Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Previously Issued Oil and Gas Leases in the White River National Forest, Colorado, 51936-51937 [2016-18542]
Download as PDF
51936
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2016 / Notices
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
These proposed rate adjustments do
not affect the collections of information
which have been approved by the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget,
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995. The OMB Control Number is
1076–0141 and expires June 30, 2019.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Department has determined that
these proposed rate adjustments do not
constitute a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment and that no
detailed statement is required under the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370(d)).
Dated: August 1, 2016.
Lawrence S. Roberts,
Principal Deputy Secretary—Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2016–18642 Filed 8–4–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4337–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[LLCON04000 L16100000.DP000]
Notice of Availability of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for
Previously Issued Oil and Gas Leases
in the White River National Forest,
Colorado
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
In compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, as amended (NEPA), the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) Colorado
River Valley Field Office (CRVFO),
located in Silt, Colorado, prepared a
Final Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) that analyzes the environmental
impacts of previous decisions to issue
65 leases on lands within the White
River National Forest (WRNF) from
1995 to 2012.
DATES: The BLM will not issue a final
decision on the proposal for a minimum
of 30 days after the date that the
Environmental Protection Agency
publishes its Notice of Availability in
the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Previously
Issued Oil and Gas Leases in the WRNF
Final EIS are available for public
inspection at the CRVFO, 2300 River
Frontage Road, Silt, CO 81652.
Interested persons may also review the
Final EIS on the project Web site at
https://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/
crvfo.html.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
Greg
Larson, Project Manager, at the address
above, by telephone at 970–876–9000,
or by email at glarson@blm.gov. Persons
who use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–
800–877–8339 to contact the above
individual during normal business
hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a
day, seven days a week, to leave a
message or question with the above
individual. You will receive a reply
during normal business hours.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BLM
developed this EIS to address a NEPA
deficiency identified by the Interior
Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) related to
the issuance of oil and gas leases on
WRNF lands from 1995 to 2004. In
2007, the IBLA ruled that before
including WRNF parcels in an oil and
gas lease sale, the BLM must either
formally adopt the NEPA analysis
completed by the U.S. Forest Service
(USFS) or conduct a NEPA analysis of
its own (Board of Commissioners of
Pitkin County, 173 IBLA 173 (2007)).
The BLM canceled the three leases at
issue in that case and has identified 65
additional leases with effective dates
ranging from 1995 to 2012, which the
BLM leased without either: (i) Adopting
applicable USFS NEPA, or (ii) Preparing
its own NEPA analysis. For these 65
existing leases, the most recent USFS
decision to make these lands available
for oil and gas leasing was analyzed in
the 1993 USFS WRNF Oil and Gas
Leasing EIS, which was reaffirmed in
the 2002 WRNF Plan.
While the BLM obtained USFS
consent before offering and
subsequently issuing these 65 leases, it
did not adopt the USFS’ NEPA analysis
or prepare its own analysis. As a result,
the BLM determined that the issuance of
the leases in question was not in
compliance with applicable NEPA
requirements, rendering the leases
voidable. The BLM therefore
determined that additional actions were
necessary to either reaffirm, modify, or
cancel those leases. As part of its
determination of what additional action
needs to be taken, the BLM determined
that the WRNF NEPA analysis relevant
to the 65 previously issued leases was
no longer adequate due to changes in
laws, regulations, policies and
conditions since the earlier EIS was
finalized in 1993. As a result, the BLM
prepared this EIS, which analyzes the
previous decisions to lease WRNF lands
for oil and gas development.
Based on the analysis in the EIS, the
BLM will determine whether these 65
leases should be cancelled, reaffirmed,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
or modified with additional or different
terms. Distinct from this effort, the
USFS has also been updating its 1993
Oil and Gas Leasing EIS to address
future oil and gas leasing availability on
the WRNF. The USFS released the Final
EIS and Draft Record of Decision in
December 2014. The Final USFS Record
of Decision was signed in December
2015. The USFS EIS and ROD are
forward-looking and do not directly
affect the 65 previously issued leases;
however, the information generated as
part of that process was relevant to the
BLM’s analysis. As part of its process,
the BLM has incorporated as much of
the new USFS NEPA analysis of future
oil and gas leasing on WRNF lands as
possible into the BLM’s analysis of the
existing leases.
