U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau ot Land Management 

Pinedale cno Pock Sprngs F ctd O!fces 

~fCORD Of D[CISJON 

~JONAH INrlll DRilliNG PROJtCT 

SUBltTTt COUNTY, WYOMING 
RECORD OF DECISION 

FOR 

JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT STATEMENT 

APPROVING OFFICIAL: 

Robert A. Bennett 

Wyoming State Director 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Wyoming State Office 

Cheyenne, VVyonling 
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... 1

DECISION ........................................................................................................................................... 1

REASONS FOR THE DECISION....................................................................................................... 3

MITIGATION MEASURES................................................................................................................ 8

On-site Requirements....................................................................................................................... 8

Off-site Mitigation............................................................................................................................ 9

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT.................................................................................................................. 9

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES.................................................... 11

Alternatives Considered ................................................................................................................. 11

No Action Alternative .................................................................................................................... 11

Proposed Action ............................................................................................................................. 11

Alternative A – Minimize Directional Drilling .............................................................................. 12

Alternative B – Minimize Surface Disturbance.............................................................................. 13

BLM Preferred Alternative............................................................................................................. 13

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY.................. 15

Draft EIS Alternatives Not Carried Forward for Final Analysis..................................................... 15

Other Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Detailed Analysis......................................... 15

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ................................................................ 16

APPEAL PROCESS........................................................................................................................... 17

ERRATA............................................................................................................................................ 19

APPENDICES

A. Jonah Infill Drilling Project Administrative Requirements, Conditions of Approval, and

Mitigation

B. Operator-Committed Practices

C. Adaptive Management in the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area

D. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Concurrence Letter

E. Summary of Public Comments on the Jonah Infill Drilling Project FEIS and BLM’s

Responses
ii

List of Figures

1. Jonah Infill Drilling Project Location, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006...................................2

List of Tables

1. EnCana Proposed CM Funding, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County,

Wyoming, 2006 .............................................................................................................................9
1

RECORD OF DECISION

for the

Jonah Infill Drilling Project Environmental Impact Statement

Sublette County, Wyoming

SUMMARY

This Record of Decision (ROD) documents the Wyoming State Director’s decision to approve, with minor

modifications, the preferred alternative as described in the Final Jonah Infill Drilling Project (JIDP)

1

Final

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The JIDP FEIS analyzes various optionsfor oil and gasrecovery

and resource mitigation. The decision emphasizes limiting additional surface disturbance and performing

interim reclamation and off-site mitigation, performance-based outcomes for reducing impacts to air

quality, cooperative air quality monitoring with the State of Wyoming, and continued resource monitoring

and consultation with federal and state agencies. The ROD providesthe plan for future management of the

federal surface and mineral estate in the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area (JIDPA). The JIDPA comprises

approximately 30,500 acres, of which 28,580 acresisfederalsurface and mineral estate (94%), 1,280 acres

is state surface and mineral estate (4%), and 640 acres is private surface/federal mineral (2%) estate.

Figure 1 shows the location of the JIDPA. The findings in the JIDP FEIS and decisions of this ROD are

based upon an open and collaborative public process. The State of Wyoming, Sublette County, individuals,

stakeholders, and institutions shared their knowledge and insights about the proposed oil and gas field

development with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Public involvement was solicited, and the

BLM responses to major issues from public comments on the FEIS are presented in Appendix E.

The JIDP is consistent with the President’s National Energy Policy and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 by

increasing domestic energy supply and helping to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign sources of

oil and gas. The final project plan as described in the JIDP FEIS was recently cited by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a “model of collaboration” that successfully balances

“provid[ing] greatly needed energy resources...while protecting the environment of southwestern

Wyoming.” The proposed project is expected to produce nearly 8 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of natural gas,

providing enough natural gas to heat 96 million homes for one year and generating approximately

$6.1 billion in royalties to be divided between the federal treasury and the State of Wyoming.

DECISION

The BLM adopts the Preferred Alternative (with modifications) for infill drilling of the JIDPA, as

described in the FEIS. The Preferred Alternative involves year-round drilling of approximately

3,100 additional oil and gas wells within the existing JIDPA to recover additional energy resources while

limiting the total surface disturbance within the JIDPA to 46% of the area, or a maximum of 14,030 acres,

at any given time. Operators will be required to begin reclamation as soon as disturbed areas are no longer

1

The Jonah Infill Drilling Project is the proposal of EnCana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc., BP America Production

Company, and other companies (hereafter referred to as “Operators”).
- I'IIOPOS(D JON»! IHflll DI!ILU~ fiiOSCl .t.atA { JIDI'A) IIOIJIItMIIT 

- Xlll.\!1 f'IU..U II CIS PltOJ(C'f AfiU (mA) IIOI.WD.IIIY 

- - - II~W f'I"LO ornct IIOIJ!40o\MY 

--I'RIIWI'l' NXLSS IIO#D 

• - ---'-'!IIIJ'ItO""lO/f'II'O-IIIM:K ll:f»b 

- ·· - ORAl""" 

Jili'A \ AilD STA;US: 

STA.l[ Sl.fiJA(:[,I$lAit illt(R.U..S 

l'llrfA.I( S:.IP.r.I.Ct/f(f)(.t,t;,_ t.lliltw.S 

rtll&AAl SIJIIrACE/HDtuL M:N[IUU 

CftOOI( 

"""'" 

CONV{JIS£ NI061WU. 

figure 1. Jonah !nfill Drilling Project Location, Subleue County. Wyoming. 2006. 

2 

j 

0 30 60 

MIU:S 
3

needed for drilling activities. Final reclamation will be conducted as soon as sites are no longer needed for

production activities. When reclaimed areas meet the objectives in FEIS Appendix B, reclaimed acres will

be credited back against the total disturbed acres, up to 6,304 acres. The cumulative total disturbed area

cannot exceed 20,334 acres in the JIDPA. Surface disturbance and reclamation credit will be prorated and

tracked on an operated-acreage basis (i.e., leases developed by specific Operators;see Appendix A). Nonproject related disturbance within the JIDPA boundaries will be allocated to Operators on an operatedacreage percentage basis.

Desired future conditions and resource management objectives will be achieved through performancebased mitigation and implementation of best management practices (BMPs). The objectives address key

issues and significant impacts identified through the environmental analyses. Monitoring and surveying

will determine if objectives and desired future conditions are being met.

This decision establishes the Jonah Interagency Monitoring and Mitigation Office (JIO). The objective of

the JIO is to evaluate the effectiveness of guidelines, mitigation, BMPs, and monitoring. The JIO will

make recommendations to the BLM on modifications to proposed projects and mitigation based on its

evaluations. The BLM will use these recommendations in consultation with state and federal agencies to

adapt management decisions.

This decision is consistent with both the Pinedale Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Green River

RMP. This decision is not the final review or approval for actions associated with the JIDP. The

Authorized Officer will review and authorize each component of the project that involves disturbance of

federal lands on a site-specific basis. The methods used to evaluate and authorize each surface-disturbing

activity include, but are not limited to, an Application for Permit to Drill (APD), right-of-way (ROW)

grant, Sundry Notice, or Special Use Permit with the supporting environmental review.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The JIDP EIS was prepared in response to leaseholders’ requests to exercise the terms and conditions of

their respective oil and gas leases in the project area. The environmental impacts of this decision are fully

disclosed in the Draft and Final EISs for the project. The decision to approve the JIDP as described in the

Preferred Alternative is in conformance with the BLM land use plans for the Pinedale and Rock Springs

Field Offices covering the JIDPA.

The decisions included in this ROD ensure the effective recovery of the oil and gas resource within the

JIDPA. Performance-based mitigation and BMPs ensure desired future resource conditions will be

achieved. Implementation of this decision will result in production of nationally significant oil and natural

gas resources consistent with The National Energy Policy (May 2001). Although the proposed

development requires intensive surface-disturbing activities that will result in significant impacts to

resource values, including displacement and/or local extirpation of wildlife resources, long-term

reestablishment of habitat value and function will occur through the proposed reclamation practices and

monitoring efforts. While the intensive development will limit opportunities for other uses for many

years, the long-term outcome will be full reclamation and the return of these lands to near prior existing

conditions for other use opportunities in the future. In addition to the onsite mitigation, the BLM will

require off-site mitigation as proposed by the project proponent, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc.

In reaching this decision, the following key issues were considered. Rationale for mitigation and actions

to address each issue and reduce effects are presented.
4

Surface Disturbance. The total area and distribution of surface disturbance associated with further

development of the JIDPA affects other resources (soils, vegetation, wildlife and wildlife habitat, cultural

resources). The extent and duration of surface disturbance can adversely affect management of these

resources.

• To minimize surface disturbance impacts, the Preferred Alternative employs outcome-based

performance objectives and encourages development and implementation of state-of-the-art

technologies for both operational and reclamation activities.

• Soil erosion and salinity transport modeling predicted no sedimentation or salinity reaching the

Green or New Fork Rivers, though multiple repeated runoff events could affect these waterways.

Accelerated reclamation, intensive monitoring, and use of sediment controlstructures will further

minimize impacts. Managing surface disturbance on a field-wide basis and requiring successful

interim reclamation in exchange for allowing additional disturbance provides a strong incentive

for Operators to employ new technologies to reduce their operational footprint and accelerate the

reclamation process to reach their total oil and gas resource recovery objectives. Reducing the

operational footprint will create less overall disturbance, while accelerated reclamation will ensure

vegetation is reestablished in the shortest time possible. The surface disturbance management

philosophy of smaller operational footprints and accelerated reclamation efforts also benefit

wildlife by limiting habitat fragmentation and returning habitat function in the shortest possible

time.

• Surface disturbance impacts on cultural resource are mitigated through avoidance and, where

avoidance is not possible, by recovery actions on a site-specific basis. Additionally, a

programmatic agreement between the BLM, State Historic Preservation Office, and Operators is

being pursued to further reduce the overall potential for impacts to cultural resources.

Socioeconomic Effects. Another issue of concern is the influx of transient workers (those workers not

maintaining permanent residence) and the ability of governmental agencies to address infrastructure

shortfalls such as community support facilities, hospitals and medical clinics, emergency services, housing,

and roads. Gas field employees express the desire to maintain permanent residence in the area, but are

concerned about continued employment opportunities in the JIDPA. Both the project proponents and local

government agencies identify potential revenues from tax dollars, royalties, and jobs associated with the

proposed project as benefits to the state, county, and local communities.

• The FEIS and Socioeconomic Analysis Technical Support Document contain extensive analysis of

potential socioeconomic impacts. To assist local government agenciesin planning, Operators will

annually provide 3-year field development forecasts to the BLM. These forecasts will be made

available to local government agencies to assist in local community/county/state planning efforts.

Air Quality. Ogoing and future natural gas development projectsin the region are contributing to observed

changes in air quality and negatively impacting the nearby Class I wilderness airsheds. Also of concern

are the potential health effects on worker and area residents, the potential for excessive acid deposition, the

potential impacts to nighttime stargazing, and BLM’s authority for requiring air quality mitigation.

• These concerns have been extensively analyzed through air quality modeling in cooperation with

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Wyoming Department of Environmental

Quality–Air Quality Division (WDEQ–AQD) and USDA Forest Service (USFS).
5

• Modeling predicts no significant impacts to public health for the air quality pollutants modeled.

Worker health falls within the purview of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

• WDEQ is the regulatory authority to maintain and monitor compliance with state and federal air

quality public health standards. BLM will continue to work in consultation with WDEQ, EPA,

and the USFS to monitor air quality for public health, including ozone monitoring.

• Both modeled and monitored atmospheric deposition is within levels of acceptable change, and

no significant impacts to lake chemistry from the JIDP are anticipated. Mitigation measures

designed to reduce potential visibility impacts are anticipated to also reduce impacts to lake

chemistry and atmospheric deposition.

• The modeling indicated potential significant adverse visibility impacts in various Class 1 areas

using a reasonable-but-conservative scenario. To address this issue, the BLM, WDEQ, EPA, and

USFS jointly developed performance-based mitigation requirements (see Appendix A).

• Mitigation measures designed to reduce potential visibility impacts are anticipated to also reduce

impacts to stargazing.

Wildlife. Wildlife issues focus on three areas: sage-grouse impacts, pronghorn migration corridors, and

habitat impacts. Overall wildlife impact strategy is discussed below, followed by a specific discussion of

each of the three issues.

• After federal decisions authorizing the current level of Jonah Field development (16 well pads per

section, or 40-acre spacing), the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) issued a guidance

document for oil and gas development impacts to wildlife (Recommendationsfor Development of

Oil and Gas Resources within Crucial and Important Wildlife Habitats, December 6, 2004).

Using the definitions in this guidance, the current state of development in the Jonah Field had

already reached a threshold (oil and gas development at levels greater than four well pads per 640-

acre section [160-acre spacing]). The WGFD report recommends off-site mitigation to address

impacts when this threshold is exceeded.

• To address the cumulative impacts within the JIDPA, this decision implementsthree strategies; 1)

return field habitat function in the shortest time possible, 2) perform on-site mitigation to the

extent practicable and employ compensatory (off-site) mitigation (CM) when complete on-site

mitigation is not effective in the short-term, and 3) institute an adaptive management process to

ensure monitoring and both on- and off-site mitigation are effective.

• To return habitat function as soon as possible, this decision implements a management approach

that provides an incentive for rapid on-site interim and final reclamation while simultaneously

allowing maximum flexibility in field development. The Operators will establish a fund for CM

as part of their operation. This fund will be administered by the Jonah Interagency Monitoring and

Mitigation Office (JIO) established by this ROD (see Appendix C). The JIO will evaluate

monitoring and mitigation effectiveness and provide annual adaptive management

recommendations as appropriate to the BLM for consideration. WGFD and the Governor of

Wyoming have coordinated on these strategies.

• Sage-Grouse Impacts. Effects to this species and its habitats are an issue because of the decline

from historic population levels of sage-grouse in the JIDPA and the decline in overall populations
6

across their range. Potential project effects to breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering

habitat and habitat function were identified as potentially contributing to continued population

declines. It was also noted that existing sage-grouse protection measures appear to be inadequate

within the JIDPA and with the proposed increase in development, existing protection measures

would be even less effective.

o The FEIS analysis disclosed the impactsfrom the current and alternative levels of disturbance,

and recognized that the local population will likely be completely displaced and/or locally

extirpated due to full field development. However, this is not anticipated to affect long-term

species sustainability due to the relatively small size of the JIDPA in relation to overall habitat

availability in the area. For example, the Yellowpoint lek complex (which includes the

JIDPA) has seen a 25% reduction in male lek attendance compared to long-term averages,

while the nearby Speedway lek complex (outside the JIDPA) has observed a 48% increase in

male lek attendance. Additionally, substantial off-site CM directed at sage-grouse habitat

improvements will be employed to further mitigate impacts.

• Pronghorn Migration Corridor. Sublette pronghorn herd migrations are affected by current oil and

gas development. Continued development within the JIDPA and at other locations within the

Sublette Herd Unit area will cumulatively affect pronghorn seasonal migrations. Hunters, wildlife

enthusiasts, and wildlife management agencies all consider the maintenance of existing migratory

corridors extremely important to pronghorn population maintenance.

o The FEIS analysis disclosed that these impacts will likely affect traditional pronghorn

utilization of the JIDPA on a long-term basis. As with sage-grouse, the selected action is not

anticipated to affect overall species sustainability due to the project’s small footprint and

availability of suitable alternative habitat surrounding the JIDPA that provides adequate

opportunity for animal displacement. Also, CM will be employed to implement appropriate

projects, such as habitat improvement, to further mitigate impacts.

Wildlife Habitat. Respondents indicated that, with implementation of the proposed project, the JIDPA

would no longer be suitable habitat for many wildlife species (e.g., threatened and endangered species,

BLM-sensitive species, and raptors). Habitat loss was attributed to direct lossthrough surface disturbance,

indirect loss through animal avoidance of areas proximal to developments, and habitat fragmentation

(habitat is no longer suitable for species requiring intact habitat patches larger than what would be

available if the project were constructed).

o The FEIS acknowledged that habitat impacts would be substantial due to full field

development. The mitigation strategy for limiting the allowable surface disturbance is

designed to ensure accelerated reclamation by the Operators and to facilitate the long-term

return of habitat function. Compensatory mitigation, committed to by the Operators and

accepted by the BLM as a condition of approval, should result in significant improvementsto

existing habitats and/or development of additional suitable habitats used by the affected

species. The off-site mitigation will remain in place and offset some of the on-site impacts

until such time as final reclamation of the full field development impacts occurs.

Maximize Natural Gas Recovery. The BLM was perceived as not responding to its mandate under the

Mineral Leasing Act to maximize recovery of available oil and gas resources. Existing and proposed

development restrictions (lease stipulations, RMP requirements, and Operator-committed practices) limit

the economic feasibility of maximizing recovery of the JIDPA’s natural gas resources.
7

• Under the Preferred Alternative, Operators will be able to achieve their proposed level of

development over time, but must meet interim reclamation goals to reach these objectives.

The BLM believes this approach provides a good balance between oil and gas recovery and

resource protection and provides for long-term reclamation and re-establishment of native

vegetation and wildlife communities.

Range/Grazing. Concerns for livestock operations in the JIDPA include direct loss of livestock forage;

the potential for a reduction in permitted livestock numbers; water quality impairment at existing livestock

watering sources; livestock movement restrictions/alterations due to pipeline trenches, roads, and fences;

livestock management problems associated with the inability to accessrequired area two-track routesfrom

project-developed crowned-and-ditched roads; vehicle collisions; drinking contaminated waters from

project pits; entrapment in pipeline trenches; and the increase in fugitive dust emissions potentially

causing dust-induced pneumonia.

• Though the project results in the temporary and potentially long-term loss of available livestock

forage (depending on the results of the Preferred Alternative’s reclamation requirements), any

loss of animal unit months will be determined through rangeland monitoring and, if necessary,

addressed through the adaptive management process. As discussed in the FEIS, the effect(s) of

other potential impacts (e.g., traffic, roads, open trenches, etc.) on grazing operations cannot be

accurately predicted at this time, but it is reasonable to assume some conflicts may occur.

Mitigation and/or solutions to such conflicts will also be addressed as they arise.

BLM Monitoring/Enforcement Capability. Concern was expressed that BLM would focus on drilling

approvals and neglect monitoring, compliance, and resource protection responsibilities. It was suggested

this may lead to undetected violations of numerous laws, rules, and regulations (e.g., Endangered Species

Act, Clean Water Act, lease stipulations, RMP requirements, Operator-committed practicesrequired under

past project authorizations).

• BLM’s monitoring and enforcement procedures for oil and gas exploration and development

occur in three separate phases: 1) application review and processing, 2) compliance, and 3) longterm monitoring of mitigation effectiveness.

APD processing includes review of the surface-disturbing activity application and on-site

inspection of proposed locations. Resource specialists manage the various aspects of this process

and ensure NEPA analyses, on-site visits, site-specific conditions of approval (COAs), and

mitigation requirements are appropriate. Sufficient personnel are available to meet requirements.

APD compliance includes inspection of road, well pad, and pipeline construction by BLM

Natural Resource Specialists (NRSs) and/or Surface Compliance Specialists(SCSs) to ensure the

construction complies with requirements of the surface use plan in the APD, site-specific and

programmatic NEPA documentation, and the guiding land use plan. NRSs and SCSs also monitor

post-drilling (interim) reclamation processes to ensure the site is adequately stabilized and habitat

restoration is initiated in accordance with this ROD. APD compliance also includes rigging-up,

drilling, and case-setting operations, which are randomly monitored by BLM Petroleum

Engineering Technicians to ensure required safety features such as blow-out preventers operate

properly and the surface casing is properly cemented to protect fresh groundwater zones.

Long-term resource monitoring includes evaluation of the effectiveness of both on-site and off-site

mitigation/reclamation to ensure the objectives of this ROD are met. The Jonah Interagency
8

Monitoring and Mitigation Office (JIO) was established to addressthese issues(see Appendix C).

As an interagency office, the JIO staff (WGFD, WDEQ, Wyoming Department of Agriculture,

and BLM) will have the authority to address a wide range of pertinent monitoring, mitigation,

and/or compliance issues. This office will also provide the BLM with adaptive management

recommendations to established procedures when existing data indicates changes are required.

One of the major concerns expressed during this analysis process by both the public and various agencies

was the inability to mitigate all potential impacts in the JIDPA on-site (within the JIDPA boundaries).

In response to this concern, the Operators voluntarily proffered varying levels of CM to provide a means

to complete off-site mitigation that may be necessary due to the level of development authorized.

Additionally, a portion of these funds will be used to establish and operate the JIO to provide projectspecific monitoring and mitigation (both on- and off-site). The JIO also provides a meansto ensure project

monitoring and mitigation requirements are fulfilled and BLM receives relevant adaptive management

recommendations periodically.

The Preferred Alternative meets one of the primary goals of the President’s National Energy Policy and

the Energy Policy Act of 2005, to increase domestic energy supplies and reduce the United States’

dependence on foreign sources of energy. Development of these federal resourcessatisfiesrequirements of

FLPMA and the Mineral Leasing Act. The leasing and subsequent production of federal oil and gas

resources provides the United States, the State of Wyoming, and affected local counties with income in

the form of lease royalty payments. The Preferred Alternative meets the goals of the National Energy

Policy and achieves the objectives of the federal oil and gas leasing programs managed by the BLM.

This decision is made in full consideration of the public, local, state, and other federal agency input. No

substantial issues remain unresolved within the scope of this proposal, as raised by government agencies,

industry, groups, or individuals.

MITIGATION MEASURES

Implementation of the Jonah Infill Drilling Project will be subject to numerous mitigation measures

applicable to both on-site and off-site actions. These measures are addressed in two sections, on-site

requirements and off-site requirements, each of which is described below.

On-Site Requirements

On-site administrative requirements, COAs, and mitigation requirements are used to guide field

development activities to compensate for, resolve, minimize, or avoid impacts to resources. Appendix A

presents administrative requirements, performance-based objectives, and potential mitigation measures

to be applied when supported by site-specific environmental review. Operator-committed practices, which

become mandatory requirements with publication of this decision, are included in Appendix B.

Field development plans contained in Appendix B of the FEIS are also incorporated in this decision, as

modified in the Errata section of this ROD. These development plans include a Transportation Plan,

Reclamation Plan, and a Hazardous Materials Management Summary.
9

Off-Site Mitigation

Off-site or compensatory mitigation (CM) is necessary to mitigate some impactsthat cannot be adequately

mitigated on site. Impacts to wildlife from implementing the Preferred Alternative cannot be adequately

mitigated on site. Recognizing this fact, EnCana, and potentially other Operators, committed to fund

varying levels of CM depending on the amount of new surface disturbance authorized in this decision.

These funding levels are included in Table 1 below for the five developmentsscenarios provided for in the

EnCana commitment letter.

Table 1. EnCana Proposed CM Funding, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2006

Funding Distribution

Amount of Additional Surface Disturbance

Authorized in the Jonah Drilling Project

ROD

Offsite Wildlife Habitat

Improvement Projects

Other Monitoring,

Inspection, and

Enforcement Activities

Total

16,200 or Greater Acres New Initial Surface

Disturbance

$20.5 million $8 million $28.5 million

Between 12,000 and 16,199 Acres New

Initial Surface Disturbance

$16.5 million $8 million $24.5 million

Between 11,000 and 11,999 Acres New

Initial Surface Disturbance

$13.5 million $6.2 million $19.7 million

Between 10,000 and 10,999 Acres New

Initial Surface Disturbance

$7.5 million $4.6 million $12.1 million

Between 8,300 and 9,999 Acres New Initial

Surface Disturbance

$1.5 million $4 million $5.5 million

The Preferred Alternative permits a total cumulative new surface disturbance of 16,125 acres. This

equates to a total commitment of $24.5 million in CM funding, to be provided as requested by the JIO

Charter Members annually in increments not to exceed 20% of the total CM fund per year. These funds

will be applied to off-site mitigation projects and managed by the JIO, with oversight by the Agency

Managers Committee (see FEIS, Appendix F). In the event CM proffered funds are withheld, further

surface disturbance allowed under this decision would not be authorized.

Project proposals will be accepted from a variety of sources: federal, state or local government agencies,

educational institutions, interest groups, or individuals. Initial project selection will be by the JIO, with

final approval by the BLM. Approved projects will be implemented and managed by the JIO.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

In September 2002, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc. (EnCana) dba McMurray Oil Company, BP America

(BP), and other natural gas operators, collectively known as the Operators, submitted a proposal to the

BLM to further develop the Jonah Field by “infill” drilling natural gas wells in well spacing that would be

more dense than what had been previously approved.
10

On March 13, 2003, the BLM’s Notice of Intent (NOI) appeared in the Federal Register and invited the

public to comment or provide research information regarding the Operators’ proposal to infill drill in the

Jonah natural gas field. On March 26, 2003, copies of a scoping notice describing the Proposed Action and

seeking comments were mailed to appropriate government offices, elected officials, public land users,

groups, newspapers, and radio and television stations. A scoping meeting was held in Pinedale, Wyoming,

on April 17, 2003. An additional public meeting was held on November 13, 2003, to present to the public

the draft project alternatives that had been developed for analysis in the EIS to address public concerns.

On November 20, 2003, EnCana and BP jointly submitted to the BLM a revised development proposal.

The Operators’ proposed revised development had evolved from the proposed activities described in the

March 2003 NOI.

On December 12, 2003, the BLM notified scoping participants of the Operator-proposed development

plan revisions and solicited further comment. BLM’s letter describing the Operators’ revised proposal

provided the public with a 30-day review and comment period.

Numerous issues and concerns were identified in comments received by BLM. All comments received

between March 2003 and August 2004 were reviewed and analyzed. The BLM identified nine key issues

based primarily upon the assumed quantity, intensity, or duration of a potential impact, and/or the level of

interest in the issue. These issues were used to develop the range of alternatives analyzed in the draft

environmental impact statement (DEIS).

The DEIS, including technical support documents for air quality and socioeconomics, wasreleased to the

public and a notice of availability (NOA) was published in the Federal Register on February 11, 2005. All

documents were available in paper and electronic formats (CD-ROM), as well as being available for

download from the BLM’s website. The comment period ended April 12, 2005.

After publication of the DEIS, BLM determined the air quality modeling and analysis in the DEIS was

inadequate to evaluate impacts. Analysis in the Questar Year-Round Drilling Proposal Environmental

Assessment (November 2004) showed emission levels of certain pollutants within the regional airshed had

increased significantly since the original DEIS data had been compiled.

The BLM in cooperation with other federal and state governments with jurisdiction determined that

supplemental air quality modeling and analysis would be conducted, an air quality technical support

document supplement would be published, and the results of these studies would be incorporated into the

final environmental impact statement (FEIS). On April 12, 2005 BLM published its NOI in the Federal

Register to provide supplemental air quality information for the DEIS. The supplemental air quality

information became available for public review and comment in August 2005, and BLM published an

NOA in the Federal Register and provided the public with an additional 60-day comment period.

BLM received a total of 877 separate written comment submissions (letters, e-mails, forms, etc.) on the

DEIS, TSDs, and the August 2005 supplements. Within these submissions, 1,147 individual comments

were identified as “substantive,” or meaningful to revision of the DEIS and/or its supporting volumes.

BLM responded to each of these substantive comments, which were used to guide revision of the DEIS

analyses. The substantive comments resulted in BLM’s decision to significantly revise the Preferred

Alternative and to eliminate five of the alternatives presented in the DEIS from further consideration in the

FEIS. A detailed description of the comments made on the DEIS and the process by which they were

analyzed by BLM was included with the FEIS.
11

The FEIS was released to the public and an NOA published in the Federal Register on January 13, 2006.

Comments were accepted on the FEIS through February 13, 2006. A total of 45 public comments were

received. A summary of these comments and BLM’s responses are contained in Appendix E of this ROD.

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

Alternatives Considered

The Jonah Infill Drilling Project FEIS analyzed five alternatives. They are:

1. No Action

2. Proposed Action

3. Alternative A: Minimize Directional Drilling

4. Alternative B: Minimize Surface Disturbance

5. Preferred Alternative

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM would reject the Operators’ proposal for additional field-level

natural gas development on federal lands within the JIDPA. Authorizations for and impacts from

previously approved or analyzed development (533 wells) and surface disturbance (497 well pads with

associated roads, pipelines, and ancillary facilities) would continue. The approved surface disturbance

under the No Action Alternative is 4,209 acres, including 1,409 acres of life of project (LOP) disturbance.

LOP is estimated to be approximately 63 years.

However, rejection of the Operators’ proposal would not preclude all additional natural gas development

in the JIDPA. The No Action Alternative assumes the JIDPA would be managed as approved by existing

management plans and previously approved NEPA documents. Though the extent of potential future

development under this scenario is limited, it cannot be precisely predicted. Therefore, the impact analysis

for the No Action Alternative assumes no new development.

The No Action Alternative serves as a benchmark enabling decision-makers and the public to compare the

magnitude of environmental consequences across action alternatives.

Proposed Action

The Operators would infill drill and develop up to 3,100 new wells on a minimum of 64 well pads/section

(at least 1 pad every 10 acres) with related roads, pipelines, and ancillary facilities on up to 16,200 acres of

new disturbance. Drilling would begin upon issue of the ROD and continue until the total number of

proposed wells has been drilled, the natural gas resources in the field have been fully developed, or

economic conditions are such that it is no longer profitable to drill additional wells.

Operator reservoir modeling shows that 3,100 new wells would be necessary to adequately recover the

natural gas resource present in the area. Their experience indicates that the use of directional drilling is in

some cases not economically feasible and in other cases results in inadequate resource recovery.
12

The Proposed Action assumes that 250 wells would be developed annually (~20 rigs operating yearround). LOP would be approximately 76 years. Specific features include:

• up to 3,100 new wells on up to 11,780 acres of new disturbance (2,790 acres LOP)—assumes all

3,100 wells would be drilled from single-well pads with an estimated total disturbance of 3.8 acres

and 0.9 acre LOP per single well pad;

• 465 miles of new resource roads with gathering pipelines—4,131 acres new disturbance

(1,635 acres LOP);

• 8 miles of new collector/local roads—73 acres new disturbance (37 acres LOP);

• an upgrade of approximately 12 miles of the Burma Road—75 acres new disturbance (20 acres

LOP);

• ancillary facilities—41 acres new disturbance (41 acres LOP) for water disposal, storage, and

compressor station facilities; and

• exploration activities—100 acres new disturbance (100 acres LOP) to develop well pads and other

infrastructures necessary to explore for natural gas resources in formations other than the Lance

Pool.

Following successful interim reclamation (post-drilling during production phase), LOP surface

disturbance under the Proposed Action would be 6,040 acres, which includes 1,409 acres of existing

disturbance.

Additionally, Operators identified a number of mitigation/development practicesthey would commit to in

advance (see Appendix B), as well as $28.5 million in compensatory (off-site) mitigation (CM) funding.

Alternative A – Minimize Directional Drilling

Alternative A is similar to the Proposed Action in its estimated surface disturbance requirements

(16,200 acres), development rate (250 wells per year) and LOP (76 years), but differs in that known areas

with sensitive resources in the JIDPA would not be avoided (e.g., Sand Draw,steep slopes, raptor nest and

sage grouse lek buffers). Development of natural gas resources beneath these areas would therefore not

require the use of directional drilling, resulting in increased recovery of the resources by ~250 billion cubic

feet over the LOP. This alternative would not necessarily provide for the RMP-required balance between

gas recovery and other resource protection; therefore, project authorization under this alternative would

require an RMP amendment. Other features of Alternative A include:

• Well pads, access roads, and other aboveground facilities could be located within 825 feet of

active raptor nests.

• Surface disturbance and occupancy would not be prohibited within 0.25 mile of the perimeter of

greater sage-grouse leks.

• Prairie dog towns would not be avoided
13

• The Sand Draw Conditional Surface Use restriction (formerly referred to as a No Surface

Occupancy restriction) and other drainage and steep slope avoidance areas would not be

maintained.

Operators committed to a number of mitigation/development practices in advance (see Appendix B) and

$28.5 million in CM funding under this alternative.

Alternative B – Minimize Surface Disturbance

Surface disturbance would be reduced under Alternative B by requiring all new wells be drilled from

existing well pads. Existing well pads would be enlarged and new pipelines built within existing pipeline

corridors. A rate of development of 75 wells per year and an LOP of 105 years are assumed under

Alternative B. Specific features include:

• expansion of existing well pads—3,081 acres new disturbance (1,044 acres LOP)— 6.2 acres

new disturbance (3.0 acres LOP) per well pad expansion;

• ancillary facilities—41 acres new disturbance (41 acres LOP) for water disposal, storage, and

compressor station facilities; and

• exploration activities—100 acres new disturbance (100 acres LOP) to develop well pads and other

infrastructures necessary to explore for natural gas resources in formations other than the Lance

Pool.

Following successful interim reclamation, LOP surface disturbance under Alternative B would total

2,622 acres, which includes 1,409 acres of existing disturbance.

