Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Greater Chapita Wells Natural Gas Infill Project, Uintah County, Utah, 10518-10519 [2018-03771]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
10518
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 47 / Friday, March 9, 2018 / Notices
potential land use plan amendment, the
BLM will evaluate identified issues to
be addressed in the plan amendment,
and will place them into one of three
categories:
1. Issues to be resolved in the plan
amendment;
2. Issues to be resolved through policy
or administrative action; or
3. Issues beyond the scope of this plan
amendment.
The BLM will provide an explanation
in the Draft EIS/EIR as to why an issue
was placed in category two or three. The
public is also encouraged to help
identify any management questions and
concerns that should be addressed in
the EIS/EIR and potential land use plan
amendments. The BLM will work
collaboratively with interested parties to
identify the management decisions that
are best suited to local, regional, and
national needs and concerns.
The BLM will use an interdisciplinary
approach to develop the EIS and
potential land use plan amendments in
order to consider the variety of resource
issues and concerns identified.
Specialists with expertise in the
following disciplines will be involved
in the planning process: Air, minerals
and geology, outdoor recreation,
archaeology, paleontology, wildlife and
botany, lands and realty, hydrology,
soils, sociology, and economics.
Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 43 CFR
1610.2.
Danielle Chi,
BLM California Deputy State Director.
[FR Doc. 2018–04691 Filed 3–8–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–40–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[17XL1109AF LLUTG01100
L13100000.EJ0000]
Notice of Availability of a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for
the Greater Chapita Wells Natural Gas
Infill Project, Uintah County, Utah
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, as amended, the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) has prepared a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for the Greater Chapita Wells Natural
Gas Infill Project and by this notice is
announcing the opening of the comment
period.
DATES: To ensure comments will be
considered, the BLM must receive
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 Mar 08, 2018
Jkt 244001
written comments on the Greater
Chapita Wells Draft EIS within 45 days
following the date the Environmental
Protection Agency publishes its NOA in
the Federal Register. The BLM will
announce future meetings or hearings
and any other public involvement
activities at least 15 days in advance
through public notices, media releases,
and/or mailings.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
related to the Greater Chapita Wells
project by any of the following methods:
• Website: https://go.usa.gov/csKAz.
• Email: UT_Vernal_Comments@
blm.gov.
• Fax: 435–781–4410.
• Mail: Bureau of Land Management,
Vernal Field Office, 170 South 500 East,
Vernal, Utah 84078.
Copies of the Greater Chapita Wells
Draft EIS are available in the Vernal
Field Office at the above address and
website.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephanie Howard, Project Manager,
435–781–4400; BLM Vernal Field
Office, 170 South 500 East, Vernal, UT
84078; showard@blm.gov. Persons who
use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay
Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to
contact the above individual during
normal business hours. FRS is available
24 hours a day, 7 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
published in the September 9, 2009,
Federal Register a Notice of Intent to
prepare an EIS (74 FR 46458). The
Greater Chapita EIS Project Area
encompasses approximately 43,109
acres located in Township 8 South,
Ranges 22 through 24 East; Township 9
South, Ranges 22 and 23 East; and
Township 10 South, Range 23 East, Salt
Lake Base and Meridian, about 25 miles
south of Vernal, Utah. Of the 43,109
acres within the project area, about 76
percent is Federal surface administered
by the BLM; 15 percent is tribal trust
surface; 5 percent is State of Utah
surface administered by the Utah Trust
Lands Administration; and 4 percent is
private surface. The entire project is
within the exterior boundary of the
Uintah and Ouray Reservation
(Uncompahgre Indian Country).
Oil and gas drilling has been ongoing
within the Chapita project area since
1952. As of March 2014, the project area
contained 1,247 active gas wells on 960
well pads, approximately 257 miles of
roads, and approximately 268 miles of
pipelines. Total existing disturbance in
the project area is approximately 3,975
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
acres, with approximately 1,000 acres
under interim reclamation.
