: Jessica M. Montag, Ph.D. 

 U.S. Geological Survey 

 Policy Analysis and Science Assistance Branch 

 Fort Collins Science Center 

 Fort Collins, CO 

SUBJECT: Technical review of the social and economic components of Baca National Wildlife Refuge 

Environmental Assessment for planned oil and gas exploration 

My technical review of the social and economic components of BACA National Wildlife Refuge 

Environmental Assessment for planned oil and gas exploration (BACA EA) focused both on the content 

included in identified social and economic components and whether additional social and economic 

components should be addressed. I based my review upon several social science and economic 

resources that provide guidance on suggested social and economic components to consider for 

management actions1. I also reviewed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NEPA Reference Handbook 

with emphasis on the Environmental Impact Checklist for Social Concerns and the Environmental 

Impact Checklist for Economic Concerns. Additionally, I reviewed similar planned actions on Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) lands to identify what social and economic components were addressed. 

The proposed action of two exploratory wells within the BACA National Wildlife Refuge indicates the 

action would likely have little effects on the social and economic well-being of surrounding 

communities. Due to the temporary nature (4-6 months) and limited scope (only two exploratory wells, 

possibly up to 20 workers during timeframe) of the proposed action, the minimal potential effects on 

surrounding communities’ populations, demographic characteristics, and emergency services such as 

medical, police, and fire are supported by the information provided. Additionally, although social wellbeing can be subjective, the proposed action minimally affecting any community member interactions, 

recreation related services, and public health or safety, again due to the temporary nature and limited 

scope, is also supported by the information provided. The potential effects on aesthetics/noise and 

transportation issues related to Saguache CR T, which from the scoping comments seem to be concerns 

to many community residents, I believe, are adequately addressed. 
252

The BACA EA addresses the limited workforce needed and the temporary duration of drilling. The 

BACA EA conclusion of these having a minimal effect on local employment opportunities, community 

businesses, and local income is supported by the information provided. 

To the best of my knowledge the social and economic components of the planned action in the BACA 

EA are adequately addressed. The aesthetics of the area, which appear to be of concern to public 

members, is addressed in the BACA EA. The social and economic components addressed in the BACA 

EA are quite similar to a BLM EA on two exploratory wells in Sweetwater County, WY2. The BLM is 

well versed in conducting environmental assessments for exploratory wells and as such, provides 

reference to potential social and economic components to address. I believe that the BACA EA has 

addressed the pertinent social and economic components effectively. 

1

Sources reviewed include the following: 

Bureau of Land Management. 2004. BLM Social Science Guideline 1: Checklist for Socio-Economic 

Analysis in Resource Management Plans, Version 1.1. 

Bright, A. D., H.K. Cordell, A.P. Hoover, and M.A. Tarrant. 2003. A Human Dimensions Framework: 

Guidelines for Conducting Social Assessments. USDA Forest Service, GTRSRS-65. 

Burdge, R.J. 1994. A Conceptual Approach to Social Impact Assessment, Revised Edition. Middletown, 

WI: Social Ecology Press. 

Community Impact Assessment. Community Impact Assessment: A Quick Reference for 

Transportation. www.ciatrans.net/CIA_Quick_Reference/Chapter1.html, accessed November 6, 2009. 

Crone, L.K., P. Reed, and J. Schaefers. 2002. Social and Economic Assessment of the Chugach National 

Forest Area. USDA Forest Service, PNW-GTR-561, December. 

Dani, A.A. (ed.). 2003. Social Analysis Sourcebook. World Bank, December. 

Fitzsimmons, S.J., L.I. Stuart, and P.C. Wolff. 1977. Social Assessment Manual: A Guide to the 

Preparation of the Social Well-Being Account for Planning Water Resource Projects. Boulder, CO: 

Westview Press. 

The Interorganizational Committee on Principles and Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment. 2003. 

Principles and Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment in the USA. Impact Assessment and Project 

Appraisal, 21(3): 231-250, September. 

The Interorganizational Committee on Principles and Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment. 1994. 

Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment. U.S. Department of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Marine Fisheries Service, May. 

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2003. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for 

Assessment. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 
253

Phillips, R. 2003. Community Indicators. American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service, 

Report No. 517.

Redman, C. 1999. Human Dimensions of Ecosystem Studies. Ecosystems, 2: 296-298.

Seesholtz, D., D. Wickwar, and J.C. Russell. 2006. Social Economic Profile Technical Guide. USDA 

Forest Service, General Technical Report WO-74, September. 

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Monitoring for Forest Management Unit Scale Sustainability: The Local 

Unit Criteria and Indicators Development (LUCID) Test, Management Edition. Inventory and 

Monitoring Institute, Report No. 5. 

USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1984. National Social Sciences Manual, 420-V, Issue 1. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2001. Social Analysis Manual, Volume 1: Manager’s Guide to Using 

Social Analysis. Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2001. Social Analysis Manual, Volume 2: Social Analyst’s Guide to 

Doing Social Analysis. Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center. 

2 Bureau of Land Management, Rock Springs Field Office, 2008. Environmental Assessment Baxter 

Natural Gas Exploratory Proposal, Sweetwater County, WY: #WYW040EA08171. 
254

Appendix J 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Saguache County Cooperator 

Agreement 
255
256
257
258
259