Although directional drilling under Alternative B would minimize surface disturbance and thereby benefit

wildlife and other resources, it would also increase air emissions by approximately 20% over the Proposed

Action and Alternative A by extending the amount of drilling time per well. Thus, Alternative B could

have a greater cumulative impact on air quality resources. Additionally, Alternative B results in

significantly lower oil and gas recovery rates in relation to the Proposed Action or Preferred Alternative

(~1.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 18 million barrels of oil).

Operator-committed practices contained in Appendix B would also apply, though no CM funding was

volunteered for this level of development.

BLM Preferred Alternative

BLM revised the Preferred Alternative based on public comment and technical information received on the

DEIS. The revised Preferred Alternative, and its associated outcome-based performance objectives,

mitigation, and Best Management Practices (BMPs), would achieve high levels of natural gas recovery

(potentially that of the Proposed Action) while minimizing impacts related to the key issues. BLM has

concluded that this management approach would achieve the fewest long-term impacts while allowing

recovery of the mineral resource as provided by federal laws and regulations, including FLPMA, and

extant leasing stipulations.
14

The Preferred Alternative would limit total surface disturbance at any given time to 46% of the JIDPA, or

a maximum of 14,030 acres. To mitigate surface disturbance and associated environmental impacts as

quickly as possible, Operators would be required to initiate reclamation of developed well pads and road

and pipeline construction ROWs pursuant to Reclamation Plan specifications (see FEIS, Appendix B).

Credit would thereafter be given, on an acre-for-acre basis for areas the BLM determines have

successfully been reclaimed. Under no circumstances would cumulative total surface disturbance exceed

20,334 acres over the LOP. Surface disturbance and reclamation credit will be tracked on an operatedacreage basis. Non-project related disturbance within the JIDPA boundaries will be allocated to Operators

on a field-wide operated-acreage percentage basis.

For the purposes of analysis, a total of 3,100 new wells and a pace of 250 wells drilled per year are

assumed, resulting in the field development phase being completed in approximately 13 years. However,

the actual pace of development may be limited by air quality impact restrictions and associated mitigation,

which creates the potential to increase the duration of the field development phase. For the purposes of

analysis the LOP is assumed to be 76 years.

Additional provisions of the Preferred Alternative are as follows:

• An interagency mitigation and monitoring implementation group, called the Jonah Interagency

Mitigation and Reclamation Office (JIO), would be established and begin working once the ROD

is issued. Details of JIO composition, objectives, and operating procedures are provided in

Appendix C. General provisions of the JIO are as follows:

o Oversee implementation of mitigation and monitoring of JIDP activities, including

compensatory mitigation.

o The JIO would include BLM, WDEQ, WGFD, and the Wyoming Department of Agriculture.

o Funding for the JIO would be provided by the Operators.

o BLM would consider periodic JIO adaptive management recommendations to adjust COAs,

monitoring, mitigation, and/or BMPs to meet field development and production objectives

throughout the LOP.

• The existing Wildlife Monitoring/Protection Plan developed for the Modified Jonah II Project

would be modified/updated to address activities within the JIDPA.

• To reduce potential wildlife impacts, no further improvements to the Burma Road would be

authorized. That portion of the Burma Road that is currently upgraded would be maintained to

BLM standards.

Following successful interim reclamation and assuming the application of the maximum reclamation credit

(6,304 acres), LOP surface disturbance under the BLM Preferred Alternative would total 6,020 acres,

which includes 1,409 acres of existing long-term disturbance.

Operator-committed practices as described in Appendix B would be required as COAs where appropriate.

Operators would fund compensatory mitigation equal to $24.5 million based on the authorized level of

new surface disturbance (16,125 acres; see Table 1).
15

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND ELIMINATED

FROM DETAILED STUDY

Draft EIS Alternatives Not Carried Forward for Final Analysis

Of the 10 alternatives that were analyzed in detail in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS),

five of these alternatives—Alternatives C, D, E, F, and G—were not carried forward for final analysis in

the FEIS. Additionally, multiple well development rates within any single alternative were not further

analyzed. A description of these alternatives and development rates follows.

Alternatives C and D provided different limits to restrict well numbers and were initially considered in

the DEIS to provide a range of impacts to air quality. Alternative C proposed limiting development to

1,250 new wells and well pads and an estimated surface disturbance of 6,705 acres. Alternative D would

have limited the number of new wells and well pads to 2,200 and an estimated surface disturbance of

11,581 acres. Neither Alternative C nor Alternative D limited well or well pad surface density. These two

alternatives were eliminated from additional analysis because neither alternative is considered reasonable:

at least 3,100 additional wells would be required to fully develop the field and anything less would result

in stranded resources that would most likely never be recovered. Allowing mineral resources to remain

unrecovered, as would occur under these and similar alternatives, would result in waste and prevent BLM

from achieving its statutory and policy goals. In addition to not fully recovering the resource, Alternatives

C and D would result in impacts similar to those resulting from components of the alternatives that are

carried forward in this FEIS. Specifically, these components are individual wellsfrom closely spaced well

pads under Alternative A, multiple wells from a single well pad as analyzed in Alternative B, and a

combination of single and multiple well pads as analyzed under the Preferred Alternative.

Alternatives E, F, and G provided variable surface well pad spacing allowances, and were initially

considered to provide a range in the amount and distribution of surface disturbance across the JIDPA.

Alternative E examined drilling and developing 16 wells from 16 well pads in a section, resulting in

approximately 6,386 acres of additional disturbance. Alternative F analyzed the effects of increasing

the well pad density to 32 well pads per section for a total of 10,446 acres of additional disturbance.

Finally, Alternative G examined the effects of 64 well pads per section (one well pad for every 10 acres) at

an estimated total additional disturbance of 13,898 acres. As with Alternatives C and D, these alternatives

were eliminated from further consideration in the FEIS because the anticipated impacts from the

alternative actions would be similar to those resulting from components of the alternatives that are carried

forward for additional analysis in this FEIS.

Alternate paces of development within each alternative were eliminated from further analysesin this FEIS

because it was determined that providing this information within each alternative introduced a level of

complexity which made it difficult for the public and decision-makers to assess potential impacts across

the full range of alternatives. Two development rates (250 and 75 wells drilled per year) are carried

forward as parts of specific alternatives analyzed in this FEIS, and with these analyses a sufficient range of

resource effects (e.g., LOP, air quality, socioeconomics) is provided.

Other Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Detailed Analysis

Many suggestions for alternatives were proposed by the public during scoping. Most of the suggested

alternatives involved addressing varying well numbers, varying the rate at which the field is developed,
16

and varying surface disturbance. While not all the suggested well number, development rate, or surface

disturbance suggestions were analyzed, the BLM used these suggestions when developing the range of

alternatives.

An alternative rejecting any new development was also suggested. This was not considered reasonable,

as additional development in the area would likely occur from non-federal activities (e.g., State of

Wyoming land development), over which BLM has no authority. The No Action Alternative sufficiently

considers no new development impacts (see FEIS, Section 2.4.1).

Action alternatives limiting the total number of wells were rejected from consideration based upon known

natural gas reservoir properties indicating that an estimated 3,100 additional wells would be necessary for

adequate resource recovery. Additional justification for eliminating these alternatives from detailed

analyses is provided in the FEIS, Section 2.2.3.1.

Phased development alternatives suggesting a development pace slower than 75 wells per year were

rejected from detailed analyses because the reduced development pace would result in recovery and

operational and safety issues associated with drilling through depressurized zones (i.e., stuck pipe, mud

weight variability problems, blow-out potential). It was determined that the analyzed development paces

of 75 and 250 wells drilled per year provide an adequate range of development pacesto assessthe potential

effects associated with development rate (e.g., socioeconomics, duration of habitat loss). Phased

development alternatives involving systematic extraction of resourcesfrom portions of the JIDPA followed

by appropriate reclamation prior to developing other areas of the JIDPA were not provided detailed

analyses due to the potential for disproportionate adverse effects on resource recovery within some

leaseholds (see also FEIS, Section 2.2.3.1). Allowing mineral resources to remain unrecovered would

result in waste and prevent BLM from achieving its statutory and policy goals.

Two alternatives requiring all new wells to be directionally drilled and requiring no new roads were not

specifically analyzed in detail because Alternative B has a similar potential effect (i.e., no new well pads,

few new roads needed).

An alternative rejecting all further development in the JIDPA until all existing disturbance in the area is

adequately reclaimed was not considered since this action would likely lead to considerable unrecovered

resource and would unnecessarily prolong the LOP.

Numerous alternatives requiring the inclusion/exclusion of multiple resource protection, mitigation, and

monitoring measures were suggested for analysis, including the application of best management practices

(BMPs), the use of adaptive management procedures, and consideration of off-site CM (see FEIS,

Chapter 5). Some of these additional measures have been included as components of the Proposed Action

and Preferred Action alternatives and/or may be included as project requirementsin the ROD. Many if not

all of these suggested requirements are considered under one or more of the alternatives analyzed in detail

(see also Appendices A and C of the FEIS for BLM standard mitigations, Operator-committed measures,

and CM ideas).

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

In accordance with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1505.2(b)), the

environmentally preferred alternative must be identified in the Record of Decision.
17

BLM considers the environmentally preferred alternative for the Jonah Infill Drilling Project to be the No

Action Alternative. This alternative would result in the least amount of impact to a majority of resources

within the Jonah Field. However, the No Action alternative would also fail to effectively recover known

oil and gas resources. Therefore, the BLM Preferred Alternative was selected.

APPEAL PROCESS

This decision may be appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals, Office of the Secretary, in

accordance with the regulations contained in 43 CFR 3165.4. If an appeal is filed, your notice of appeal

must be filed in this office (Bureau of Land Management, State Director, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne,

Wyoming 82003) within 30 days of the date BLM publishes their notice of the decision in the Federal

Register. The appellant has the burden of showing that the decision appealed from is in error.

If you wish to file a petition pursuant to 43 CFR 3165.4(c) for a stay (suspension) of the effectiveness of

this decision during the time that your appeal is being reviewed by the Board, the petition for a stay must

accompany your notice of appeal. A petition for a stay is required to show sufficient justification based on

the standards listed in 43 CFR 3165.4(c). Copies of the notice of appeal and petition for a stay must also

be submitted to the Interior Board of Land Appeals and to the Rocky Mountain Regional office of the

Solicitor at the same time the original documents are filed with this office. If you request a stay, you have

the burden of proof to demonstrate that a stay should be granted.
18
19

ERRATA

Modifications and Corrections to the

Jonah Infill Drilling Project Final Environmental Assessment

The section describes changes to the FEIS to correct errors or omissions and identify modifications.

Modifications

1. Abstract, page i, 3

rd

paragraph, line 6, change to read “Above a certain level of authorized

development, the several Operators have committed to establishing a fund...”. This statement is

corrected to reflect that all Jonah Field Operators have not committed to compensatory mitigation.

2. Executive Summary, page iii, Proposed Action, 1

st

paragraph, line 8, change to read “The Several

Operators have committed to various mitigation...”. This statement is corrected to reflect that not all

Jonah Field Operators have committed to compensatory mitigation.

3. Executive Summary, page v, BLM Preferred Alternative, 1

st

paragraph, line 1, change to read “(i.e.,

achieved 80% indigenous vegetative basal cover/density and species composition meets reclamation

performance objectives). Under no circumstances...”. This statement is corrected to reflect final

reclamation strategy.

4. Chapter 1, Section 1.3, page 1-4, delete 1

st

paragraph and allsix bullets beginning with “The proposed

development meets the purpose and need...to plan usesthat encourage energy conservation” from this

section and insert in Section 1.5.3, page 1-10, between paragraph 3 (beginning “The Notice of Intent

(NOI) for this EIS...”) and paragraph 4 (beginning “Specifically, the proposed project is in

conformance with...”). This change better organizes the information presented.

5. Chapter 1, Section 1.5.3, page 1-10, paragraph 3, change line 6 to read “...PFO RMP as updated by

the ROD for the Pinedale Anticline Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Project (BLM 2000c)

if development at the proposed level is approved.” Thisstatement is modified to reflect current Interior

Board of Land Appeals decisions.

6. Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1.1, page 2-9, Water, change 1

st

bullet to read “Operators would maintain or

restore groundwater and surface water...”. This bullet is changed to clarify Operators responsibilities

with regards to the Clean Water Act and Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ)

standards.

7. Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1.1, page 2-10, Reclamation, delete 1

st

bullet that begins “Operators would

submit to BLM for approval a reclamation plan...”. This requirement is unnecessary since a

reclamation plan is included in the FEIS and monitoring will be accomplished by the JIO.

8. Chapter 2, Section 2.4.5, page 2-18, BLM Preferred Alternative, 2

nd

paragraph, line 7, change to read

“(i.e., achieved 80% indigenous vegetative basal cover/density and species composition meets

reclamation performance objectives). Under no circumstances...”. This statement is corrected to

reflect final reclamation strategy.
20

9. Chapter 2, Section 2.4.5.2, page 2-22, delete 7

th

bullet from top of page beginning “Operators would

utilize closed drilling systems (no reserve pits)...”. This bullet is unnecessary in light of defined

development plans and procedures and surface disturbance management strategy.

10. Chapter 2, Section 2.4.5.2, page 2-23, delete 2nd bullet from top of page beginning “Operators would

periodically demonstrate that potential impacts...”. This bullet is unnecessary in light of air quality

mitigation requirements included in this ROD.

11. Chapter 2, Section 2.4.5.2, page 2-24, delete 5

th

bullet and both sub-bullets regarding “Minimum

reclamation requirements would be:” and replace with the following bullet and sub-bullets:

• Reclamation objectives will be:

o Rollover reclamation credit requires establishment of viable site-stabilizing plant growth

(e.g., resistant to wind and water erosion) and a plant community that approximates

surrounding or ecologically comparable vegetative composition to the maximum extent

possible.

o Final reclamation requires a range ofspecies composition, diversity, cover and production

equal to pre-disturbance levels.

12. Chapter 2, Section 2.4.5.2, page 2-24, change 7

th

bullet to read “Operators would voluntarily seek

opportunities to participate in and support published...”. This change clarifies a best management

practice.

13. Chapter 2, Section 2.4.5.3, page 2-25, modify the 5

th

bullet to read “Institute nighttime lighting/glare

restrictions (e.g., install light shades/hoods, directional lighting, colored lights, wattage limits, motion

detectors; extinguish all unnecessary lighting during non-working hours), consistent with Occupational

Safety and Health Administration requirements.”

14. Chapter 3, Section 3.1.6.2, subsection “Groundwater Use”, page 3-43, paragraph 1, change line 7 to

read: “...Map 4.1). No groundwater irrigation occurs in the JIDPA or CIAA Some irrigation occurred

within the JIDPA to support experimental reclamation procedures.”

15. Chapter 5, Section 5.1.1, page 5-2, paragraph 1, change line 1 to read “The following actions could

further reduce overall cumulative emissions, which in turn...”.

16. Chapter 5, Section 5.1.2, subsection “Visibility”, page 5-5, paragraph 3, change line 7 to read “...as

soon as possible to no days with an impact greater than or equal to 1 deciview (dv).”

17. Appendix B, Subappendix DP-B, page DP-B-3, Section DP-B-2.1, 2

nd

paragraph, change line 1 to

read “The reclamation success standards objectives provided in Section DP-B-2.2 are the measures

will be used to develop specific reclamation success criteria that will show whether or not these goals

are being met.”

18. Appendix B, Subappendix DP-B, page DP-B-3, Section DP-B-2.2, delete text from entire Section

beginning with “The following reclamation successstandards are...” and ending with “...standards 1-

5, 6d, 6e, 6f, and 7 have been achieved.” Replace with the following:
21

“BLM will use two separate criteria for reclamation success in the JIDPA; rollover and release. When

the rollover criteria are achieved acreage will be credited back to the Operators against the 46%

surface disturbance ceiling. When the release criteria are achieved the Operators will be released from

final bond obligation.

The specific objectives of rollover reclamation criteria include site stabilization (e.g., resistant to wind

and water erosion) and establishment of a plant community that approximates surrounding or

ecologically comparable vegetative composition, to the maximum extent possible.

Reclamation success standards for bond release will meet the objectives of species composition,

diversity, cover and production levels equal to pre-disturbance levels.

In general, success standards may require a range of species composition, diversity and cover

requirements based on varying conditions and/or locations. To deal with these unknowns, specific

success criteria will be developed by the JIO, with public participation, and approved by the BLM.

Final determination concerning whether or not a reclaimed area meetsthe rollover or release standards

will be made by the Authorized Officer for the BLM.

19. Appendix B, Subappendix DP-B, Section DP-B-4.1.2.2, page DP-B-10, paragraph 1, change line 11

to read “Temporary reclamation (see Section DP-B-4.3) would be implemented immediately on all

topsoil and spoil stockpiles that would be in place more than 6 months.” This change clarifies these

requirements.

20. Appendix B, Subappendix DP-B, Section DP-B-5.4, page DP-B-27, paragraph 1, change line 2 to read

“...monitored qualitatively (annually and after large rainstorms or snow melt runoff events).” This

change clarifies these requirements.
22
APPENDIX A

JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT ADMINISTRATIVE

REQUIREMENTS, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, AND

MITIGATION
A-1

APPENDIX A

JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT ADMINISTRATIVE

REQUIREMENTS, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, AND MITIGATION

All approved actions within the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area (JIDPA) may include all or some of the

following Conditions of Approval (COAs), administrative requirements, mitigation requirements, and/or

Best Management Practices (BMPs).

Authorizing Actions

JIDPA Operators are responsible for adhering to all applicable federal, state, and local laws and/or

regulations and for obtaining all necessary federal, state, and county permits. Absent specific revisions in

this ROD, Operators will comply with the management objectives, COAs, and mitigation measures

identified in the BLM Pinedale RMP ROD (BLM 1988b) and BLM Green River RMP ROD (BLM

1997b) to the extent feasible and practicable.

Land Use/Surface Disturbance

1. Surface disturbance is limited to 46% of the JIDPA at any given time, or a maximum of

14,030 acres. Disturbance will be tracked on an operated-acreage basis. Within six (6) months of

the approval of the ROD, all JIDPA Operators shall provide the Authorized Officer the lease

number and legal description for all acres they operate, including those acreagesthey individually

operate and those co-operated with others.

2. Credit will be applied to the surface disturbance ceiling for operated acreages on an acre-for-acre

basis for areas the BLM considers to have met reclamation objectives (see FEIS Appendix B,

Reclamation Plan).

3. Total cumulative field-wide surface disturbance is limited to a maximum of 20,334 acres over the

life of the project (LOP).

4. Operators will track surface disturbance acreage and provide BLM and the JIO with Federal

Geographic Data Committee (FGDC)-compliant metadata and geographic information system

(GIS)/global positioning system (GPS) location data for all newly developed facilities and

reclaimed areas within 30 days of completion of disturbance and/or reclamation activities.

5. By January 31 each year, the Operators will provide the JIO and Authorized Officer annual

operating plans that include the following information:

a. all previous year activity to include number of wells drilled, total new surface disturbance by

well pads, roads and pipelines, and current status of all reclamation activity; and

b. plan of development for the upcoming year to include planned number of wells to be drilled

and an estimate of new surface disturbance and reclamation activity.

6. Operators will inventory all roads/trails in the JIDPA not already inventoried by BLM within

1 year of the ROD for this project; GIS data will be provided to BLM and the JIO with
A-2

FGDC-compliant metadata. Operators will initiate coordination with the JIO prior to

implementing this action.

7. Well pad surface disturbance will not exceed 7.0 acres for parent and multi-well pads, 4.0 acres

for single-well pads, and 2.0 acres for satellite well pads, unless the Operator can demonstrate to

the satisfaction of the Authorized Officer on a case-by-case basis that the size limitation for a

given pad would create a significant safety concern for the workers, the public at large, or the

environment. These acreages include cut-and-fill slopes, but do not include access roads and

pipelines.

8. All new development and production facilitiesin the JIDPA will be placed at centralized locations

to accommodate multiple wells, unless proven to the satisfaction of the Authorized Officer on a

case-by-case basis that centralization of development and production facilities would not be

technically or economically feasible, or that another method would create less environmental

impact. The Operators will centralize existing development and production facilitiesto the extent

economically feasible.

9. Centralized fracturing processes will be required for all well pads when surface density is  1 well

pad/40 acres, and recommended when well pad surface density is < 1 pad/40 acres, unless the

Operator can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Authorized Officer that centralized fracturing

is not reasonable or technically or economically feasible, or that another well completion

procedure would create less surface impact.

10. Where technically and economically feasible, and at the earliest possible date, Operators will

begin piping produced water and condensate from all wells in the JIDPA to an appropriate

condensate collection point or sales line and an appropriate produced water treatment, disposal, or

centralized transportation facility. Analyses must be provided within one (1) year of the ROD.

11. Operators are encouraged to use closed loop drilling systems for all drilling operations within the

JIDPA. A closed-loop drilling system shall be used in the following circumstances:

a. the well is completely or partially drilled using oil-based drilling mud;

b. a groundwater aquifer is suspected or known to occur within 50 feet of the pre-disturbance

ground surface (in the event groundwater is not encountered within 50 feet of the surface

when the hole for the conductor pipe is drilled, the Operator may revert to a reserve pitsystem

for this well);

c. there is not sufficient area due to terrain features (deep drainages, cliffs, steep slopes, etc.) at

the proposed well pad site for a pad with reserve pit;

d. there is not sufficient area due to (fill in the blank the constraining value [i.e., critical wildlife

habitat (describe), unmitigatable culturalresource site, etc.]) at the proposed well pad site for

a pad with a reserve pit.

12. Operators will remove/vacuum fluids from reserve pits within 60 days from well completion or

they must notify the Authorized Officer. In all cases, fluids will be removed as soon as practical.

13. Surface-disturbing activities shall not be conducted on slopes in excess of 25 percent or within

500 feet of surface water and/or riparian habitat.
A-3

14. No well pad, road, or other construction shall be conducted in or with frozen materials, or during

periods when the soil is saturated, or when watershed damage is likely to occur.

15. No surface occupancy will be allowed within 300 feet of Sand Draw.

Air Quality

1. Tier II or equivalent diesel engine emission technologies will be required for all drill rigs at the

earliest possible date.

2. The BLM will work cooperatively with state and other federal agencies, and with industry, to

track emissions in the Pinedale Field Office area.

a. BLM will track numbers of wells, numbers of drill rigs, drilling emissions, and compressor

stations.

b. The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division (WDEQ–AQD)

will continue to track permitted emissions.

c. Operators will provide BLM with information on their drill rigs, including drilling days,

horsepower, load factors, and emission factors within 10 days of the completion of drilling

operations for each well.

3. Operators will demonstrate by January 31 each year that emission reductionsfrom the Jonah Infill

Drilling Project will reduce the potential impact to visibility as follows:

a. Demonstration Period: Operators in the JIDPA will begin a 12-month demonstration period

beginning with the signing of the ROD. In correspondence with BLM, WDEQ affirmed the

State’s position that BLM “require the use of Tier II diesel technology on drill rigs used in the

Jonah area at the earliest possible date” (WDEQ 2005). Because preliminary modeling

conducted for the DEIS indicated that emissions from engines for drilling rigs would have to

be further reduced to attain the air quality goals stated above, BLM treats emission factorsfor

Tier 2 engines (EPA 1998) as a reference point for the minimum control of emissions during

the demonstration period. Operators in the Jonah and Pinedale fields have suggested several

technologies that could achieve emissions lower than Tier 2. As part of this demonstration

period, the Operators in the Jonah field will conduct emission tests on various drilling engine

technologies as defined in a plan to be developed by the Operator(s) and approved byWDEQAQD. The results from this demonstration period will be provided to WDEQ as soon as

possible, but no later than 1 year after the ROD is signed. WDEQ will then consider the

emissions testing data in the determination of the appropriate Best Available Technology

(BAT) for the engines associated with all drilling operations. Until such time as the WDEQAQD establishes appropriate BAT standards, Operators will be required to demonstrate that

the impact levels from the proposed project will be less than the impact levels of the 80%

emission reduction scenario as described in FEIS Section 4.1.2.5 and AQTSD Appendix G,

Section G-2. Within 90 days of the ROD, the Operators will submit a plan to BLM that

describes in detail how the potential impacts will be minimized.

b. Implementation Period: All Operators will comply with WDEQ-established BAT standards.
A-4

c. In the absence of WDEQ-established BAT standards, the Operators will submit annual

operating plans that report the emissions from all emitting units in order to demonstrate that

the potential visibility impact from the proposed project will be less than the potential

visibility impact levels of the 80% emission reduction scenario described in FEIS

Section 4.1.2.5 and AQTSD Appendix G, Section G-2, at a minimum, and to demonstrate

that any potential visibility impact decreases as soon as possible to no days with an impact

greater than or equal to 1 deciview (dv).

d. Based upon emissions data collected during the demonstration period, BLM may run an air

dispersion model, comparable to the model run for the AQIAS, to reassess air quality impacts.

BLM, in conjunction with the JIO, will use the results of the model to assess whether

emission controls in the JIDPA adequately control emissions to achieve the air quality goals.

Annually thereafter, BLM will determine whether an additional model run is necessary based

upon field-wide emissions or a comparable indicator selected by BLM (in cooperation with

the JIO). Operators should continue to innovate by demonstrating and using new techniques

for controlling emissions after the demonstration period.

e. The method by which the Operators will demonstrate potential project visibility impact will

be determined by BLM in consultation with WDEQ, EPA, USFS, and National Park Service

(NPS). BLM will rely on the Operators to determine how they will attain the reduction in

potential visibility impacts from the Jonah Infill project.

f. BLM’s performance objective for visibility will be attained if actual visibility monitored by

the Bridger Wilderness IMPROVE aerosol sampler complies with the reasonable progress

goal of the Wyoming Regional Haze State Implementation Plan.

4. In cooperation with the JIO established under the ROD, BLM will review ozone data collected in

the area. If in the future air monitoring were to show ozone exceedances attributable at least in

part to sources in the Jonah field, BLM will consult with WDEQ-AQD, EPA, USFS, and NPS to

determine whether adaptive management would be needed to mitigate impacts.

5. BLM will continue to work cooperatively with WDEQ, EPA, USFS, and NPS to maintain and

enhance concentration, atmospheric deposition, and visibility monitoring in the Pinedale Field

Office area. The BLM and cooperating agencies will contribute technical expertise and financial

resources to maintaining and enhancing air quality monitoring. The Operators will fund and

participate in a joint industry/state/federal monitoring agreement to maintain and enhance air

quality monitoring.

Wildlife

Monitoring & Inventory

1. Operators will monitor nesting of raptors, including ferruginous hawk, bald eagle, and burrowing

owl; greater sage-grouse lek attendance; and occurrence of othersagebrush-obligate species within

the JIDPA in coordination with Authorized Officer and the JIO.

2. Operators will inventory greater sage-grouse seasonal habitats within the JIDPA not already

inventoried by BLM or WGFD within 1 year after signing of the ROD for this project; GIS data

would be provided to the Authorized Officer with FGDC-compliant metadata. Operators

would initiate coordination with the Authorized Officer and JIO prior to implementing this action.
A-5

3. Operators will coordinate with the Authorized Officer and JIO to review and revise the Jonah Wildlife

Monitoring and Protection Plan within 1 year of the ROD for this project.

Raptors

1. Well pads, access roads, and other aboveground facilities will not be located within 825 feet of an

active raptor nest, within 1,000 feet of an active ferruginous hawk nest, or within 2,640 feet of any

bald eagle nest.

2. The following seasonal restrictions for surface-disturbing activities near active raptor

nests/roosting sites/foraging areas will be imposed: (see Appendix A, Table A.3, of the FEIS)

3. February 1 through July 31, within 0.5 mile of all active raptor nests;

4. February 1 through July 31, within 1.0 mile of all active ferruginous hawk nests;

5. February 1 through August 15, within 1.0 mile of all active bald eagle nests;

6. November 1 through April 1, within 1.0 mile of active bald eagle communal winter roosts; and

7. November 1 through April 1, within 1.0 mile of winter forage areas.

Sage Grouse

1. Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in greater sage-grouse winter habitat will be avoided

from November 15 through March 14.

2. Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in greatersage-grouse nesting and early brood-rearing

habitat within 2.0 miles of an occupied lek, or in identified greater sage-grouse nesting and early

brood-rearing habitat outside the 2.0-mile buffer will be prohibited from March 15 through

July 15.

3. Surface disturbance and occupancy will be prohibited within 0.25 mile of the perimeter of greater

sage-grouse leks, and human activity in these areas will be avoided between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m.

from March 1 through May 15.

4. Compressor stations will be sited at least 2.0 miles away from greater sage-grouse leks and no

closer than 0.5 mile to an active raptor nest.

Soils/Water

1. A groundwater monitoring program for all water wells in or affected by activities in the JIDPA

will be implemented. The following specifics apply:

a. Water wells will be tested annually for static water level, general chemical constituents as

determined by the Authorized Officer, and total petroleum hydrocarbons, using WDEQapproved methods. Annual reports will be provided to the JIO, BLM (Authorized Officer),

WDEQ, and WSEO by January 31.
A-6

b. Water withdrawal volumes from all water wells utilized within the JIDPA will be monitored

and annual depletion reports provided to the JIO, BLM (Authorized Officer), WSEO, and

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) by January 31 each year.

2. Hydraulic structures (culverts, bridges, low water crossings, silt traps, catchments, retention

dams, etc.) placed in existing, natural drainage courses will be engineered and designed by a

certified civil engineer to ensure the structures are stable and erosion is minimized. Cross-drain

structures installed outside existing, natural drainage courses will not require certified civil

engineer design.

3. All well pads, roads, pipelines, and other facilities will be engineered and constructed to minimize

sediment discharge onto adjacent undisturbed land or down-channel from the JIDPA and to meet

WDEQ stormwater discharge requirements.

4. Operators would provide copies of their Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC)

plans and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) to the BLM upon request.

5. Stormwater and snowmelt water would be held on the JIDPA for as long as possible to allow for

infiltration and to reduce surface flow velocity and associated sediment loads using geofabrics,

jute netting, spreader dikes, retention ponds, additional armoring of existing watercourses, or other

appropriate techniques.

Transportation

1. Operators will continue to encourage limiting the speed of all vehicles operated by the

leaseholder, Operator, or Operator agents in the JIDPA, and will implement voluntary fugitive

dust control measures on primary access roads and heavily used resource roads.

2. Project-required traffic in the JIDPA is limited to BLM-approved roads. Operators will continue

to cooperate with the BLM to identify and prohibit use of two-tracks where ROWs have not been

obtained.

3. Operators will utilize remote telemetry or equivalent technology at all wells to minimize well

monitoring trips, unless proven to the satisfaction of the Authorized Officer on a case-by-case

basis that installation of remote telemetry or equivalent technology would not be technically or

economically feasible, or that another method would create less environmental impact.

Paleontological Values Protection

1. Operators will suspend all operations if previously undetected vertebrate fossil materials are

discovered during surface-disturbing activities. Operations will not resume until authorization to

proceed is granted by the Authorized Officer.

Reclamation

1. Operators will maximize interim (production phase) well pad reclamation by recontouring to the

drilling rig anchor pins and reclaiming/revegetating to within 20 feet of the wellhead, or to within

20 feet of the wellhead, facilities, tanks, and spill containment structures on those pads with

production facilities. The initiation of interim reclamation will commence within 30 days after the
A-7

last well scheduled on a pad is put into production. In the event that more than 1 year would lapse

between the drilling of wells on a pad, the Authorized Officer may require temporary site

stabilization measures.

2. Operators will accelerate reclamation of disturbed areas using innovative seed mixtures and

application techniques, supplementing natural precipitation with sprinkler irrigation at key times,

and/or other practices as approved by the Authorized Officer.

3. Operators will undertake aggressive invasive plant species and noxious weed control or removal

in disturbed areas, be responsible for weed control on all disturbed areas in the JIDPA, and be

responsible for consultation with the Authorized Officer and/or local authorities for acceptable

weed control methods. Where applicable, a “Pesticide Use Proposal” (Form WY-04-9222-1),

surfactant material safety data sheet(s), and maps and/or legal descriptions of the area to be treated

will be submitted by the Operator to the Authorized Officer no later than December 1 for use the

following spring/summer.

4. The following reclamation objectives will be used to determine success of reclamation. Final

determination concerning whether or not a reclaimed area meets the rollover or release standards

will be made by the Authorized Officer for the BLM.

a. Rollover reclamation credit requires establishment of viable site-stabilizing plant growth

(e.g., resistant to wind and water erosion) and a plant community that approximates

surrounding or ecologically comparable vegetative composition to the maximum extent

possible.

b. Final reclamation requires a range of species composition, diversity, cover and production

equal to pre-disturbance levels.

5. Wildlife habitat evaluations using Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) and Habitat Suitability

Indices (HSI) for appropriate species will be developed within 1 year of the ROD and will be

used to evaluate impacts to habitat and the effectiveness of reclamation and mitigation.