The Draft EIS analyzes a proposal by
EOG Resources Inc (EOG) to further
develop natural gas resources on their
Federal leases in the project area. EOG’s
proposal includes drilling up to 2,808
new wells and constructing associated
ancillary transportation, transmission,
and water disposal facilities within the
project area. The proposed life of the
project is 55 years, with drilling and
development activities to occur within
the first 15 years. The new gas wells
would be drilled to the Green River,
Wasatch, Mesaverde Group (including
the Blackhawk), Mancos, and Dakota
formations at depths of 6,000 to 15,000
feet.
The Draft EIS describes and analyzes
in detail the impacts of the No Action
Alternative, and three action
alternatives, including EOG’s Proposed
Action. Seven additional alternatives
were considered, but eliminated from
detailed analysis. The alternatives
considered in detail include a
landscape-scale mitigation plan that
incorporates applicant-committed
measures, design features (including
best management practices), and the
mitigation hierarchy, including
compensatory mitigation as applicable
to minimize or eliminate impacts to the
resources of concern. In particular, the
Draft EIS action alternatives contain an
applicant-committed ozone
management strategy designed to
provide a reasonable assurance that
project implementation would not
contribute to the ongoing ozone
situation in the Uinta Basin. This
strategy contains five approaches to
managing project emissions, including:
Applicant-committed emission
reduction measures; audio, visual,
olfactory and infrared monitoring; a
commitment to no-net increase of
volatile organic compound emissions to
be tracked via an emissions balance
sheet; ozone training for personnel; and
an ozone event action plan. The
following is a summary of the main
components of the various alternatives:
1. No Action Alternative—The
proposed natural gas development on
BLM lands and leases as described in
the Proposed Action would not be
implemented. However, under this
alternative, natural gas exploration and
development is assumed to continue on
Federal, State, and private lands under
previous authorizations. Up to 462 new
gas wells would be drilled from 425
new well pads and 37 expanded well
pads. This alternative also includes
expansion of an existing compressor
station, construction of 18 liquids
gathering system (LGS) facilities,
E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM
09MRN1
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 47 / Friday, March 9, 2018 / Notices
construction of about 93 miles of new
roads, construction of 40 miles of
surface pipelines, construction of 90
miles of buried pipelines, and
construction of 33 miles of powerlines.
In all, approximately 2,685 acres would
be disturbed under this alternative. It is
estimated that 1,272 acres would be
subject to interim reclamation.
2. Proposed Action—Under this
alternative, up to 2,808 new gas wells
would be drilled from 233 new well
pads and 960 expanded well pads. This
alternative also includes drilling 3 water
disposal wells, constructing 18 LGS
facilities, constructing about 49 miles of
new roads, constructing 36 miles of
surface pipelines, constructing 90 miles
of buried pipelines, and constructing 33
miles of powerlines. In all,
approximately 2,909 acres would be
disturbed under this alternative. It is
estimated that 410 acres would be
subject to interim reclamation.
3. Resource Protection (BLMpreferred)—Under this alternative, up to
2,808 new gas wells would be drilled
from 162 new well pads and 960
expanded well pads. This alternative
also includes drilling 3 water disposal
wells, constructing 18 LGS facilities,
constructing about 36 miles of new
roads, constructing 23 miles of surface
pipelines, constructing 90 miles of
buried pipelines, and constructing 33
miles of powerlines. In all,
approximately 2,547 acres would be
disturbed under this alternative. It is
estimated that 333 acres would be
subject to interim reclamation.
4. Other Protections—Under this
alternative, up to 2,808 new gas wells
would be drilled from 157 new well
pads and 880 expanded well pads. This
alternative also includes drilling 3 water
disposal wells, constructing 18 LGS
facilities, constructing about 35 miles of
new roads, constructing 102 miles of
buried pipelines, and constructing 33
miles of powerlines. In all,
approximately 2,629 acres would be
disturbed under this alternative. It is
estimated that 435 acres would be
subject to interim reclamation.
