[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: http://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