The BLM considered six alternatives
in the Final EIS, including the No
Action Alternative. The No Action
Alternative would reaffirm the lease
stipulations on the 65 leases as they
were issued. Under this alternative, the
BLM would take no action by
continuing to administer the leases with
their current stipulations. Alternative 2
would address inconsistencies in some
of the existing leases by adding
stipulations identified in the 1993
WRNF EIS that should have been but
were not attached to eight leases when
they were issued. Alternative 3 would
modify the 65 leases to match the
stipulations identified for future leasing
in the 2014 USFS Final EIS Proposed
Action. Alternative 4 would modify or
cancel the 65 leases to match the
stipulations and availability decision for
future leasing identified in the 2014
USFS Draft Record of Decision. In areas
the USFS identified as open to future
leasing, lease stipulations would be
modified to track those found in the
most recent decisions, and all or part of
25 existing leases in areas identified as
closed to future leasing would be
cancelled. Alternative 5 would cancel
all 65 leases.
For purposes of the Final EIS, the
BLM identified a combination of
Alternatives 2 and 4 as its Preferred
Alternative. Under this alternative, the
BLM would cancel in their entirety 25
leases that are not producing or
committed to a unit or communitization
agreement, and that overlap with the
area identified as closed to future
leasing by the USFS’s Final Record of
Decision (USFS 2015f). It would apply
Alternative 4 stipulations (i.e., those
that were identified in the 2015 USFS
Record of Decision) to the 13
undeveloped leases that are within parts
of the WRNF identified as open to
future leasing, and would apply
Alternative 2 stipulations (i.e., those
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2016 / Notices
identified in the 1993 WRNF EIS) to the
23 leases that are producing or
committed to a unit agreement or
communitization agreement. Four of
these leases had previously been part of
the Willow Creek Unit and are now
expired. If the unit contraction
associated with these 4 leases is
overturned on appeal, those leases
would be reauthorized and the
Alternative 2 stipulations would apply.
As with Alternative 4, the BLM would
offer the lessee the option of either
accepting the new stipulations or having
the lease in question cancelled. For
undeveloped leases, cancellation would
be accomplished through a BLM process
and would require that the BLM
reimburse any bonus bids and rental
payments.
The BLM developed this Preferred
Alternative to address public comments
and concerns submitted in response to
the Draft EIS, while acknowledging
recent decisions by the USFS governing
future oil and gas leasing on the WRNF.
The Preferred Alternative also
recognizes the adverse economic
impacts to local governments and
technical challenges for the BLM
associated with any decision to cancel
producing or committed leases.
The Draft EIS was released on
November 20, 2015 (80 FR 72733), for
a 49-day public comment period. During
that period, the BLM held three public
meetings in communities near the
project area: Glenwood Springs,
DeBeque and Carbondale, Colorado. The
BLM received 60,515 comments during
the formal comment period. The BLM
worked with cooperating agencies
(including the Environmental Protection
Agency; USFS; the Colorado
Department of Natural Resources,
including Colorado Parks and Wildlife;
Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin and Rio Blanco
counties; the Cities of Glenwood
Springs and Rifle, and the Towns of
Carbondale, New Castle, Parachute and
Silt) to prepare the Final EIS. The BLM
also consulted with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) informally
and through a Biological Assessment;
the Service issued a consultation
memorandum on May 19, 2016,
concurring with the BLM effects
determinations of ‘‘may affect, but is not
likely to adversely affect’’ for Ute
ladies’-tresses orchid, Colorado hookless
cactus and its critical habitat, Western
yellow-billed cuckoo, Green-lineage
cutthroat trout, Colorado pikeminnow
and its critical habitat, Razorback sucker
and its critical habitat, Humpback chub
and its critical habitat, Bonytail and its
critical habitat, and Canada lynx. In
addition, the BLM notified the Colorado
State Historic Preservation Office
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:42 Aug 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
(SHPO) via an informational letter that
pursuant to the 2014 Protocol agreement
between the BLM Colorado and the
SHPO, this undertaking does not exceed
any of the review thresholds that would
require SHPO concurrence, and that
there will be no adverse effect to
historic properties. Finally, the BLM
began tribal consultation for the project
in April 2014 when the field manager
sent a scoping letter via certified mail to
the Ute Indian Tribe (Uintah and Ouray
Reservation), Ute Mountain Ute Tribe,
and Southern Ute Indian Tribe.