5. Alternatives Considered, but
Eliminated from Further Analysis—
Seven alternatives were considered, but
eliminated from further analysis. These
include:
a. Use of Produced Water for
Waterflood Projects: A possible
alternative would require that produced
water be treated, sold, and transported
for use in oil field waterflood operations
in adjacent fields (the Chapita project
itself is not an oil field waterflood
project). This alternative would require
the construction of treatment and
transportation facilities, or the treated
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 Mar 08, 2018
Jkt 244001
water would have to be transported by
truck. Either way, this alternative would
result in effects greater than the
Proposed Action, so it was dismissed
from detailed analysis.
b. All Project Wells would be
Connected to the LGS: A Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission-delineated
jurisdictional boundary divides the
Chapita project area between power
suppliers Moon Lake Electric and Rocky
Mountain Power. EOG has contracted
with Rocky Mountain Power and is
obligated to use that power solely
within Rocky Mountain Power’s
jurisdiction boundary. Also, EOG’s
current Proposed Action connects as
many wells to the electrified LGS as is
feasible based on available power, so
further expansion of the LGS would
require the construction and operation
of large hydrocarbon-fueled compressor
and generator engines. Therefore, this
alternative is technically and
economically unfeasible and would
result in effects greater than the
Proposed Action, so it was dismissed
from detailed analysis.
c. All Field Facilities would be
Electrified: This alternative was not
carried forward for the same reasons as
the previous alternative, ‘‘All Project
Wells would be Connected to the LGS.’’
d. Field-Wide Electrification Using
Solar Panel Generation: A solar panel
facility sufficient to generate the power
needed to electrify the Chapita project
area (an estimated 40 megawatts), would
cover about 200 acres. The cost would
be an estimated $300 million. In
addition, backup power via gas-fired
generators would be needed. Therefore,
this alternative is technically and
economically unfeasible and would
result in effects greater than the
Proposed Action, so it was dismissed
from detailed analysis.
e. New Roads Limited to a 14-foot
running surface: Because of vehicle
safety concerns (safe passing width and
road stability issues) this alternative was
dismissed from detailed analysis.
f. New Wellheads within the White
River Viewshed would be Placed Below
Ground: Alternative D would preclude
further surface disturbance within the
100-year floodplain of the White River
by prohibiting new wells or well pads
within 0.5 mile or line-of-sight of the
White River. This alternative is not
analyzed in detail in this EIS because it
is sufficiently similar to the other
protections.
g. Full Field Development: EOG’s
original proposal included drilling up to
7,028 wells over a 15-year period. When
the issue of high concentrations of
winter-time ground level ozone in the
Uinta Basin was recognized, EOG
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10519
reduced its well count (among other
commitments) to reduce emission of
pollutants, in particular ozone
precursors. This alternative would
result in effects greater than the
Proposed Action. Accordingly, it was
dismissed from detailed analysis.
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 are those that contain
new technical or scientific information,
identify data gaps in the impact
analysis, or provide a technical or
scientific rationale for opinions or
preferences.
Before including your address, phone
number, email address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comments, please 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.
Edwin L. Roberson,
State Director.
[FR Doc. 2018–03771 Filed 3–8–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–DQ–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[LLCAD01000 L12100000.MD0000
18XL1109AF]
Meeting of the California Desert
District Advisory Council
Bureau of Land Management.
Notice of public meeting.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
In accordance with the
Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976 and the Federal Advisory
Committee Act of 1972, the U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) California
Desert District Advisory Council (DAC)
will meet as indicated below.
DATES: The BLM’s California DAC will
hold a public meeting on Tuesday,
March 20, 2018, from 12:00 p.m. to 5
p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the Hilton Garden Inn, Mirage Room,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM
09MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 47 (Friday, March 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10518-10519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03771]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[17XL1109AF LLUTG01100 L13100000.EJ0000]
Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the Greater Chapita Wells Natural Gas Infill Project, Uintah
County, Utah
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Greater Chapita
Wells Natural Gas Infill Project and by this notice is announcing the
opening of the comment period.
DATES: To ensure comments will be considered, the BLM must receive
written comments on the Greater Chapita Wells Draft EIS within 45 days
following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its
NOA in the Federal Register. The BLM will announce future meetings or
hearings and any other public involvement activities at least 15 days
in advance through public notices, media releases, and/or mailings.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments related to the Greater Chapita Wells
project by any of the following methods:
Website: https://go.usa.gov/csKAz.
Email: [email protected].