6. Operators will restore those portions of pads not needed for production operations to as close to

original contours as practical during interim reclamation to minimize or eliminate the need to redisturb those reclaimed areas when wells are plugged and abandoned.

7. Operators will employ appropriate topsoil storage and replacement technology and proceduresto

ensure soil viability and plant rooting potential are maintained.

Noise

1. Operators will utilize flareless completions for all wells within the JIDPA unless proven to the

satisfaction of the Authorized Officer on a case-by-case basis that flareless completion operations

would not be technically or economically feasible or would be unsafe, and that WDEQ hasissued

a permit to conduct well completion flaring for that specific well.

2. As directed on a case-by-case basis by the Authorized Officer, Operators will monitor the

representative noise levels of drilling, cementing, and completion operations 30 feet from the

well pad boundary and provide monitoring data to the Authorized Officer within 30 days of the

data collection for the establishment of noise impact charts.
A-8

3. Operators will monitor noise at noise-sensitive resource locations, as determined by the

Authorized Officer, and annually report results to the Authorized Officer and JIO.

Night Lighting

1. On a site-specific basis, nighttime lighting/glare restrictions (e.g., install light shades/hoods,

directional lighting, colored lights, wattage limits, motion detectors; extinguish all unnecessary

lighting during non-working hours) may be required, consistent with Occupational Safety and

Health Administration requirements.

Cultural/Historic Resources Protection

1. Operators will suspend all operations if previously undetected archaeological or historical

materials are discovered during surface-disturbing activities. Operations will not resume until

authorization to proceed is granted by the Authorized Officer.

Socioeconomic

1. Operators will provide the BLM with their 3-year operational forecasts for the JIDPA by

January 31 of each year during field development. These forecasts will include estimates of total

drilling activity by year.

Livestock Grazing

1. In coordination with the Authorized Officer and JIO, Operators will:

a. Monitor the effects of livestock on reclamation projects and native vegetation including, but

not limited to, forage utilization and percent composition.

b. Monitor the effects of gas field development on livestock operations (i.e., death loss, forage

quality, etc.).

Visual Resource Management

1. New production facilities would be painted a non-contrasting color which is harmonious with the

surrounding landscape (i.e., shale green, unless otherwise specified by BLM on a case-by-case

basis); existing production facilities would be painted that color at the earliest opportunity, and no

later than when facilities are due for routine repainting.
APPENDIX B

OPERATOR-COMMITTED PRACTICES
B-1

APPENDIX B

OPERATOR-COMMITTED PRACTICES

Existing Jonah project National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) documents (Bureau of Land

Management [BLM] 1998, 2000a) provide various programs and policies that would be implemented to

protect the environment during the development and operation of the proposed Jonah Infill Drilling Project

(JIDP). Unless otherwise noted, each of the measures identified in this appendix have been agreed to by

all the Operators currently working in the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area (JIDPA). The 15 air qualityrelated measures listed at the very end of this document have been committed to by EnCana Oil & Gas

(USA), Inc., but not yet agreed to by any of the other Operators.

Many of these environmental protection measures would be included as Conditions of Approval (COAs)

in this ROD. However, by additionally including them as Operator-committed practices, the various

Operators have made a commitment to implement them throughout the life-of-project (LOP), and the

impact analyses provided in the JIDP EIS take into consideration the implementation of these measures

based on this commitment.

Where Operator-committed practices differ from and are less rigorous than those provided in previous

NEPA documents, the reason for the change is identified. If deemed appropriate by the applicable

regulatory agency, the more stringent measure will be imposed.

Some of the Operator-committed practices are outside the jurisdiction of BLM. These practices are

identified as italicized text.

In addition to Operator-committed environmental protection practices, the various JIDPA leases often

contain one or more stipulations that obligate the leaseholder. These lease stipulations are mandatory and

address a number of issues, including but not limited to seasonal and area restrictions for raptor nests,

greater sage-grouse leks and nesting habitat, unstable soils, steep slopes, and controlled surface occupancy

(see FEIS Appendix A). These lease-specific stipulations may be duplicated by the more general measures

listed below.

Exceptions to Operator-committed practices may be granted if a thorough analysis by the BLM

determines that the resource(s) for which the measure was developed would not be unacceptably impacted

by the proposed project, or if the Operator can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Authorized Officer on

a case-by-case basis that the required mitigation or practice would not be technically or economically

feasible, or that another method would create less environmental impact.

To assure compliance with the Operator-committed practices stipulated in the FEIS, this ROD, and in sitespecific APDs and ROWs, each Operator will provide qualified individuals to oversee construction and

drilling operations and to consult with the BLM on a case-by-case basis, as necessary, during field

development.

All of the proposed Operator-committed practices identified in this section will be implemented on all

federal lands and minerals within the JIDPA. Development activities on all lands would be conducted in

accordance with all appropriate federal, state, and county laws, rules, and regulations.
B-2

PRECONSTRUCTION PLANNING AND DESIGN MEASURES

1. Implementation of site-specific projects would be contingent on BLM receiving, for

approval/acceptance, the following plans: APD and ROW Surface Use Plans, Plans of

Development, and other site-specific plans/reports (e.g., road and well pad design plans, cultural

clearances, special status species clearances, etc.); Transportation Plan, Reclamation Plan, and

Hazardous Materials Management Summary (see FEIS Appendices DP-A, DP-B, and DP-C).

The above plans may be prepared by Operators for the JIDPA or may be submitted incrementally

with each APD, ROW application, or Sundry Notice.

2. Approval of individual project components (i.e., wells, roads, pipelines, and ancillary facilities)

would be contingent on completion and acceptance of a site-specific cultural resource literature

search, Class III inventory report, and, as necessary, paleontological inventory; threatened,

endangered, proposed, and candidate (TEP&C) and BLM Wyoming sensitive (BWS) species

surveys; greater sage-grouse lek and nesting clearance; raptor nest clearance; and any other

clearances that are justified for scientific data collection and pertinent to a given project.

3. Operators would include in APD, ROW, or other appropriate permit applications a discussion of

site-specific mitigation and environmental protection measures and a map showing specific

locations where these measures would be implemented. Final locations for these measures would

be confirmed by BLM and the Operators following on-site inspections of project locations.

4. Operators would obtain all necessary federal, state, and county permits, including necessary Spill

Prevention and Control Countermeasure Plans (SPCCPs) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention

Plans (SWPPPs), to ensure that project development occurs in an environmentally responsible

manner.

5. EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., BP America Production Company, and potentially other

Operators would voluntarily implement an off-site mitigation program in part to offset potential

impacts resulting from the project. As currently identified, these projects may entail pronghorn

migration corridor protection; greater sage-grouse habitat preservation, protection, and

enhancement projects; raptor protection; recreational resource augmentation; conservation

easement development; air quality improvement and Air Quality Related Values(AQRV) projects;

on-the-ground reclamation research with an emphasis on sagebrush; and cultural resource

projects. Potential program projects may be proposed by the public, BLM,state agencies, grazing

permittees, or other entities. Final approval for projects on BLM-administered lands would rest

solely with the BLM. See EnCana Appendix 1, Voluntary Compensatory Mitigation Proposal.

AIR QUALITY

6. Operators would treat primary access roads (e.g., Luman Road, Windmill Road, Burma Road,

and North Jonah Road), and heavily used resource roads as necessary during high use periods,

with dust suppressants (e.g., magnesium chloride) and would water construction sites and well

pad access roads as necessary to control fugitive dust during the summer.

7. No open burning of garbage or refuse would be allowed at the well sites or other facilities.

Any open burning would be conducted under the permitting provisions of Chapter 10, Section 2

of the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations.
B-3

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

the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Air Quality Division (WDEQ/AQD).

All internal combustion equipment would be kept in good working order.

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

statutes, regulations, standards, and implementation plans, including Wyoming Ambient Air

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

10. Operators would cooperate with WDEQ in determining regional oxides of nitrogen (NOx)

emission levels.

11. Operators would continue to encourage contractors and employees to obey speed limits and

support local law enforcement officials in enforcing speed limits(i.e., 35 miles per hour[mph]) to

reduce fugitive dust concerns, as well as for human health and safety reasons.

12. EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., BP America Production Company, and potentially other

Operators would cooperate with the implementation of any WDEQ-mandated air quality

monitoring program or emissions control program.

TOPOGRAPHY

13. Operators would incorporate in their Surface Use Plans and Plans of Development the procedures

contained in Standard Practices, Best Management Practices, and Guidelines for SurfaceDisturbing Activities, guidelines for road construction contained in BLM Manual 9113 (BLM

1985, 1991), and project-specific requirements in the Transportation and Reclamation Plans for

this project (FEIS Appendices DP-A and DP-B).

14. Unnecessary topographic alterations would be mitigated by avoiding, where practical, steep

slopes, rugged topography, and ephemeral/intermittent drainages and by minimizing the size of

disturbed areas.

15. Upon completion of construction and/or production activities, Operators would restore the

topography to near pre-existing contours at well pads, roads, pipelines, and other facility sites.

The Operators will comply with the requirements of all WDEQ and U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) stormwater erosion control permitting practices.

16. No well pads, roads, pipelines, or other facilities would be built within 300 feet of the edge of

Sand Draw or within the tall sagebrush areas associated with this drainage, except for crossings

that would be done at right angles to the channel, where practical. The number of crossings also

would be minimized.

GEOLOGICAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

17. At the Operator’s discretion, wells, pipelines, and ancillary facilities would be designed and

constructed such that they would not be damaged by moderate earthquakes. Any facilities defined

as critical, according to the Uniform Building Code, would be constructed in accordance with

applicable Uniform Building Code Standards for Seismic Risk Zone 2B.
B-4

18. In areas of paleontological sensitivity, a determination would be made by the BLM as to whether

a survey by a qualified paleontologist is necessary prior to the disturbance. In some cases,

construction monitoring, project relocation, data recovery, or other mitigation may be required to

ensure that significant paleontological resources are avoided or recovered during construction.

19. If paleontological resources are uncovered during surface-disturbing activities, Operators would

suspend all operations that would further disturb such materials and would immediately contact

the BLM, who would arrange for a determination of significance and, if necessary, recommend a

recovery or avoidance plan. Mitigation of impacts to paleontological resources would be on a

case-by-case basis, and Operators would either avoid or protect paleontological resources.

20. Contractors and their workers would be instructed about the potential of encountering fossils and

the steps to take if fossils are discovered during project-related activities. The illegality of

removing vertebrate fossil materials from federal lands without an appropriate permit would be

explained.

SOILS

21. Operators would adhere to the reclamation guidelines presented in BLM 2004. Adverse impactsto

soils would be mitigated by minimizing disturbance; avoiding construction with frozen soil

materials; avoiding areas with high erosion potential (e.g., unstable soils, dunal areas, slopes

greater than 25%, floodplains), where practical; salvaging and selectively handling topsoil from

disturbed areas; adequately protecting stockpiled topsoil and replacing it on the surface during

reclamation; leaving the soil intact (scalping only) during pipeline construction, where practical;

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

diversion terraces, riprap, and matting; and promptly revegetating disturbed areas using native

species. Temporary erosion control measures such as temporary vegetation cover; application of

mulch, netting, or soil stabilizers; and/or construction of barriers may be used in some areas to

minimize wind and water erosion and sedimentation prior to vegetation establishment. Specific

measures and locations would be identified in Surface Use Plans, Plans of Development, or

SWPPPs prepared during APD and/or ROW application processes.

22. Pipeline ROWs would be located to minimize soil disturbance. Where practical, mitigation would

include locating ROWs adjacent to access roads to minimize ROW disturbance widths or routing

pipeline ROWs directly to minimize disturbance lengths; direct-line routes may be preferable in

areas with high well pad densities.

23. Appropriate erosion control and revegetation measures would be employed. Grading and

landscaping would be used to minimize slopes, and water bars would be installed on disturbed

slopes in areas with unstable soils where seeding alone may not adequately control erosion.

Erosion control and revegetation efforts would be monitored by the BLM and Operators and

augmented, as necessary, to control erosion and ensure successful establishment of native

vegetation.

24. Sufficient topsoil or other suitable material to facilitate revegetation would be segregated from

subsoils during all construction operations requiring excavation and would be returned to the

surface upon completion of operations. Soils compacted during construction would be ripped and

tilled as necessary prior to reseeding. Cut-and-fill sections on all roads and along pipelines would

be revegetated with native species.
B-5

25. To the extent practical and necessary, Operators would plan new ground-disturbing activities for

periods when soils are not frozen and would work with the BLM on appropriate construction

actions in the event that they are proposed for periods when soil frost depths exceed 6.0 inches.

26. Operators would revegetate all disturbed sites as soon as practical following disturbance.

27. Operators would restrict off-highway vehicle (OHV) activity by employees and contract workers.

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

periods when soils are saturated and excessive rutting could occur.

29. Reviews of erosion control structures, culverts, reclamation, etc., would be made by Operator

personnel as required by SWPPPs and WDEQ or EPA regulations.

WATER RESOURCES

30. Operators would comply with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) requirements when

conducting operations in wetlands, riparian areas, open water areas, and ephemeral or

intermittent drainages, where practical. Where ephemeral or intermittent channels would be

crossed by roads, culverts or low-water crossings would be installed at all appropriate locations as

specified in the BLM Manual 9112 – Bridges and Major Culverts (BLM 1990) and Manual 9113

– Roads (BLM 1985, 1991). Channels would be crossed perpendicular (at right angles) to flow,

where practical, and all stream crossing structures would be designed to carry the 25-year

discharge event or other capacities as directed by BLM.

31. All non-recycled water used in association with this project would be obtained from Wyoming

State Engineer’s Office (WSEO)- approved groundwater wells.

32. Operators would adhere to guidelines specified in SPCCPs. Any spill or accidental discharge of

hazardous material would be remediated. An orientation would be conducted by Operators to

ensure that project personnel are aware of the potential impacts that can result from accidental

spills and that they know the appropriate recourse if a spill occurs.

33. Erosion-prone areas (e.g., drainages) or high-salinity areas would be avoided where practical, and

necessary construction in these areas would be done in the late summer, fall, and winter (prior to

soil freezing) to avoid runoff periods. Proper containment of oil and produced water in tanks,

drilling and fracturing fluids in tanks or reserve pits, and the location of staging areas for

equipment storage away from drainages would prevent potential contaminants from entering

surface waters.

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

sediment traps, and water bars, would be employed as necessary. Interceptor dikes or waterbars

would be used to control surface runoff generated at well pads, where necessary. Erosion control

and construction methods would be described in APD and ROW plans, if necessary. If water is

discharged into an established drainage channel, the rate of discharge would not exceed the

capacity of the channel to convey the increased flow without creating erosion induced channel

adjustments. Waters that do not meet applicable state or federal standards would be evaporated,

treated, or disposed of at an approved disposal facility.
B-6

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

stabilized fill. The subsoil material at proposed pit locations would be inspected to assess soil

stability and permeability and whether reinforcement and/or lining are required. Prior to

installation of reserve pit liners and/or fluids, reserve pits may be inspected by BLM personnel.

Unlined earthen reserve pits would be used only after BLM evaluation of the pit location for

distance to surface waters, depth to useable groundwater, soil type and permeability, and

containment fluid content indicate no potential adverse effects to water resources.

36. If reserve pit leakage is detected, Operators would apply appropriate mitigation techniques in

consultation with the BLM.

37. All wells would be cased and cemented to protect subsurface mineral and freshwater zones.

Unproductive wells and wells that have completed their intended purpose would be properly

abandoned and plugged using procedures identified by the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation

Commission (WOGCC) and the BLM.

38. Channel crossings by pipelines would be constructed so that the pipe is buried at least 4 feet

below the channel bottom.

39. Channel crossings by roads and pipelines would be constructed perpendicular to flow.

40. Disturbed channel beds would be reshaped to their approximate original configuration.

41. Disposal of all water (hydrostatic test water, stormwater, produced water) would be done in

conformance with WDEQ/Water Quality Division (WQD) (1993), BLM Onshore Oil and Gas

Order No. 7, and WOGCC rules and regulations.

42. Operators would prepare SWPPPs for all disturbances greaterthan 5 acresin size asrequired by

WDEQ National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements.

43. Operators would implement SPCCPs if liquid petroleum products or other hazardous materials

are stored on-site in sufficient quantities, in accordance with 40 CFR 112.

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

Section 404 permits would be secured as necessary prior to disturbance.

45. To mitigate potential impacts caused by flooding during the LOP, construction in flood-prone

areas would be limited to late summer, fall, or winter when conditions are generally dry and flows

are low or nonexistent. Additional mitigation to lessen any impacts from flooding or high flows

during and after construction would include the avoidance of areas with high erosion potential

(i.e., steep slopes, floodplains, unstable soils); reestablishment of existing contours where

practical; avoidance of areas within 500 feet of wetland edges, riparian areas, and open water,

where practical; avoidance of areas within 100 feet of ephemeral drainages, where practical; and

implementation of appropriate erosion and sediment control and revegetation procedures.

46. Increased sedimentation impacts to surface waters would be avoided or minimized through

construction and erosion control practices approved with each authorization and through the

prompt reclamation of disturbances.
B-7

47. EnCana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc., BP America Production Company, and potentially other

Operators would conduct complete water quality analyses as described in EnCana’s Proposed

Groundwater Monitoring Plan (e.g., pH, alkalinity, total dissolved solids [TDS], oil and grease,

benzene) on all newly developed water wells less than 300 feet in depth. Additionally, annual

water quality testing new and existing project-required water wells would be implemented to

detect water quality changes, and in the event adverse changes are noted, Operators would work

with the BLM and the WDEQ if necessary on developing and implementing appropriate

corrective actions. Water well drilling and quality analysis reports would be submitted by

October 1 of each year to the BLM Pinedale Field Office (PFO), WSEO, and WDEQ/WQD for

review.

NOISE

48. All engines and compressor exhaust stacks would be muffled and maintained according to

manufacturers'specifications.

49. Construction, drilling, completion, testing, and production facility installation activities would be

seasonally restricted proximal to active raptor nests during the nesting period and in greatersagegrouse breeding and nesting areas, unless this restriction is unnecessary based upon site-specific

reviews and the BLM grants a waiver or modification.

50. Road use and travel pattern specifications would be designed, in part, to keep traffic to a minimum

and to reduce noise impacts as identified in the Transportation Plan (FEIS Appendix DP-A).

VEGETATION

51. Herbicide applications would be kept at least 500 feet from known BWS plantspecies populations

or other distance deemed safe by the BLM.

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

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

equipment/materials storage yard and staging area sizes, etc.). Well pads and associated roads and

pipelines would be located to avoid or minimize impacts in areas of high value (e.g., TEP&C or

BWS species habitats, wetland/riparian areas).

53. Proper erosion and sediment control structures and techniques would be incorporated by

Operators into the design of well pads, roads, pipelines, and other facilities. Revegetation using a

BLM-approved, locally adapted seed mixture containing native grasses, forbs, and shrubs would

begin in the first appropriate season following disturbance. Vegetation removed would be replaced

with plants of similar forage value and growth form using the following procedures:

• fall reseeding (September 15 to freeze-up), where feasible;

• spring reseeding (post-thaw and prior to May 15) if fall seeding is not feasible;

• deep ripping of compacted soils prior to reseeding;

• surface pitting/roughening prior to reseeding;
B-8

• utilization of native cool-season grasses, forbs, and shrubs in the seed mix;

• interseeding of shrubs into an established stand of grasses and forbs at least 1 year after

seeding the grasses and forbs;

• appropriate, approved weed control techniques;

• broadcast or drill seeding, depending on site conditions; and

• fencing of certain sensitive reclamation sites (e.g., riparian areas, steep slopes, and areas

within 0.5 mile of livestock watering facilities) as determined necessary through monitoring.

54. Operators would implement the resource, mitigation, and monitoring measures found in the

Transportation and Reclamation Plans (FEIS Appendices DP-A and DP-B).

55. Recontouring and seedbed preparation would occur immediately prior to reseeding on the unused

portion of well pads and road ROWs and entire pipeline ROWs outside of road ROWs. In the

event of uneconomic wells, Operators would initiate reclamation of the entire well pad, access

road, and adjacent disturbed habitat as soon as practical. Reclamation would be monitored by the

Operators and the BLM, as specified in the Reclamation Plan (FEIS Appendix DP-B), to

determine and ensure successful and timely establishment of vegetation.

56. Traffic would be confined to the running surface of roads and well pads as approved in APDs and

ROWs. Operators have and will continue to cooperate with the BLM to identify and prohibit use

of two-tracks where ROWs have not been obtained.

57. Operators would monitor noxious weed and invasive non-native species of concern occurrence on

the JIDPA and implement a noxious weed/non-native species of concern control program in

cooperation with the BLM and Sublette County to ensure noxious weed and non-native species of

concern invasion does not become a problem. Weed-free certification by county extension agents

would be required for grain or straw used for mulching revegetated areas. Gravel and other

surfacing materials used for the project would be free of noxious weeds.

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

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

of these areas, where practical.

59. Where wetlands, riparian areas, and ephemeral or intermittent stream channels must be

disturbed, COE Section 404 permits would be obtained if necessary.

WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

The following practices would be applied for general wildlife protection.

60. Well pads, access roads, pipelines, and ancillary facilities would be located and designed to

minimize disturbances to areas of high wildlife habitat value, including wetlands and riparian

areas.
B-9

61. Areas with high erosion potential and/or rugged topography (i.e.,steep slopes, dunes, floodplains,

unstable soils) would be avoided, where practical.

62. Removal or disturbance of vegetation would be minimized through construction site management

(e.g., by utilizing previously disturbed areas, and existing ROWs where practical, designating

limited equipment/materials storage yards and staging areas, vegetation scalping), and Operators

would adhere to all reclamation guidelines presented in the Reclamation Plan (FEIS Appendix

DP-B).

63. Operators, in consultation with representatives from BLM, Wyoming Game and Fish Department

(WGFD), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and other interested groups such as area

livestock operators, would adhere to the Wildlife Monitoring/Protection Plan for this project

(BLM 1998: Appendix D) as annually updated (TRC Mariah 2004). The plan would be

incorporated into the Operator field operations manual or handbook, a copy of which would be

kept on-site in the JIDPA or with Operator personnel when on-site.

64. To minimize wildlife mortality due to vehicle collisions, Operators would continue to advise

project personnel regarding appropriate speed limits (i.e., 35 mph) in the JIDPA, and roads

would be reclaimed as soon as possible after they are no longer required. Some existing roadsin

the area may be closed and reclaimed by Operators as authorized by BLM. Potential increasesin

poaching would be minimized through employee and contractor education regarding wildlife

laws. If violations are discovered, the offending employee or contractor would be disciplined and

may be dismissed by Operators and/or prosecuted by WGFD.

65. Reserve, workover, and evaporation pits and other areas that contain hydrocarbons would be

adequately protected to prevent access by migratory birds and other wildlife.

66. Firearms and dogs would not be allowed on-site during working hours. Operators would enforce

their existing drug, alcohol, and firearms policies.

67. To protect plant populations and wildlife habitat, project-related travel would be restricted to

established project roads; no off-road/ROW travel would be allowed, except in emergencies.

68. Wildlife-proof fencing would be utilized on reclaimed areas if it is determined that wildlife

species and/or livestock are impeding successful vegetation establishment.

69. ROW fencing associated with this project would be kept to a minimum, and fences, where

necessary, would meet BLM and WGFD specifications for facilitating wildlife movement.

70. Potential impacts to fisheries and wetland or riparian areas would be minimized by using proper

erosion control techniques (e.g., water bars, jute netting, rip-rap, mulch). Construction within

500 feet of open water, 300 feet of Sand Draw, and 100 feet of other intermittent or ephemeral

channels would be avoided, where practical. Channel crossings for roads and pipelines would be

constructed during periods of low or no flow (i.e., late summer or fall). All necessary crossings

would be constructed perpendicular to flow. No surface water or shallow groundwater in

connection with surface water would be utilized for the project.

71. Operators would implement policies designed to control poaching and littering and would notify

all employees (contract and company) that conviction of a major game violation could result in
B-10

disciplinary action. Contractors would be informed that any intentional poaching or littering

within the JIDPA may result in dismissal.

The following practices would be applied for raptors.

72. Operator coordination with BLM, USFWS, and WGFD would be conducted for all mitigation

activities related to raptor, TEP&C, and BWS species(and their habitats), and all permitsrequired

for relocation, removal, and/or establishment of raptor nests would be obtained.

73. Well pads, pipelines, and associated roads would be selected and designed to avoid disturbance to

known active raptor nest sites, where practical.

74. Raptor nest surveys would be conducted within a 1.0-mile radius of proposed surface use or

activity areas if such activities are proposed to be conducted between February 1 and July 31.

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

workover operations) would be seasonally restricted from February 1 through July 31 within a

0.5-mile radius of all active raptor nests, except ferruginous hawk nests, for which the seasonal

buffer would be 1.0 mile. (An active raptor nest is defined as a nest that has been occupied within

the past 3 years.) The seasonal buffer distance and applicable exclusion dates may vary,

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

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

values, steep slopes, etc. Routine maintenance or emergency health and safety activities would be

allowed on existing well pads.

76. Well pads, roads, ancillary facilities, and other surface structures requiring repeated human

presence would not be constructed within 825 feet of active raptor nests (2,000 feet for bald

eagles), where practical. Facility construction in these areas would require specific approval from

the BLM.

77. Operators would notify the BLM, USFWS, and WGFD immediately if raptors are found nesting

on project facilities and would cooperate with the appropriate agencies as necessary to erect

artificial nesting structures.

The following practices would be applied for black-footed ferret.

78. Where practical, surface disturbance in all prairie dog towns would be avoided.

79. Specific requirements for black-footed ferret surveys are no longer specified since the entire

JIDPA is included within an area identified by the USFWS as no longer requiring surveys.

However, if black-footed ferrets are observed, no further project-specific surface disturbance

would occur to the prairie dog complex in which the ferret(s) were observed.

The following measures would be applied for greater sage-grouse, and these measures may be modified,

with Operator approval, to facilitate participation in ongoing greater sage-grouse studies.

80. Operators would avoid all surface disturbance (including pipelines) within 0.25 mile of active

greater sage-grouse leks.
B-11

81. Permanent high-profile structures such as buildings and storage tanks would not be constructed

within 0.25 mile of an active lek.

82. Greater sage-grouse nest surveys would be implemented during the nesting season (April 1–

July 31) by a qualified biologist prior to the start of construction activities in identified greater

sage-grouse nesting habitat within 2.0 miles of active leks, and if an active greater sage-grouse

nest is identified, surface-disturbing activities would be delayed until nesting is completed.

83. Operators would avoid optimal greater sage-grouse nesting habitats, where practical. Optimal

nesting habitat is defined as areas with sagebrush heights of 20–31 inches and cover of 15–25%

and an understory (grasses and forbs) cover of >15%.

84. EnCana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc., BP America Production Company, and potentially other

Operators would avoid all drilling and construction activities during the greater sage-grouse

strutting period (March 1–May 15) on areas within 1.0 mile of active leks.

85. Operators would utilize directional drilling to access resources beneath the 0.25-mile active

greater sage-grouse lek buffers if reserves beneath these locations are deemed economic.

86. Operators would utilize directional drilling to access resources beneath the 600-foot wide (or tall

sagebrush-dominated) buffer associated with the Sand Draw protection areasif deemed economic.

87. Operators would cooperate in ongoing greater sage-grouse studies in the area.

88. Operators would cooperate with the WGFD on existing/new greater sage-grouse habitat

improvement efforts within Upland Game Bird Management Area 7 (e.g., water developments).

89. To further mitigate potential adverse effects to breeding and nesting greater sage-grouse on the

JIDPA, 0.5-mile facility-free buffers would be applied to greater sage-grouse lek 7 south of the

JIDPA for as long as Operators continue to hold the leases for these areas. No features requiring

repeated human presence would be built within this area.

LIVESTOCK/GRAZING MANAGEMENT

90. Reclamation of nonessential areas disturbed during construction activities would be accomplished

in the first appropriate season after well completion. Nonessential areas include portions of the

well pads not needed for production operations, the outslope portions of new road ROWs, entire

pipeline ROWs outside of road ROWs, and all roads and associated disturbed areas at

nonproductive well pads. Operators would repair or replace fences, cattleguards, gates, drift

fences, and natural barriers that are damaged by development actions to maintain current BLM

standards. Cattleguards would be used instead of gates for livestock control on most road ROWs.

Livestock would be protected from pipeline trenches, and livestock access to existing water

sources would be maintained.

91. BLM, in coordination with livestock permittees, would monitor livestock movements, especially

regarding any impacts to livestock from roads or disturbance from construction and drilling

activities. Operators in consultation with the BLM will take appropriate and reasonable measures

to correct any adverse impacts, if they occur.
B-12

92. All pits containing fluids would be fenced to exclude livestock.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

93. Operators would follow the procedures established by the BLM National Programmatic

Agreement/Wyoming State Protocol Agreement (ratified April 1998) for cultural resource

management and regulation contained within 36 CFR 800 and would either avoid, protect, or

mitigate cultural resource properties.

94. Operators would halt construction activities in the area of concern if previously undetected

cultural resource properties are discovered during construction. The BLM would be notified

immediately, and consultation with the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)

and/or the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) would be initiated to determine

proper mitigation measures pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.13 or other Treatment Plans, Programmatic

Agreements, or Discovery Plans that may direct such efforts. Construction would not resume

until a Notice to Proceed is issued by the BLM.

95. If areas of religious importance, traditional cultural properties, or othersensitive Native American

areas are identified in affected areas, BLM would consult with affected tribes and, in further

consultation with Operators, would identify potential impacts and determine appropriate

mitigative treatments on a case-by-case basis.

96. Operators in cooperation with the BLM would conduct an educational program to inform

employees and contractors about the regulations concerning cultural resource management and

artifact collection.

97. All recognized eligible sites, areas of Native American concern, and other recognized sensitive

areas would be avoided as much as practical during development permitting. Impacts that cannot

be eliminated by avoidance would be mitigated on a case-by-case basis through BLM-approved

and SHPO-approved methods. Mitigation may include data recovery (including excavation)

and/or Native American consultation/coordination for development in sensitive cultural resource

areas, and costs for these efforts would be borne by Operators.

98. Construction in archaeologically sensitive areas during frozen ground conditions would not

normally be implemented; exceptions would be considered by the Authorized Officer on a caseby-case basis.

99. Operators would work with the BLM, SHPO, and ACHP in developing and implementing

appropriate Programmatic Agreements, Research Designs/ Unanticipated Discovery Plans,

Treatment Plans, and/or Cultural Resource Management Plans for the protection of cultural

resources in the JIDPA.

SOCIOECONOMICS

100. Operators would encourage the use of local or regional workers.
B-13

101. Where feasible, Operators would schedule concentrations of project traffic, such as truck

convoys or heavy traffic flows, to avoid periods of expected heavy traffic flows associated with

recreation.

102. Travel and parking would be restricted to access roads and on-site parking areas.

103. Where feasible, Operators would plan proposed development operations so that seasonal

restrictions do not create a significant reduction in the level of development causing seasonal

workforce layoffs (i.e., work continues at a consistent rate year-round).

LAND STATUS/USE/PRIOR RIGHTS

Mitigation to prior rights would include the following:

104. limiting drilling operations to lands leased or owned by the Operators;

105. locating wells away from known underground cables;

106. regrading and repairing roads, as necessary, in areas damaged by project activities;

107. reestablishing a level compacted surface where pipelines cross existing roads;

108. advance identification and flagging of all existing ROWs that would be crossed by proposed

pipelines and roads;

109. backhoe and hand excavating at pipeline crossings until the exact locations of existing

underground lines have been determined; and

110. restoring native vegetation as soon as practical.

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

direct-line routes may be preferable in areas with high well pad densities.

112. Portions of existing roads not included in the new road ROW and not needed by other users

would be reclaimed and revegetated by Operators, following ClassIII cultural resource surveys.

113. Adequate turnouts on new crowned-and-ditched roads would be built to provide access to

existing two-tracks and other undeveloped roads.

RECREATION

114. Operators would inform their employees, contractors, and subcontractors that long-term

camping (greater than 14 days) on federal lands or at federal recreation sites is prohibited.

115. Operators would direct their employees, contractors, and subcontractors to abide by all state

and federal laws and regulations regarding hunting.
B-14

VISUAL RESOURCES

116. EnCana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc., BP America Production Company, and potentially other

Operators would utilize existing topography to screen roads, pipeline corridors, drill rigs, wells,

and production facilities from view, where practical.

117. Operators would paint all aboveground production facilities with appropriate colors(e.g., Shale

Green or other environmental color required by BLM) to blend with adjacent terrain, except for

structures that require safety coloration in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) requirements.