Consultation and outreach continued
through April 22, 2016, when the BLM
sent the tribes a letter that identified the
Preferred Alternative and summarized
cultural resource records within the area
of potential effect (including potential
Traditional Cultural Properties). The
letter also offered the opportunity for
comments or clarifications. The BLM
will continue to offer opportunities for
the tribes to identify properties of
possible traditional religious and
cultural importance that may be affected
by the alternatives and to express their
concerns throughout the project as
stipulated under EO 13175, November
6, 2000.
Before including your address, phone
number, email 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.
Authority: 40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10
Ruth Welch,
BLM Colorado State Director.
[FR Doc. 2016–18542 Filed 8–4–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–JB–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
[RR03510000, XXXR0680R1,
RR171260120019400]
Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Impact Report/
Environmental Impact Statement for
the Pure Water San Diego Program,
North City Project, San Diego County,
California
Bureau of Reclamation,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51937
The Bureau of Reclamation
and the City of San Diego will prepare
a joint Environmental Impact Report/
Environmental Impact Statement to
evaluate the effects of the North City
Project, the first phase of the Pure Water
San Diego Program (Pure Water
Program). The Pure Water Program is a
water and wastewater facilities plan to
produce potable water from recycled
water.
Interested parties are invited to
comment on the scope of the
environmental analysis and the
proposed alternatives. Two public
meetings are scheduled.
DATES: Please submit written comments
on or before September 6, 2016.
Public meeting dates:
1. August 23, 2016, 6 p.m. to 7:30
p.m., Scripps Miramar Ranch Public
Library.
2. August 25, 2016, 6:30 p.m. to 8
p.m., City of San Diego Public Utilities
Department.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to
Doug McPherson, Southern California
Area Office, Bureau of Reclamation,
27708 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 202,
Temecula, CA 92590; or email to
dmcpherson@usbr.gov.
Public meeting locations:
1. Scripps Miramar Ranch Public
Library, 10301 Scripps Lake Drive, San
Diego, CA.
2. City of San Diego Public Utilities
Department, 9192 Topaz Way, San
Diego, CA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Doug McPherson, Southern California
Area Office general telephone number
951–695–5310; or email dmcpherson@
usbr.gov.
SUMMARY:
This
notice is provided pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)), and
Department of the Interior regulations
for implementation of NEPA (43 CFR
part 46).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
North City Project
The proposed project will expand the
existing North City Water Reclamation
Plant and construct an adjacent
Advanced Water Purification Facility
with a purified water pipeline to
Miramar Reservoir. A project alternative
would install a longer pipeline to
deliver product water to the larger San
Vicente reservoir.
Other project components include: A
new pump station and forcemain to
deliver additional wastewater to the
North City Water Reclamation Plant, a
brine discharge pipeline, and upgrades
to the existing Metropolitan Biosolids
Center to accommodate additional
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 151 (Friday, August 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51936-51937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18542]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[LLCON04000 L16100000.DP000]
Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact
Statement for Previously Issued Oil and Gas Leases in the White River
National Forest, Colorado
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, as amended (NEPA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado
River Valley Field Office (CRVFO), located in Silt, Colorado, prepared
a Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that analyzes the
environmental impacts of previous decisions to issue 65 leases on lands
within the White River National Forest (WRNF) from 1995 to 2012.