Fax: 435-781-4410.
Mail: Bureau of Land Management, Vernal Field Office, 170
South 500 East, Vernal, Utah 84078.
Copies of the Greater Chapita Wells Draft EIS are available in the
Vernal Field Office at the above address and website.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Howard, Project Manager,
435-781-4400; BLM Vernal Field Office, 170 South 500 East, Vernal, UT
84078; [email protected]. Persons who use a telecommunications device for
the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-
8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. FRS
is available 24 hours a day, 7 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 published in the September 9, 2009,
Federal Register a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS (74 FR 46458).
The Greater Chapita EIS Project Area encompasses approximately 43,109
acres located in Township 8 South, Ranges 22 through 24 East; Township
9 South, Ranges 22 and 23 East; and Township 10 South, Range 23 East,
Salt Lake Base and Meridian, about 25 miles south of Vernal, Utah. Of
the 43,109 acres within the project area, about 76 percent is Federal
surface administered by the BLM; 15 percent is tribal trust surface; 5
percent is State of Utah surface administered by the Utah Trust Lands
Administration; and 4 percent is private surface. The entire project is
within the exterior boundary of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation
(Uncompahgre Indian Country).
Oil and gas drilling has been ongoing within the Chapita project
area since 1952. As of March 2014, the project area contained 1,247
active gas wells on 960 well pads, approximately 257 miles of roads,
and approximately 268 miles of pipelines. Total existing disturbance in
the project area is approximately 3,975 acres, with approximately 1,000
acres under interim reclamation.
The Draft EIS analyzes a proposal by EOG Resources Inc (EOG) to
further develop natural gas resources on their Federal leases in the
project area. EOG's proposal includes drilling up to 2,808 new wells
and constructing associated ancillary transportation, transmission, and
water disposal facilities within the project area. The proposed life of
the project is 55 years, with drilling and development activities to
occur within the first 15 years. The new gas wells would be drilled to
the Green River, Wasatch, Mesaverde Group (including the Blackhawk),
Mancos, and Dakota formations at depths of 6,000 to 15,000 feet.
The Draft EIS describes and analyzes in detail the impacts of the
No Action Alternative, and three action alternatives, including EOG's
Proposed Action. Seven additional alternatives were considered, but
eliminated from detailed analysis. The alternatives considered in
detail include a landscape-scale mitigation plan that incorporates
applicant-committed measures, design features (including best
management practices), and the mitigation hierarchy, including
compensatory mitigation as applicable to minimize or eliminate impacts
to the resources of concern. In particular, the Draft EIS action
alternatives contain an applicant-committed ozone management strategy
designed to provide a reasonable assurance that project implementation
would not contribute to the ongoing ozone situation in the Uinta Basin.
This strategy contains five approaches to managing project emissions,
including: Applicant-committed emission reduction measures; audio,
visual, olfactory and infrared monitoring; a commitment to no-net
increase of volatile organic compound emissions to be tracked via an
emissions balance sheet; ozone training for personnel; and an ozone
event action plan. The following is a summary of the main components of
the various alternatives:
1. No Action Alternative--The proposed natural gas development on
BLM lands and leases as described in the Proposed Action would not be
implemented. However, under this alternative, natural gas exploration
and development is assumed to continue on Federal, State, and private
lands under previous authorizations. Up to 462 new gas wells would be
drilled from 425 new well pads and 37 expanded well pads. This
alternative also includes expansion of an existing compressor station,
construction of 18 liquids gathering system (LGS) facilities,
[[Page 10519]]
construction of about 93 miles of new roads, construction of 40 miles
of surface pipelines, construction of 90 miles of buried pipelines, and
construction of 33 miles of powerlines. In all, approximately 2,685
acres would be disturbed under this alternative. It is estimated that
1,272 acres would be subject to interim reclamation.
2. Proposed Action--Under this alternative, up to 2,808 new gas
wells would be drilled from 233 new well pads and 960 expanded well
pads. This alternative also includes drilling 3 water disposal wells,
constructing 18 LGS facilities, constructing about 49 miles of new
roads, constructing 36 miles of surface pipelines, constructing 90
miles of buried pipelines, and constructing 33 miles of powerlines. In
all, approximately 2,909 acres would be disturbed under this
alternative. It is estimated that 410 acres would be subject to interim
reclamation.
3. Resource Protection (BLM-preferred)--Under this alternative, up
to 2,808 new gas wells would be drilled from 162 new well pads and 960
expanded well pads. This alternative also includes drilling 3 water
disposal wells, constructing 18 LGS facilities, constructing about 36
miles of new roads, constructing 23 miles of surface pipelines,
constructing 90 miles of buried pipelines, and constructing 33 miles of
powerlines. In all, approximately 2,547 acres would be disturbed under
this alternative. It is estimated that 333 acres would be subject to
interim reclamation.
4. Other Protections--Under this alternative, up to 2,808 new gas
wells would be drilled from 157 new well pads and 880 expanded well
pads. This alternative also includes drilling 3 water disposal wells,
constructing 18 LGS facilities, constructing about 35 miles of new
roads, constructing 102 miles of buried pipelines, and constructing 33
miles of powerlines. In all, approximately 2,629 acres would be
disturbed under this alternative. It is estimated that 435 acres would
be subject to interim reclamation.
5. Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Further Analysis--
Seven alternatives were considered, but eliminated from further
analysis. These include:
a. Use of Produced Water for Waterflood Projects: A possible
alternative would require that produced water be treated, sold, and
transported for use in oil field waterflood operations in adjacent
fields (the Chapita project itself is not an oil field waterflood
project). This alternative would require the construction of treatment
and transportation facilities, or the treated water would have to be
transported by truck. Either way, this alternative would result in
effects greater than the Proposed Action, so it was dismissed from
detailed analysis.
b. All Project Wells would be Connected to the LGS: A Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission-delineated jurisdictional boundary divides
the Chapita project area between power suppliers Moon Lake Electric and
Rocky Mountain Power. EOG has contracted with Rocky Mountain Power and
is obligated to use that power solely within Rocky Mountain Power's
jurisdiction boundary. Also, EOG's current Proposed Action connects as
many wells to the electrified LGS as is feasible based on available
power, so further expansion of the LGS would require the construction
and operation of large hydrocarbon-fueled compressor and generator
engines. Therefore, this alternative is technically and economically
unfeasible and would result in effects greater than the Proposed
Action, so it was dismissed from detailed analysis.
c. All Field Facilities would be Electrified: This alternative was
not carried forward for the same reasons as the previous alternative,
``All Project Wells would be Connected to the LGS.''
d. Field-Wide Electrification Using Solar Panel Generation: A solar
panel facility sufficient to generate the power needed to electrify the
Chapita project area (an estimated 40 megawatts), would cover about 200
acres. The cost would be an estimated $300 million. In addition, backup
power via gas-fired generators would be needed. Therefore, this
alternative is technically and economically unfeasible and would result
in effects greater than the Proposed Action, so it was dismissed from
detailed analysis.
e. New Roads Limited to a 14-foot running surface: Because of
vehicle safety concerns (safe passing width and road stability issues)
this alternative was dismissed from detailed analysis.
f. New Wellheads within the White River Viewshed would be Placed
Below Ground: Alternative D would preclude further surface disturbance
within the 100-year floodplain of the White River by prohibiting new
wells or well pads within 0.5 mile or line-of-sight of the White River.
This alternative is not analyzed in detail in this EIS because it is
sufficiently similar to the other protections.
g. Full Field Development: EOG's original proposal included
drilling up to 7,028 wells over a 15-year period. When the issue of
high concentrations of winter-time ground level ozone in the Uinta
Basin was recognized, EOG reduced its well count (among other
commitments) to reduce emission of pollutants, in particular ozone
precursors. This alternative would result in effects greater than the
Proposed Action. Accordingly, it was dismissed from detailed analysis.
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 are those that contain new technical or
scientific information, identify data gaps in the impact analysis, or
provide a technical or scientific rationale for opinions or
preferences.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or
other personal identifying information in your comments, please 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.
Edwin L. Roberson,
State Director.
[FR Doc. 2018-03771 Filed 3-8-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-DQ-P