TRANSPORTATION

118. Operators would implement the resource, mitigation, and monitoring measures found in the

Transportation Plan (FEIS Appendix DP-A). Annual transportation planning would occur in

coordination with efforts required for the Pinedale Anticline Project (BLM 2000b) to identify

the minimum road network necessary to support annually proposed project activities; Operator

construction and maintenance responsibilities; and road-specific dust abatement, construction,

and surfacing requirements.

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

120. All new and improved roads not required for routine operation and maintenance of producing

wells or ancillary facilities would be reclaimed as directed by the BLM, State Land Board, or

private landowner. These roads would be permanently blocked, recontoured, reclaimed, and

revegetated by Operators, as would disturbed areas associated with permanently plugged and

abandoned wells. Reclamation of existing two-track roads would be considered on a case-bycase basis.

121. On a case-specific basis, centerline survey and construction designs would be submitted to and

approved by the BLM prior to road construction.

122. Operators would comply with existing federal,state, and county requirements and restrictionsto

protect road networks and the traveling public.

123. Special arrangements would be made with the Wyoming Department of Transportation to

transport oversize loads to the project area. Otherwise, load limits would be observed at all

times to prevent damage to existing road surfaces.

124. All development activities along approved ROWs would be restricted to areas authorized in the

approved ROW.

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

construction activities and would be redistributed and reseeded on backslope areas of the

borrow ditch after completion of road construction activities. Borrow ditches would be reseeded

in the first appropriate season after initial disturbance.
B-15

126. When practical and feasible, the Operators would maximize the use of temporary fresh water

pipelines during late spring, summer, and early fall from water wells to active drill sites to

decrease water hauling needs.

HEALTH AND SAFETY/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

127. Operators would utilize WDEQ-approved portable sanitation facilities at drill sites.

128. Operators would place warning signs near hazardous areas and along roadways.

129. Operators would place dumpsters at each construction site to collect and store garbage and

refuse.

130. Operators would ensure that all refuse and garbage is transported to a state-approved sanitary

landfill for disposal.

131. Operators would institute a Hazard Communication Program for its employees and would

require subcontractor programs in accordance with OSHA (29 CFR §1910.1200).

132. In accordance with 29 CFR §1910.1200, a Material Safety Data Sheet for every chemical or

hazardous material brought on-site would be kept on file at the Operator’s field office.

133. SPCCPs would be written and implemented in accordance with 40 CFR §112.

134. Chemical and hazardous materials would be inventoried and reported in accordance with

40 CFR §335. If quantities exceeding 10,000 pounds orthe threshold planning quality are to be

produced or stored, the appropriate Section 311 and 312 forms would be submitted at the

required times to the State and County Emergency Management Coordinators and the local fire

departments.

135. Any hazardous wastes, as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976

(RCRA), as amended, would be transported and/or disposed of in accordance with all

applicable federal, state, and local regulations.

136. Operators would adhere to existing internal health and safety policies and procedures.

137. During routine operations, Operators would not release fracturing fluids and condensatesinto

flare pits or surrounding areas; they would be confined in lined pits or tanks.

ADDITIONAL AIR QUALITY MEASURES

Unlike the measures listed in the preceding sections, the following 15 air quality-related measures have

been committed to by EnCana Oil and Gas (USA), but not yet agreed to by any of the other Operators in

the JIDPA.

1. Regular equipment maintenance, including emissions checks, and regular maintenance of roads

would be conducted as necessary throughout the LOP.
B-16

2. Operators would treat primary access roads (e.g., Luman Road, Windmill Road, Burma Road,

and North Jonah Road in the JIDPA) and heavily used resource roads as appropriate with dust

suppressants (e.g., magnesium chloride) and would water construction sites and well pad access

roads as necessary to control fugitive dust during the summer.

3. No open burning of garbage or refuse would be allowed at the well sites or other facilities.

Any open burning would be conducted under the permitting provisions of Chapter 10, Section 2

of the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations.

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

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

combustion equipment would be kept in good working order.

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

statutes, regulations, standards, and implementation plans, including Wyoming Ambient Air

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

6. Operators would cooperate with BLM and WDEQ in determining regional oxides of nitrogen

(NOx) emission levels.

7. Operators would continue to encourage contractors and employees to obey speed limits and

support local law enforcement officials in enforcing speed limits(i.e., 35 miles per hour[mph]) to

reduce fugitive dust concerns, as well as for human health and safety reasons.

8. Operators would cooperate with the implementation of any legally enforceable WDEQ-mandated

air quality monitoring program or emissions control program.

9. By January 1, 2006, EnCana commits to achieve average drilling rig emissions equivalent to Tier

1 standards or better from 100% of EnCana operated or contracted drilling rigs in the Jonah

Field.

10. By January 1, 2007, EnCana commits to achieve average drilling rig emissions equivalent to Tier

2 standards or better from 100% of EnCana operated or contracted drilling rigs in the Jonah

Field.

11. By January 1, 2009, EnCana commits to achieve average drilling rig emissions equivalent to Tier

3 standards or better from 100% of EnCana operated or contracted drilling rigs in the Jonah

Field.

12. By January 1, 2006, EnCana commits to capture on average through flareless completion

techniques, 90% of the hydrocarbon and combustion emissions that would have previously been

emitted by flaring during flowback procedures on EnCana operated natural gas wells.

13. Where practical and feasible, EnCana commits to reduce traffic and surface disturbance and

associated dust and tailpipe emissions by utilizing hub and spoke drilling and completion

techniques, centralized fracturing operations, and centralized condensate and water collection.

14. Wherever possible, EnCana commits to vertically drill all EnCana operated natural gas wells in

the Jonah Field in order to reduce associated NOx

, SO2, and PM10 emissions.
B-17

15. Where feasible, EnCana commits to establish plant cover for all areas disturbed by EnCana’s

operations within an agreed time period using accelerated and focused reclamation efforts,

stabilized soil stockpiles, using mulch and geotextile fabrics to stabilize soils, if necessary, and

watering areas under construction to reduce fugitive dust emissions.
B-18

REFERENCES

Bureau of Land Management. 1985. Manual 9113-Roads. Engineering Rel. 9-247. U.S. Department of

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

. 1988. Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan for the Pinedale Resource Area.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Resource Area, Rock

Springs District, Rock Springs, Wyoming. 118 pp.

. 1990. Bureau of Land Management Manual Section 9112.

. 1991. Wyoming Supplement to the Bureau 9113 Manual. U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 16 pp.

. 1998. Record of Decision for Jonah Field II Natural Gas Project, Environmental Impact

Statement, Sublette County, Wyoming. Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale and Green River

Resource Areas, Rock Springs District, Rock Springs, Wyoming.

. 2000a. Decision Record and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Modified Jonah Field II

Natural Gas Project, Sublette County, Wyoming. Bureau of Land Management. Pinedale Field

Office, Pinedale, Wyoming, and Rock Springs Field Office, Rock Springs, Wyoming.

______. 2000b. Record of Decision, Environmental Impact Statement for the Pinedale Anticline Oil and

Gas Exploration and Development Project, Sublette County, Wyoming. Bureau of Land

Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale,

Wyoming. BLM/WY/PL-00/026+1310. RODEIS-00-018. 53 pp. + append.

. 2004. Jonah Infill Drilling Project Development Procedures Technical Support Document.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale and Rock Springs Field

Offices. Pinedale and Rock Springs, Wyoming.

TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 2004. 2003 Wildlife Studies, Jonah Field II Natural Gas Development

Project. Prepared for U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale,

Wyoming, Rock Springs Field Office, Rock Springs, Wyoming, and Jonah II Area Operators, by

TRC Mariah Associates Inc., Laramie, Wyoming.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division. 1993. Water QualityRules and

Regulations. Chapter I. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality

Division. 87 pp.
APPENDIX C

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT IN THE JONAH INFILL DRILLING

PROJECT AREA
C-1

APPENDIX C

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

IN THE JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT AREA

Introduction

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will implement an adaptive management process for the Jonah

Infill Drilling Project Area (JIDPA) that will follow the framework described in this appendix.

To implement this process, the Jonah Interagency Mitigation and Reclamation Office (JIO) is established

and will operate as described below and in the JIO Charter (Attachment C-1) and Escrow Agreement

(Attachment C-2).

The potential value of adaptive management to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processis

discussed by Carpenter (1997)

1

and is strongly supported by a number of agencies at the national level,

including BLM, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service (USFS). Carpenter summarized as follows: “It is increasingly recognized that human

interventions into natural systems seldom proceed as originally planned. Scientific uncertainties prevent

environmental impacts from being reliably or precisely predicted. Thus, the style of management must

provide for monitoring to guide mid-course corrections in adapting to inevitable surprises.” Council on

Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require continual monitoring.

2

Purpose and Need

In addition to the uncertainties about how natural systems will react to human interventions, it has become

apparent that current development guidelines and Conditions of Approval, and the restriction of 1 well

pad/40 acres (16 well pads/640-acre section) authorized in the Modified Jonah Field II Project Area, are

not adequate protection for some JIDPA resources. However, national demand makesit imperative that as

much natural gas as possible be recovered from the JIDPA. Project proponents are continually striving to

develop drilling and production mitigation technologies to lessen the impacts of natural gas recovery, but

those technologies are largely untested. There is uncertainty regarding the short- and long-term

effectiveness of these new technologies, as well as uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of the

mitigations and management restrictions established in this ROD. These uncertainties require that a

number of assumptions be used to predict the impacts associated with infill development; those

assumptions may or may not be partially or wholly correct, which means the impact analysis may or may

not be partially or wholly correct. Also, considering the expected level of impacts associated with proposed

development, a significant off-site mitigation program will be necessary.

Uncertainty regarding the accuracy of the predictive assumptions and models used in the impact analysis,

and uncertainty regarding how the environment will react to future development in the JIDPA using

current and future untested development and mitigation technologies and untried restrictions, creates a

need for a mechanism through which BLM can make incremental adjustments to field management over

time, as information is gained about how area resources are reacting to new technologies and/or

restrictions. That mechanism is adaptive management.
C-2

The adaptive management process allows for changes in management without further NEPA analysis,

unless designated thresholds are reached. The process increases the speed at which managers learn how

resources react to their decisions and development activities, and thereby increases the speed at which

managers can adjust mitigation and management restrictions for unanticipated impacts, or lack thereof.

The adaptive management framework has several continuous steps: decision is implemented; impacts are

monitored; monitoring data are evaluated; modifications to mitigations or management restrictions are

recommended, based on monitoring data; adaptive management decision is made and implemented;

impacts are monitored; etc.

The purpose of this adaptive management process is to ensure that impacts of development and production

are monitored, and the information from that monitoring is evaluated and incorporated, on a regular basis,

into future mitigation and management decisions. One of the purposes of the JIO is to implement this

adaptive management process in the JIDPA, as well as select and manage all off-site mitigation projects.

Goals and Objectives

• Determine the effects of JIDPA development on area resources;

• Determine the effectiveness of the mitigation measures contained in this ROD;

• Suggest modifications to mitigation measures to achieve the stated goals/objectives;

• Assure oil and gas-related BLM decisions regarding the JIDPA are coordinated with non-oil-andgas-related decisions (such as grazing, recreation, etc.);

• Provide a rapid response to unnecessary and undue environmental degradation;

• Validate predictive models used in the EIS and revise the models/projections as necessary based

on field observations and monitoring;

• Accurately monitor and predict cumulative impacts through BLM maintenance of a Geographic

Information System (GIS) for the JIDPA, including all activities (natural gas, agricultural,

recreational, etc.) on federal and non-federal lands and how they are affecting area resources;

• Provide guidance for monitoring upon which the need to initiate Section 7 consultation with the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will be determined.

Implementation Model

BLM will implement and coordinate the adaptive management process. The BLM Pinedale Field Manager

will accomplish that by establishing the interagency JIO in the project ROD. The JIO will be staffed by

full-time employees or contractors from BLM, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ),

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), and Wyoming Department of Agriculture (WDA).

Details on JIO objectives and duties are included in the JIO Charter (Attachment C-1).

JIO Functions

The JIO will be fully staffed by the agencies as soon as possible following issuance of this ROD.

The scope of work for the JIO is as described in the JIO Charter (Attachment C-1).
C-3

JIO Operating Procedures

It is anticipated the JIO will be necessary for the next 5 to 15 years, with funding support provided by

EnCana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc. Office oversight will be provided by an Agency Managers Committee

consisting of individual agency heads or representatives from BLM, WDEQ, WGFD, and WDA. The

Committee will meet at least once per year to provide senior-level guidance, evaluate past progress, and

review staffing levels and future needs.

In accordance with an escrow agreement between the Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resource Trust

Account Board (an instrumentality of the State of Wyoming) and the Jonah Interagency Office Charter

Members, the Board will receive and hold all compensatory mitigation funding provided by Jonah

Operators (Attachment C-2). As the entity charged with selecting, implementing, and monitoring offsite

mitigation, the JIO will maintain an accurate accounting of all compensatorymitigation fund expenditures

and provide the Agency Managers Committee an annual financial report.

Specific JIO operational procedures will be developed by the office staff to meet defined goals and

objectives.

____________________________

1 Carpenter, R.A. 1997. “The Case for Continuous Monitoring and Adaptive Management Under NEPA.”

In Environmental Policy and NEPA. R. Clark and L. Canter, eds. Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie Press.

2 CEQ regulations require appropriate application of continual monitoring and assessment. Section 102(2)(B) of NEPA

calls for “methods...which will insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be given

appropriate consideration.” CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1505.2(c) and 1505.3(c) state, “a monitoring and enforcement

program shall be adopted and summarized where applicable for any mitigation” and that agencies “may provide for

monitoring to assure that their decisions are carried out and should do so in important cases.” The lead agencymust, “upon

request, inform cooperating or commenting agencies on progress in carrying out mitigation measures which they have

proposed and which were adopted by the agency making the decision,” and, “upon request, make available to the public the

results of relevant monitoring.”
ATTACHMENT C-1 

United States Department of lhe Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

State of Wyoming 

CHARTER 

I. OFFICIAL DESIGNATION: Jonah lnterdgency Mihgation and Reclamation Office 

2. BACKGROUND: The Jonah Natural Gns Field is ao nrca of west central Wyoming, soutlt of 

Ute town of Pinedale, and within the Upper Green Ri vcr Basin. It includes about 30,000 acres of 

rolling sagebrush covered lands that are about SO percent federally managed surface and 83 

percent federally managed minerals. It is an area of intense oil and gas development in 'tig)lt 

sands'. The drill ing spac ing necessary to efficiently recover the oil and gas resource is denser 

than in trnditional oil and gas field development. Further. the area has visual. wildlife, and other 

resource vn.lues Uta! complicate resource management issues. 

3. PURPOSE: llte Jonah Interagency Office (Project Orrice) will provide the services necessary 

to execute plans. monitoring, and other activities necessary to assure the effectiveness of land 

management recommendations, reclamation actions, and motogation in Ute vicinity of U1e Jonah 

Natural Gas Field in accordance with the Record of Decosion (ROD) for the Jonah Inllll Drillong 

Project. In addition the Project Office wm provide oversight of funds available for reclamauon 

monitoring and mitigation (offsite and onsite). 

Tbe scope of work for the Project Ollice includes the follo\\•ing: 

• Oversee the selection and effectiveness of30,000- 90,000 acres or olJsite mitigation 

• inspect and verify comphancc on up to 15,000 aco·es of surface reclamation 

• Inspect and monitor reclamation on up to 3,100 new well locations. 

• lnsure compliance wiU1 the Wyoming OEQ A or Qualoty and Water Quality noles and 

regulations 

• Monitor big game and sage grouse populations 

• Assure habitat restonotion 

• Mono tor livestock utilization of cxisung pennits 

• Validate, coordinate, and oversee research 

• Coordinate transportation planning 

• Assure vegetation surveys/Invasive species control 

• Provide information to U1e respective agencies and the public regarding Impacts, 

monitoring data. and mitigation success 

4. OFFICE OBJECTIVES AND DUTIES: The Project Office will be smiTed by full time 

employees or contractors of the responsible agencies. All personnel will have primary duttes 

related to U1e implementation or support of monitoring and envirorunental compliance and 

pcmutting, focusing on, but not limited to, air, water, wildlife, and reclamation monitoring of 

on-site and designated o(f.site mitigation acres related to Jonah Field development. Any tasks 

assigned to these employees or contractors outside this primary function would be supponed by 

runds other than those described below in paragraph 10. The Bureau of Land Management will 

maintain the lease for the Project Office space. 
Public and mtcragency reporting of resource conditions will occur on a regular basis. From time 

to time, stale agencies may meet with anterested cmzens to mform omerested stakeholders, and to 

discuss ongoing and anticipated mitigation and mon.toring. 

The BLM Project Office Coordinator will draft and submot to the Managers Committee for 

approval an operating plan that will prescribe standard oi1ice procedures. These standard 

procedures will include procedw-es for disbursemelll of Project Office funds, timing of funding 

requests and procedures for reporting tO the lvtanagers Committee. This initial report is due 

before March 31, 2006. Upoot approval, these procedures will become an allachmcnt to this 

Charter, 

5. TElRMINATION DATE: The cooperators anticipate that a need for an expanded personnel 

presence in the vicmiry of the Jonah Natural Gus Field will continue to exist for tbe next 5 to 15 

years. Periodically, the mteragency staff will meet to review Project Office staffing nceds und 

need lor continuance of the individual staff. 

6. JONAH INTERAGENCY OmCE MANAGEMENT: 

Jonah Project Office Coordinator 

Bw·cau of Land Management 

Department of the Interior 

432 East Mill Street 

P.O. Box 768 

Pinedale, Wyoming 82941 

7. ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT: Administrative suppoot and timding for the Project Office 

will be provided by Encana Oil and Gas (USA) lnc. contributions as set forth in No. 10 below. 

8. ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST: TI1e Project Office will require approximately S600.000 

annually for all personnel, suppon, and office costs. This is established as follows: 

• Initial stal'fong for tbe oflice: $500,000 

• Building Rental in Pinedale; $24,000 

• Computers, software, furniture, technical suppoot , and vehicles: $76.000 

Each of the agencies listed in No. 9 below will employ a person/contractor to accomplish the 

work identified above. Annually, each of the Cbaotered Members in No.9 will develop a budget. 

All Chanered Members will concur on budget estimates. Annually, or at another mutually agreed 

to interval, the duties and needs for each Project Office position will be examined by the Agency 

Managers Commiuce and onumally agreed to adjustments will be made. This could include 

office staffing increases, decreases, identification and expansion or contr.lction of duties. The 

primary duty location of the team is Pinedale, Wyoming. 

9. JONAH INTERAGENCY OFFICE CHARTERED MEMBERS: 

A. Wyomi11g Department of Agricultw·e 

B. Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

C. Wyomi ng Department of Environmental Quality 

D. United States Department of the Interior/Bureau of Land Management 
Tbe Chartered Members will approve all dasbursements or funds contributed by tncana 

Otl and Gas (USA) Inc. or other industry contributors for the purpose of wildlife habitat 

improvement, resource monitoring and/or other mitigation. 

10. fUNJ)lNG: Encann Oil nnd Gas (USA) Inc. will prova e funding to support lhc costs of the 

project office, for a peraod of 6 years. 'Ine ProJect Orlice funding mechanism wall be 

memorialized in the Jonah lnllll EJS ROD. II is expected that participating opcrntor(s} will see 

tamely penmmng to the extent pennitted by law. Other urne economies rela!Cd to confumabon of 

m:lamation activilles and mcreascd pubhc viSibtltty of tmlely and succes.~ful envtronrnental 

remediation and reclamauon are also anticap:ued. 

II. NATURE AND PUTt ES Of THE AGENCY MANAGERS COMMfl'TEE: At least once 

per year, the Agency Managers committee, consistmg of the agency heads or represcntauves 

from the Agencies in No. 9 above, und a single member of each of ahe oil nnd gas industry 

proponents involved in the ProjecL Oflice will meet. Al l hat annual oversighl meeting. progress 

will be evaluated, and darcchon. coverage, and staffing lor the nex1 year would be considered and 

adopted. At u nunimum, the Agency Managers committee would provide the 'big picture' needs 

for the ProJeCt Office. Par the imtial penod, thas would anclude: I) Estabhsh the mat ani 

maugauon and momtonng program for Atr, Water, Wtldllfc, LavcStoek and Reclnmataon: 2) 

selection and uuhzatton of appropnare software or rcporung standards to tnsure that all data 

coUected would be stored and utilized in rneeung the monttonng commttments contained in EIS's 

and oahcr environmental documents: 3} Coordinauon and tracking of ongomg research beang 

conducted in the Jonah PrOJCCI area to provide adv1ce and recommendations on envaronm~ntnl 

nt()niloring and needed science to document lhe eiTects of Energy development: und 4) Reporung. 

12. AUTHORI'I'Y: The establishment of the l'rojecl Office is in U1e public interest m connection 

wttb tbe duties and responsibilities delegall:d to a he I~LM by tl1c Secretary of ahc Umaed States 

Dt:panment of the Interior m manoging the publac lands under section 307(b} of the federal Land 

Pohcy and Managcm~'flt Act of 1976, 43 USC§ 1737 (b). 

13. Nothmg m thas charter shall change the responsibahlles or negotaated agreements of any State 

agency as it relates to dcahng wuh impacts of de,eloprnent an southwest Wyommg. 
Jonah lnteragency Office Charter Members 

Date Signed:. ___ J.. _-_/_'1_-_11_ , __ 

1 D partment: 

Date Signed: ___,z.::::..;;;..:...'f,_--==-~--

Date Signed: --==-;:J--+/....:..1-''f-L.~:::..:~=-----

DateSigned: p~ 
ATTACHMENT C-2 

ESCROW AGREEMENT 

The Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resource Trust Account Board ("'Escrow Agent"), an 

instrumentality of U1c State of Wyoming, and the Jonah Interagency Office Charter Members 

("JlOCM"), an inter-agency group organized in the Charter oflhe Jonah Interagency Mitigation and 

Reclamation Office (attached, section 9), enter into this Escrow Agreement for the pLLrposes of 

mitigating the loss of wildlife habitat function caused by U1e development of oil and gas in the Jonah 

Field. All tem1s not otherwise defined herein shall have U1e meaning ascribed in the Schedule of 

Definitions in Exhibit A hereto. 

RECITALS 

A. EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) 111c. and other oil and gas companies proposed in 2002 to expand 

their existing, approved drilling program by increasing the density of well spacing from 40 acre 

spacing to I 0- and 5- acre spacing (a process tenned in-till drilling). At these proposed wellhead 

densities, the opportunities for mitigating the impacts of deveiOIJillent and production activities at the 

site of impact are reduced, sometimes to the point of ineflectiveness. Because of tl1e recognized 

potential impacts to surface resources (particularl y wildli fe and air quality) resulting from tl1ese 

hi gh-intensity gas field activities, some of the companies (collectively tl1e ''Contributing 

Companies") agree to deposit funds into an Escrow Account for purposes of funding a program of 

competlSatOt'Y mitigation (somcliJnes referred to as ' ·ofi:site'' mitigation) to offset the impacts of gas 

field development. The Contributing Companies commit to place certain funds to be used 

exclusively for either the purpose of Wildlife Habitat Improvement or that of Resource Monitoring 

and Other Mitigation, all of which escrow funds shall constitute the Escrowed Monies (as defined in 

Section I. 2 hereto). 

B. The Escrow Agent is authorized to enter into this Escrow Agreement pursuant to Wyo. Stat. 

§§ 9-15-1 03(a), 9-15-l03(c), 9-15-104 (g)(ii) and in accordance with the criteria enumerated in 

Section 9 of the Rules and Regulations of the Wildlife and Natural Resource Tntst Account Board 

adopted pursuant to Wyo. Stat.§ 9-15-104(f)(vi). 

C. The Escrow Agent must invest, maintain, and apply the Escrowed Monies in the manner 

hereinafter set forth. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mun~al covenants and agreements contained herein, 

the parties hereto agree as follows: 

Section I. ESCROW OF MONIES 

1.1 Deposit of Monies by Contributing Companies. On or before April I 

and on each anniversary thereof, the Contributing Companies shall deposit fLLnds with the Escrow 

Agent forthe.lonah Field Wildlife Habitat Improvement. Monitoring and Other Mitigation Account 

(collectively referred to as the Escrow Account). The amount to be deposited is based on estimated 
annual costs as determined by the J IOCM; the maximum yearly amount can not be more than 20% 

of the total EnCana Oil & Gas Inc. commitment in any one year. 

1.2 Escrowed Monies. Cash funds and iJwestments in the Escrow Account, together 

with any income, including interest or profit received or made by the Escrow Agent in respect of 

monies on deposit under this Escrow Agreement, shall constitute the '·Escrowed Monies". The 

Escrow Agent agrees to accept the Escrowed Monies, which shall be held in trust by the Escrow 

Agent forthe use and benefit oftheJonah Field mitigation, and shall be withdrawn and applied only 

on and subject to the terms set forth in Section 3 hereto. 

Section 2. INVESTMENT OF ESCROWED MONfES 

2. 1 Pem1itled Investments. The Escrow Agent agrees to invest tl1e Escrowed Monies in 

accordance with the State of Wyoming's master investmem policy established pursuant to Wyo. 

Stat. § 9-4-709. 

2.2 Reporting and Auditing. 

(a) The Escrow Agent shall fumish to EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) lnc. and the JlOCM, on or 

prior to the fifteenth business day of each month, a statement showing the total wnoLmt orEscrowcd 

Monies and Escrowed Interest on deposit in, and all deposits to, and disbursements li"om, the Escrow 

Account for the previous month. 

(b) The JIOCM have the right to periodically audit the Escrow Account and may choose to 

exercise their right with reasonable notice and during nonnal busi11ess .hours. 

Section J. DISBURSEMENT OF ESCROWED MONfES 

The Escrow Agent shall disburse Escrowed Monies upon the receipt of, and in accordance 

with, written instructions from the Jonah Interagency Project Office Coordinator, such written 

instructions to be jointly agreed to by all Charter Members of the Jonah Interagency Office. 

The Jonah Interagency Project Office Coordinator shall submit an order for disbursemem no 

more frequently than four (4) times per month. Upon receipt of an order substantially in the fom1 of 

Exhi bit B hereto, executed by the Jonah Interagency Project Ollice Coordinator, the Escrow Agent 

must disburse the Escrowed Monies in the manner requested on the certificate within ten ( tO) 

business days. 

Section 4. THE ESCROW AGENT. 

The Escrow Agent hereby accepts the duties and responsibilities of the Escrow Agern 

hereunder on and subject to the following tenns and conditions: 

4.1 Scope ofUndertaldng. Escrow Agent's duties and responsibilities io connection with 

2 
this Escrow Agreement shall be purely ministerial and shall be limited to those expressly set [orth in 

this Escrow Agreement. Escrow Agent is not a principal, participant, or beneficiary in any transaction 

underlying this Escrow Agreement and shall have no duty to inquire beyond the tenns and provisions 

hereof. Escrow Agent shall have no responsibility or obligation of any ltind in connection with this 

Escrow Agreement or the Escrowed Monies and shall not be required to deliver the Escrowed Monies 

or any pru1 thereof or take any action with respect to any matters that might arise in connection 

therewith, other than to receive, hold, invest, reinvest and deliver the Escrowed Monies as herein 

provided. Escrow Agent shall not be liable for any error in judgment, any act or omission, any mistake 

oflaw or fact, or for anytbi.ngit may do or refrain from doing in connection hcrcwitll. ll is the intention 

oft he parties hereto tllat Escrow Agent shall never be re<1uircd to usc, advance, or risk its own funds or 

otllerwise incur linancial liabilit:y i11 the performance of any of its duties or U1e exercise of any of its 

rights and powers hereunder. 

4.2 Sovereign Immunity. The StatcofWyomingand Escrow Agent do not waive sovereign 

inununity by entering into this Escrow Agreement and specifically retain immunity and all defenses 

available to them as sovereigns pursuant to Wyo. Stat. § 1-39-J 04(a) and all other state law. 

4.3 Resignation: Remova l; Successors. 

(a) The Escrow Agent may resign and be discharged of the tmsts created hereunder by 

mailing notice specifying the date when such resignation shall take effect to the Jonah Interagency 

Project Office Coordinator. Such resignation shall take effect on the day specified in such notice 

(being not less than 30 days after the mailing ofsucb notice} unless previously asucccssoreserow 

agent shall have been appointed as hereina.fter provided, il1 which event such resignation shall take 

effect immediately upon the appointment of such successor. 

(b) The Escrow Agent may be removed and a successor escrow agent may be appointed at 

any time by an instrument in writing contemporaneously delivered to the Escrow Agent, or to such 

successor escrow agent. Such instrument must be executed by the JlOCM. The successor escrow 

agent must meet the qualifying ctiteria set forth below in Section 4.3 (c) and agree in writing to be 

bound by all of the tenus and conditiollS of this Escrow Agreement. 

(c) Any successor escrow agent shall be a state or nation a I bank, financial institution, or tmst 

company in good standing, organized under the laws ofU1e United States of America or any State 

thereof, having a capital, surplus, and undivided profits aggregating at least US $500,000,000.00, 

unless JIOCM agrees otherwise. 

4.4 Acceptance of AprointmeuL Every successor escrow agent appointed hereLulder shall 

execute and deliver to its predecessor and .I rOCM an instrument in writing accepting such 

appointment hereunder, and tbereupon such successor escrow agent, without any further act, deed, or 

conveyance, shall become fully vested with all U1e estates, properties, rights, powers, trusts, duties, 

<md obligatiollS of its predecessor; but such predecessor shall, nevertheless, on the written request of 

.IIOCM execute and deliver an instrumcm transferring to any successor escrow agent all the estates, 

3 
properties, rights, titles, powers, and trusts of such predecessor hereunder. Should any deed, 

conveyance, or instrument in writing from TIOCM be required to more fully and certairdy vest in 

such successor escrow agent the estates, rights, titles, powers, and duties hereby vested, any and all 

such instruments in writing shaH, on request of the successor escrow agent, be executed lUld 

delivered by TIOCM. 

4.5 Compensation. The Escrow Agent shall be entitled to reasonable and customary 

compensation for all services rendered, and to reimbursement for all reasonable expenses, 

disbursements, and advances incurred or made by it in lUld about the administration of the trusts 

herein provided for, and in and about enforcement or other protection of this Escrow Agreement. 

For purposes ofr.his Escrow Agreement, compensation shall be one quarter of one percent (0.25%) 

of the Escrowed Monies. For purposes of this Section, compensation shall be calculated on r.he total 

sum o fEscrowed Monies deposited during the calendar year and shall be immediately payable to the 

Wildlife and Natural Resource Income AccOlmt on December 3 1 of eacb year. 

4.6 Collection. Unless otherwise specifically indicated herein, the Escrow Agent shall 

proceed as soon as practicable to collect any checks or other collection items at m1y time deposited 

hereunder and be entitled to have its legal fees and costs reimbursed from Escrowed Monies. 

4.7 Authoritv. The Escrow Agent represents and warrants that it has the necessary 

power and authority to execute. deliver, aud perform its obligations under this Escrow Agreement. 

4.8 Unenforceabilitv. lf for any reason this Escrow Agreement i.s rendered unworkable, 

unenforceable, or illegal, r.he Escrowed Monies, together with all interest and earnings thereon, less 

any accrued compensation due Escrow Agent pursuant to Section 4.5 of this Escrow Agreement, 

shall revert Lo the Successor Escrow Agent upon their appointment under Section 4.3 of this Escrow 

Agreement 

Section 5. MJSCELLANEOUS. 

5.1 Successors m1d Assigns. Whenever any of the parties hereto is referred to, such 

reference shall be deemed to include the successors and pennitted assigns of such party; and all the 

covenants, promises, and agreements in this Escrow Agreement contained by or on behalf of the 

Escrow Agent shall bind and inure to the benefit of the respective :;uccessors m1d perrnined assigns 

of such parties, whether so expressed or not. 

5.2 Separability. The unenforceability or invalidity of any provision or provisions oftbis 

Escrow Agreement shall not render aoyotherprovision or provisions herein contained unenforceable 

or invalid. 

5.3 Amendments. Any term, covenant, agreement, or condition of this Escrow 

Agreement may be amended or compliance U1erewith may be waived-either generally or in a 

particular instance, and either retrospectively or prospectively-by an instrument in writing, 

4 
executed and agreed to by Escrow Agent and JIOCM. 

5.4 Notices. Any notice or other communication required or permitted 10 be gi veo under 

lhis Escrow Agreement by any party hereto to any other party hereto shall be considered as 

properly given if in writing and (a) delivered against receipt therefore, (b) mailed by registered or 

certified mail, retum receipt requested and postage prepaid, or (c) scot by tclc-facsimile machine, in 

each case to the address or tcle-facsim.ilc number, as the case may be, set forth below: 

If to J IOCM: Jonah Interagency Office Project Coordinator 

Bureau of !..and ManagemenL 

P.O. Box 768 

Pinedale, WY 82941 · 0768 

lf to the Escrow Agent: Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resource TrustAccOtull Board 

500 East Fremont 

Riverton, Wyoming 82501 

TJto EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc: EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. 