DATES: The BLM will not issue a final decision on the proposal for a
minimum of 30 days after the date that the Environmental Protection
Agency publishes its Notice of Availability in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Previously Issued Oil and Gas Leases in the
WRNF Final EIS are available for public inspection at the CRVFO, 2300
River Frontage Road, Silt, CO 81652. Interested persons may also review
the Final EIS on the project Web site at https://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/crvfo.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Larson, Project Manager, at the
address above, by telephone at 970-876-9000, or by email at
glarson@blm.gov. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-
800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business
hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to
leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive
a reply during normal business hours.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BLM developed this EIS to address a NEPA
deficiency identified by the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
related to the issuance of oil and gas leases on WRNF lands from 1995
to 2004. In 2007, the IBLA ruled that before including WRNF parcels in
an oil and gas lease sale, the BLM must either formally adopt the NEPA
analysis completed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) or conduct a NEPA
analysis of its own (Board of Commissioners of Pitkin County, 173 IBLA
173 (2007)). The BLM canceled the three leases at issue in that case
and has identified 65 additional leases with effective dates ranging
from 1995 to 2012, which the BLM leased without either: (i) Adopting
applicable USFS NEPA, or (ii) Preparing its own NEPA analysis. For
these 65 existing leases, the most recent USFS decision to make these
lands available for oil and gas leasing was analyzed in the 1993 USFS
WRNF Oil and Gas Leasing EIS, which was reaffirmed in the 2002 WRNF
Plan.
While the BLM obtained USFS consent before offering and
subsequently issuing these 65 leases, it did not adopt the USFS' NEPA
analysis or prepare its own analysis. As a result, the BLM determined
that the issuance of the leases in question was not in compliance with
applicable NEPA requirements, rendering the leases voidable. The BLM
therefore determined that additional actions were necessary to either
reaffirm, modify, or cancel those leases. As part of its determination
of what additional action needs to be taken, the BLM determined that
the WRNF NEPA analysis relevant to the 65 previously issued leases was
no longer adequate due to changes in laws, regulations, policies and
conditions since the earlier EIS was finalized in 1993. As a result,
the BLM prepared this EIS, which analyzes the previous decisions to
lease WRNF lands for oil and gas development.
Based on the analysis in the EIS, the BLM will determine whether
these 65 leases should be cancelled, reaffirmed, or modified with
additional or different terms. Distinct from this effort, the USFS has
also been updating its 1993 Oil and Gas Leasing EIS to address future
oil and gas leasing availability on the WRNF. The USFS released the
Final EIS and Draft Record of Decision in December 2014. The Final USFS
Record of Decision was signed in December 2015. The USFS EIS and ROD
are forward-looking and do not directly affect the 65 previously issued
leases; however, the information generated as part of that process was
relevant to the BLM's analysis. As part of its process, the BLM has
incorporated as much of the new USFS NEPA analysis of future oil and
gas leasing on WRNF lands as possible into the BLM's analysis of the
existing leases.
The BLM considered six alternatives in the Final EIS, including the
No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative would reaffirm the
lease stipulations on the 65 leases as they were issued. Under this
alternative, the BLM would take no action by continuing to administer
the leases with their current stipulations. Alternative 2 would address
inconsistencies in some of the existing leases by adding stipulations
identified in the 1993 WRNF EIS that should have been but were not
attached to eight leases when they were issued. Alternative 3 would
modify the 65 leases to match the stipulations identified for future
leasing in the 2014 USFS Final EIS Proposed Action. Alternative 4 would
modify or cancel the 65 leases to match the stipulations and
availability decision for future leasing identified in the 2014 USFS
Draft Record of Decision. In areas the USFS identified as open to
future leasing, lease stipulations would be modified to track those
found in the most recent decisions, and all or part of 25 existing
leases in areas identified as closed to future leasing would be
cancelled. Alternative 5 would cancel all 65 leases.
