1 Kelly, Shaheerah

From: Kelly, Shaheerah

Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 10:00 AM

To: Dwight Mallory

Cc: Maurin, Lawrence; Rios, Gerardo; Ke lly, Shaheerah; Patrick Flynn; Saanii Subject: RE: Dinetahdoo CRM Resolute McElmo Flare Report

Dwight,

We received the draft historic properties report subm itted by your consultant, Dinetahdoo Cultural Resources Management. We appreciate the opportuni ty to review the draft report, whic h provides an assessment of the historic properties with in the area of potential effects (i.e., 2 km of the main flare) for the undertaking. In order to make the report complete, we have the follo wing comments and suggestions provided below.

Once you have addressed our comments, we look forward to reviewing the revised report which we expect will be submitted by Resolute Natural Resources Company. EP A must obtain this information to move toward conclusion of the NHPA consultation pro cess. This process must be complete d before the agency can issue the final PSD permit. If you have any questions, plea se contact Shaheerah Kelly at (415) 947-4156 or kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov , or Larry Maurin at (415) 972-3943 or maurin.lawrence@epa.gov

.

Comment #1: The report does not describe EPA’s undertaking in the sectio n called “Description of Undertaking” on page 1. We recommend that you modify this secti on such that it includes the following:

“Resolute Natural Resources, LLC cont racted with DCRM to identify hi storic properties, as defined b y the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations, within a 2 km Area o f Potential Effect (APE) of the main flare at the McElmo Creek Unit Oil Production Facility (MCU Facility or Facility).

Pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA, and its implemen ting regulations at 36 C FR Part 800, prior to the approval of the expenditure of any funds on or prior to the issuance of any lic ense for an undertaking, EPA is required to take into account the effects of its undertakings on historic properties. Consultation is required for all undertakings that have the pote ntial to affect historic properties. Section 106 consultations assess whether historic properties exist within an undertaking’s ar ea of potential effect and, if so, whether the undertaking will adversely affect such properties. The term “historic properties” means prehistoric or historic districts, sites, buildings , structures, or objects incl uded in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Pla ces maintained by the Department of the Interior.

EPA’s undertaking triggering the application of the NHPA is the issuance of a federal Prevention of Significant Deterioratio n (PSD) air quality permit, in accord ance with the Clean Air Act and PSD regulations (40 CFR 52.21), for the gas flare (called the “main flare”) at the MCU Faci lity. While the Facility is an existing oil and gas production oper ation located on the McElmo Creek Unit oilfield in San Juan County, Utah, our action is onl y for the gas flare which is used to destroy natural gas during any upsets of the natural gas gathering system. Th e United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9 is the lead fede ral agency for th is undertaking.

EPA is amending the PSD permit to incorporate pollution limits, term s, and conditions of a federal Consent Decree (United States v. Mobil Explora tion and Producing U.S. Inc., Case No. 2:05-CV-319,2 filed June 8, 2005) that specifically applies to th e main gas flare at the MCU Facility. These pollution limits, terms, and conditions include Best Available Control Technology (BACT) emission limitations for nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds for the main flare at the MCU Facility.

Additionally, EPA is amending the PSD permit to remove and update other applicable requirements in the MCU Facility’s PSD permit due to equipment t hat has been shut down and removed from the site. Other than the potential replacement of a fixed speed fan with a vari able speed fan to provide better pollution control at the already existing main flare, EPA’s action does not authorize any new construction or modification of existi ng equipment at the MCU Facility.

EPA issued the proposed permit for public comment on October 15, 2014. A final permit decision will be issued following completion of th e Agency’s Section 106 NHPA consultation.

DCRM’s identification of historic pr operties included a literature search to identify previously recorded

cultural resources to dete rmine if they qualified as hi storic properties under the NHPA (Figure 1) as well as a field assessment of existi ng Navajo in-use sites within th e APE to determine if any of the structures are eligible for listing as historic properties (Figure 2).”

Comment #2: The report does not discuss potential effects of the undert aking on historic properties. The undertaking is for the issuance of a PSD permit. However, other than the poten tial replacement of a fixed speed fan with a variable speed fan to provide better pollution control at the already existing main flare, EPA’s action does not authorize any new construction or modificatio n of existing equipment at the MC U Facility. Additi onally, the EPA’s action would not result in any ground breaking activities to undisturbed areas. We recommend that you add a section to the report that addresses po tential effects of the unde rtaking on historic proper ties within the 2 km APE for the flare, or if there are no effects, indicate that the undertaking will have no effect or will not likely effect historic propertie s within the 2 km APE.

Comment #3: In the “Abstract” section on page i and in the “Introduc tion” section on page 1, we recommend that you replace “the continued operation of the McElmo Creek Unit Main Flare” with “the undertaking”.

Comment #4: In the map in Figure 1 on page 2, please clearl y identify the location of the flare in the map.

Comment #5: The report identifies thirteen (13) histor ic structures, and nine (9) in-use si tes. For each of these sites, please identify which sites or structures are al ready listed in, or eligible to be liste d in, the National Register of Historic

Places. For sites or structures that are listed in the Nati onal Register of Historic Pl aces, it would be helpful to provide the listing date.

Comment #6: In the “Recommendations” section on page 41 of the repo rt, we find that the first recommendation stating that

the “USEPA or their contractors shou ld visit the homesites within the 2 km APE to see and analyze the oily residue that falls on their pr operty as a result of the burning of exce ss gas” is not supported by the report.

EPA’s undertaking concerns the main flar e at the site, which is a gas flare. The report does not describe how the main flare results in “oily residue.” In fact, there is no discussion of oily re sidue in any other part of the report and how and where such oily residue (if it even exists) is produced. The report does not provide a basis for how3 the gas-fired main flare results in an “oily residue” and whether “oily residu e” may be due to sources other than

the main flare.

Comment #7

In the “Recommendations” sec tion on page 41 of the report, recommen dation #2, calls for EPA or Resolute to make arrangements (through a qualified c ontractor) to conduct a field analys is regarding the current status o f previously documented archaeological sites provided in th is report, and what, if any, impacts the gas flare has had on the previously documented arch aeological sites. We are not clear about this recommendation since the purpose of this report is to provide Reso lute with the current status of such sites, and to provide Resolute with upto-date information regarding potential effects on historic properti es within the 2 km APE. If the consultant foun d no such effects, or is unable to make this de termination it should state so in the report.

On page 42 of the report, recommendation #3, calls for the EPA or Resolute to make arrangements (through a qualified contractor) to fully document ei ght historic structures that were deemed eligible for protection under the NHPA, and assess the impacts, if any, of the main fl are on these structures. Again, we are perplexed by this recommendation because the purpose of this report is to fully document and assess the impacts (if any) on historic properties (if any) by the main flare within the 2 km APE. If the consultant found no such effects, or is

unable to make this determination it should state so in the report.

************************************ Shaheerah Kelly
Permits Office, Air Division (AIR-3)

U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency, Region 9
San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: 415-947-4156

Fax: 415-947-3579

Email: kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov

From: Saanii [ mailto:dinetahdoo@yahoo.com ]

Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 2:42 PM

To: Kelly, Shaheerah Subject: Dinetahdoo CRM Resolute McElmo Flare Report

Good afternoon Ms. Kelly,

Attached to this message is a copy of Dinetahdoo CRM's repo rt regarding the listing of previously identified archaeological resour ces and historic Navajo structures in the vicinity of the McElmo Unit Main Flare whic h is operated by Resolute Natural Resources in Aneth, Utah. The report ha s been reviewed by Mr. Dwight Mallory of Resolute and we believe that the report is ready for submissi on to your office and the Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department (NNHPD). The copies that will be sent to NNHPD will include a confidential ethnographical appendix as well as site forms for the majority of the archaeological sites desc ribed in the report. We would like to know if there is anything you would like from us as well? Plea se do not hesitate to contact us should there be any questions regarding the report. Thank you and have a great day.

Jeremy Begay Senior Archaeologist

Dinetahdoo Cultural Resources Management, LLC P.O. Box 2012, Farmington NM 874994 10076 US Hwy 371, S of Farmington, NM Phone (505) 960-9478F ax (505) 960-9749

Email dinetahdoo@yahoo.com

Website: www.dinetahdoo.com