83 FR 10518 - Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Greater Chapita Wells Natural Gas Infill Project, Uintah County, Utah
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 47 (March 9, 2018)
Bureau of Land Management
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 47 (March 9, 2018)
| Page Range | 10518-10519 | |
| FR Document | 2018-03771 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 47 (Friday, March 9, 2018)] [Notices] [Pages 10518-10519] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [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: http://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 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
![10518 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 47 / Friday, March 9, 2018 / Notices
potential land use plan amendment, the written comments on the Greater acres, with approximately 1,000 acres
BLM will evaluate identified issues to Chapita Wells Draft EIS within 45 days under interim reclamation.
be addressed in the plan amendment, following the date the Environmental The Draft EIS analyzes a proposal by
and will place them into one of three Protection Agency publishes its NOA in EOG Resources Inc (EOG) to further
categories: the Federal Register. The BLM will develop natural gas resources on their
1. Issues to be resolved in the plan announce future meetings or hearings Federal leases in the project area. EOG’s
amendment; and any other public involvement proposal includes drilling up to 2,808
2. Issues to be resolved through policy activities at least 15 days in advance new wells and constructing associated
or administrative action; or through public notices, media releases, ancillary transportation, transmission,
3. Issues beyond the scope of this plan and/or mailings. and water disposal facilities within the
amendment. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments project area. The proposed life of the
The BLM will provide an explanation project is 55 years, with drilling and
related to the Greater Chapita Wells
in the Draft EIS/EIR as to why an issue development activities to occur within
project by any of the following methods:
was placed in category two or three. The the first 15 years. The new gas wells
• Website: http://go.usa.gov/csKAz.
public is also encouraged to help • Email: UT_Vernal_Comments@ would be drilled to the Green River,
identify any management questions and blm.gov. Wasatch, Mesaverde Group (including
concerns that should be addressed in • Fax: 435–781–4410. the Blackhawk), Mancos, and Dakota
the EIS/EIR and potential land use plan • Mail: Bureau of Land Management, formations at depths of 6,000 to 15,000
amendments. The BLM will work Vernal Field Office, 170 South 500 East, feet.
collaboratively with interested parties to Vernal, Utah 84078. The Draft EIS describes and analyzes
identify the management decisions that Copies of the Greater Chapita Wells in detail the impacts of the No Action
are best suited to local, regional, and Draft EIS are available in the Vernal Alternative, and three action
national needs and concerns. Field Office at the above address and alternatives, including EOG’s Proposed
The BLM will use an interdisciplinary website. Action. Seven additional alternatives
approach to develop the EIS and were considered, but eliminated from
potential land use plan amendments in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
detailed analysis. The alternatives
order to consider the variety of resource Stephanie Howard, Project Manager,
considered in detail include a
issues and concerns identified. 435–781–4400; BLM Vernal Field
landscape-scale mitigation plan that
Specialists with expertise in the Office, 170 South 500 East, Vernal, UT
incorporates applicant-committed
following disciplines will be involved 84078; showard@blm.gov. Persons who measures, design features (including
in the planning process: Air, minerals use a telecommunications device for the best management practices), and the
and geology, outdoor recreation, deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay mitigation hierarchy, including
archaeology, paleontology, wildlife and Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to compensatory mitigation as applicable
botany, lands and realty, hydrology, contact the above individual during to minimize or eliminate impacts to the
soils, sociology, and economics. normal business hours. FRS is available resources of concern. In particular, the
24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave Draft EIS action alternatives contain an
Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 43 CFR
1610.2. a message or question with the above applicant-committed ozone
individual. You will receive a reply management strategy designed to
Danielle Chi, during normal business hours. provide a reasonable assurance that
BLM California Deputy State Director. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BLM project implementation would not
[FR Doc. 2018–04691 Filed 3–8–18; 8:45 am] published in the September 9, 2009, contribute to the ongoing ozone
BILLING CODE 4310–40–P Federal Register a Notice of Intent to situation in the Uinta Basin. This
prepare an EIS (74 FR 46458). The strategy contains five approaches to
Greater Chapita EIS Project Area managing project emissions, including:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR encompasses approximately 43,109 Applicant-committed emission
acres located in Township 8 South, reduction measures; audio, visual,
Bureau of Land Management
Ranges 22 through 24 East; Township 9 olfactory and infrared monitoring; a
[17XL1109AF LLUTG01100 South, Ranges 22 and 23 East; and commitment to no-net increase of
L13100000.EJ0000] Township 10 South, Range 23 East, Salt volatile organic compound emissions to
Lake Base and Meridian, about 25 miles be tracked via an emissions balance
Notice of Availability of a Draft south of Vernal, Utah. Of the 43,109 sheet; ozone training for personnel; and
Environmental Impact Statement for acres within the project area, about 76 an ozone event action plan. The
the Greater Chapita Wells Natural Gas percent is Federal surface administered following is a summary of the main
Infill Project, Uintah County, Utah by the BLM; 15 percent is tribal trust components of the various alternatives:
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, surface; 5 percent is State of Utah 1. No Action Alternative—The
Interior. surface administered by the Utah Trust proposed natural gas development on
ACTION: Notice of availability. Lands Administration; and 4 percent is BLM lands and leases as described in
private surface. The entire project is the Proposed Action would not be
SUMMARY: In accordance with the within the exterior boundary of the implemented. However, under this
National Environmental Policy Act of Uintah and Ouray Reservation alternative, natural gas exploration and
1969, as amended, the Bureau of Land (Uncompahgre Indian Country). development is assumed to continue on
Management (BLM) has prepared a Draft Oil and gas drilling has been ongoing Federal, State, and private lands under
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with NOTICES
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) within the Chapita project area since previous authorizations. Up to 462 new
for the Greater Chapita Wells Natural 1952. As of March 2014, the project area gas wells would be drilled from 425
Gas Infill Project and by this notice is contained 1,247 active gas wells on 960 new well pads and 37 expanded well
announcing the opening of the comment well pads, approximately 257 miles of pads. This alternative also includes
period. roads, and approximately 268 miles of expansion of an existing compressor
DATES: To ensure comments will be pipelines. Total existing disturbance in station, construction of 18 liquids
considered, the BLM must receive the project area is approximately 3,975 gathering system (LGS) facilities,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:47 Mar 08, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_10565/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 47 / Friday, March 9, 2018 / Notices 10519
construction of about 93 miles of new water would have to be transported by reduced its well count (among other
roads, construction of 40 miles of truck. Either way, this alternative would commitments) to reduce emission of
surface pipelines, construction of 90 result in effects greater than the pollutants, in particular ozone
miles of buried pipelines, and Proposed Action, so it was dismissed precursors. This alternative would
construction of 33 miles of powerlines. from detailed analysis. result in effects greater than the
In all, approximately 2,685 acres would b. All Project Wells would be Proposed Action. Accordingly, it was
be disturbed under this alternative. It is Connected to the LGS: A Federal Energy dismissed from detailed analysis.
estimated that 1,272 acres would be Regulatory Commission-delineated The public is encouraged to comment
subject to interim reclamation. jurisdictional boundary divides the on any of these alternatives. The BLM
2. Proposed Action—Under this Chapita project area between power asks that those submitting comments
alternative, up to 2,808 new gas wells suppliers Moon Lake Electric and Rocky make them as specific as possible with
would be drilled from 233 new well Mountain Power. EOG has contracted reference to chapters, page numbers,
pads and 960 expanded well pads. This with Rocky Mountain Power and is and paragraphs in the Draft EIS
alternative also includes drilling 3 water obligated to use that power solely document. Comments that contain only
disposal wells, constructing 18 LGS within Rocky Mountain Power’s opinions or preferences will not receive
facilities, constructing about 49 miles of jurisdiction boundary. Also, EOG’s a formal response; however, they will be
new roads, constructing 36 miles of current Proposed Action connects as considered, and included, as part of the
surface pipelines, constructing 90 miles many wells to the electrified LGS as is BLM decision-making process. The most
of buried pipelines, and constructing 33 feasible based on available power, so useful comments are those that contain
miles of powerlines. In all, further expansion of the LGS would new technical or scientific information,
approximately 2,909 acres would be require the construction and operation identify data gaps in the impact
disturbed under this alternative. It is of large hydrocarbon-fueled compressor analysis, or provide a technical or
estimated that 410 acres would be and generator engines. Therefore, this scientific rationale for opinions or
subject to interim reclamation. alternative is technically and preferences.
3. Resource Protection (BLM- economically unfeasible and would Before including your address, phone
preferred)—Under this alternative, up to result in effects greater than the number, email address, or other
2,808 new gas wells would be drilled Proposed Action, so it was dismissed personal identifying information in your
from 162 new well pads and 960 from detailed analysis. comments, please be aware that your
expanded well pads. This alternative c. All Field Facilities would be entire comment, including your
also includes drilling 3 water disposal Electrified: This alternative was not personal identifying information, may
wells, constructing 18 LGS facilities, carried forward for the same reasons as be made publicly available at any time.
constructing about 36 miles of new the previous alternative, ‘‘All Project While you can ask us in your comment
roads, constructing 23 miles of surface Wells would be Connected to the LGS.’’ to withhold your personal identifying
pipelines, constructing 90 miles of d. Field-Wide Electrification Using information from public review, we
buried pipelines, and constructing 33 Solar Panel Generation: A solar panel cannot guarantee that we will be able to
miles of powerlines. In all, facility sufficient to generate the power do so.
approximately 2,547 acres would be needed to electrify the Chapita project
disturbed under this alternative. It is area (an estimated 40 megawatts), would Edwin L. Roberson,
estimated that 333 acres would be cover about 200 acres. The cost would State Director.
subject to interim reclamation. be an estimated $300 million. In [FR Doc. 2018–03771 Filed 3–8–18; 8:45 am]
4. Other Protections—Under this addition, backup power via gas-fired BILLING CODE 4310–DQ–P
alternative, up to 2,808 new gas wells generators would be needed. Therefore,
would be drilled from 157 new well this alternative is technically and
pads and 880 expanded well pads. This economically unfeasible and would DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
alternative also includes drilling 3 water result in effects greater than the
disposal wells, constructing 18 LGS Proposed Action, so it was dismissed Bureau of Land Management
facilities, constructing about 35 miles of from detailed analysis. [LLCAD01000 L12100000.MD0000
new roads, constructing 102 miles of e. New Roads Limited to a 14-foot 18XL1109AF]
buried pipelines, and constructing 33 running surface: Because of vehicle
miles of powerlines. In all, safety concerns (safe passing width and Meeting of the California Desert
approximately 2,629 acres would be road stability issues) this alternative was District Advisory Council
disturbed under this alternative. It is dismissed from detailed analysis.
estimated that 435 acres would be f. New Wellheads within the White AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management.
subject to interim reclamation. River Viewshed would be Placed Below ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
5. Alternatives Considered, but Ground: Alternative D would preclude
SUMMARY: In accordance with the
Eliminated from Further Analysis— further surface disturbance within the
Federal Land Policy and Management
Seven alternatives were considered, but 100-year floodplain of the White River
Act of 1976 and the Federal Advisory
eliminated from further analysis. These by prohibiting new wells or well pads
Committee Act of 1972, the U.S.
include: within 0.5 mile or line-of-sight of the
Department of the Interior, Bureau of
a. Use of Produced Water for White River. This alternative is not
Land Management (BLM) California
Waterflood Projects: A possible analyzed in detail in this EIS because it
Desert District Advisory Council (DAC)
alternative would require that produced is sufficiently similar to the other
will meet as indicated below.
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with NOTICES
water be treated, sold, and transported protections.
for use in oil field waterflood operations g. Full Field Development: EOG’s DATES: The BLM’s California DAC will
in adjacent fields (the Chapita project original proposal included drilling up to hold a public meeting on Tuesday,
itself is not an oil field waterflood 7,028 wells over a 15-year period. When March 20, 2018, from 12:00 p.m. to 5
project). This alternative would require the issue of high concentrations of p.m.
the construction of treatment and winter-time ground level ozone in the ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
transportation facilities, or the treated Uinta Basin was recognized, EOG the Hilton Garden Inn, Mirage Room,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:47 Mar 08, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_10565/page/2.svg)
Document Created: 2018-03-09 03:48:41
Document Modified: 2018-03-09 03:48:41
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice of availability. | |
| 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. | |
| 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. | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 10518 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR