[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 190 (Friday, October 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60805-60807]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24582]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: [email protected].
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
[[Page 60806]]
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
[[Page 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