Jonah Team Lead 

3 70 17th Street 

Suite 1700 

Denver, CO 80202 

Or to such other address as any of the parties hereto may have substituted therefore by written 

notification to the other parties hereto in accordance with this Section 5.4. Delivery of any 

communication given i11 accordaJ1ce herewith shall be effective only upon actual receipt thereof by the 

party or parties to whom such commun.ication is directed. Whenever under the terms hereto the time 

for giving a notice or perfom1ing an act falls upon a Saturday, Sunday, or Legal Holiday, such rime 

shall be extended to the next business day. 

5.5 Governing Law. This Escrow Agreement shall be constn1ed in accordance with and 

governed by the laws of the State of Wyoming. 

5.6 Counten>arts. This Escrow Agreement may be executed and delivered in any ntunber 

of counterparts, each of such counterparts constituting an original but all together only one 

agreement. 

5.7 Termination. JJOCM may tenni.nate this Escrow Agreement at will, in a writing 

executed by the.JIOCM, and the Escrow Agent shaH, upon tennination, pay over Escrowed Monies, 

less any accrued compensation as set described llOder Section 4.5 of this Escrow A!,'Teement, as 

JJOCM shall direct. 

5 
rN WITNESS VvHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Escrow Agreement to be 

executed and delivered as of the date shown io the tirst paragraph of this document 

Jonah Interagency Oftice Charter Members 

Date Signed: - -"Z=-·- /V'_,_--"o-='-=-----

Date Signed: _ __,Z::....:..-,_1. ...: <J:::.=---

For the Wyoming Department of Envirorunental Quality: 

Ap 

Date Signed: ::.......:...:...... 1'}'--'...::. '0...!:::..___ 

Date Signed: 'Jizp 

r the Wyoming State Agencies: 

Date Signed: "2.-/ O{p 

WYOMIN WILDLIFE AND NATURAL RESOURCES TRUST ACCOUNT BOARD "Escrow 

Agenf' 

Date Signed: ~ /CJ" 

6 
SCHEDULE OF DEFINITIONS 

Exhibit A to 

Escrow Agreement 

"Administrative Fees" shall mean annual administrative service fees of the Escrow Agent. 

"Business day'" shall mean any day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or Legal Holiday. 

"Legal Holiday" shall mean any Monday through Friday in which mail is not delivered by the 

United States Postal Service, and any day on which the New York Stock Exchange is closed. 

7 
ORDER TO DISBURSE 

Exhibit B to 

Escrow Agreement 

--------------~20 ___ 

Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resource Trust Account Board 

Members of the Board: 

Reference is made to the Escrow Agreement of (date) (the "Escrow 

Agreement") among the Jonah Interagency Office Charter Members (''JIOCM") and the 

Wyoming Wildlife and Natttral Resource Trust Account Board. The authorized officer of 

JTOCM, in accordance with Section 3 of the Escrow Agreement, authorizes and directs 

you to disburse$ rrom Escrowed Monies on deposit in the Escrow 

Account, on the date hereto to at [Bank and Accotmt information or 

Address]. 

Very truly yours, 

Jonah Interagency Ofl'ice Project Coordinator 

By: 

Name: ___________ _ 

Title:------------

Date:------------

8 
APPENDIX D

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

CONCURRENCE LETTER
f)l. lrPL V IUifU- TO 

FWSIR6 

ES 

Memorandum 

United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Mountain-Prairie Region 

MAILING ADDRESS: 

P.O. Box 25486 DFC Denver, Colorado 80225.()486 

STREET LOCATION: 

134 Union Boulovard 

Lakewood. Colorado 80228-1807 

DEC 19 2005 

To: FieJd Manager, Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale. Wyoming 

Attention: Priscilla Mecham 

·•C'' From:;;~~1t~glonal Director, Region 6 

~ · . .u.Sf.ish and Wildlife Service 

... Denver, Colorado 

Subject: Final Biological Opinion for the Jonah lnfill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 

Wyoming 

In accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended 

-. 

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the Interagency Cooperation Regulations (50 CFR 402), this 

document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) biological opinion based on 

our review of the proposed Jonah 1nfill Drilling Project (Project) located in Sublette County, 

Wyoming, and its effects on the endangered Colorado pikeminnow (PtychocheiiiiS lucius), 

humpback chub (Gila cypha), bonytail (Gila elegan.r), and razorback sucker (Xyrauchen 

rexanus) and their critical habitats. Your October 25, 2005. correspondence requesting initiation 

of formal consultation was received on October 28, 2005. 

This biological opinion is based primarily on our review of the information in your request letter 

and supplemental information regarding the proposed actions and the estimated average annual 

water depletion. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at the USFWS 

Wyoming Field Office. Copies of this opinion should be provided to the applicant because the 

USFWS has incorporated reasonable and prudent ahern11tives that should be included as 

conditions of any authorization issued by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for this 

Project. 

With respect to critical habitat, this biological opinion does not rely on the regulatory definition 

of .. destruction or adverse modification" of critical habitat at 50 CFR 402.02. Instead, we have 

relied upon the statutory provisions of the ESA to complete the following analysis. 
2 

BIOLOGICAL OPINION 

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

The Jonah lnfill Drilling Project Area currently encompasses approximately 30,500 acres located 

in ponions ofTownships 28 and 29 North, Ranges 107 through 109 West, in Sublette County 

approximately 32 miles southeast of Pinedale and 28 miles northwest of Farson, Wyoming. 

There are SOl producing and shut-in natural gas wells within the Project Area as well as 

extensive infrastructure including roads and pipelines for natural gas production. 

The proposed expansion of the existing Project includes drilling up to 3, I 00 new wells and 

16,200 acres of new surface disturbance over the next 12.4 years. This proposed expansion 

includes-a minimum of 64 well pads per 640-acre section; downhole well spacing from 

I bottombole every 5 acres to one bottombole every 40 acres; 465 miles of new resoun::e roads 

with associated pipelines; 8 miles of new collector/local roads; 41 acres of new surface 

disturbance for ancillary facilities; and 100 acres of new surface disturbance for exploration of 

other geologic formations. A total of 12,400 acre-feet of water from the Green River Basin in 

Wyoming will be used for well drilling, hydrostatic testing of pipelines, and dust abatement 

associated with this proposed expansion ofthe Jonah lnfill Drilling Project. 

An additional component of the proposed Jonah lnfill Drilling Project is the Bird to Opal m 

compressor station and pipeline. There will be one 36-inch diameter pipeline that will be 

17 miles long and two segments of24-inch diameter pipeline that will be S I miles long. 

Hydrostatic testing of these pipelines will require a total of 16.2 acre-feet of water from the 

Green River Basin in Wyoming. 

Habitat reclamation for areas disturbed by the proposed Project is described in the Jonah Gas 

Field Native Habitat Surface Reclamation Project Plan. This reclamation plan will characterize 

the physical and biological nature of the Jonah field's soils and vegetation to be used in design 

site goals and prescriptions for reclan1ation. Six treauncnts have been identified for experimental 

vegetation plantings. Approximately 67 acre-feet of wnter from the Green River Basin will be 

used to hold topsoi I in place and to provide moisture for planting and seed gerrninarion. 

Consequently. the revised Jonah lnfill Drilling Project and associated Project components as 

described above will result in a total depletion to the Green River Basin in Wyoming of 

12,483 acre-feet over the 12.4 year life of the project The average annual depletion over the life 

of the project is 1,006.7 acre-feet. 

Our regulations define the action area as all areas directly or indirectly affected by the Federal 

action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR 402.02). The subject 

Project water depletion would result in a loss of water from the point of removal within the 

Green River Basin in Wyoming, continuing downstream to the confluence with the Colorado 

River, and downstream to Lake Powell. Therefore, t.he action area designation begins at the 

water removal location as described above downstream to Lake Powell. 
STATUS OF THE SPECIES AND CRITICAL RABfTAT 

COLORADO PtKEMINNOW 

Species Description 

The Colorado pikeminnow is the largest cyprinid fish (minnow family) native to North America 

and evolved as the main predator in the Colorado River system. lt is an elongated pike-like fish 

that during predevelopment times may have grown as large as 6 feet in length and weighed 

nearly I 00 pounds (Behnke and Benson 1983). Today, Colorado pikeminnow rarely exceed 

3 

3 feet in length or weigh more than 18 pounds; such fish are estimated to be 45 to 55 years old 

(Osmundson el al. 1997). The mouth of this species is large and nearly horizontal with long 

slender pharyngealteelh (located in the throat), adapted for grasping and holding prey. The diet 

of Colorado pikeminnow longer than 3 or 4 inches consists almost entirely of other fishes 

(Vanicek and Kramer 1969). Males become sexually mature earlier and at a smaller size than do 

females, though all are mature by about age 7 and 20 inches in length (Vanicek and Kramer 

1969; Seethaler 1978; Hamman 1981 ). Adults are strongly eountershaded with a dark, olive 

back, and a white belly. Young arc silvery and usually hove a dark, wedge-shaped spot at the 

base of the caudal fin. 

Status and Distribution 

Based on early fish collection records, archaeological finds, and other observations, the Colorado 

pikeminnow was once found throughout warm water reaches of the entire Colorado River Basin 

down to the Gulf of California, and including reaches of the upper Colorado River and its mlljor 

tributaries, the Green River and its major tributaries, and the Gila River system in Arizona 

(Seethaler 1978). Colorado pikeminnow apparently were never found in colder, headwater 

areas. Seethaler (1978) indicated that the species was abundant in suitable habitat throughout the 

entire Colorado River Basin prior to the 1850s. No historic records exist that would indicate 

how far upstream Colorado pikeminnow once occurred in the Colorado River. The only reliable 

a.ccouni of the species occurring upstream of the Price Stubb Dam near Palisade, Colorado, is 

from a USFWS biologist who reports having captured Colorado pikeminnow in Plateau Creek 

approximately 2-3 miles upstream from the Colorado River conOuence while angling there 

around 1960 (Osmundson 200 I). 

By the 1970s, Colorado pikeminnow were extirpated from the entire lower basin (downstream of 

Glen Canyon Dam) and from portions oflhe upper basin of the Colorado River as a result of 

major alterations to the riverine environment. Having lost 75 to 80 percent of its former range 

(Miller 1961; Moyle 1976; Tyus 1991; Osmundson and Burnham 1998), the Colorado 

pikeminnow was federally listed as an endangered ~-pecies in 1967 (32 FR 4001). 

Colorado pikeminnow are presently restricted to the Upper Colorado River Basin and inhabit 

warmwater reaches of the Colorado, Green, and San Juan Rivers and associated tributaries. The 

species inhabits about 350 miles of the mainstem Green River from its eonOuence with the 

Colorado River upstream to the mouth of the Yampa River. ln the Yampa River, its range 

extends upstream an additional 160 miles. Colorado pikeminnow also occur in the lowennost 
4 

I 04 miles of the White River, another tributary to the Green River. In the mainstem Colorado 

River, distribution of the species extends 201 miles upstream from the upper end of Lake Powell 

to Palisade, Colorado (Tyus 1982). 

Colorado pikemiMow are found in the Gunnison River as far upstream as the Hartland Diversion 

Dam. which is a barrier to upstream fish passage, located approximately 57 miles upstream of 

the Redlands Diversion Dam (Burdick 1995). Colorado pikeminnow use most of the Gunnsion 

River between the Redlands D1version and the Aanland Diversion (Burdick 1995). A suspected 

spawning area was located between river mile 32 and 33 (Burdick 1995; McAda 2003). 

Colorado pikcminnow larvae wore collected in the Gunnison River in 1995 and 1996 (Anderson 

1999). Collection of larval fish provides evidence of spawning, but does not locate specific 

spawning locations. 

Osmundson and Burnham (1998) summarized the statUS and trend of the Colorado River 

population of Colorado pikeminnow. They found that numbers were low but new individuals 

were actively recruiting to the adult population, and recruitment largely occurs in pulses from 

infrequent strong year classes. These investigators concluded that low adult numbers and 

infrequent pulsed recruitment make this population vulnerable to extirpation over time from both 

natural fluctuations in numbers as well as from continued changes in habitat. 

Threats 

Major declines in Colorado pikeminnow populations occurred during the dam-building era of the 

1930s through the 1960s. Behnke and Benson (!983) summarized the decline of the natura.! 

ecosystem, pointing out that dams, impoundments, and water use practices drastically modified 

the river's natural hydrology and channel characteristics throughout the Colorado River Basin. 

Dams on the mainstem broke the natural continuum of the river ecosystem into a series of 

disjunct segments, blocking native fish migrations, reducing temperatures downstream of dams, 

creating lacustrine habitat, and providing conditions that allowed competitive and predatory 

nonnative fishes to thrive both within the impounded reservoirs and in the modified river 

segments that connect them. The highly modified flow regime in the lower basin coupled with 

the introduction of noMative fishes decimated populations of native fish. 

Major declines of native fishes first occurred in the lower basin where large dams were 

constructed from the 1930s through the 1960s. In the upper basin, the following major dams 

were not constructed until the 1960s-Gien Canyon Dam on the mainstcm Colorado River, 

Flaming Gorge Dam on the Green River, Navajo Dam on the San Juan River, and the Aspinall 

Unit Dams on the Gunnison River. To date, some native fish populations in the Upper Basin 

have managed to persist, while others have become nearly extirpated. River segments where 

native fish have declined more slowly than in other areas are those wbere the hydrologic regime 

most closely resembles the natural condition, wberc adequate habitat for all life phases still 

exists, and where migration corridors arc unblocked and allow connectivity among life phases. 

The Redlands Diversion Dam restricted upstream travel of Colorado pikeminnow in the lower 

Gunnison River between 1917 and 1996. A small remnant popu.lation persisted upstream of the 

dam. Five adult Colorado pikeminnow were captured in the Gunnison River between 1992 and 

1994 (Burdick 1995). Earlier studies captured four adult Colorado pikeminnow in the Gunnison 
River between river mile 22.1 and 31.4 (Valdez et al. J982a). ln 1996 the fish ladder was 

constructed around the Redlands Diversion Dam, and 62 Colorado pilccminnow have ascended 

the fish ladder. In addition, 1,050 Colorado pikeminnow (150-300 millimeters long) were 

stocked in the Gunnison River at Delta in 2003. 

5 

In the mainstem Colorado River, the magnitude of spring flows has declined by 30 to 45 percent 

since the early part of the century (Osmundson and Kaeding 1991; Van Steeter 1996; Pitlick 

ct al. 1999). Such flow reduction negatively affects Colorado pikeminnow in four ways1) reducing the river's ability to build and clean cobble bars for spawning; 2) reducing the 

dilution effect for watc:tbome contaminants from urban and agricultural sources that may 

int.erfere with reproductive success; 3) reducing the connectivity of main-channel and 

bottomland habitats needed for habitat diversity and productivit.y; and 4) providing a more 

benign environment for nonnative fish and invasive nonnative, bank-stabilizing shrubs (salt 

cedar) to persist and flourish (Osmundson and Burnham 1998). In general, the existing habitat 

has been modified to the extent that it impairs essential behavior patterns, such as breeding, 

feeding, and sheltering. 

Nonnative fishes compete with native fishes in several ways. The capacity of a particular area to 

suppon aquatic life is limited by physical habitat conditions. Increasing the number of species in 

an area usually results in a smaller population of most species. The size of each species 

population is controlled by the abiHty of each life stage to compete for space and food resources 

and to avoid predation. Some nonnative fishes' life stages appear to have a greater ability to 

compete for space and food and to avoid predation in the eKisting altered habitat than do some 

native fishes' life stages. 

Nonnative fishes are often stocked in and enter rivers from off-channel impoundments. The 

periodic introduction of these nonnative fishes into a river allows them to bypass limitations to 

reproduction, growth, or survival that they might encounter in the river. Consequently, 

populations of nonnative fishes in the river are enhanced. Endangered and other native species 

in the river experience greater competition and predation as a result. 

Life History 

The life-history phases that appear to be most critical for the Colorado pikeminnow include 

spawning, egg hatching, development of larvae. and the first year of life. These phases of 

Colorado pikeminnow development are tied closely to specific habitat requirements. Narural 

spawning of Colorado pikemi.nnow is initiated on the descending limb of the annual hydro graph 

as water temperarures approach or exceed 20"C (Vanicek and Kramer 1969; Hamman 1981; 

Haynes et al. 1984; Tyus 1990; McAda and Kaeding 1991 ). Temperature at initiation of 

spawning varies somewhat by river--in the Green River, spawning begins as temperatures exceed 

20-23"C; in the Yampa River, 16-23°C (Bestgen et al. 1998); in the Colorado River, 18-22°C 

(McAda and Kaeding 1991 ). Spawning. both in the hatchery and under natural riverine 

conditions, generally occurs in a 2-month timeframe between late June and late August. 

However, in the natural system, sustained high flows during wet years may suppress river 

temperatures and extend spawning into September (McAda and Kaeding 1991). Conversely, 

during low Oow years, when the water warms earlier, spawning may commence in mid-June. 
Temperature has an effect on egg development and hatching success. In the laboratory, egg 

development was tested at five temperatures and hatching success was found to be highest at 

20°C, lower at 25°C, and mortality was I 00 percent at 5, I 0, 15, and 30°C. In addition, larval 

abnormalities were twice as high ot 25°C than at 20°C (Marsh 1985). 

6 

Experimental tests of temperature preference of yearling (Black and Bulkley 1985a) and adult 

(Bulkley ct at 1981) Colorado pikcminnow indicated that 25°C was the most preferred 

temperature for both life phases. Additional experimentS indicated that optimum growth of 

yearling Colorado pikeminnow also occurs at temperatures near 25°C (Black and Bulkley 

1985b). Although no sucb tests were conducted using adults, the tests with yearlings supported 

the conclusions of Jobling (198 1) that the final thermal preferendum provides a good indication 

of optimum growth temperature, i.e., 2s•c. 

Most information on Colorado pikcminnow reproducuon was gathered from spawning sites on 

the lower 20 miles of the Yampa River and in Gray Canyon on the Green River (Tyus and 

McAda 1984; Tyus 1985; Wicket al. 1985; Tyus 1990). Colorado pikeminnow spawn after 

peak runoff subsides and is probably triggered by several intera.cting variables such as 

photoperiod, temperature, flow level, and perhaps substrate characteristics. Spawning generally 

occurs from late June to mid-August with peak activity occurring when water temperatures are 

between 18 and 23°C (Haynes ct al. 1984; Archer et al. 1985; Tyus 1990; Bestgcn e1 al. 1998). 

Spawning has been confumed in the Colorado River by the presence of Colorado pikeminnow 

larvae in all years sampled. Larvae ore distributed throughout the river although most have been 

found downstream of Grand Junction (McAda and Kaeding 1991; Osmundson and Burnham 

1998). Aggregations of ripe adults have been found near Clifton and Grand Junction, Colorado, 

and near the Colorado-Utah State line (Osmundson and Kaeding 1989; McAda and Kaeding 

1991; USFWS unpublished data). Suitable spawning habitat (defined below) in the Colorado 

River near Cataract Canyon, Professor Valley, and upstream from the Dolores River confluence 

indicates spawning may occur in or ncar these areas as well (Archer et al. 1985; Va.ldez: 1990). 

Known spawning sites in the Yampa River are characterized by riffics or sha.llow runs with 

well-washed coarse substrate (cobble containing relatively deep interstitial voids (for egg 

deposition) in association with deep pools or areas of slow laminar Oow used as staging areas by 

adults (Lamarra ct al. 1985; Tyus 1990). Recent investigations at a spawning site in the San Juan 

River by Bliesner and Lamarra (1995) and at one in the upper Colorado River (USFWS 

unpublished data) indicate a similar association of habitats. The most unique feature at the sites 

actually used for spawning. in comparison with otherwise similar sites nearby, is the degree of 

looseness of the cobble substrate and the depth to which the rocks are devoid of fine sediments; 

this appears consistent at the sites in all three rivers (Lamarra et a!. 1985; Bliesner and Lamarra 

1995). 

Habitat Use and Preferences 

Clean cobble substrates that provide interstitial spaces for eggs are necessary for spawning and 

egg incubation (Tyus and Karp 1989). Several studies on the cobble cleaning process have been 

conducted at a known spawning location in Yampa Canyon. O'Brien (1984) studied U1e 

hydraulic and sediment transport dynamics of the cobble bar within the Yampa River spawning 
7 

site and duplicated some of its characteristics in a laboratory flume study. 0' Brien (1984) 

concluded that incipient motion of the cobble bed is required to clean cobbles for spawning and 

estimated that this takes discharges ofabout21,500 cfs. However, Harvey et al. {1993) 

concluded that because flows required for incipient motion of bed material arc rare (20-year 

return period event) and spawning occurs annually, another process must be cleaning the 

cobbles. Their srudy found that in Yampa Canyon m:cssional flows routinely dissect gravel bars 

and thereby produce tertiary bars of clean cobble at the base of the rimes. These tertiary bars are 

used by Colorado pikeminnow for spawning. The importance of high magnitude, low frequency 

discharges is in forming and maintaining the midchannel bars. Dissection of bars without 

redeposition by high magnitude flows would lead to conditions where spawning habitat is no 

longer available (Harvey et al. 1993). 

lt is nnknown whether tertiary bars similar to those used for Colorado pikerninnow spawning in 

Yampa Canyon are available in the 15-mile reach of the Colorado River. There, significant 

motion of bed material occurs at near bankfull discharge of22,000 cfs (Van Sleeter 1996). 

These flows occur on average once in 4 years. Van Sleeter (1996) concluded that flows of this 

magnitude are important because they generally remove fine sediment from the gravel matrix 

which maintains the invertebrate community and cleans spawning substrate. 

Although the location of spawning areas in the Colorado River is not as defined as in the Yampa 

River, the annual presence of larvae and young-of-the-year downstream of the Walker Wildlife 

Area, in the Lorna to Black Rocks reach and near the confluence of the Dolores River, 

demonstrates that spawning occurs every year. Osmundson and Kaeding (1989, 1991) reported 

that water temperatures in the Grand Junction area were suitable for Colorado pikeminnow 

spawning. ln 1986, a year of high runoff, suitable temperatures for spawning (20°C} occurred in 

mid-August; in 1989, a year oflow runoff, the mean temperature reached 20"C during tbe last 

• week of June. Tyus (1990) demonstrated that Colorado pikeminnow often migrate considerable 

distances to spawn in the Green and Yampa Rivers, and similar though more limited movement 

has been noted in the mainstem Colorado River (McAda and Kaeding 1991 ). 

Collections of larvae and young-of-the-year downstream of known spawning sites in tbe Green 

and Yampa Rivers indicate that downstream drift oflarval Colorado pikeminnow occurs 

following hatching (Haynes eta!. 1984; Nesler et al. 1988: Tyus 1990, Tyus and Haines 1991). 

During their first year of life, Colorado pikeminnow prefer warm. turbid, relatively deep 

(averaging 1.3 feet) backwater areas of zero velocity (Tyus and Raines 1991). After about 

I year, young are rarely found in such habitats, though juveniles and subadults are often located 

in large deep backwaters during spring runoff (USFWS, unpublished data; Osmundson and 

Burnham 1998). 

Larval Colorado pikerninnow have been collected in the Gunnison River upstream and 

downstream of the Redlands Diversion Dam (Anderson 1999; Osmundson and Burnham 1998). 

Burdick ( 1997) reports that the capture oflarval Colorado pikeminnow in 1995 and 1996 

upstream of the Redlands Diversion Dam coupled with aggregations of radio-tagged adult fish 

during the spawning season confirms that spawning occurs upstream of the dam. 
8 

Information on radio-tagged adult Colorado pikeminnow during fall suggests that fish seek out 

deep water areas in the Colorado River (Miller et nl. 1982; Osmundson and Kaeding 1989), as do 

many other riverine species. River pools, runs, and other deep water areas, especially in 

upstream reaches, are important winter habitats for Colorado pikeminnow (Osmundson et al. 

1995). 

Very little information is available on the infiuence of turbidity on the endangered Colorado 

River fishes. Osmundson and Kaeding {1989) found that turbidity allows usc of relatively 

s.hallow habitats ostensibly by providing adults with needed cover; this allows foraging and 

resting in areas otherwise exposed to avian or land predators. Tyus and Haines ( 1991) found that 

young Colorado pikcminnow in the Green River preferred backwaters that were turbid. Clear 

conditions in these shallow waters might expose young fish to predation from wading birds or 

introduced sight-feeding, piscivorous fish. It is unknown whether the river was as turbid in the 

past as it is today. For now, it is assumed that these endemic fishes evolved under natural 

conditions of high turbidity; therefore, the retention of these highly turbid conditions is probably 

an important factor in maintaining the ability of these fish to compete with nonnatives that may 

not have evolved under similar conditions. 

Population Dynaroics 

Osmundson (2002) investigated population dynamics of Colorado pikcminnow from 199lto 

2000. These years were divided into two study pcriods-1991 to 1994 and 1998 to 2000. The 

results of the investigation found that annual estimates of whole-river (the Colorado River from 

the confluence with the Green River upstream to the Price-Stubb Dam, including the lower 

2.3 miles of the Gunnison River downstream of the Redlands Diversion Dam) population size 

(all fish;:: 250 mm) averaged 582 fish during the earlier study period and 742 fish during the 

more recent study period. This represents a 27 percent increase based on these estimates. 

Estimates of adult fish~ 500 mm) averaged 362 during the earlier study period and 490 during 

the more recent study period, representing a 35 percent increase in adult fish. 

Colorado pikeminnow reproduce each year; however, strong year classes that recruit fish to U1e 

adult population are relatively rare (Osmundson and Burnham 1998). A distinct increase of 

subadult fish was found below Moab in 1991 and within a few years these fish were distributed 

throughout the Colorado River. Osmundson and Burnham (1998) concluded that these fish were 

the result of one or more strong ye.ar classes produced during the mid-1980s. McAda and Rye I 

(1999) have identified another strong year class that cxx:urred in 1996. In both cases, the 

common hydrologic conditions that led to successful reproduction and first year survival was a 

spring and summer of moderately high flows following a year of exceptionally high-flood flows 

(McAda and Rycl 1999). 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat for the Colorado pikcminnow was designated in 1994 within the 100-year 

floodplain oflhe Colorado pikeminnow's historical range in the following area of the upper 

Colorado River (59 FR 13374). Colorado pikeminnow now only occur in the upper Colorado 
River basin (upstream of Lee Fc:rry just below the Glen Canyon Dam). Most of Lake PoweU is 

no! suitable habitat for Colorado pikeminnow and is not designated critieal habitat. The total 

designated miles is 1,148 and represents 29 percent of the historieal habitat for the species: 

Moffat County, Colorndo. The Yampa River and its 100-year floodplain from the State 

Highway 394 bridge in T. 6 N., R. 91 W., section I (6th Principal Meridian) to the 

confluence with the Green River in T. 7 N .• R. 103 W., section 28 (6th Principal 

Meridian). 

9 

Uintah Carbon. Grand. Emerv. Wavne, and San Juan Counties, Utah; and Moffat 

County, Colorado. The Green River and its 100-year floodplain from the confluence 

with the Yampa River in T. 7 N., R. 103 W., section 28 (6th Principal Meridian) to the 

confluence with the Colorado River in T. 30 S., R. 19 E., section 7 (Salt Lake Meridian). 

Rio Blanco Coun1y. Colorado: and Uintah County, Utah. The White River and its 

100-year floodplain from Rio Blanco Lake Dam in T. IN., R. 96 W., section 6 

(6th Principal Meridian) to the confluence with the Green River in T. 9 S., R. 20 E., 

section 4 (Salt Lake Meridian). 

Delta and Mesa Counties. Colorado. The Gunnison River and its 100-year floodplain 

from the confluence with the Uncompahgre River in T. ISS., R. 96 W., section II 

(6th Principal Meridian) to the confluence with the Colorado River in T. I S., R. I W., 

section 22 (Ute Meridian). 

Mesa and Garfield Counties. Colorado: and Grand. San Juan. Wavne. and Garfield 

Counties. Utah. The Colorado River and its 100-year floodplain from the Colorado River 

Bridge at exit 90 north otT Interstate 70 in T. 6 S., R. 93 W., section 16 (6th Principal 

Meridian) to North Wash. including the Dirty Devil arm of Lake Powell up to the full 

pool elevation, in T. 33 S., R. 14 E., section 29 (Salt Lake Meridian). 

San Juan County. New Mexico; and San Juan Countv, Utah. The San Juan River and its 

I 00-ycar floodplain from the State Route 37 1 Bridge in T. 29 N., R. 13 W., section 17 

(New Mexico Meridian) to Neskahai Canyon in the San Juan ann of Lake Powell in 

T. 41 S .. R. II E., section 26 (Salt Lake Meridian) up to the full pool elevation. 

The final eritieal habitat rule identified water, physical habitat, and the biological environment as 

the Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) of critieal habitat. The water PCE was further 

described as including a quantity of water of sufficient quality (i.e., temperature, dissolved 

oxygen, lack of contaminants, nutrients, turbidity, etc.) that is delivered to a specific location in 

accordance with a hydrologic regime that is required for the particular life stage for each species. 

The physieal habitat includes areas of the Colorado River system that are inhabited or potentially 

habitable by fish for use in spawning, nursery, feeding, nnd rearing, or serve as corridors 

between these areas. In addition to river channels, these areas also include bottom lands, side 

channels, secondary channels, oxbows, backwaters, and other areas in the I 00-year floodplain, 

which when inundated provide access to spawning, nursery, feeding, and rearing habitats. The 

biological environment PCE includes food supply predation, and competition. Food supply is a 
10 

function of nutrient supply, productivity, and av8Jiability to each life stage of the species. 

Predation and competition, although considered nonnal componentS of this environment, are out 

of balance due to introduced nonnative fish species in many areas. 

PRIMARY CONSTITUENT ELEMENT· WATER 

The status of water quantity includes all historical depletions in the Upper Basin. depletions 

resulting from projects, which have previously undergone section 7 consultation, and depletions 

resulting from projects contemporaneous with this consultation. Since 1988, the USFWS bas 

consulted on l 52 projects with a potential to deplete a total of l, 729,060 acre-feet in the entire 

Upper Colorado River Basin, of which 1,507,202 acre-feet are historic depletions. According to 

the Colorado River Compact of 1922, the total Oow from the Upper Colorado River Basin is 

approximately 16 million acre-feet in an average year. Therefore, withdrawals of approximately 

II percent of the average flow has been covered in previous biological opinions. 

The status of water quality in critical habitat includes concerns regarcting the following 

contaminants--heavy metals, seleniwn, salts, PAHs, and pesticides. Selenium is of particular 

concern because of its docwnented effects on fish (and wildlife) reproduction. Many chemical. 

physical, and biologJcal factors affect the toxicity of environmental contaminants to biological 

organisms. Chemical and physical factors include contaminant type, chemical species or fonn, 

pH, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, hardness. salinity, and multiple-chemical exposure 

(antagonism and synergism). Duration of exposure, quantity of contaminant, and exposure 

pathways from the environment to the organism also affect toxicity. Some tmcc clements are 

beneficial to organisms at low concentrations but may be toxic at higher concentrations. 

Biological and physiological factors affecting toxicity include species, age, sex, and health of the 

organism. 

Seleniwn concentrations can be elevated in areas where irrigation occurs on soils which are 

derived from or which overlie Upper Cretaceous marine sediments. Percolation of irrigation 

water through these soils and sediments leaches seleniwn into receiving waters. Other sources of 

selenium include powerplant fly ash and oil refineries. Water depletions, by reducing dilution 

effects, have increased the concentrations of selenium and other contaminants. In 1995, 

Colorado's Water Quality Control Commission reduced the chronic selenium standard from 

17 f.Lg{L to 5 f.LgfL. The USFWS recommended the level be lowered to 2 f.Lg/L. 

PRJMARY CONSTITUENT [LEM£1\o'T · PHYSICAL H ABITAT 

Physical habitat of the Colorado River in the action area has been greatly altered by changes in 

the timing and volume of flows, bank stabilization, diking. and diversion dams. Barriers to fish 

movement have been identified as a factor in the decline of the endangered fishes because they 

block migration routes and prevent fish from reaching spawning grounds and other important 

habitat. As an example, the Redlands Diversion Dam has been in place since 1918 and 

completely blocked upstream fish movement until 1996 when a fish ladder was installed. Large 

quantities of water are diverted into the Redlands Water and Power Company's Canal for power 

production and irrigation. Large diversions are known to divert many species of fish into canals, 

inclucting the Colorado River endangered fishes (Burdick 2003). Once fish enter the Redlands 
Canal, they likely enter the power turbines and are injured or killed. Fish also could be lost in 

the electric pumps, during canal dewatering. or transported through ditches to irrigated fields. 

Fish have likely been lost in the Redlands Water and Power Company's Canal since 19 18. 

11 

In addition to blocking native fish migrations, dams have reduced downstream temperatures and 

created lacustrine habitats that provided conditions that allowed competirive and predatory 

nonnative fishes to thrive both withio the impounded reservoirs and in the modified river 

segmeots that coonect them. The highly modified flow regimes coupled with the introduction of 

noonative fishes decimated populations of native fish. 

Water depletions, by affecting the quantity and timing of flows, have reduced the ability of the 

river to create and maintain habitats and have reduced the frequency and duration of availability 

of cenain habitats. 

The formation of a variety of chanoel habitats, including gravel/cobble bars and substrates used 

by Colorado pikeminnow for spawning, is essential to ensure the availability of the range of 

habitats required by all endangered fish life stages to fulfill daily requirements (foraging, resting, 

spawning. avoiding predation, etc.) under various flow conditions. The number and distribution 

of these channel habitats can be described as channel habitat complexity, diversity, or 

heterogeneity. Osmundson and Kaeding (1991) found that adult Colorado pikeminnow in the 

Grand Valley prefer river segments with a complex morphometry to those that are simple. Some 

important physical habitats, such as inundated floodplain depressions, are located outside the 

channel. Floodplain depressioos are principally derived from abandoned main channels, 

side-channels, backwaters, and meander cutoffs. 

The creation of complex channel habitat and the formation and eventual abandonment of channel 

features from which floodplain depressions are fanned occur primarily during spring runoff 

when flows are of sufficient size and duration to cause major changes in channel morphology 

through sigoificant erosion and deposition of bed and bank materials. The reduction in the 

magnitude, duration, and frequeocy of high spring flows has slowed the rate at which channel 

morphology changes. Coosequcntly, the creation of complex channel habitat and floodplain 

depressions has slowed. The placement of riprap and other bank stabilization measures and the 

construction of dikes and levees impede changes in channel morphology and cootribute to tbe 

slowed creation of complex chaonel habitat. ln addition, the construction of dikes and levees 

reduces existing channel habitat c-omplexity by causing channelizatioo of the river. Dikes and 

levees also isolate existing floodplain depressioos from the channel during high flows. The 

slowed creation of complex chaoncl habitats and new floodplain depressions, the reduction of 

existiog channel habitat complexity, and the isolation of existing floodplain depressions have 

acted to reduce the quantity and quality of important habitat for endangered fishes. 

Backwaters, a habitat component of the physical habitat PCE, are essential for various life stages 

of endangered .fish. Backwaters are damaged by the deposition of .fine sediments which reduces 

their depth and consequently their duration and frequency of inundation. Gravel and cobble 

substrates, used by pikeminnow for spawning. are damaged by the infiltratioo of [me sediments. 

The establishment of vegetation on backwater sediments and on bars further reduces the value of 

these habitats for endangered fishes. Furthermore, higher flows are required to llush sediments 
12 

from vegetated backwaters than from unvegetated ones. Osmundson and Kaeding ( 1991) 

reponed observations that, on the 15-mile reach during the drought years of 1988 to 1990, 

backwaters were filling in with silt and spring Oows were not sufficient to flush out the fine 

sediment. Also, they reponed that tamarisk colonized sand and cobble bars. Therefore. the 

lower frequency of high water years decreases the frequency at which silt and sand is flushed 

from backwaters, fine sediments are flushed from graveVcobble substrates, and vegetation is 

scoured from backwaters and bars. Flow recommendations recently developed for the Gunnison 

River (McAda 2003) are intended to restore and maintain in-channel critical habitats used by all 

life stages-!) spawning areas for adults; 2) spring. summer, autumn, and winter habitats used by 

subadults and adults; and 3) nursery areas used by larvae, young-of-year, and juveniles. 

Summer (August-October) Habitats--Osmundson et al. (1995) reported that, in the 15-mile reach, 

availability of habitats did not differ significantly between periods of moderate flows and low 

flows. Though absolute area of habitat decreases with declining flows, relative area or percent 

composition of habitat types changes little. However, pikeminnow habitat usc patterns did 

change. The fish used a greater variety of habitats during moderate flows than during low Oows. 

During moderate flows, the fish used primarily backwaters, eddies, and pools. During low 

flows, the fish used slow and fast runs almost exclusively. The change in habitat use without a 

corresponding change in relative habitat availability indicates that other factors also influence 

habitat selection. These factors could include changes in quality of physical habitat features such 

as diversity, depth, dissolved oxygen, etc., or changes in biotic interactions. Osmundson et al. 

(1995) interpreted the pikeminnow behavioral changes as reflective of suboptimal conditions; the 

behavioral changes demonstrate the ability of the species to modify their habitat use patterns to 

temporarily cope with adverse conditions and do not demonstrate habitat preferences under 

optimum conditions. 

Winter (November-March) Habitats--Osmundson et al. (1995) reported that, in the IS-mile 

reach, flows during the winter are usually moderate because no water is diverted for irrigation 

and because additional water is released through upstream dams to increase reservoir storage 

capacity in anticipation of spring runoff. The relative availability of slow runs and rimes during 

the winter was very similar to their availability during summer. As in the summer, backwaters, 

eddies, and pools were the preferred types of habitat in the winter. However, whereas eddies 

were most preferred in summer, pools were most preferred in winter. Adult pikeminnow used 

fewer habitat types overall during winter than during summer. Although fast runs and rimes 

were used during the summer, they were not used during the winter. The colder water 

temperatures in winter which cause lower metabolic rates may account for the avoidance of high 

velocity sites. Absolute area of pools increases as flows decrease and slow runs lose velocity. 

Because Osmundson et al. ( 1995) did not sample low flows in the winter. they could not 

determine if pools would still be preferred in the winter at lower flows. 

Spring (April-July) Habitats--Osmundson and Kaeding (1989) reported that pikeminnow use of 

low velocity habitats such as backwaters and flooded gravel pits is greatest during the spring 

runoff. It is believed that pikeminnow use these habitats during the runoff to escape the high 

velocity, low temperature flows of the main channel. Because backwaters, flooded gravel pits, 

and other low velocity habitats are conside.rably warmer than the main chan.ncl during the runoff, 

these habitats allow pikeminnow to extend their growing season substantially. The earlier 
13 

wanning of these habilllts al.so may be important in enabling pikeminnow to reach spawning 

condition by the time flow and temperature in the main channel are optimum for spawning. 

Osmundson et al. (1995) reported that, in the 15-mile reach, the numbers of backwaters and 

flooded gravel pits increases with increasing spring flows. (Although the number of backwaters 

eventually decreases as increasing flows convert backwate.rs to side channels, the number of 

other low velocity habitats likely increases as increasing flows inundate additional bottomlands.) 

The decrease in the magnitude, duration, and frequency of high spring flows, then, decreases the 

quantity and the duration and frequency of availability of important low velocity, higher 

temperature habitat in the spring. These changes could be affecting pikeminnow growth and 

spawning success. 

PRiMARY CONSTITUENT ELEMENT- BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 

This PCE includes food supply and predation. As described in the species section above, 

predation and competition from nonnative fishes have been clearly implicated in the population 

reductions or elimination of native fishes in the Colorado River Basin (Dill 1944; Minckley and 

Deacon 1968; Joseph et at. 1977; Lanigan and Berry 1979; Behnke 1980; Meffe 1985; 

Osmundson and Kaeding 1989; Propst and Bestgen 1991 ; Rinne 1991). The modification of 

flow regimes, water temperatures, sediment levels, and other habitat conditions caused by water 

depletions bas contributed to the establishment of nonnative fishes. During low water years, 

nonnative minnows capable of preying on or competing with larval endangered fishes greatly 

increase in numbers (Osmundson and Kaeding 1991). Thus, the biological environment PGE bas 

been adversely affected by nonnative fishes. 

Species/Critical Habitat Likely to be Affected 

The Colorado pikcminnow and its critical habitat in the action area are likely to be adversely 

. affected. The critical habitat includes the Green River and its 100-year floodplain from the 

confluence with the Yampa River in T. 7 N., R. 103 W., section 28 (6th Principal Meridian) to 

the confluence with the Colorado River in T. 30 S., R. 19 E., section 7 (Salt Lake Meridian), 

continuing to the Colorado River and its I 00-year floodplain from the Colorado River Bridge at 

exit 90 north off Interstate 70 in T. 6 S., R. 93 W., section 16 (6th Principal Meridian) to North 

Wash, including the Dirty Devil arm of Lake Powell up to the full pool elevation, in T. 33 S., 

R. 14 E., section 29 (Salt Lake Meridian). 

RAZORBACK SUCKER 

Species Description 

The razorback sucker, an endemic species unique to the Colorado River Basin, was historically 

abundant and widely distTibuted within warmwater reaches throughout the Colorado River Basin. 

The razorback sucker is the only sucker with an abrupt sharp-edged dorsal keel behind its head. 

It bas a large fleshy subterminal mouth that is typical of most suckers. Adults often exceed 

6 pounds in weight and 2 feet in length. 

Historically, razorback suckers were found in the mainstem Colorado River and major tributaries 

in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, and in Mexico (Ellis 

1914; Mincklcy 1983). Bestgen (I 990) reported that this species was once so numerous that it 
14 

was commonly used as food by early settlers and, further, that commerciaUy marketable 

quantities were caught in Arizona as recently as 1949. In the Upper Basin, razorback suckers 

were reported in the Green River to be very abundant near Green River, Utah, in the late 1800s 

(Jordan 1891). An account in Osmundson and Kaeding (1989) reported that residents Jiving 

along the Colorado River near Clifton, Colorado, observed several thousand razorback suckers 

during spring runoff in the 1930s and early 1940s. In the San Juan River drainage, Platania and 

Young (1989) relayed historical accounts of razorback suckers ascending the Animas River to 

Durango, Colorado, around the tum of the century. 

Status and Distribution 

The current distribution and abundance of the razorback sucker have been significantly reduced 

throughout the Colorado River system, due to lack of recruitment to the adult population (Holden 

and Stalnaker 1975; McAda and Wydoski 1980; Minckley 1983; McAda 1987; Tyus 1987; 

Marsh and Minckley 1989). The only substantial population exists in Lake Mohave with an 

estimated population of 5,000 adult razorback suckers in 2005 (Burke 2005) down from an 

earlier estimate of25,000 in 1995 (Minckley 1995) and 60,000 in 1991 (Minckley et al. 1991). 

They do not appear to be successfully recruiting. While limited numbers of razorback suckers 

persist in other locations in the lower Colorado River, they are considered rare or incidental and 

may be continuing to decline. 

In the Upper Basin, above Glen Canyon Dam, razorback suckers are found in limited numbers in 

both len tic and !otic environments. The largest population of razorback suckers in the Upper 

Basin is found in the upper Green River and lower Yampa River (Tyus 1987). Lanigan and Tyus 

(1989) estimated that from 758 to 1, 138 razorback suckers inhabit the upper Green River. 

Modde et al. ( 1996) report no significant decrease in the population between 1982 and 1992, and 

the continued presence of fish smaller than 480 mm during the study period suggest some level 

of recruitment. In the Colorado River, most razorback suckers occur in the Grand VaUey area 

ncar Grand Junction, Colorado; however, they are increasingly rare. Osmundson and Kaeding 

(1991) report that the number of razorback sucker captures in the Grand Junction area bas 

declined dramatically since 1974. In 1991 and 1992, 28 adult razorback suckers were collected 

from isolated ponds adjacent to the Colorado River near De Beque, Colorado (Burdick 1992). 

The last wild razorback sucker was caught in the Grand VaUey area in 1995; however, stocked 

razorback suckers are now captured on a regular basis in the Grand Valley area during ongoing 

survey efforts (C. McAda, pers. comm. 2005). The existing habitat has been modified to the 

extent that it impairs essential behavior patterns, such as breeding, feeding, and sheltering. 

Anecdotal infonnation indicates razorback sucker were once common in the Gunnison River 

(Kidd 1977; Quartrone 1993), and two specimens from the 1940s are in the University of 

Michigan Museum of Zoology (Wiltzius 1978). One razorback sucker was collected near Delta 

in 1975 (Wilzius 1978) and three were collected in the vicini1y in 1981 (Holden et al. 1981). No 

razorback suckers were collected during sampling by Valdez et al. (1982a) or Burdick (1995). 

A stocking program was initiated by the Recovery Program and between April 1994 and 

October2001, 18,423 juvenile, sub-adult, and adnlt razorback suckers were stocked in the 

Gunnison River and 3 1,53 1 juvenile, sub-adult, and adult razorback suckers were stocked in the 

Colorado River (Burdick 200Ja). Razorback suckers were not stocked in the Gunnison River in 
15 

2002 or 2003 due to the low water conditions, which increase the chance of fish being lost in the 

unscreened Redlands Canal. The goal of the stocking program is to estab]jsb a self-sustaining 

population of 600 individuals between Hartland Diversion and Redlands Diversion. In 200 I and 

2002, six razorback suckers used the Redlands fish ladder. Razorback suckers did not use the 

Redlands fish ladder in 2003. ln 2002, eight larval razorback suckers were collected in the 

Gunnison River (Osmundson 2002b ). These are the first larval razorbacks suckers collected 

from the Colorado or Gunnison Rivers and confirm that spawning is taking place in the 

Gunnison River. 

A marked decline in populations of razorback suckers can be attributed to construction of dams 

and reservoirs, introduction of nonnative fisbes, and removal of large quantities of water from 

the Colorado River system. Dams on the mainstem Colorado River and its major tributaries have 

segmented the river system, blocking migration routes. Dams also have drastically altered flows, 

temperatures, and channel geomorphology. These changes have modified habitats in many areas 

so that they are no longer suitable for breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Major changes in species 

composition have occurred due to the introduction of numerous nonnative fishes, many of which 

have thrived due to man-induced changes to the natural riverine system. 

Razorback suckers are in imminent danger of extirpation in the wild. The razorback sucker was 

)jsted as endangered October 23, I 991 (56 FR 54957). As Bestgen {1990) pointed out: 

"Reasons for decline of most native fishes in the Colorado River Basin have been 

attributed to habitat loss due to construction of mainstream dams and subsequent 

interruption or alteration of natural flow and physio-chemical regimes, inundation of river 

reaches by reservoirs, channelization, water quality degradation, introduction of 

nonnative fish species and resulting competitive interactions or predatioD, and other 

man-induced disturbances (Miller 1961 ; Joseph et al. 1977; Behnke and Benson 1983; 

Carlson and Muth 1989; Tyus and Karp 1989). These factors are almost certainly not 

mutually exc lusive; therefore it is often difficult to detem1ine exact cause and effect 

relationships." 

The virtual absence of any recruitment suggests a combination of biological, physical, and/or 

chemical factors that may be affecting the survival and recruitment of early liie stages of 

razorback suckers. Within the Upper Basin, recovery efforts endorsed by the Recovery Program 

include the capture and removal of razorback suckers from all known locations for genetic 

analyses and development of discrete brood stocks if necessary. These measures have been 

undertaken to develop refugia populations of the razorback sucker from the same genetic 

parentage as their wild counte.rparts such that, if these fish are genetically unique by subbasin or 

individual population, then separate stocks will be available for future augmentation. Such 

augmentation may be a necessary step to prevent the extinction of razorback suckers in the 

Upper Basin. 

Life History 

McAda and Wydoski (1980) and Tyus (1987) reported springtime aggregations of razorback 

suckers in off-channel habitats and tributaries; such aggregations are believed to be associated 

with reproductive activities. Tyus and Kal]) (I 990) and Osmundson and Kaeding (199 I) 
16 

reported off-channel habitats to be much wanner than the mainstem river and that razorback 

suckers presumably moved to these areas for feeding. resting, sexual maturation, spawning, and 

other activities associated with their reproductive cycle. Prior to construction of large mainstcm 

dam5 and the suppression of spring-peak flows, low velocity, off-channel habitats (seasonally 

flooded bottomlands and shorelines) were commonly available throughout the Upper Basin 

(Tyus and Karp 1989; Osmundson and Kaeding 1991). Dams changed riverine ecosystems into 

lakes by impounding water, which eliminated these off-channel habitats in reservoirs. Reduction 

in spring-peak flows eliminates or reduces the frequency of inundation of off-channel habitats. 

The absence of these seasonally flooded riverine habitats is believed to be a limiting factor in the 

successful recruitment of razorback suckers in their native environment (Tyus and Karp 1989; 

Osmundson and Kaeding 1991). Wydoslci and Wick (1998) identified starvation oftarvaJ 

razorback suckers due to low zooplankton densities in the main channel and loss of floodplain 

habitats which provide adequate zooplankton densities for larval food as one of the most 

important factors limiting recruitment 

While razorback suckers have never been directly observed spawning in turbid riverine 

environments within the Upper Basin, captures of ripe specimens, both males and females. have 

been recorded (Valdez et at. 1982b; McAda and Wydoslci 1980; Tyus 1987; Osmundson and 

Kaeding 1989; Tyus and Karp 1989; Tyus and Karp 1990; Platania 1990; Osmundson and 

Kaeding 1991) in the Yampa, Green, Colorado, and San Juan Rivers. Sexually mature razorback 

suckers are generally collected on the ascending limb of the bydrograph from mid-April through 

June and are associated with coarse gravel substrates (depending on the specific location). 

The qtllll1tity and frequency of availnbility of inundated floodplain depressions used by razorback 

suckers for spawning is dependent on the magnitude and frequency of spring flows necessary to 

inundate these areas. The decrease in the magnitude and frequency of spring flows necessary to 

inundate floodplain depressions is believed to be largely responsible for poor razorback sucker 

spawning success. 

Outside of the spawning season, adult razorback suckers occupy a variety of shoreline and main 

channel habitats including slow runs, shallow to deep pools, backwaters, eddies, and other 

relatively slow velocity areas associated with sand substrates (Tyus 1987; Tyus and Karp 1989; 

Osmundson and Kaeding 1989; Valdez and Masslich 1989; Tyus and Karp 1990; Osmundson 

and Kaeding 1991). 

Habitat requirements of young and juvenile razorback suckers in the wild are not well known, 

particularly in native riverine environments. Prior to 1991, the last confirmed documentation of 

a razorback sucker juvenile in the Upper Basin was a capture in the Colorado River near Moab, 

Utah (Taba et at. 1965). In 1991, two early juvenile (36.6 and 39.3 mm TL) razorback suckers 

were collected in the lower Green River near Hell Roari.ng Canyon (Gutermuth et at. 1994). 

Juvenile razorback suckers have been collected in recent ye.ars from Old Charley Wash, a 

wetland adjacent to the Green River(Modde 1996). Between 1992 and 1995larval razorback 

suckers were collected in the middle and lower Green River and within the Colorado River 

inflow to Lake Powell (Muth 1995). No young razorback suckers have been collected in recent 

times in the Colorado River. 
17 

Population Dynamics 

Captures of razorback suckers in the upper Colorado River have been so low in recent years that 

estimating population size is not possible. Presumably, the numbers are very low due to the low 

capture rates and the extensive habitat modification described above. 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat was designated in 1994 within the 100-year floodplain of the razorback sucker's 

historical range in the following area of the upper Colorado River (59 FR 13374). The PCEs arc 

the same as critical habitat for Colorado pikeminnow described previously, as is the status of the 

PCEs. We designated 15 reaches of the Colorado River system as critical habitat for the 

razorback sucker. These reaches total 1,724 miles as measured along the center line of the river 

within the subject reaches. The designation represents approximately 49 percent of the historical 

habitat for the species and includes reaches of the Green, Yampa, Duchesne, Colorado, White, 

Gunnison. and San Juan Rivers: 

Moffat County. Colorado. The Yampa River and its 100-year floodplain from the mouth 

of Cross Mountain Canyon in T. 6 N., R. 98 W., section 23 (6th Principal Meridian) to 

the confluence with the Green River in T. 7 N., R. I 03 W., section 28 (6th Principal 

Meridian). 

Uintah County. Utah: and Moffat County. Colorado. The Green River and its I 00-year 

floodplain from the confluence with the Yampa River in T. 7 N., R. 103 W., section 28 

(6th Principal Meridian) to Sand Wash in T. II S., R. 18 E., section 20 (6th Principa.l 

Meridian). 

tfmtab. Carbon. Grand. Emerv. Wayne, and San Juan Counties. Utah. The Green River 

and its 100-year floodplain from Sand Wash at river mile 96 at T. II S., R. 18 E., 

section 20 (6th Principal Meridian) to the confluence with the Colorado River in T. 30 S., 

R. 19 E., section 7 (6th Principal Meridian). 

Uintah Countv. Utah. The White River and its I 00-ycar floodplain from the boundary of 

the lJmtab and Ouray Indian Reservation at river mile 18 in T. 9 S., R. 22 E., section 21 

(Salt Lake Meridian) to the confluence with the Green River in T. 9 S., R 20 E., section 4 

(Salt Lake Meridian). 

Uintah CountY. Utah. The Duchesne River and its I 00-year floodplain from river 

mile 2.5 in T. 4 S., R. 3 E., section 30 (Salt Lake Meridian) to the confluence with the 

Green River in T. S S., R. 3 E., section 5 (Uintah Meridian). 

Delta and Mesa Counties. Colorado. The Gunnison River and its I 00-year floodplain 

from the confluence with the Uncompahgre River in T. 15 S., R. 96 W., section II 

(6th Principal Meridian) to Redlands Diversion Dam in T. I S., R. I W., section 27 

(Ute Meridian). 
18 

Mesa and Garfield Counties. Colorado. The Colorado River and its I 00-ycar floodplain 

from Colorado River Bridge at exit 90 north ofT Interstate 70 in T. 6 S., R. 93 W., 

section 16 (6th Principal Meridian) to Westwater Canyon in T. 20 S., R. 25 E., section 12 

(Salt Lake Me.ridian) including the Gunnison River and its 100-year floodplain from the 

Redlands Diversion Dam in T. I S., R. I W., section 27 (Ute Meridian) to the confluence 

with the Colorado River in T. I S., R. I W., section 22 (Ute Meridian). 

Grand. San Juan. Wayne. and Garfield Counties. Utah. The Colorado River and its 

100-year floodplain from WestWater Canyon in T. 20 S., R. 25 E., section 12 (Salt Lake 

Meridian) to full pool elevation, upstream of North Wash, and including the Dirty Devil 

arm of Lake Powell in T. 33 S., R. 14 E., section 29 {Salt Lake Meridian). 

San Juan County: and Utah. San Juan CountY. New Mexico. The San Juan River and its 

100-ycar floodplain from the Hogback Diversion in T. 29 N., R. 16 W., section 9 (New 

Mexico Meridian) to the full pool elevation at the mouth ofNeskahai Canyon on the San 

Juan arm of Lake Powell in T. 41 S., R. I I E., section 26 (Sah Lake Meridian). 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT LIKELY TO BE AFFECTED 

The razotbaclc sucker and its critical habitat, as described below, are likely lObe adversely 

afTccted by the subject Project: 

Uintah County. Utah: and Moffat County. Colorado. The Green River and its I 00-year 

floodplain from the confluence with the Yampa River in T. 7 N., R. 103 W., section 28 

(6th Principal Meridian) to Sand Wash in T. II S., R. 18 E., section 20 (6th Principal 

Meridian). 

Uintah, Carbon. Grand, Emerv. Wayne. and San Juan Counties. Utah. The Green Ri,-er 

and its I 00-ycar floodplain from Sand Wash at river mile 96 at T. I I S., R. 18 E., 

section 20 (6th Principal Meridian) to the confluence with the Colorado River in T. 30 S., 

R. 19 E., section 7 (6th Principal Meridian). 

Grand. San Juan. Wavne, and Garfield Counties. Utah. The Colorado River and its 

I 00-year floodplain from the confluence with the Green River in T. 30 S., R. I 9 E., 

section 7 (6th Principal Meridian) to full pool elevation, upstream of North Wash, and 

including the Dirty Devil arm of Lake Powell in T. 33 S., R. 14 E., section 29 {Salt Lake 

Meridian). 

H UMPBACK C HUB 

Species Description 

The humpback cbub is a medium-sized freshwater fish (less than 500 mm) of the minnow 

family. The adults have a pronounced dorsal hump, a narrow flattened head, a fleshy snout with 

an inferior-subterminal mouth, and small eyes. It bas silvery sides with a brown or olive colored 

back. 
The humpback chub is endemic to the Colorado River Basin and is part of a native fish fauna 

traced to the Miocene epoch in fossil records (Miller 1946; Minckley et al. 1986). Humpback 

chub remains have been dated to about 4000 B.C., but the fish was not described as a species 

until the 1940s (Miller 1946), presumably because of its restricted distribution in remote white 

water canyons (USFWS 1990b). Because of this, its original distnoution is not known. The 

humpback cnub was listed as endangered on March II , 1967. 

Status and Dis1noution 

19 

Unti I the 1950s. the humpback chub was known only from Grand Canyon. During surveys in the 

1950s and 1960s humpback chub were found in the upper Green River including specimens from 

Echo Park, Island Park, and Swallow Canyon (Smith 1960; Vanicek et at. 1970). Individuals 

also were reponed from the lower Yampa River (Holden and Stalnaker 1975), the White River in 

Utah (Sigler and Miller 1963), Desolation Canyon of the Green River (Holden and Stalnaker 

1970), and the Colorado River near Moab (Sigler and Miller 1963). 

Today the largest populations of this species occur in the Little Colorado and Colorado Rivers in 

the Grand Canyon, and in Black Rocks and Westwater Canyon in the upper Colorado River. 

Other populations have been reponed in De Beque Canyon of the Colorado River, Desolation 

and Gray Canyons of the Green River, Yampa and Whirlpool Canyons in Dinosaur National 

Monument {USFWS 1990b). One individual was recently captured in the Gunnison River in a 

canyon-bound reach at river mile 22 (Burdick 1995). 

Ln general, the existing habitat has been modified to the extent that it impairs essential behavior 

patterns, such as breeding, feeding, and sheltering. 

Life History 

Humpback chubs spawn soon after the highest spring nows when water temperatures approach 

20"F (Kaeding et aL 1990; Karp and Tyus 1990; USFWS 1990b). The collection of ripe and 

spent fish indicated that spawning occurred in Black Rocks during June 2-15, 1980, at water 

temperatures of 11.5 to 16"C; in 1981, spawning occurred May 15-25, at water temperatures of 

16 to 16.3°C (Valdez et at. 1982b ). Humpback chub spawned in Black Rocks on the Colorado 

River in 1983 when maximum daily watcrtempcratures were 12.6to l?"C (Archer et at. 1985). 

In the Grand Canyon, humpback chub spawn in the spring between March and May in the Little 

Colorado River when water temperatures are between I 6 and 22°C. Swimming abilities of 

young-of-the-year humpback chub were determined to be significantly reduced when laboratory 

water temperatures were reduced from 20 to I4°C. Many young-of-year humpback chub are 

displaced from the Little Colorado River into the mainstem by monsoonal floods from July 

through September (Valdez and Ryel1995). Young humpback chub are found in low velocity 

shorelines and backwaters. Survival rates are extremely low and believed to be less than I in 

1,000 to 2 years of age. Low water temperatures and predation are believed to be the primary 

factors. Valdez and Ryel (1995) estimated that 250,000 young humpback chub are consumed 

annually by brown trout, rainbow trout, and channel catfish. 
20 

Backwaters, eddies, and runs have been reported as common capture locations for young-of-year 

humpback chub (Valdez and Clemmer 1982). These data indicate that in Black Rocks and 

Westwater Canyon, young utilize shallow areas. Habitat suitability index curves developed by 

Valdez et al. ( 1990) indicate young-of-year prefer average depths of2.1 feet with a maximum of 

5.1 feet. Average velocities were reported at 0.2 feet per second. 

Population Dynamics 

The number of humpback in the Gunnison River is so low that it is not possible to do a 

population estimate. 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat was designated in I 994 within humpback chub historical range in the following 

sections of the upper Colorado River (59 FR 13374). The PCEs are the same as those described 

for the Colorado pikeminnow, as is the status ofthePCEs. We designated seven reaches of the 

Colorado River system for a total of379 miles as measured along the center line of the subject 

reaches. The designation represents approximately 28 percent of the historical habitat of the 

species and includes reaches in the Colorado, Green, and Yampa Rivers in the Upper Basin: 

Moffat County. Colorado. The Yampa River from the boundary of Dinosaur National 

Monument in T. 6 N., R. 99 W., section 27 (6th Principal Meridian) to the confluence 

with the Green River in T. 7 N., R. 103 W., section 28 {6th Principal Meridian). 

Uintah County; and Colorado. Moffat County, Utah. The Green River from the 

confluence with the Yampa River in T. 7 N., R. 103 W., section 28 (6th Principal 

Meridian) to tbe southern boundary of Dinosaur National Monument in T. 6 N., R. 24 E., 

section 30 (Salt Lake Meridian). 

Uintah and Grand Counties. Utah. The Green River (Desolation and Gray Canyons) 

from Sumner's Amphitheater in T. 12 S., R. 18 E., section 5 (Salt Lake Meridian) to 

Swasey's Rapid in T. 20 S., R. 16 E., section 3 (Salt Lake Meridian). 

Grand County: and Colorado, Mesa County, Utah. The Colorado River from Black 

Rocks in T. 10 S., R. 104 W., section25 (6th Principal Meridian) to Fish Ford in T. 21 S., 

R. 24 E., section 35 (Sail Lake Meridian). 

Garfield and San Juan Counties. Utah. The Colorado River from Brown Betty Rapid in 

T. 30 S., R. 18 E., section 34 (Salt Lake Meridian) to Imperial Canyon in T. 31 S., 

R. 17 E., section 28 (Salt Lake Meridian). 

SPEClES/CRITJCAL HABITAT UKELY TO BE AFFECTED 

The humpback chub and its critical habitat, as described below, are likely to be adversely 

affected by the subject Project. Although the Project depletion does not occur within the 

designated critical habitat for the humpback cbub, the depletion would adversely affect cri tical 

habitat by reducing the amount of water flowing into designated critical habitat: 
21 

Uintah County; and Colorado. Moffat County, Utah. The Green River from the 

confluence with the Yampa River in T. 7 N., R. 103 W., section 28 (6th Principal 

Meridian) to the southern boundary of Dinosaur National Monument in T. 6 N., R. 24 E., 

section 30 (Salt Lake Meridian). 

Uintah and Grand Counties. Utah. The Green River (Desolation and Gray Canyons) 

from Sumner's Amphitheater in T. 12 S., R. 18 E., sectionS (Salt Lake Meridian) to 

Swasey's Rapid in T. 20 S., R. 16 E., section 3 (Salt Lake Meridian). 

Garfield and San Juan Counties, Utah. The Colorado River from Brown Betty Rapid in 

T. 30 S., R. 18 E., section 34 (Salt Lake Meridian) to Imperial Canyon in T. 31 S., 

R. 17 E., section 28 (Salt Lake Meridian). 

BONYTAlL 

Species Description 

Bonytail are medium-sized (less than 600 mm) fish in the minnow family. Adult bonytail are 

gray or olive colored on the back with silvery sides and a white belly. The adult bonytail has an 

elongated body with a long, thin caudal peduncle. 

Status and Distribution 

The bonytail is the rarest native fish in the Colorado River. It was listed as endangered on 

April23, 1980. Formerly reported as widespread and abundant in mainstem rivers (Jordan and 

Eveonann 1896}, its populations have been greatly reduced. The fish is presently represented in 

the wild by a low number of old adult fish in Lake Mohave and perhaps other lower basin 

reservoirs (USFWS 1990a). The last known riverine area where bonytail were common was the 

. Green River in Dinosaur National Monument, where Vanicek (1967) and Holden and Stalnaker 

(1970) collected 91 specimens during 1962-1966. From 1977 to 1983, no bonytail were 

collected from the Colorado or Gunnison Rivers in Colorado or Utah (Wicket al. 1979, 1981; 

Valdez et al. 1982b; Miller et al. 1984). However, in 1984, a single bonytail was collected from 

Black Rocks on the Colorado River (Kaeding et al. 1986). Several suspected bonytail were 

captured in Cataract Canyon in 1985-1987 (Valdez 1990). In 2003 one formerly stocked 

oonytail was captured in the Redlands fish ladder and released upstream. This is the first record 

of a bonytail in the Gunnison River. 

The existing habitat has been modified to the extent that it impairs essential behavior patterns, 

such as breeding, feeding, and sheltering. 

Life History 

The bonytail is considered a species that is adapted to mainstem rivers, where it has been 

observed in pools and eddies (Vanicek 1967; Minckley 1973). Spawning ofbonytail has never 

been observed in a river, but ripe fish were collected in Dinosaur National Monument during late 

June and early July suggesting that spawning occurred at water temperatures of about 18°C 

(Vanicek and Kramer 1969). 
Population Dynamics 

The number ofbonytaiJ in the upper Colorado River and its tributaries is so low that it is not 

possible to do a population estimate. 

Critical Habitat 

22 

Critical habitat was designated in 1994 within the bonytaiJ's historical range in the following 

sections of the upper Colorado River (59 FR 13374). The PCEs are the same as those described 

for the Colorado pikeminnow, as is the status of the PCEs. We designated seven reaches of the 

Colorado River system as critica.l habitat for the bonytail chub. These reaches total J 12 miles as 

measured along the center line of the subject reaches, representing approximately 14 percent of 

the historical habitat of the species. Cri tical habitat includes portions of the Colorado, Green, 

and Yampa Rivers in the Upper Basin: 

Moffat County, Colorado. The Yampa River from the boundary of Dinosaur National 

Monument in T. 6 N., R. 99 W., section 27 (6th Principal Meridian) to the confluence 

with the Green River in T. 7 N., R. I 03 W., section 28 (6th Principal Meridian). 

Uintah County: and Colorado. Moffat County. Utah. The Green River from the 

confluence with the Yampa River in T. 7 N., R. 103 W., section 28 (6th Principal 

Meridian) to the boundary of Dinosaur National Monument in T. 6 N., R. 24 E., 

section 30 (Salt Lake Meridian). 

Uintah and Grand Counties, Utah. The Green River (Desolation and Gray Canyons) 

from Sumner's Amphitheater in T. 12 S., R. 18 E., section 5 (Salt Lake Meridian) to 

Swasey's Rapid (river mile 12) in T. 20 S., R. 16 E., section 3 (Salt Lake Meridian). 

Grand County, Utah; and Mesa Countv, Colorado. The Colorado River from Black 

Rocks (river mile 137) in T. tO S., R. 104 W., section 25 (6th Principal Meridian) to Fish 

Ford in T. 21 S., R. 24 E., section 35 (Sa lt Lake Meridian). 

Garfield and San Juan Counties. Utah. The Colorado River from Brown Betty Rapid in 

T. 30 S., R. 18 E., section 34 (Salt Lake Meridian) to Imperial Canyon in T. 31 S., 

R. 17 E., section 28 (Salt Lake Meridian). 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABIT AT LIKELY TO BE AFFECTED 

The bonytail and its critical habitat, as described below, are likely to be adversely affected by the 

subject Project. Althougb the Project depletion does not occur within the designated critical 

habitat for the bonytail, the depletion would adversely affect critical habitat by reducing the 

amount of water flowing into designated critical habitat. 

Uintab Countv: and Colorado, Moffat Countv. Utah. The Green River from the 

confluence with the Yampa River in T. 7 N., R. 103 W., section 28 (6th Principal 

Meridian) to the boundary of Dinosaur National Monument in T. 6 N., R. 24 E., 

section 30 (Salt Lake Meridian). 
Uintah and Grand Counties. Utah. The Green River (Desolation and Gray Canyons) 

from Sumner's Amphitheater in T. 12 S., R. 18 E., section 5 (Sail Lake Meridian) to 

Swasey's Rapid (river mile 12) in T. 20 S., R 16 E., section 3 (Salt Lake Meridian). 

23 

Garfield and San Juan Counties, Utah. The Colorado River from Brown Betty Rapid in 

T. 30 S., R. 18 E., section 34 (Salt Lake Meridian) to Imperial Canyon in T. 31 S., 

R 17 E., section 28 (Sail Lake Meridian). 

E NVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 

The environmental baseline includes the past and present impacts of all Federal, State, and 

private actions and other human activities in the action area; the anticipated impacts of all 

proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone fonnal section 7 

consultation; and the impact of State or private actions contemporaneous with the consultation 

process. 

In fonnulating this opinion, the USFWS considered adverse and beneficial effects likely to result 

from cumulative effects of future State and private activities that are reasonably certain to occur 

within the Project area, along with the direct and indirect effects of the Project and impacts from 

actions that are part of the environmental baseline (50 CFR 402.02 and 402.14 (g)(3)). 

Because of the widespread eiTecls of the Project on downstream areas and the large size of the 

action area, the environmental baseline for the four listed fish is roughly the same as the status as 

described above. Therefore, we are not repeating that infonnation in this section. 

FACI'ORS AFFECTING THE SPECIES ENVIRONMENT WITIIIN THE ACTION AREA 

The action area includes critical habitat for Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, humpback 

chub, and bonytail on the Green River from the confluence of the Yampa River to the confluence 

with the Colorado River and downstream to Lake Powell. 

Critical Habitat - Green River 

Critical habitat on the Green River historically experienced high spring turbid flows and low 

flows throughout the rest of the year. High spring flows create and maintain the braided 

channels that provide a variety of important habitats. Impoundments and diversions have 

reduced peak discharges in various river reaches throughout the Upper Colorado River Basin 

since pioneer settlement of the basin, while increasing base flows in other reaches. Important 

spawning and nursery habitats for the razorback sucker and the Colorado pikemiMow are found 

along the Green River below the confluence with theY arnpa River. While flows and sediment 

transport in the Green River have been significantly altered by the operation of Flaming Gorge 

Dam, the influence of the Yampa and Little Snake Rivers' more natural hydrograph partially 

ameliorates these adverse effects to the riverine environment of the Green River below the 

Yampa River confluence. 
24 

PRJMARY CONSTITUENT ELEMENT · WATER 

Alteration of the natural hydrology of the action area due to existing water development projects 

constitute the most significant existing factor affecting the species and critical habitat. Existing 

projects have reduced tbe magnitude and frequency of peak flows, augmented summer base 

flows, and lowered average water temperatures in the Green River. These projects have reduced 

the amount and quality of spawning and nursery habitat, changed environmental cues necessary 

for the initiation of spawning behavior, and favored non-native fish species in the Green River. 

Quantity of water of sufficient quality that is delivered to a specific location in accord.ance with a 

hydrologic regime that is required for the particular life stage for each species has been 

substantially altered. 

PRIMARY CONSTITIIENT ELEMENT - PHYSICAL HABITAT 

The physical habitat includes areas of the Colorado River system that are inhabited or potentially 

habitable for use in spawning and feeding, as a nursery, or serve as corridors between these 

areas. Storage and diversion of water tends to reduce the peak flows., altering processes that 

trigger spawning behavior, maintain spawning gravels. backwaters and floodplain connectivity to 

the river. Reduced sediment load and associated channel changes in the Green River due to the 

closure of Flaming Gorge Reservoir have been documented at Jensen, Utah. Further reductions 

in sediment supply to the Green River may lead to reductions in the active channel width and 

nursery habitat for larval fish. 

Historically, floodplain habitats inundated and connected to the main channel by overbank 

flooding during spring-runoff discharges would have been available as nursery areas for young 

razorback suckers in the Green River. Tyus and Karp ( 1990) associated low recruitment with 

reductions in floodplain inundation since 1962 (closure of Flaming Gorge Dam), and Modde 

ct al. (1996) associated years of high spring discharge and floodplain inundation in the middle 

Green River (1983, 1984, and 1986) with subsequent suspected recruitment of young adult 

razorback suckers. 

PRIMARY CONSTITUENT ELEMENT· 8 JOLOGJCAL ENVIRONMENT 

Oxbows, backwaters, and other areas in the I 00-year floodplain, when inundated, provide access 

to spawning, nursery, feeding, and rearing habitats. Food supply, predation and competition are 

imponant elements of the biological environment. Reduction of peak flow and augmentation of 

summer base flows also affects the biological environment by favoring nonnative predators and 

competitors better adapted to more stable hydrology and reducing autochthonous nutrient inputs 

from floodplain habitats. 

Some scientists believe (Tyus and Saunders 1996) that changes in the biological community as a 

result of fish introductions may currently be the most significant threat to the native fish fauna of 

the Colorado River Basin. The impoundment of tributaries and mainstem waters has resulted in 

the stocking of a number of nonnative sport and bait fishes for use by local residents and visitors 

to the basin. While the acceptance of these fishes has been generally favorable by the public, 

their presence has led to predation, competition and the general demise of native fishes (Tyus 
25 

and Saunders 1996). The stocking of nonnative wann water fishes such as channel catfish, 

smallmouth bass, and northern pike have resulted i.n the continuing high probability of predation 

on soft-rayed native fishes. Red shiners, for example, have been documented as preying on 

larval suckers, including razorbacks (Rupert et. al. 1993; Modde and Irving 1997). Other exotics 

such as sand shiner and fathead minnow compete for food and space in remaining habitats. 

As reported by the Interagency Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (Aquatic Nuisance Species 

Task Force 1994), introductionsofnoonativespecies into aquatic habitats has become 

problematic worldwide. Not unique to the Colorado River system, the threat that nonnative 

fishes pose to native fishes, particularly wheo coupled with significant changes to the physical 

environment, is hastening the decline of native species. 

Tyus and Saunders (1996) reported species commonly identified as adversely affecting native 

fish populations nationwide are centrarchids such as largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). 

green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus}, bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), crappie (Pomoxis spp.), and 

smallmouth bass (MicropceniS dolomieu). The second most cited group are from the family 

Ictaluridae, which includes channel catfish (lctaluniS puncta/us), and bull.heads (AmeiuniS spp.). 

Other species such as red shiner (Cyprinella lwrensis} and fathead minnow (Pimeplrales 

promelas) also have been identified as problematic to Colorado River endangered fishes. All of 

these species currently inhabit the Colorado River Basin. 

Since the late 1800s, over 40 species of nonnative fishes have been stocked (primarily to enhance 

recreational fishing opportunities) or accidentally introduced to the Upper Colorado River Basin, 

including the Little Snake River Basin. Many of these fishes have established resident 

populations because of alteration of stream flows and resultant changes in physical aquatic 

habitats favorable to their existence. Many ofthcse fishes are reproducing naturally and, in some 

. cases, out-reproducing native fishes. Presently, two-thirds of the fish species in the Colorado 

River system are nonnative. Nonnative fishes continue to invade endangered fish habitats 

through introductions, escapement, and range expansions. Some exotics are stocked in basin 

rivers mostly for sport fishing purposes, while other exotics are removed when encountered but 

still represent a major detriment to the 14 native fishes still residing in the basin. 

Stocking of cold water sport fishes such as trout do not appear to have a dramatic effect on native 

fish populations, primarily because their habitats do not overlap significantly and they are Jess 

voracious than other warm water exotics such as bass, pike, and catfish. Recovery 

lmp Iemen tali on Program participants have concluded that continued stocking of trout does not 

represent any Joog-tenn threat to listed fishes. However, stocking of warm water fishes will be 

controlled and intensively monitored to ensure that physical barriers or other behavioral 

limitations will reduce the likelihood of inte.rspecific competition and/or predation. On 

September 5, 1996, a stocking policy was completed by the three Upper Basin States and the 

USFWS to establish procedures for stocking fish within the Upper Colorado River Basin. 
26 

Critical Habitat- Colorado River from Green River Confluence to Lake Powell 

Historically, the Colorado River produced lligh spring turbid flows that maintained critical 

habitat by inundating floodplains, maintaining side cnannels, and creating backwaters. Between 

the confluence with lhe Green River and Lake Powell the Colorado River flows through Cataract 

Canyon where the river cuts deeply through steep canyons and talus slopes and bas deep swift 

runs, major rapids, large eddies, and pools. Large angular rock and steep gradient have created 

approximately 13 miles of rapids before the river flows into the upper end of Lake Powell where 

it resembles a large, deep, slow-flowing river with high sandstone walls. 

Major habitat change occurred in Cataract Canyon when Lake Powell was fonned by the closure 

of Glen Canyon Dam in 1963. Lake Powell now inundates the lower end of Cataract Canyon 

where there is a transition zone between riverine and lacustrine habitat. Prior to inundation by 

Lake Powell, Cataract Canyon's steep gradient and large rapids comprised a 35-mile reach. 

Except for changes in water quantity and historic flow regime, the physical habitat in portions of 

Cataract Canyon above Lake Powell remains largely unmoclified. 

PRIMARY CONSTITUENT EutMl:Nl'- W ATER 

Like the Green River, the quantity of water in the Colorado River has been reduced by water 

development projects. Any water depletions in the Green River will adversely affect the 

Colorado River critical habitat below the confluence through Cataract Canyon. Flow regimes 

have been altered significanUy in the Colorado River by numerous upstream reservoirs and water 

projects, many of which transport large volumes of water out of the Colorado River Basin. 

Elevated selenium concentrations associated with irrigation drainwater were found in the 

Colorado River during NTWQP investigations (Butler et al. 1994, 1996; Butler and Osmundson 

2000). These elevated selenium concentrations still occur in water, sediment. and biota, and 

continue to pose a risk to this PCE. Studies show that selenium concentrations in water and fish 

tissue are related to flows; the lower the flows lhe higher the selenium concentrations 

(Osmundson el al. 2000). 

PRIMARY CONSTITUENT ELEMllNT- PHYSICAL HABITAT 

Westwater and Cataract canyons provide movement and migration corridors between the other 

relatively flat water habitats. Floodplain habitats between the canyons provide warm water, low 

velocity, feeding and nursery habitats. Many backwaters between Westwater Canyon and Lake 

Powell provide nursery habitat. Cataract Canyon provides deep eddies and pools, with swift 

currents and larger boulders identified as preferred habitat ofhumback chub (USFWS 1990b). 

PRtli1ARY CONSTITUENT ELEMENT- B IOLOCICAL ENVIRONMENT 

This PCE is impaired by the presence of nonnative fishes common in this reach of the Colorado 

River. Nonnative fishes occupy the same backwaters that are very important for young Colorado 

pikeminnow and razorback sucker. Largemouth bass (Microp1erus salmoides) and green sunfish 

(Lepomis cyanella) are the most common large-bodied fishes that occupy backwater habitats 
27 

year-round (Osmundson 2003). The three most common small-bodies fishes found in 

backwaters are fathead minnow, sand shiner, and red shiner, comprising 80 to I 00 percent of the 

fish found in Colorado River backwaters (McAda 1987). 

The critical habitat units within the action area have been identified·in the recovery goals for 

each of the four endangered fish species (USFWS 2002a, b, c, d) as essential for the conservation 

of the species. Colorado pikemionow is a wide ranging species sometimes migrating extensive 

distances to carry out life history functions. The action area encompasses a large area of 

razorback sucker critical habitat. Critical habitat for humpback chub and bonytail are limited to 

shorter reaches of the Colorado River within critical habitat for Colorado pikeminnow and 

razorback sucker. These shorter reaches include unique habitats required for humpback chub 

and bonytail that are found in only a few other places in the Colorado River Basin. 

EFFECTS OF THE ACTION 

Effects to Endangered Species 

The Project would adversely affect Colorado pikemionow, razorback sucker, bonytail, and 

humpback chub by reducing the amount of water in the river system upon which they depend by 

up to 1,006.7 acre-feet/year. The effects to all four species primarily result from the effects of 

the action upon their habitats. In general, the proposed action would adversely affect the four 

listed fish by reducing the amount of water available to them, increasing the likelihood of water 

quality issues, increasing their vulnerability to predation, and reducing their breeding 

opportunities by shrinking the amount of breeding habitat within their range. 

Removing 1,006.7 acre-feet of water per year from the Green and Colorado Rivers would change 

the natural hydrological regime that creates and maintains important fish habitats, such as 

• spawning habitats, and reduces the frequency and duration of availability of these habitats of the 

four endangered fish. The reduction of available habitats will directly affect individuals of all 

four species by decreasing reproductive potential and foraging and sheltering opportunities. 

Many of the habitats required for breeding become severely diminished when flows are reduced. 

As a result, individual fish \vi thin the action area may not be able to find a place to breed, or will 

deposit eggs in less than optimal habitats more prone to failure or predation. ln addition, 

reduction in flow rates lessens the ability of the river to inundate bottomland, a source of nutrient 

supply for fish productivity. Water depletions also exacerbate competition and predation by 

nonnative fishes by altering flow and temperature regimes that favor nonnatives. 

The proposed depletion would affect the water quality in the action area by increasing 

concentrations of heavy metals, selenium, salts, pesticides, and other contaminants. Increases in 

water depletions will cause associated reductions in assimilative capacity and dilution potential 

for any contaminants that enter the Green and Colorado Rivers. The Project's depletion would 

cause a proportionate decrease in dilution, which in turn would cause a proportionate increase in 

heavy metal, selenium, salts, pesticides, and other contaminant concentrations in the Colorado 

River to Lake Powell. An increase in contaminant concentrations in the river would tikely result 

in an increase in the bioaccumulation of these contaminants in the food chain which could 

adversely affect the endangered fishes, particularly the predatory Colorado pikeminnow. 
Selenium is of particular concern due to its effects on fish reproduction and its tendency to 

concentrate in low velocity areas that are important habitats for Colorado pikeminnow and 

razorback suckers. 

28 

The proposed Project would adversely affect the four listed fish by resulting in a reduction of 

water and concomitant effects to habitat. This reduction would contribute to the cumulative 

reduction in high spring flows, which are essential for creating and maintaining complex channel 

geomorphology and suitable spawning substrates, creating and providing access to off-channel 

habitats, and possibly stimulating Colorado pikemi:nnow spawning migrations. Adequate 

summer and \\~nter flows are important for providing a sufficient quantity of preferred habitats 

for a duration and at a frequency necessary to support all life stages of viable populations of all 

endangered fishes. To the extent that the Project will reduce flows, the ability of the river to 

provide these functions will be reduced. This reduction of water affects habitat availability and 

habitat quality. 

To the extent that it would reduce flows and contribute to further habitat alteration, the Project 

would contribute to an increase in nonnative fish populations. The modification of flow regimes, 

water temperatures, sediment levels, and other habitat conditions caused by water depletions has 

contributed to the establishment of nonnative fishes. Endangered fishes within the action area 

would experience increased competition and predation as a result. 

Effects to Critical Habitat 

All four of the listed Colorado River fish require the same PCEs essential for their survival. 

Therefore, we are combining our analysis of all four species into one section. Because the 

amount of designated critical habitat varies for each of the four species, the amount of habitat 

will vary; however, the effects would be the same for all critical habitat within the action area 

Water, physical habitat, and the biological environment are the PCEs of critical habitat. This 

includes a quantity of water of sufficient quality that is delivered to a speci fie location in 

accordance with a hydrologic regime that is required for the particular life stage for each species. 

The physical habitat includes areas of the Colorado River system that are inhabited or potentially 

habitable for use in spawning and feeding, as a nursery, or serve as corridors between these 

areas. In addition, oxbows, backwaters, and other areas in the 1 00-year floodplain, when 

inundated, provide access to spawning, nursery, feeding, and rearing habitats. Food supply, 

predation, and competition are important elements of the biological environment. 

P RIMARY CONSTtTUENTELEM"ENT· WATER 

The Project would deplete up to 1,006.7 acre-feet of water per year fTom the Colorado River 

Basin. Removing water .from the river system changes the natural hydrological regime that 

creates and maintains important fish habitats, such as spawning habitats, and reduces the 

frequency and duration of availability of these habitats of the four endangered fish. In addition, 

reduction in flow rates lessens the ability of the river to inundate bottomland, a source of nutrient 

supply for fish productivity and important nursery habitat for razorback sucker. Water 

depletions change flow and temperature regimes that favor nonnative fish adding to competition 

and predation by these nonnative fishes as discussed above. 
Changes in water quantity would affect water quality, which is a PCE of critical habitat. 

Contaminants enter the Colorado River from various point and nonpoint sources, resulting in 

increased concentrations of heavy metals, selenium, salts, pesticides, and other contaminants. 

Increases in water depletions will cause associated reductions in assimilative capacity and 

dilution potential for any contaminants that enter critical habitat in the Green and Colorado 

Rivers. 

29 

The Project's depletion would cause a proportionate decrease in dilution, which in tum would 

cause a proportionate increase in heavy metal, selenium, salts, pesticides, and other contaminant 

concentrations in the Colorado River to Lake Powell. An increase in contaminant concentrations 

in the river would likely result in an increase in the bioaccumulation of these contaminants in the 

food chain which could adversely afTect the endangered fishes, particularly the predatory 

Colorado pikeminnow. Selenium is of particular concern due to its effects on fish reproduction 

and its tendency to concentrate in low velocity areas that are important habitats for Colorado 

pikeminnow and razorback suckers. 

PRIMARY C ONSTI111ENT EL£111£NT- PHYSICAL HABITAT 

The proposed Project would affect the physical condition of habitat for the four listed fish by 

resulting in a reduction of water. This reduction would contribute to the cumulative reduction in 

high spring flows, which are essential for creating and maintaining complex channel 

geomorphology and suitable spawning substrates, creating and providing access to ofT-channel 

habitats, and possibly stimulating Colorado pikeminnow spawning migrations. Adequate 

summer and winter flows are important for providing a sufficient quantity of preferred habitats 

for a duration and at a frequency necessary to support all life stages of viable populations of all 

endangered fishes. To the extent that the Project will reduce flows, the ability of the river to 

• provide these functions will be reduced. This reduction of water affects habitat availability and 

habitat quality. 

PRIMARY CONSTI111ENT ELEMENT- BtOLOCICAL ENVIRONMEt'T 

To the extent that it would reduce flows and contribute to further habitat alteration, the Project 

would contribute to an increase in nonnative fish populations. The modification of flow regimes. 

water temperatures, sediment levels, and other habitat conditions caused by water depletions has 

contributed to the establishment of nonnative fishes. Endangered fishes within the action area 

would experience increased competition and predation as a result. 

CUMMULA TIVE EFFECTS 

Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, local, or private actions that are reasonably 

certain to occur in the action area considered in this biological opinion. Future Federal actions 

that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require 

separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. The USFWS is not aware of any future 

non-Federal actions not included in this action under consultation that are reasonably certain to 

occur in the action area. 
30 

CONCLUSION 

Based upon the best scientific and commercial information that is currently available, it is the 

USFWS's biological opinion that the water depletions associated with the Jonab lnfill Drilling 

Project, as described herein, are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Colorado 

pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail, and razorback sucker because the listed fish are harmed 

.from the reduction of water in their habitats resulting from the Project in the following manner: 

I) Individuals using habitats diminished by the proposed water depletions could be more 

susceptible to predation and competition from nonnative fish; 

2) Individuals may be unable to breed because reduced flows would impact habitat formulation 

and maintenance. 

Based upon the best scientific and commercial information that is currenlly available, it is the 

USFWS's biological opinion that the water depletions associated with the Jonah Infil1 Drilling 

Project, as described herein, are likely to result in adverse modification of critical habitat for the 

Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail, and razorback sucker because the PCEs and 

the functioning of the critical habitat units would be altered in the following manner: 

I) Water, a PCE, would be affected by further reducing the flows in critical habitat that are 

needed for endangered fishes breed.ing. feeding and sheltering. Reduction in flows also 

would affect water quality by reducing dilution of contaminants. 

2) Physical habitat, a PCE, would be affected by reduction in flows by reducing important 

habitat such as spawning bars, backwaters, and inundated floodplains. 

3) Biological environment, a PCE, would be affected by the increase in nonnative fishes due to 

altered flow regimes. 

The USFWS bas developed a reasonable and prudent alternative to avoid the likelihood of 

jeopardy to the endangered fishes and destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat. 

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVE 

Regulations (50 CFR 402.02) implementing section 7 of the ESA define reasonable and prudent 

alternatives as alternative actions, identified during formal consultation, that-- I) can be 

implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the action; 2) can. be 

implemented consistent with the scope oftl1e action agency's legal authority and jurisdiction; 

3) are economically and technologically feasible; and 4) would, the USFWS believes, avoid the 

likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of listed species or resulting in the destruction 

or adverse modification of critical habitat 

On January 21-22, 1988, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior; the Governors of 

Wyoming. Colorado, and Utah; and the Administrator of tbe Western Area Power 

Administration were cosigners of a Cooperative Agreement to implement the "Recovery 
Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin'' 

(USFWS 1987). In 2001. the Recovery Program was extended until September 30, 2013. An 

objective of the Recovery Program was to recover the listed species while providing for new 

water development in the Upper Basin. 

31 

In order to further define and clarify processes outlined in sections 4.1.5, 4.1.6, and 5.3.4 of the 

Recovery Program, a section 7 Agreement (Agreement) and a Recovery Implementation 

Program Recovery Action .Plan (Plan) was developed (USFWS 1993). The Agreement 

establishes a framework for conducting all future section 7 consultations on depletion impacts 

related to new projects and all impacts associated with historic projects in the Upper Basin. 

Procedures outlined in the Agreement will be used to determine if sufficient progress is being 

accomplished in the recovery of the endangered fishes to enable the Recovery Program to serve 

as a reasonable and prudent alternative to avoid jeopardy. The Plan was finalized on October 15, 

1993, and has been reviewed and updated annually. 

In accordance with the Agreement, the USFWS assesses the impacts of projects that require 

section 7 consultation and determine if progress toward recovery has been sufficient for the 

Recovery Program to serve as a reasonable and prudent alternative. If sufficient progress is 

being achieved, biological opinions are written to identify activities and accomplishments of the 

Recovery Program that support it as a reasonable and prudent alternative. If sufficient progress 

in the recovery of the endangered fishes has not been achieved by the Recovery Program, actions 

from the Plan are identified which must be completed to avoid jeopardy to the endangered fishes. 

For historic projects, these actions serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative as long as they 

are completed according to the schedule identified in the Plan. For new projects, these actions 

serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative so long as tbey are completed before the impact 

of the Project occurs. The Jonah lnfill Drilling Project is considered a new project. 

In determining if sufficient progress bas been achieved, the USFWS considers-a) actions which 

result in a measurable population response, a measurable improvement in habita.t for the fishes, 

legal protection of flows needed for recovery, or a reduction in the threat of immediate 

extinction; b) status of fish populations; c) adequacy of flows; and, d) magnitude of the Project 

impact. In addition, the USFWS considers support activities (funding, research, information, and 

education, etc.) of the Recovery Program if they help achieve a measurable population response, 

a measurab.le improvement in habitat for the fishes, legal protection of flows needed for 

recovery, or a reduction in the threat of immediate extinction. The USFWS evaluates progress 

separately for the Colorado River and Green River subbasins; however, it gives due 

consideration to progress throughout the Upper Basin in evaluating progress toward recovery. 

The following excerpts summarize portions of the Recovery Program that address depletion 

impacts, section 7 consultation, and Project proponent responsibilities: 
32 

"All future section 7 consultations completed after approval and implementation of this 

program (establishment of the Implementation Committee, provision of congressional 

funding, and initiation of the elements) will result in a one-time contribution to be paid to 

the USFWS by water project proponents in the amount of$1 0.00 per acre-foot based on 

the average annual depletion of the project ... This figure will be adjusted annually for 

inflation (the current figure is $16.67 per acre-foot] ... Concurrently with the 

completion of the Federal action which initiated the consultation, e.g., ... issuance of a 

404 permit, I 0 percent of the total contribution will be provided. The balance .. . will be 

... due at the time the construction commences . ... " 

lt is important to note that these provisions of the Recovery Program were based on appropriate 

legal protection of the instream flow needs of the endangered Colorado River fishes. The 

Recovery Program further states: 

" ... it is necessary to protect and manage sufficient habitat to Sltpport self-sustaining 

populations of these species. One way to accomplish this is to provide long term 

protection ofthe habitat by acquiring or appropriating water rights to ensure instream 

flows. Since this program sets in place a mechanism and a commitment to assure that the 

instream flows are protected under State law, the USFWS will consider these elements 

under section 7 consultation as offsetting project depletion impacts." 

Thus, the USFWS has determined that depletion impacts, which the USFWS has consistently 

maintained are likely to jeopardize the listed fishes, can be offset by--a) the water Project 

proponent's one-time contribution to the Recovery Program in the amount of$16.67 per 

acre-foot of the Project's average annual depletion; b) appropriate legal protection ofinstream 

flows pursuant to State law; and, c) accomplishment of activities necessary to recover the 

endangered fishes as specified under the Plan. The USFWS believes it is essential that 

protection of in stream flows proceed expeditiously, before significant additional water depletions 

occur. 

With respect to (a) above (i.e., depletion charge), the applicant will make a one-time payment 

which has been calculated by multiplying the Project's average annual depletion (acre-feet) by 

the depletion charge in effect at the time payment is made. For Fiscal Year 2006 (October l, 

2005, to September 30, 2006), the depletion charge is $16.67 per acre-foot for the average annual 

depletion which equals a total payment of$ 16,781.69 for this Project. The USFWS will notify 

the applicant of any change in the depletion charge by September I of each year. Ten percent of 

the total contribution $1,678.16, or total payment, will be provided to the USFWS's designated 

agent, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (Foundation), at the time of issuance of the 

Federal approvals from BLM. The balance will be due at the time the construction commences. 

The payment will be included by tl1e BLM as a permit stipulatioJL The amount payable will be 

adjusted annually for inflation on October I of each year based on the Composite Consumer 

Price Index. Fifty percent of the funds will be used for acquisition of water rights to meet the 

instream flow needs of the endangered fishes (unless otherwise recommended by the 

Implementation Committee); the balance will be used to support other recovery activities for the 

Colorado River endangered fishes. All payments should be made to the Foundation: 
Rebecca Kramer, Special Funds Program Coordinator 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

28 Second Street, 6th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94105 

33 

Each payment is to be accompanied by a cover letter that identifies the Project and biological 

opinion that requires the payment, U1e amount of payment enclosed, check number, and any 

special conditions identified in the biological opinion relative to disbursement or use of the funds 

(there are none in this instance). A copy of the cover letter and of the check is to be sent directly 

to the USFWS field office that issued the biological opinion. The cover letter shall identify the 

name and address of the payor, the name and address of the Federal Agency responsible for 

authorizing the Project, and the address of the USFWS office issuing the biological opinion. 

This information will be used by the Foundation to notify the payor, the lead Federal agency, and 

the USFWS that payment has been received. The Foundation is to send notices of receipt to 

these entities within 5 working days of its receipt of payment. 

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT 

Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA prohibit the take 

of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined 

as to harass, hann, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to 

engage in any such conduct. Harm is furfuer defined by the USFWS to include significant 

habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury of listed species by 

significantly impairing essential bel:tavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. 

Harass is defined by the USFWS as intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of 

injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns 

, which include, but are not limited to breediQg, feeding or sheltering. Incidental take is defined as 

take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. 

Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7 (o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not 

intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the ESA 

provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Incidental Take 

StatemenL 

Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail, and razorback sucker are harmed from the 

reduction of water in their habitats resulting from the Project in the following manner-

!) individuals using habitats diminished by the proposed water depletions could be more 

susceptible to predation and competition from normative fish; 2) habitat conditions may be 

rendered unsuitable for breeding because reduced flows would impact habitat formulation and 

maintenance as described in the biological opinion. 

Estimating the number of individuals of these species that would be taken as a result of water 

depletions is difficult to quantify for the following reasons-(!) determining whether an 

individual forwent breeding as a result of water depletions versus natural causes would be 

extremely difficult to determine; (2) finding a dead or injured listed fish would be difficult, due 

to the large size of the Project area and because carcasses are subject to scavenging; (3) natural 

fluctuations in river flows and species abundance may mask Project effects, and (4) effects that 
34 

reduce fecundity are difficult to quantify. Estimating the number ofindivid.uals of the four listed 

fishes that could be taken by the water depletions addressed in this biological opinion is not 

possible. However, the implementation of the Recovery Program is intended to minimize 

impacts of water depletions and, therefore, the reasonable and prudent alternatives outlined in the 

biological opinion also will serve as reasonable and prudent measures for minimizing the take 

that results from the 1,006. 7 acre-feet/year water depletion. Any amount of water withdrawal 

above this level would exceed the anticipated level of incidental take. 

REINITIATION NOTICE 

This concludes formal consultation on the action outlined in the request. As provided in 

50 CFR 402. 16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary Federal 

agency involvement or control over the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if--

1) the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; 2) new information reveals effects of the 

agency action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not 

considered in this opinion; 3) the action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an 

effect to the listed species or critical habitat not considered in this opinion; or 4) a new species is 

listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action. 

Thank you for your cooperation in the formu lation of this biological opinion and your interest in 

conserving endangered species. 
35 

LITERATURE CITED 

Anderson, R.M. 1999. Aspinall studies: annual assessment of Colorado pikeminnow larval 

production in the Gunnison and Colorado Rivers, Colorado 1992-1996. Final Report to 

the Recovery Program for the Endangered Fishes of the Upper Colorado River, Project 

Number 43-B. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Grand Junction. 

Archer, D.L., L.R. Kaeding, B.D. Burdick, and C.W. McAda. 1985. A study of the endangered 

fishes of the Upper Colorado River. Final Report-Cooperative Agreement 

14-16-0006-82-959. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand 

Junction, Colorado. 134pp. 

Behnke, R.J. 1980. The impacts of habitat alterations on the endangered and threatened fishes 

of the Upper Colorado River Basin: A discussion. Research Paper R-18: Resources for 

the Future. Washington, D.C., pages 182· 192 in Energy Development in the Southwest: 

Problems of water, fish, and wildlife in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Vol. 2, ed. 

W.O. Spofford, Jr., A.L. Parker, and A.V. Kneese 

Behnke, R.J., and D.E. Benson. 1983. Endangered and threatened fishes of the Upper Colorado 

River Basin. Ext. Serv. Bull. 503A, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. 38pp. 

Bestgen, K.R. 1990. Status Review of the Razorback Sucker, Xyrauchentexanus. Larval Fish 

Laboratory #44. Colorado State University, Fort Collins. 

Bestgen, K.R., R.T. Muth, and M.A. Trammell. 1998. Downstream transport of Colorado 

squawfish larvae in the Green River drainage: temporal and spatial variation in 

abundance and relationships with juvenile recruitment. Colorado State University, Port. 

Collins. Recovery Program Project Number 32. 

Black, T., and R.V. Bulkley. 1985a. Preferred temperature of yearling Colorado squawfish. 

Southwestern Naturalist 30:95-l 00. 

Black, T., and R.V. Bulkley. l985b. Growth rate of yearling Colorado squawfish at different 

water temperatures. Southwestern Naturalist 30:253-257. 

Bliesner, R, and V.A. Lamarra. 1995. San Juan River habitat studies. Annual Report. 

Keller-Bliesner Engineering and Ecosystems Research Institute, Logan, Utah. 68pp. 

Bulkley, R.V., C.R. Berry, R. Pimental, and T. Black. 1981. Tolerance and Preferences of 

Colorado River Endangered Fishes to Selected Habitat Parameters: Final Completion 

Report. Utah Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Utah State University, Logan. 

Burdick, B.D. 1992. A plan to evaluate stocking to augment or restore razorback suckers in the 

Upper Colorado River. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Final Report, Grand Junction, 

Colorado. 56pp. 
36 

Burdick, B.D. 1995. lchthyofaunal studies of !he Gunnison River, Colorado, 1992-1994. Final 

Report to !he Recovery Program for !he Endangered Fishes of the Upper Colorado River, 

Project Number 42. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Junction, Colorado. 

Burdick, B.D. 1997. Minimum Flow Recommendation for Passage o f Colorado Squawfish and 

Razorback Sucker in !he 2.3-mile Reach of !he Lower Gunnison River: Redlands 

Diversion Dam to the Colorado Confluence, Colorado River Recovery Program: 39+. 

Burdick. B.D. 2001 a. A live-year experimental stocking plan to evaluate survival of various 

sizes of razorback sucker. Annual Project Report to the Recovery Program for the 

Endangered Fishes of the Upper Colorado River, Project Number 50. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Grand Junction, Colorado. 

Burdick, B.D. 2003. Evaluation of stocking sub-adult Colorado pikeminnow via translocation 

in the Upper Colorado River between Palisade and Rifle, Colorado. Final Report 

prepared for !he Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. Recovery 

Program Project Number I 05. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado River Fishery 

Project, Grand Junction, Colomdo. 49pp + appendices. 

Carlson, C.A., and R. T. Muth. 1989. The Colorado River: Lifeline of the American SouthwesL 

Pages 220-239 in D.P. Dodge, ed. Proceedings of !he International Large River 

Symposium. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences I 06, 

Ottawa. 

Dill, W.A. 1944. The fishery of the lower Colorado River. California Fish and Game 

30: 1 09-2 1 I. 

Ellis, N.M. 19 14. Fishes of Colorado. University of Colorado Studies. Vol. 11 (1). 

Gutermuth, F.B., LD. Lentsch, and K.R. Bestgen. 1994. Collection of Age-0 Razorback 

Suckers (Xyrauchen texamJS) in the Lower Green River, Utah. Southwestern Naturalist 

39(4). 

Hamman, R.L 1981 . Spawning and culture of Colorado squawfisb Ptychocheilus lucius in a 

raceway. /11 Miller et al. Colorado River Fishery Project Final Repon. 

Harvey, M.D., R.A. Mussetter, and E.J. Wick. 1993. Physical process-biological response 

model for spawning habitat formation for !he endangered Colorado squawfish. Rivers 

4:114- 131. 

Haynes, C.M., T.A. Lytle, E.J. Wick, and R.T. Mu!h. 1984. Larval Colorado squawfish 

(Ptychocheilus luci1JS Girard) in tbe Upper Colorado River Basin, Colorado, 1979-S 1. 

Southwestern Naturalist 29:21-33. 
37 

Holden, P .B., C. Richard, L. W. Crist, and J .R. Campbell 1981. Aquatic biology studies for 

proposed Colorado-Ute Electrical Association power plant near Grand Junction, 

Colorado. Final Report to Bums and McDonnell, Planning and Environmental Analysis 

Division. Report PR-56-1, BIOIWEST, Inc., Logan, Utah. 

Holden, P.B., and C.B. Stalnaker. 1970. Systematic srudjes of the cyprinid genus Gila in the 

Upper Colorado River Basin. Copeia 1970(3):409-420. 

Holden, P.B., and C.B. Stalnaker. 1975. Distribution and abundance of mainstream fishes of the 

mjddle and Upper Colorado River Basins, !967-1973. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society I 04(2):217 -231. 

Job ling, M. 1981 . Temperature tolerance and the final preferendum - rapid methods for the 

assessment of optimum growth temperatures. Journal of Fish Biology 19:439-455. 

Jordan, D.S. 1891. Report of explorations in Colorado and Utah during the summer of 1889 

with an account of the fishes found in each of the river basins examined. Bulletin of the 

United States Fish Commission 9:24. 

Jordan, D.S., and B. W. Evermann. 1896. The fishes ofNorth and Middle America_ Bulletin 

U.S. National Museum 47 (1):1240. 

Joseph, T.W., J.A. Sinning, R.J. Behnke, and P.B. Holden. 1977. An evaluation of the status, 

life history, and habitat requirements of endangered and threatened fishes of the Upper 

Colorad.o River system. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, 

Fort Collins, Colorado, FWS/OBS 24, Part 2:183. 

Kaeding, L.R., B.D. Burdick, P .A. Schrader, and W.R. Noonan. 1986. Recent capture of a 

bonytai I chub (Gila eJega11s) and observations on this nearly extinct cyprinid from the 

Colorado River. Copcia 1986(4): 1021-1023. 

Kaeding, L.R., B.D. Burdick, P.A. Schrader, and C.W. McAda. 1990. Temporal and spatial 

relations between the spawning of humpback chub and roundtail chub in the upper 

Colorado River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society I 19:135-144. 

Karp, C.A., and H.M. Tyus. 1990. Humpback chub (Gila cypha) in the Yampa and Green 

ruvers, Dinosaur National Monument, with observations on roundiail chub (G. robust a) 

and other sympatric fishes. Great Basin Naturalist 50:257- 264. 

Kidd, G.T. 1977. An investigation of endangered and threatened fisb species in the upper 

Colorado River as related to Bureau of Reclamation projects. Final Report to U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation. Northwest Fishery Research, Clifton, Colorado. 

Lamarra.. V.A., M.C. Larnarra, and J.G. Carter. 1985. Ecological investigation of a suspected 

spawning site of Colorado squawfish on the Yampa River, Utah [sic]. Great Basin 

Naturalist45: 127- 140. 
Lanigan, S.H., and C.R. Berry, Jr. 1979. Dislribution and abundance of endemic fishes in the 

White River in Utah, final report. Contract #14-16-006-78-0925. U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management, Salt Lake City, Utah. 84pp. 

38 

Lanigan, S.H., and H.M. Tyus. 1989. Population size and status of the razorba.ck sucker in the 

Green River basin, Utah and Colorado. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management 9: 1. 

Maddux, H.R., L.A. Fitzpatrick, and W .R. Noonan. 1993. Colorado Rivr Endangered Fishes 

Critical Habitat Draft Biological Support Document. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Salt 

Lake City, Utah. 

Marsh, P.C. 1985. Effect of incubation temperature on survival of embryos of native Colorado 

River fishes. Southwestern Naturalist 30( I): 129-140. 

MIU'Sh, P.C., and W.L. Minckley. 1989. Observations on recruitment and ecology of razorback 

sucker: lower Colorado River, Arizona-California. Great Basin Naturalist 49(1):71-78. 

McAda, C.W. 1987. Status of the razorback sucker Xyrauchentexanus in the Colorado River 

upstream from Lake PowelL Proceedings of the Desert Fishes Council 17(1985): 185. 

McAda, C.W. 1997. Mechanical removal of northern pike from the Gunnison River, 

1995-1996. Final Report to the Recovery Program for the Endangered Fishes of the 

Upper Colorado River, Project 58. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Junction, 

Colorado. 

McAda, C.W. 2003. Flow Recommendations to benefit endangered fishes in the Colorado and 

Gunnison Rivers. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Junction, Colorado. 

McAda, C.W., and R.J. Ryel. 1999. Distribution, Relative Abundance, and Environmental 

Correlates for Age-0 Colorado Pikeminnow and Syrnpatric Fishes in the Colorado River. 

Final Report to Upper Colorado River Endangered Fishes Recovery Program, Project 

Number 45. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Junction, Colorado. 

McAda., C. W., and L.R. Kaeding. 1991. Movements of adult Colorado squawfisb during the 

spawning season in the Upper Colorado River. Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society 120:339-345. 

McAda, C.W., and R.S. Wydoski. 1980. The razorback sucker, Xyrauchen texam•s, in the 

Upper Colorado River Basin, 1974-76. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Technical 

Paper 99. 50pp. 

Meffe, O.K. 1985. Predation and species replacement oo American southwestern fishes: a case 

study. Soutbwestem Naturalist30(2):173-187. 
Miller, R.R. 1946. Gila cypha, a remarkable new species of cyprinid fish from the Colorado 

River in Grand Canyon, Arizona. Journal of the Washington Academy of Science 

36:409-415. 

39 

Miller, R.R. 1961. Man and the changing fish fauna of the American Southwest. Papers of the 

Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters 46:365-404. 

Miller, W.H., L.R. Kaeding, H.M. Tyus, C.W. McAda, and B.D. Burdick. 1984. Windy Gap 

Fishes Study. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Salt Lake City, Utah: 37pp. 

Miller, W .H., J.J. Valentine, D.L. Archer, B.M. Tyus, R.A. Valdez, and L.R. Kaeding. 1982. 

Colorado River Fishery Project Final Report Summary. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Salt Lake City, Utah. 42pp. 

Minckley, W.L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix. 

293pp. 

Minckley, W.L. 1983. Status of the razorback sucker, Xyrauchen texanus (Abbott), in tbe lower 

Colorado River Basin. Southwestern Naturalist 28(2):165-187. 

Minckley, W.L., and J.E. Deacon. 1968. Southwest fishes and the enigma of"endangered 

species." Science 159:1424-1432. 

Minckley, W.L., D.A. Hendrickson, and C.E. Bond. 1986. Geography of western North 

American freshwater fishes: description and relationships to intracontinental tectonism. 

Pages 519-613 in C. H. Hocutt and E.O. Wiley (eds.). The zoogeography of North 

American freshwater fishes. Wiley-lnterscience, New York. 

Minckley, W.L., P.C. Marsh, J.E. Brooks, .T.E. Johnson, and B.L. Jensen. 1991. Management 

toward recovery of the razorback sucker. Pages 303- 357 in W.L. Minckley and J.E. 

Deacon, editors. Battle against extinction: native fish management in the American 

West. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 

Modde, T. 1996. Juvenile razorback sucker (Xy rauchentexanus) in a managed wetland adjacent 

to the Green .River. Great Basin Naturalist 56:375-376. 

Modde, T., K.P. Burnham, and E.J. Wick. 1996. Population Status of the Razorback Sucker in 

the Middle Green River (U.S.A.). Conservation Biology 10 (# I): 110-119. 

Moyle, P.B. 1976. Inland fisbes ofCalifomia. Univers.ityofCalifomia Press, Berkeley. 

Muth, R.T. 1995. Conceptual-framework document for development of a standardized 

monitoring program for basin-wide evaluation of restoration activities for razorback 

sucker in tbe Green and Upper Colorado River systems. Colorado State University 

Larval Fish Laboratory final report to the Recovery Implementation Program for 

Endangered Fisb Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin, Denver. Colorado. 
Nesler, T.P., R. T. Mutb, and A.F. Wasowicz. 1988. Evidence for baseline flow spikes as 

spawning cues for Colorado squawlish in the Yampa River, Colorado. American 

Fisheries Society Symposium 5:6&-79. 

40 

Nesler, T.P., K. Christopherson, J.M. Hudson, C.W. McAda, F. Pfeifer, and T.E. Czapla. 2003. 

An integrated stocking plan for razorback sucker, bonytail, and Colorado pikeminnow for 

the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 

O'Brien, J.S. 1984. 1983 Yampa River cobble reach morphology investigation. Final Report. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 79pp. 

Osmundson, D.B. 2003. Removal of non-native centrarchids from upper Colorado River 

bacJ..-waters, 1999-2001 : summary of results. Final Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Grand Junction, Colorado. 

Osmundson, D.B. 2002. Population dynamics of Colorado pikeminnow in the upper Colorado 

River. Final Report to Upper Colorado River Endangered Fishes Recovery Program, 

Project Number 22-A. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Junction, Colorado. 

Osmundson, D.B. 2002b. Verification of stocked razorback sucker reproduction in the 

Gunnison River via annual collections of larva.e. Annual report to the Recovery Program • 

for the Endangered Fishes of the Upper Colorado River, Project Number 121. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Grand Junction, Colorado. 

Osmundson, D.B. 2001. Flow regimes for restoration and maintenance of sufficient habitat to 

recover endangered razorback sucker and Colorado pikeminnow in the upper Colorado 

River: interim rec<>mmendations for the Palisade-to-Rifle reach. Final Report to Upper 

Colorado River Endangered Fishes Recovery Program, Project Number 74. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Grand Junction, Colorado. 

Osmundson, D.B., and K.P. Burnham. 1998. Status and Trends of the Endangered Colorado 

squawfish in the Upper Colorado River. Transaction of the American Fisheries Society 

127:959-972. 

Osmundson, D. B., and L.R. Kaeding. 1989. Studies of Colorado squawfisb and razorback 

sucker use of the "15-mile reach" of the upper Colorado River as part of conservation 

measures for the Green Mountain and Ruedi Reservoir water sales. Final report to U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Junction, Colorado. 

Osmundson, 0.8., and L.R. Kaeding. 1991. Recommendations for flows in the 15-mile reach 

during October-June for maintenance and enhancement of endangered fish populations in 

the Upper Colorado River. Final Report to the Recovery Program for the Endangered 

Fishes of the Upper Colorado River. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Junction, 

Colorado. 
Osmundson, D.B., P. Nelson, K. Fenton, and D.W. Ryden. 1995. Relationships between Dow 

and rare fish habitat in the 15-mile reach of the Upper Colorado River. Final Report to 

the Recovery Program for the Endangered Fishes of the Upper Colorado River Basin. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 

Osmundson, D.B., M.E. Tucker, B.D. Burdick, W.R. Elmblad, and T.E. Chart. 1997. 

Non-spawning Movements of Subadull and Adult Colorado Squawfish in the Upper 

Colorado River. Final Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Junction, 

Colorado. 

41 

Pitlick, J., M. Van Sleeter, B. Barkett, R. Cress, and M. Franseen. 1999. Geomorphology and 

hydrology of the Colorado and Gunnison Rivers and implications for habitats used by 

endangered fishes. Final Report to the Recovery Program for the Endangered Fishes of 

the Upper Colorado River, Project Number 44. Department of Geography, University of 

Colorado, Boulder. 

Platania, S.P. 1990. Biological summary of the 1987 to 1989 New Mexico-Utah ichthyofaunal 

study of the San Juan River. Unpublished report to the New Mexico Department of 

Game and Fish, Santa Fe, and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, Utah, 

Cooperative Agreement 7-FC-40-05060. 

Platania, S.P., andD.A. Young. 1989. A Survey of the Icthyofauna of the San Juan and Animas 

Rivers from Archuleta and Cedar Hill (respectively) to their Confluence at Farmington, 

New Mexico. Department of Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 

Propst, D.L., and K.R. Bestgen. 1991. Habitat and biology of the Joacb minnow, Tiaroga 

cobitis, in New Mexico. Copeia 1991(1):29-30. 

Quartarone, F. 1993. Historical accounts of upper Colorado River basin endangered fishes. 

Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. 

Rinne, J.N. 1991. Habitat use by spikedace, Meda fulgido (Pisces:Cyprinidae) in southwestern 

streams with reference to probable habitat competition by red shiner (Pisces:Cyprinidae). 

Southwestern Naturalist 36(1):7-13. 

Seethaler, K. 1978. Life History and Ecology of the Colorado squaw fish (PtychocheilrtS lucius) 

in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Masters Thesis, Utah State University, Logan. 

Smith, G.R. 1960. Annotated list of fishes of the Gaming Gorge Reservoir basin, 1959. Pages 

163-168 in A.M. Woodbury (ed.). Ecological studies of the flora and fauna of Flaming 

Gorge Reservoir Basin, Utah and WyomLog. University of Utah, Anthropological 

Paper 48. 

Sigler, W.F., and R.R. Miller. 1963. Fishes of Utah. Utah Department of Fish and Game, Salt 

Lake City. 
42 

Taba. S.S .. J.R. Murphy, and H.H. Frost. 1965. Notes on the fishes of the Colorado River near 

Moab, Utah. Proceedings of the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters 

42(2):280.283. 

Tyus, H.M. 1985. Homing behavior noted for Colorado squawfish. Copeia 1985: 213-215. 

Tyus, H.M. 1987. Distribution, reproduction, and habitat use of the razorback sucker in the 

Green River, Utah, 1979-1986. Transactions oft.hc American Fisheries Society 

116: 111- 116. 

Tyus. H.M. 1990. Potamodromy and reproduction of Colorado squawfish Prychocheilus lucius. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 119: 1,035-1 ,04 7. 

Tyus, H.M. 1991 . Movement and Habitat Use of Young Colorado Squawfish in the Green 

River, Utah. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 6( 1 ):43-5 I. 

Tyus, H.M. 1982. Fish Radiotelemetry: Theory and Application for High Conductivity Rivers. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Bioi. Services, 82138:26. 

Tyus, H.M., and G.B. Haines. 1991 . Distribution, habitat use, and growth of age-0 Colorado 

squawfish in the Green River basin, Colorado and Utah. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 119: I 035-1047. 

Tyus, H.M., and C. A. Karp. 1989. Habitat Usc and Streamflow Needs of Rare and Endangered 

Fishes, Yampa River, Colorado. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biology Report 89(14). 

27pp. 

Tyus, R.M., and C.A. Karp. 1990. Spawning and movements of razorback suckcr,Xyrauclren 

texanus, in the Green River basin of Colorado and Utah. Southwestern Naturalist 

35:427-433. 

Tyus, H.M., and C.W. McAda. 1984. Migration, movements and habitat preferences of 

Colorado squav•rfish, Ptychoclreilus lucius, in the Green, White, and Yampa Rivers, 

Colorado and Utah. Southwestern Naturalist 29:289-299. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish 

Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, 

Colorado. 82pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990a. Bonytail Chub Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Denver, Colorado. 35pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990b. Humpback Chub Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Denver, Colorado. 43pp. 
43 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Section 7 Consultation, Sufficient 'Progress, and Historic 

Projects Agreement and Recovery Action Plan, Recovery Implementation Program for 

Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Denver, Colorado. 50pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002a. Colorado pikcmionow (Ptychocheilus lucius) Recovery 

Goals: amendment and supplement to the Colorado SqLLawfish Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region (6), Denver, Colorado. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002h. Razorback sucker (Xy rtlUChen texanus) Recovery Goals: 

amendment and supplement to the Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region (6), Denver, Colorado. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002c. Humpback chub (Gila cypha) Recovery Goals: 

amendment and supplement to the Humpback Chub Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region (6), Denver, Colorado. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002d. Bonytail (Gila elegans) Recovery Goals: amendment 

and supplement to the Bonytail Chub Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Mountain-Prairie Region (6), Denver, Colorado. 

· Valdez, RA 1990. The Endangered Fish of Cataract Canyon. Final Report prepared for the 

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Contract No. 6-CS-40-3980, Fisheries Biology and Rafting. BIOIWEST Report 

No. 134-3. 94pp. +appendices . 

• Valdez, R.A., and W. Masslich. 1989. Winter habitat study of endangered fish-Green River. 

Wintertime movement and habitat of adult Colorado squawfish and razorback suckers. 

Report No. 136.2. BIOIWEST, Inc., Logan, Utah. 178pp. 

Valdez, R.A., and G.H. Clemmer. 1982. Life History and prospects for recovery of the 

humpback and bonytail chub. Pages 109-119 in W.M. Miller, H.M. Tyus and C.A. 

Carlson, eds. Proceedings of a Symposium on Fishes of the Upper Colorado River 

System: Present and Future. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Valdez, R.A., and R.J. Rye!. 1995. Life history and ecology of the humpback chub (Gila cypha) 

in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, Arizona. Final Report to Bureau of Reclamation, 

Salt Lake City, Utah. Contract No. 0-CS-40-09110, Report TR-250·08, BIO/WEST, 

Inc., Logan, Utah. 

Valdez, R.A., P.B. Holden, and T.B.Hardy. 1990. Habitat suitability index curves for hwnpback 

chub oftbe Upper Colorado River Basin. Rivers 1:31-42. 
44 

Valdez, R., P. Mangan, M. Mcinerny, and R.P. Smith. 1982a. Tributary report: fishery 

investigations of the Gunnison and Dolores Rivers. Pages 321-362 In W.R. Miller et nl., 

editors. Colorado River Fishery Project Final Report; Part Two, Field Studies. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Valdez, R.A., P.G. Mangan, R. Smith, and B. Nilson. 1982b. Upper Colorado River fisheries 

investigations (Rifle, Colorado to Lake Powell, Utah). Pages 100-279 m W.H. Miller. 

J.J. Valentine, D.L. Aicher, H.M. Tyus. R.A. Valdez, and L. Kaeding, eds. Part 2-Field 

investigations. Colorado River Fishery Project. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake 

City, Utah. 

Van Steeter, M.M. 1996. Historical and current processes affecting channel change and 

endangered fish habitats of the Colorado River near Grand Junction Colorado. Doctoral 

Dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder. 

Vanicek, C.D. 1967. Ecological studies of native Green River fishes below Flaming Gorge 

Dam, 1964-1966. Doctoral Dissertation, Utah State University. 124pp. 

Vanicek, C.D., and RR. Kramer. 1969. Life history of the Colorado squawfish Ptychocheilus 

lucius and the Colorado chub Gila robusta in the Green River in Dinosaur National 

Monument, 1964-1966. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 98(2):193. 

Vanicek, C. D., R.H. Kramer, and D.R. Franklin. 1970. Distribution of Green River fishes in 

Utah and Colorado following closure of Flaming Gorge Dam. Southwestern Naturalist 

14:297- 315. 

Wick, E.J., T.A. Lytle, and C.M. Haynes. 1981. Colorado squawfish and humpback chub 

population and habitat monitoring, 1979-1980. Progress Report, Endangered Wildlife 

Investigations. SE-3-3. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. 156pp. 

Wick, E.J .. D.E. Snyder, D. Langlois, and T. Lytle. 1979. Colorado squaw fish and humpback 

chub population and habitat monitoring. Federal Aid to Endangered Wildlife Job 

Progress Report. SE-3-2. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado. 56pp. + 

appendices. 

Wick, E.J., J.A. Hawkins, and C.A. Carlson. 1985. Colorado squawfis h population and habitat 

monitoring 1983-1984. Final Report SE-3-7. Colorado Division of Wildlife and 

Colorado State University, Larval Fish Laboratory, Fon Collins. 48pp. 

Wiltzius, W.J. 1978. Some factors historically affecting the distn'bution and abundance of fishes 

in the Gunnison River. Final report to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Colorado Division 

of Wildlife, Fort Collins. 

Wydoski, R.S., and E.J. Wick. 1998. Ecological Value of Floodplain Habitats to Razorback 

Suckers in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Upper Colorado River Basin Recovery 

Program, Denver, Colorado. 
APPENDIX E

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE JONAH INFILL

DRILLING PROJECT FEIS AND BLM’S RESPONSES
E-1

APPENDIX E

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE JONAH INFILL

DRILLING PROJECT FEIS AND BLM’S RESPONSES

Any person who participated in the EIS process and had an interest that may be adversely affected could

comment on the FEIS for the JIDP. Comments had to be filed with the BLM within 30 daysfrom the date

the EPA published the Notice of Availability of the FEIS in the Federal Register. The comment period

began January 13, 2006 and closed on February 13, 2006. Organizations and individuals who submitted

comments on the JIDP FEIS during this time are identified in Table E.1.

Table E.1. Organizations and Individuals Submitting Comments on the JIDP FEIS

Organization

(Cooperating Organization)

Signer

(Additional Signer)

BP America Production Co. David R. Brown, Manager, Regulatory Affairs-HSSE

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance (BCA)

(Center for Native Ecosystems)

Suzanne H. Lewis

(Jacob Smith)

C.E. Brooks & Assoc., P.C. (Brooks) Constance E. Brooks

City of Rock Springs, WY Timothy A. Kaumo, Mayor

EnCana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc. (EnCana)

John Schopp, Vice President, North Rockies Business

Unit

Gene R. George Associates, Inc. Gene R. George, Wyoming Regulatory Issues Agent for

Yates Petroleum Corp.

Tyler H. Vanderhoef, Wyoming Regulatory Issues Agent

for Yates Petroleum Corp.

Independent Petroleum Assoc. of Mountain States (IPAMS) Andrew Bremner, Director of Government Affairs

Jonah Field Livestock Grazing Permittees

(Hittle Land and Livestock)

(Rendezvous Ranch)

(Don Rodgers Jr.)

(John and Joy Erramouspe)

KC Harvey, LLC, Soil & Water Resources Consult. (Harvey) Kevin Harvey, Principal Scientist

Douglas J. Dollhopf, Associate Scientist

Petroleum Association of Wyoming (PAW) Ericka S. Cook, Vice President

Photon-field Engineering Ronald P. Walker

Public Lands Advocacy Claire M. Moseley, Executive Director

Robert Swigle, LLC Robert Swigle

Rocky Mountain Energy Reporter Geraldine Minick, Publisher

Roughrider Power Kit Jennings

State of Wyoming, Office of the Governor David Freudenthal, Governor

State of Wyoming, Office of the State Treasurer Cynthia Lummis, State Treasurer

Sublette County, Board of County Commissioners Betty Fear, Chairman

Sweetwater Economic Development Association Patricia Robbins, Director

Town of Pinedale, Wyoming Rose Skinner, Mayor

U.S. Energy Corporation/ Crested Corporation Keith G. Larsen, CEO
E-2

Table E.1. Continued

Organization

(Cooperating Organization)

Signer

(Additional Signer)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Robert E. Roberts

Wyoming Contractors Assoc. Charles E. Ware, Executive Vice President

Wyoming Outdoor Council Bruce Pendery

(Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance) (Tom Darin)

(Center for Native Ecosystems) (Jacob Smith)

(Greater Yellowstone Coalition) (Lloyd Dorsey)

(The Wilderness Society) (Peter Aengst)

(Biodiversity Conservation Alliance) (Suzanne Lewis)

(Environmental Defense) (Jana Milford)

(Trout Unlimited) (Cathy Purves)

(National Wildlife Federation,) (Michael Saul)

(Upper Green River Valley Coalition) (Linda Baker)

(Wyoming Wildlife Federation) (Dave Gowdey)

Individuals

Andrikopoulos, Judy K. & John G. Hunkins, Raymond B.

Berg, Eric M. Kinnison, Allan

Bousman, Cotton MaGee, Jim

Clark, Ronald Peckler, Matthew K.

Dibrito, Larry Reints, Lloyd

Donham, Rita Reimers, Rebecca

Dunn, Duane Reynolds, Stephen A.

Henderson, Leslie F. Swigle, Robert

Hendricks, Curtis L. White, Monte

Issue Summary

Comments on the JIDP FEIS raised a variety of issues, including the protection of local and regional air

quality, the protection of cultural resources, livestock grazing within the JIDPA,socioeconomic impacts of

the JIDP on local communities, wildlife impacts, reclamation activities, BLM’s legal responsibilities, and

adequacy of oil and gas reservoir estimates. Significant comments and BLM responses, categorized by

resource or resource use, are summarized below.

Air Quality

Several comments stated that the BLM had no authority to regulate air quality emissions. Several other

comments expressed the concern that the BLM had not detailed how it would regulate air quality. In

general BLM responded to all these comments similarly: “BLM recognizes that WDEQ has the authority

and responsibility to regulate air quality. As the lead federal land manager, BLM has the authority and

responsibility to set management guidelines for potential air quality impacts from BLM activities.”
E-3

Several comments expressed technical concerns regarding air quality data, monitoring information, the

appropriateness of dispersion modeling, and the scientific correctness of model assumptions and

methodologies. These comments received responses similar to the following: “BLM maintains that

dispersion modeling results are defensible and not inconsistent with available monitoring data. The Jonah

air quality model was developed cooperatively by an interagency team of experts.”

A few comments expressed concerns regarding monitoring of air quality. A typical response to these

comments was that “BLM recognizes that better data might improve model predictions, and better

document air quality. BLM, in consultation with the interagency air quality team and the JIO, may

consider installation of additional air quality monitoring stations.”

Other air quality issues include the need for additional monitoring locations, adding the Dinosaur National

Monument as a sensitive receptor, double counting of emissions, visibility impacts, and funding for

monitoring and BLM’s annual monitoring budget.

Reclamation

Several comments were received concerning the method to be used to determine successful reclamation

within the JIDPA and questioning feasibility of the metric that required “80% basal cover/density.” The

need to fairly allocate allowable disturbance to each leaseholder was also raised. BLM responded to these

comments by recognizing the need for equitable distribution of disturbance on an “operated-acreage basis”

and to establish separate “rollover” and “release” reclamation objectives.

In addition to these comments, the use of the word “restoration” instead of “reclamation,” and the need for

site-specific soil salvage requirements was identified in comments.

The pace of development and the need for Operators to provide baseline studies and inventories was

identified as a BLM function that was being transferred to the Operators. BLM responded by “recognizing

that published research was voluntary” and that “inventories were necessary to establish baseline

conditions.”

Livestock and Grazing

One comment suggested that loss of grazing preference and purchase of lands for off-site mitigation could

result in Sublette County completely losing its agricultural base and therebymake the county dependent on

the oil and gas industry. BLM responded, “BLM addresses loss of grazing preference in the FEIS and this

ROD. Losses will be mitigated though adaptive management. Effects to livestock grazing and local

socioeconomic structures are considered in the FEIS. Outright land purchase is not contemplated at this

time.” Furthermore, “The intent of mitigation of loss of wildlife habitat through compensatorymitigation

is not to displace agricultural uses or operators, including the grazing of livestock.”

Compensatory Mitigation and the Jonah Interagency Office

Several comments stated that BLM could not require compensatory mitigation. BLM responded to these

comments similar to the following, “Compensatory mitigation is a voluntary program, but once industry

agrees that they will follow this path, it does become part of the mitigation that is considered part of the

implementation of the decisions.” Other comments suggested that the JIO duties and procedures were not

fully described, that BLM was improperly delegating its authority, and that there was no plan for
E-4

dissolving the JIO or overseeing JIO activities. All of these comments were addressed by referring the

commenter to the JIO Charter in Appendix F of the FEIS.

A single comment requested that local government entities be allowed to have a member included in the

JIO staff. BLM responded to this request “The BLM intends to conduct outreach and offer regular

opportunities for local governments and other groups to participate and be informed in proceedings at the

JIO. Addition to or contraction of the office members is not specifically addressed.”

Laws, Regulations and Policies

Numerous comments stated that the FEIS was inadequate, or did not properly follow the law. These

comments alleged violation of BLM mandates under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act

(FLPMA), inadequate range of alternatives, failure to provide for multiple use of the public lands,

incomplete cumulative impacts analysis, and inadequate prevention of undue and unnecessary degradation.

BLM does not believe that these comments are valid and further that the agency has complied with the

public land laws and polices in all cases.

Reservoir Management

BLM received two comments that the recoverable reserve loss calculation in the FEIS, as a result of

requiring directional drilling, was in error. BLM responded to both comments that “BLM believes the

commenter’s analysis is flawed. BLM technical experts have reviewed and concur with the recovery

numbers used in the FEIS, based on available data.” Other comments were received on closed loop drilling

systems and on mitigation requirements under the Energy Policy Conservation Act.

Socioeconomics

One comment questioned the effects of JIDP development on local governments’ infrastructure capacity.

The BLM maintains it has properly disclosed and analyzed socioeconomic impacts of the various

alternatives in the FEIS.

Wildlife

Several comments were received that alleged violation of FLPMA for failure to disclose impacts to

wildlife. BLM disagrees with the comments that assert improper application of public land laws, including

FLPMA. The BLM also “recognizes that the density of development underway and proposed for the Jonah

Field results in impacts that cannot be mitigated within the field,” so that off-site mitigation is the primary

option for wildlife mitigation. Again, the JIO will help to oversee monitoring and mitigation efforts and

provide guidance for the development. One comment requested that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Letter of Concurrence be included in the ROD. This has been done.