For purposes of the Final EIS, the BLM identified a combination of
Alternatives 2 and 4 as its Preferred Alternative. Under this
alternative, the BLM would cancel in their entirety 25 leases that are
not producing or committed to a unit or communitization agreement, and
that overlap with the area identified as closed to future leasing by
the USFS's Final Record of Decision (USFS 2015f). It would apply
Alternative 4 stipulations (i.e., those that were identified in the
2015 USFS Record of Decision) to the 13 undeveloped leases that are
within parts of the WRNF identified as open to future leasing, and
would apply Alternative 2 stipulations (i.e., those
[[Page 51937]]
identified in the 1993 WRNF EIS) to the 23 leases that are producing or
committed to a unit agreement or communitization agreement. Four of
these leases had previously been part of the Willow Creek Unit and are
now expired. If the unit contraction associated with these 4 leases is
overturned on appeal, those leases would be reauthorized and the
Alternative 2 stipulations would apply. As with Alternative 4, the BLM
would offer the lessee the option of either accepting the new
stipulations or having the lease in question cancelled. For undeveloped
leases, cancellation would be accomplished through a BLM process and
would require that the BLM reimburse any bonus bids and rental
payments.
The BLM developed this Preferred Alternative to address public
comments and concerns submitted in response to the Draft EIS, while
acknowledging recent decisions by the USFS governing future oil and gas
leasing on the WRNF. The Preferred Alternative also recognizes the
adverse economic impacts to local governments and technical challenges
for the BLM associated with any decision to cancel producing or
committed leases.
The Draft EIS was released on November 20, 2015 (80 FR 72733), for
a 49-day public comment period. During that period, the BLM held three
public meetings in communities near the project area: Glenwood Springs,
DeBeque and Carbondale, Colorado. The BLM received 60,515 comments
during the formal comment period. The BLM worked with cooperating
agencies (including the Environmental Protection Agency; USFS; the
Colorado Department of Natural Resources, including Colorado Parks and
Wildlife; Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin and Rio Blanco counties; the Cities of
Glenwood Springs and Rifle, and the Towns of Carbondale, New Castle,
Parachute and Silt) to prepare the Final EIS. The BLM also consulted
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) informally and
through a Biological Assessment; the Service issued a consultation
memorandum on May 19, 2016, concurring with the BLM effects
determinations of ``may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect''
for Ute ladies'-tresses orchid, Colorado hookless cactus and its
critical habitat, Western yellow-billed cuckoo, Green-lineage cutthroat
trout, Colorado pikeminnow and its critical habitat, Razorback sucker
and its critical habitat, Humpback chub and its critical habitat,
Bonytail and its critical habitat, and Canada lynx. In addition, the
BLM notified the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) via
an informational letter that pursuant to the 2014 Protocol agreement
between the BLM Colorado and the SHPO, this undertaking does not exceed
any of the review thresholds that would require SHPO concurrence, and
that there will be no adverse effect to historic properties. Finally,
the BLM began tribal consultation for the project in April 2014 when
the field manager sent a scoping letter via certified mail to the Ute
Indian Tribe (Uintah and Ouray Reservation), Ute Mountain Ute Tribe,
and Southern Ute Indian Tribe. Consultation and outreach continued
through April 22, 2016, when the BLM sent the tribes a letter that
identified the Preferred Alternative and summarized cultural resource
records within the area of potential effect (including potential
Traditional Cultural Properties). The letter also offered the
opportunity for comments or clarifications. The BLM will continue to
offer opportunities for the tribes to identify properties of possible
traditional religious and cultural importance that may be affected by
the alternatives and to express their concerns throughout the project
as stipulated under EO 13175, November 6, 2000.
Before including your address, phone number, email 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.
Authority: 40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10
Ruth Welch,
BLM Colorado State Director.
[FR Doc. 2016-18542 Filed 8-4-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P