Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Notices 60805 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Draft 

EIS/EIR documents the direct, indirect 

and cumulative effects to the physical, 

biological, and socioeconomic 

environment that may result from 

construction of the Project. 

The purpose of the Project is to create 

and maintain a reliable system for 

collecting adult fish to assist 

Reclamation in meeting mitigation 

obligations for spawning areas blocked 

by the construction of Nimbus Dam. 

Other objectives are to (1) minimize 

annual operations and maintenance 

costs, (2) eliminate the need to reduce 

river flows for weir superstructure 

repairs, maintenance, and annual 

installation, which in turn increases 

operational flexibility, and (3) improve 

public and worker safety. 

The Draft EIS/EIR evaluates three 

action alternatives and the No-Action 

alternative. Alternative 1 consists of the 

construction of a new fish passageway 

from the Hatchery to an area near the 

south end of the Nimbus Dam stilling 

basin, removal of the existing fish 

diversion weir, and potential 

modification of fishing regulations. The 

removal of the existing weir would 

allow the fish to access the stilling basin 

area. Because of the potential for fishing 

to significantly impact fishery resources, 

two regulatory options, Alternatives 1A 

and 1C, are being considered. CDFG is 

evaluating potential changes in fishing 

regulations to help protect spawning 

salmon and steelhead and to maintain 

fish passage to the hatchery. 

Reclamation is evaluating potential 

changes in public access to the stilling 

basin that best meet project purposes. 

Alternative 2 involves replacing the 

existing fish diversion weir with a new 

weir immediately upstream of its 

current location. The existing 

permanent and seasonal fishing closures 

would remain in effect, unchanged. 

However, a new weir would be much 

more effective in preventing fish from 

entering the river and stilling basin 

upstream from the Hatchery. 

The No-Action Alternative would be 

the continuation of the existing 

regulatory conditions. The existing weir 

would not be replaced. The existing 

permanent and seasonal fishing closures 

would remain in effect, unchanged. 

Copies of the Draft EIS/EIR are 

available for public review at the 

following locations: 

• Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific 

Region, Regional Library, 2800 Cottage 

Way, Sacramento, CA 95825. 

• Central California Area Office, 

Bureau of Reclamation, 7794 Folsom 

Dam Road, Folsom, CA 95630. 

• Nimbus Fish Hatchery, 2001 

Nimbus Road, Gold River, CA 95670. 

Special Assistance for Public Meetings 

If special assistance is required to 

participate in the public meetings, 

please contact Ms. Janet Sierzputowski 

at 916–978–5112, TTY 916–978–5608, 

or e-mail jsierzputowski@usbr.gov. 

Please notify Ms. Sierzputowski as far in 

advance as possible to enable 

Reclamation to secure the needed 

services. If a request cannot be honored, 

the requestor will be notified. 

Public Disclosure 

Before including your name, address, 

phone number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Dated: March 11, 2010. 

Pablo R. Arroyave, 

Deputy Regional Director, Mid-Pacific Region. 

Editorial Note: This document was 

received in the Office of the Federal Register 

on September 27, 2010. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24609 Filed 9–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLUTG01100–09–L13100000–EJ0000] 

Notice of Availability of a Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Gasco Uinta Basin Natural Gas 

Development Project, Duchesne and 

Uintah Counties, UT 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA), the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and 

associated regulations, the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) has prepared 

a Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) that evaluates, analyzes, and 

discloses to the public direct, indirect, 

and cumulative environmental impacts 

of a proposal to develop natural gas in 

Uintah and Duchesne Counties, Utah. 

This notice announces a 45-day public 

comment period to meet the 

requirements of the NEPA and Section 

106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. 

DATES: The Draft EIS will be available 

for public review for 45 calendar days 

following the date that the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

publishes its Notice of Availability in 

the Federal Register. The BLM can best 

use comments and resource information 

submitted within the 45-day review 

period. Public meetings will be held 

during the 45-day public comment 

period in Vernal, Duchesne, and Price, 

Utah. The dates, times, and places will 

be announced through local news media 

and the BLM Web site: http:// 

www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/info/ 

newsroom.2.html at least 15 days prior 

to the meeting dates. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on the Draft EIS 

may be submitted by any of the 

following methods: 

• Mail: Bureau of Land Management, 

Attn: Stephanie Howard, Vernal Field 

Office, 170 South 500 East, Vernal, Utah 

84078. 

• E-mail: 

UT_Vernal_Comments@blm.gov. 

• Fax: (435) 781–4410. 

Please reference the Gasco EIS when 

submitting your comments. Comments 

and information submitted on the Draft 

EIS for the Gasco project, including 

names, e-mail addresses, and street 

addresses of respondents, will be 

available for public review at the Vernal 

Field Office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephanie Howard, Project Manager, 

BLM Vernal Field Office 170 South 500 

East, Vernal, Utah 84078; or by phone 

at (435) 781–4400. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Draft 

EIS is available on the following Web 

site: http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/ 

vernal/planning.html. In response to a 

proposal submitted by Gasco Energy, 

Inc., (Gasco), the BLM published in the 

February 10, 2006, Federal Register a 

Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS. The 

Gasco EIS Project Area encompasses 

approximately 206,826 acres located 

about 20 miles south of Roosevelt, Utah. 

The Draft EIS analyzes a proposal by 

Gasco to develop Federal natural gas 

resources on their leases. Gasco’s 

proposal includes drilling a total of up 

to 1,491 new wells and constructing 

associated ancillary transportation, 

transmission, and water disposal 

facilities within the project area. Of the 

206,826 acres within the project area, 

about 86 percent is Federal lands 

administered by the BLM; 12 percent is 

owned by the State of Utah and 

administered by the Utah State School 

and Institutional Trust Lands 

Administration; and 2 percent is 

privately owned. The proposed life of 

the project is 45 years, with most 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
60806 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Notices 

drilling and development activities to 

occur within the first 15 years following 

approval of the BLM’s Record of 

Decision. 

The new gas wells would be drilled 

to the Wasatch, Mesaverde, Blackhawk, 

Mancos, Dakota, and Green River 

formations at depths of 5,000 to 20,000 

feet. Gasco’s proposal is based on a 

maximum surface density of one well 

pad per 40 acres, but the exact surface 

density would be defined during on-site 

review and permitting. The Proposed 

Action and alternatives incorporate best 

management practices for oil and gas 

development and other measures 

necessary to adequately address impacts 

to transportation, public safety, cultural 

resources, recreational opportunities, 

wildlife, threatened and endangered 

species, visual resources, wilderness 

characteristics, air quality, and other 

relevant issues. 

The Draft EIS describes and analyzes 

the impacts of Gasco’s Proposed Action 

and four alternatives, including the No 

Action Alternative. Three additional 

alternatives were considered but 

eliminated from detailed analysis. The 

following is a summary of the 

alternatives: 

1. Proposed Action: Up to 1,491 new 

gas wells would be drilled and about 

325 miles of new roads and 431 miles 

of pipelines would be constructed to 

support this proposed development. An 

evaporative facility of approximately 

214 acres would be constructed to 

dispose of produced waters. In all, 

approximately 7,584 acres, or 4 percent 

of the total project area, would be 

disturbed under this alternative. No 

roads, pipelines, or well pads would be 

developed below the upper rim of Nine 

Mile Canyon. This is the agency 

preferred alternative in the Draft EIS. 

2. Reduced Development: Up to 1,114 

new gas wells would be drilled and 

about 274 miles of new roads and 393 

miles of pipelines would be constructed 

to support development. An evaporative 

facility of approximately 157 acres 

would be constructed to dispose of 

produced waters. This alternative would 

avoid or minimize development in 

several sensitive areas, including Areas 

of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACEC), non-Wilderness-Study-Area 

lands with wilderness characteristics, 

and lands near raptor nests and sage 

grouse leks. In all, approximately 5,685 

acres, or 3 percent of the total project 

area, would be disturbed under this 

alternative. No well pads would be 

located below the upper rim of Nine 

Mile Canyon, although approximately 

17 acres of surface disturbance would be 

expected due to roads or pipelines 

below the upper rim. This disturbance 

would include 2 miles of new roads. 

3. Full Development: Under this 

alternative, all leases would be 

developed at 40–160 acre spacing, with 

up to 1,887 new gas wells drilled and 

about 526 miles of new roads and 861 

miles of pipelines constructed to 

support development. An evaporative 

facility of approximately 271 acres 

would be constructed to dispose of 

produced waters. In all, approximately 

9,982 acres, or 5 percent of the total 

project area, would be disturbed under 

this alternative. A total of 95 well pads 

would be located below the upper rim 

of Nine Mile Canyon, resulting in 

approximately 562 acres of surface 

disturbance. This disturbance would 

include 37 miles of new roads. 

4. No Action Alternative: The 

proposed natural gas development on 

the BLM lands as described in the 

Proposed Action or other action 

alternatives would not be implemented. 

However, under this alternative, natural 

gas exploration and development is 

assumed to continue on Federal, State, 

and private lands, albeit at a much 

smaller scale. In all, approximately 

2,055 acres, or 1 percent of the total 

project area, would be disturbed under 

this alternative. No roads, pipelines, or 

well pads would be developed below 

the upper rim of Nine Mile Canyon. 

5. Directional Drilling: Up to 1,114 

new gas wells would be drilled from 

328 pads, and about 106 miles of new 

roads and 216 miles of pipelines would 

be constructed to support development. 

An evaporative facility of approximately 

157 acres would be constructed to 

dispose of produced waters. This 

alternative would avoid or minimize 

development in several sensitive areas, 

including ACECs, lands with wilderness 

characteristics, and near raptor nests 

and sage grouse leks. In all, 

approximately 2,174 acres, or 1 percent 

of the total project area, would be 

disturbed under this alternative. No 

well pads would be located below the 

upper rim of Nine Mile Canyon, 

although approximately 9 acres of 

surface disturbance would be expected 

due to roads or pipelines below the 

upper rim. This disturbance would 

include 1 mile of new road. 

6. Alternatives Considered, but 

Eliminated from Further Analysis: Three 

alternatives were considered but 

eliminated from further analysis. These 

include: 

a. Total Avoidance of Development in 

Sensitive Areas: This alternative would 

preclude all development on sensitive 

lands within the project area, including 

BLM-administered lands near or within 

view of the Green River, areas proposed 

for special designations, and ACECs. 

This alternative was not carried forward 

because it would not meet the purpose 

and need of the project, which is for the 

BLM to allow development in an 

environmentally sound manner of lease 

rights held by Gasco and other 

operators. In addition, this alternative 

was not carried forward because it is not 

feasible and would not serve to reduce 

the impacts of the development from 

those of the proposed action or resource 

protection alternatives, which must 

comply with laws protecting 

endangered species, archaeological 

resources, and the like. These parcels 

are interspersed with private and State 

lands where development is proposed to 

occur, regardless of the Federal decision 

resulting from this Draft EIS. Avoiding 

development on Federal lands will not 

serve to prevent, for example, habitat 

fragmentation, where roads and 

pipelines will nevertheless be built to 

serve the development of the private 

and State minerals. While the BLM may 

require lessees to relocate proposed 

wells, the lessees have a reasonable 

contractual expectation that they can 

engage in development somewhere on 

their lease. Given the high proportion of 

the area that is already leased, it is 

unrealistic to expect to be able to 

implement this alternative on an 

adequate amount of acreage to achieve 

a reduction in impacts greater than will 

be achieved by compliance with the 

Endangered Species Act and other 

applicable laws, the Vernal Resource 

Management Plan, and two of the 

alternatives in the Draft EIS carried 

forward for detailed analysis. 

b. Wells for Subsurface Water 

Disposal: This alternative was not 

carried forward because no suitable 

geologic formations for disposal wells 

have been discovered within the project 

area to date. Exploration and production 

wells in the project area have not 

indicated the presence of a suitably 

extensive and permeable formation for 

disposal. 

c. Complete Reliance on Buried 

Pipelines and Centralized Tank 

Batteries: This alternative was not 

carried forward because of site-specific 

variables including shallow soils and 

highly variable topography. Due to 

shallow soils and surface bedrock, the 

surface disturbance from burying 

pipelines would be greater in severity or 

extent, or would persist longer, than 

those impacts resulting from the surface 

placement of pipelines. Where pipeline 

burial increases the percentage of coarse 

fragments in the soil, the reclamation 

potential of the disturbed area would be 

reduced due to a limited water-holding 

capacity. Similarly, collection pipelines 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Notices 60807 

from the wellhead to central tank 

batteries carry high levels of water and 

condensate and must be buried to 

prevent plugging and freezing at 

wellhead spacing greater than 20 acres. 

Therefore, centralization of these 

facilities would require a great deal of 

buried pipelines to be constructed, 

resulting in the same environmental 

impacts described above for buried 

pipelines. However, burying pipelines 

and centralizing tank batteries, as a 

means of reducing overall 

environmental impact, will be 

considered on a site-specific basis as 

appropriate. 

The public is encouraged to comment 

on any of these alternatives. The BLM 

asks that those submitting comments 

make them as specific as possible with 

reference to chapters, page numbers, 

and paragraphs in the Draft EIS 

document. Comments that contain only 

opinions or preferences will not receive 

a formal response; however, they will be 

considered, and included, as part of the 

BLM decision-making process. The most 

useful comments will contain new 

technical or scientific information, 

identify data gaps in the impact 

analysis, or will provide technical or 

scientific rationale for opinions or 

preferences. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information-may be 

made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Juan Palma, 

State Director. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24582 Filed 9–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–DQ–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLOR932000–L16100000–DF0000– 

LXSS062H0000; HAG 10–0283] 

Notice of Availability of the Record of 

Decision for Vegetation Treatments 

Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land 

Management Lands in Oregon Final 

Environmental Impact Statement 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, as amended (NEPA), the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) has prepared 

a Record of Decision (ROD) for 

Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides 

on Bureau of Land Management Lands 

in Oregon and by this notice is 

announcing its availability. The ROD 

selects a slightly modified version of 

Alternative 4 as described in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

for Vegetation Treatments Using 

Herbicides on Bureau of Land 

Management Lands in Oregon, notice of 

which was published in the Federal 

Register on July 30, 2010 (75 FR 44981). 

The selected alternative increases the 

number of herbicides available for use 

on BLM-managed lands in Oregon and 

increases the number of objectives for 

which they can be used. The herbicides 

and uses permitted by the selected 

alternative fall entirely within those 

approved for use in 17 western states by 

the BLM in its September 2007 ROD for 

the Final Programmatic EIS for 

Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides 

on BLM lands in 17 Western States. The 

Oregon decision incorporates the 

standard operating procedures and 

mitigation measures adopted by the 

BLM’s 2007 17 western states decision 

and adds additional mitigation and 

monitoring requirements specific to 

Oregon. 

DATES: There is a 30-day appeal period 

before the decision can take effect (see 

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS below). 

Appeals must be postmarked within 30 

days of the date of publication of this 

notice in the Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Todd Thompson, EIS Project Manager, 

by telephone at (503) 808–6326, by mail 

at Bureau of Land Management— 

OR932, P.O. Box 2965, Portland, Oregon 

97208; or by e-mail at 

orvegtreatments@blm.gov. 

Copies of the ROD and the Vegetation 

Treatments Final EIS upon which it is 

based are available on the Internet at: 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/ 

vegtreatmentseis/. Printed copies have 

been sent to libraries and BLM district 

offices throughout Oregon. Compact 

Disc (CD) copies have also been sent to 

affected Federal, State, tribal, and local 

government agencies; to persons who 

have asked to be on the project mailing 

list; and to everyone who submitted 

comments on the Draft EIS, unless they 

requested the ROD in a different format 

or opted off of the distribution list. 

Requests to receive printed or CD copies 

of the ROD should be sent to one of the 

addresses listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Final 

EIS for Vegetation Treatments Using 

Herbicides on BLM Lands in Oregon 

provides a comprehensive analysis of a 

proposal to make an additional 13 

herbicides available (above the current 

4) to BLM districts in Oregon and to 

expand on the management objectives 

for which they may be used (beyond just 

noxious weed control). The selected 

alternative, a slightly modified 

Alternative 4, would allow for the use 

of 17 herbicides east of the Cascades 

and 14 herbicides west of the Cascades 

to control noxious and invasive weeds; 

treat vegetation along roads, rights-ofway, and BLM improvements; and 

conduct habitat improvement projects 

for special status species. The Oregon 

BLM currently uses four herbicides only 

for the treatment of noxious weeds. A 

noxious weed is any plant designated by 

a Federal, State or county government as 

injurious to public health, agriculture, 

recreation, wildlife, or property. The list 

of invasive weeds includes not only 

noxious weeds but also other nonnative, aggressive plants that have the 

potential to cause significant damage to 

native ecosystems and/or cause 

significant economic losses. 

In 1984, the BLM was prohibited from 

using herbicides in Oregon by a U.S. 

District Court injunction issued in 

Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to 

Pesticides, et al. v. Block, et al., (Civ. 

No. 82–6273–E). Following completion 

of an EIS examining the use of four 

herbicides for the treatment of noxious 

weeds only, the injunction was 

modified by the court in November 

1987, (Civ. No. 82–6272–BU). For the 

subsequent 23 years, the BLM in Oregon 

has limited its herbicide use to the four 

herbicides analyzed and limited the use 

of those four herbicides to the control 

and eradication of Federal-, State-, or 

county-listed noxious weeds. In that 

time, new herbicides have become 

available that can be used in smaller 

doses, are more target-specific, and are 

lower risk to people and other nontarget organisms. In 2007, the BLM 

Washington Office Rangeland Resources 

Division completed the Vegetation 

Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau 

of Land Management lands in 17 

Western States Programmatic EIS and 

related Record of Decision 

(Programmatic EIS), making 18 

herbicides available for a full range of 

vegetation treatments in 17 western 

states including Oregon. Oregon cannot 

fully implement that decision, however, 

until and unless the 1984 District Court 

injunction is lifted. The Vegetation 

Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM 

Lands in Oregon Final EIS, upon which 

today’s decision is based, tiers to the 17 

Western States Programmatic EIS, 

incorporates its standard operating 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES