From: Subject: FR Doc 2010-17268 Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 09:46:42 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-17268.htm X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 =EF=BB=BF FR Doc 2010-17268 
[Federal Register: July 16, 2010 (Volume 75, Number =
136)]
[Notices]              =20
[Page 41514-41516]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16jy10-80]                        =20

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLUTG01100-09-L13100000-EJ0000]

=20
Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement=20
for the Greater Natural Buttes Area Gas Development Project, Uintah=20
County, UT

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the=20
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and associated=20
regulations, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Draft=20
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that evaluates, analyzes, and=20
discloses to the public direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental=20
impacts of a proposal to develop natural gas in Uintah County, Utah.=20
This notice announces a 45-day public comment period to meet the=20
requirements of the NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic=20
Preservation Act.

DATES: The Draft EIS will be available for public review for 45=20
calendar days following the date that the Environmental Protection=20
Agency publishes its Notice of Availability in the Federal Register.=20
The BLM can best use comments and resource information submitted within=20
this 45-day review period. A public meeting will be held during the 45-
day public comment period in Vernal, Utah. The date, time,

[[Page 41515]]

and place will be announced at least 15 days prior to the meeting date=20
through local news media and the BLM Web site http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=3Dl=
eavingFR.html&log=3Dlinklog&to=3Dhttp://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/info=
/newsroom.2.html.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the Draft EIS may be submitted by any of the=20
following methods:
     Mail: Bureau of Land Management, Attn: Stephanie Howard,=20
Vernal Field Office, 170 South 500 East, Vernal, Utah 84078.
     E-mail: UT_Vernal_Comments@blm.gov=
.
     Fax: (435) 781-4410.

    Please reference the Greater Natural Buttes EIS when submitting=20
your comments. Comments and information submitted on the Draft EIS for=20
the Greater Natural Buttes project, including names, e-mail addresses,=20
and street addresses of respondents will be available for public review=20
at the Vernal Field Office. The BLM will not accept anonymous comments.=20
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other=20
personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware=20
that your entire comment--including your personal identifying=20
information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can=20
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying=20
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be=20
able to do so.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Howard, Project Manager, BLM=20
Vernal Field Office, 170 South 500 East, Vernal, Utah, 84078;=20
telephone, 435-781-4400.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Draft EIS is located online at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi=
?from=3DleavingFR.html&log=3Dlinklog&to=3Dhttp://www.blm.gov/ut/s=
t/en/fo/vernal/planning/nepa_.html. In response to a=20
proposal submitted by Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP (KMG), a =
wholly-
owned subsidiary of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, the BLM published=20
in the October 5, 2007 Federal Register, a Notice of Intent (NOI) to=20
prepare an EIS. The Greater Natural Buttes Project Area (GNBPA)=20
encompasses approximately 162,911 acres in an existing gas producing=20
area located in Township 8 South, Ranges 20 through 23 East; Township 9=20
South, Ranges 20 through 24 East; Township 10 South, Ranges 20 through=20
23 East; and Township 11 South, Ranges 21 and 22 East (Salt Lake=20
Meridian) in Uintah County, Utah. The Draft EIS analyzes a proposal by=20
KMG to develop Federal natural gas resources on their leases. The=20
Proposed Action includes drilling up to 3,675 new gas wells and=20
constructing associated ancillary transportation, transmission, and=20
water disposal facilities within the GNBPA over a 10-year period. Of=20
the 162,911 acres within the GNBPA, approximately 54 percent is on=20
Federal lands administered by the BLM; 24 percent is on lands held in=20
trust for the Ute Tribe; 20 percent is owned by the State of Utah and=20
administered by the Utah State School and Institutional Trust Lands=20
Administration; and 2 percent is privately owned. The productive life=20
of each well is estimated to be approximately 30 to 50 years, with most=20
drilling and development activities to occur within the first 10 years=20
following approval of the BLM's Record of Decision.
    The new gas wells would be drilled as infill to productive=20
formations, including but not limited to, the Green River Formation,=20
Wasatch Formation, Mesaverde Group (including the Blackhawk Formation),=20
Mancos Shale, and Dakota Sandstone. Target depths would range from=20
approximately 2,000 to 16,000 feet. Infill drilling would be performed=20
on 40-acre and 20-acre surface spacing throughout the GNBPA, which is=20
equivalent to a density of 16 to 32 surface well pads per section (or=20
square mile). The Proposed Action and alternatives incorporate best=20
management practices for oil and gas development and other measures=20
necessary to address impacts to transportation, public safety, cultural=20
resources, recreational opportunities, wildlife, threatened and=20
endangered species, visual resources, air quality, wilderness=20
characteristics, and other relevant issues.
    The Draft EIS describes and analyzes the impacts of KMG's Proposed=20
Action and three alternatives, including the No Action Alternative.=20
Additional alternatives were considered but eliminated from detailed=20
analysis. The following is a summary of the alternatives:
    1. No Action Alternative--Drilling and completion of development=20
wells and infrastructure would continue as described in previously=20
approved NEPA decision documents and the proposed natural gas=20
development on BLM lands as described in the Proposed Action would not=20
be implemented. Activity under this alternative includes facilities=20
disclosed through other NEPA decision documents or approved by other=20
agencies but not yet constructed as of October 2007. Based on the=20
foregoing documents and a review of information from Utah Division of=20
Oil Gas and Mining, the BLM has estimated that, as of October 2007,=20
1,102 wells remain to be drilled in addition to the 1,562 existing=20
wells, producing or shut in, awaiting pipeline connection in the GNBPA.=20
In all, this would account for approximately 4,702 acres of new=20
disturbance, or 2.9 percent of the total GNBPA, including consideration=20
for construction of roads, pipelines, and additional support=20
facilities.
    2. Proposed Action--Up to 3,675 new gas wells would be drilled over=20
a period of 10 years. Additionally, approximately 760 miles of new=20
roads, 820 miles of buried pipelines, 587 miles of surface pipelines, 7=20
miles of electrical power lines, 2 mancamps, 2 compressor stations, and=20
water disposal facilities would be constructed to support this proposed=20
development. Total new surface disturbance under the Proposed Action=20
would be approximately 12,658 acres, or 7.8 percent of the total GNBPA.
    3. Resource Protection Alternative (Agency Preferred Alternative)--
Like the Proposed Action, this alternative would include up to 3,675=20
new wellbores in addition to the existing producing wells and approved/
permitted wells yet to be drilled in the GNBPA. However, this=20
alternative places a limit on the maximum number of new well pad=20
locations to 1 pad per 40 acres (maximum of 16 well pads per section)=20
by using directional drilling technology to drill multiple wells from a=20
single pad where technologically and economically feasible. The=20
drilling rate would be the same as described for the Proposed Action.=20
Approximately 594 miles of new roads, 654 miles of buried pipelines,=20
and 458 miles of surface pipelines would be constructed to support this=20
alternative. Disturbance associated with the construction of other=20
support facilities would be the same as those described for the=20
Proposed Action. The reduced number of well pads, miles of roads, and=20
miles of pipelines proposed under this alternative would limit impacts=20
associated with surface disturbance, particularly in sensitive areas,=20
including non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics and areas=20
identified as potential habitat for threatened and endangered species.=20
Total new surface disturbance under the Resource Protection Alternative=20
would be approximately 8,147 acres, or 5.0 percent of the total GNBPA.
    4. Optimal Recovery Alternative--This alternative is designed to=20
maximize recovery of the gas resources by increasing the number of=20
wellbores to achieve 10-acre surface and downhole spacing throughout=20
the GNBPA. Up to 13,446 new wellbores would be drilled in addition to=20
the existing producing wells and approved/permitted wells yet to be=20
drilled in the GNBPA. Additional wells would be drilled at an average=20
rate

[[Page 41516]]

of approximately 672 wells per year using 28 drilling rigs and would be=20
drilled over a period of approximately 20 years or until the resource=20
base is fully developed. The construction of additional new roads,=20
pipelines, and other support facilities would be similar to those=20
described in the Proposed Action, but in some cases more facilities=20
would be needed because of the higher number of wells and increased gas=20
volumes produced. Total new surface disturbance under the Optimal=20
Recovery Alternative would be approximately 42,620 acres, or 26 percent=20
of the total GNBPA.
    5. Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Further Analysis--
The BLM considered two alternatives to the proposed project that were=20
not carried forward for detailed analysis. These include a No Further=20
Development Alternative under which no further development would take=20
place in the GNBPA, and a Phased Development Alternative, which was=20
intended to rotate concentrated disturbance activities through smaller,=20
pre-defined areas (subareas), while the remainder of the GNBPA would be=20
less impacted than under the Proposed Action. Under this alternative,=20
oil and gas development activities would be restricted to one of=20
several subareas within the GNBPA boundary. One subarea at a time would=20
be opened to oil and gas construction and development activities for a=20
limited time period, after which construction and development=20
activities would cease. An indicator, such as successful interim=20
reclamation within a subarea, would be required prior to developing a=20
new subarea. Oil and gas extraction and processing would continue=20
(i.e., operational activities) in the subarea, while construction and=20
development activities would move to another subarea. An additional=20
intent is to encourage concurrent and efficient reclamation of surface=20
disturbance. The No Further Development Alternative was eliminated from=20
detailed analysis because ongoing oil and gas development continues on=20
valid leases within the GNBPA as disclosed under existing NEPA decision=20
documents, which are not being revisited under this EIS. The Phased=20
Development Alternative was eliminated from further analysis because:=20
(a) Phased development could not be imposed by the BLM on state,=20
tribal, or private lands within the GNBPA; (b) the BLM would still be=20
required to process reasonable access ROW applications for development=20
of private and state leases within the subareas not currently being=20
developed (BLM Manual, Part 2800.06 ``Policy'' [D]), allowing owners to=20
develop for the reasonable use and enjoyment non-Federal lands=20
surrounded by public lands managed under FLPMA; (c) phased development=20
could delay benefits to surface owners within the GNBPA (e.g., payments=20
to the Ute Tribe for surface disturbance activities); (d) phased=20
development would concentrate traffic and drilling activities to the=20
active subarea, but production and maintenance activities in the=20
existing field would continue regardless of subarea; (e) under phased=20
development, operators would be unable to return to subareas where=20
construction and development activity has ceased, which would prevent=20
redevelopment of a subarea in the event of a change in commodity price=20
or an improvement in drilling technology; and, (f) concentrated=20
development under a Phased Development Alternative would focus surface=20
disturbance impacts in individual grazing allotments, which could=20
result in rapid reduction in forage and a corresponding reduction in=20
animal unit months (AUMs).
    The public is encouraged to comment on any of these alternatives.=20
The BLM asks that those submitting comments make them as specific as=20
possible with reference to chapters, page numbers, and paragraphs in=20
the Draft EIS document. Comments that contain only opinions or=20
preferences will not receive a formal response; however, they will be=20
considered, and included, as part of the BLM decision-making process.=20
The most useful comments will contain new technical or scientific=20
information, identify data gaps in the impact analysis, or provide=20
technical or scientific rationale for opinions or preferences.

Selma Sierra,
State Director.
[FR Doc. 2010-17268 Filed 7-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-DQ-P