Montana statewide draft oil and gas environmental impact statement and amendment of the Powder River and Billings resource management plans

540 Pages·2003·125 MB·English

by  United States. Bureau of Land Management. Miles City Field Office

BUM USAAAY
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Miles City Field Office
Billings Field Office
State of Montana
Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation
January. 2002
Montana Department of Environmental Quality
The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for the stewardship of
our public lands. It is committed to manage, protect, and improve these
lands in a manner to serve the needs of the American people for all times.
Management is based on the principles of multiple use and sustained
yield of our nation’s resources within a framework of environmental
responsibility and scientific technology. These resources include
recreation; rangelands; timber; minerals; watershed; fish and wildlife;
wilderness; air; and scenic, scientific, and cultural values.
BLM/MT/PL-02/003
T
S U.S. Department of the Interior
.
O
O Bureau of Land Management
'
C Miles City Field Office

111 Garryowen Road
Miles City, Montana 59301
January 17, 2002
b
V
A
A
- Dear Reader:
O
V
Enclosed for your review is the Montana Statewide Draft Oil and Gas Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and
Y
A Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource Management Plans (RMPs). The document was prepared
o jointly by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the State of Montana, Board of Oil and Gas Conservation
X
and the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The Bureau of Indian Affairs, Crow Tribe, Department of
Q Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency are designated Cooperators in the EIS.
\
_
_
In the document, the word “State” refers to the appropriate State of Montana agency(s). State agencies have different
jurisdictions, so the term “State” is used generically. For example, “State” can mean the Department of Natural
Resources and Conservation, or Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
We anticipate the Final EIS being available to the public in the Summer of 2002. Studies to gather resource infor¬
mation are ongoing and planned to continue for the next three years. Several studies will be finalized during the EIS
process.
• A 3D groundwater model of the Hanging Woman Area. The Draft EIS includes a 2D groundwater model for the
planning area. The 3D model will demonstrate how such modeling falls within the parameters of the 2D
Model.
• Air modeling for Montana is underway and will be available for the Final EIS.
• An Ethnographic Study to help determine areas or sites the tribes consider sacred was initiated in 2001 and will
be available for the Final EIS.
• The Northern Cheyenne and Crow tribes have been asked to provide BLM “Narrative Reports” that describe
their resources. If they agree and the information is available in the Spring of 2002, it will be incorporated into
the Final EIS.
Other studies, upon becoming available, will be used to monitor and maintain the decisions made in the document.
Ongoing studies not yet included in the EIS are:
• A Hyperspectral Assessment to determine potential for natural gas will be available the Fall of 2002.
• A Fluvial Geomorphology Study to help determine impacts to stream channels from water erosion will be
available the Fall of 2002.
• A Soils Study being conducted with the BLM Wyoming office will be available the Spring of 2003.
• A Wetland Filtration Study being done by the Montana State University, Bozeman, is anticipated to be com¬
pleted in the year 2004.
• And finally, a Flora/Fauna Study will begin this year with no schedule as of this writing.
BLM Library
Denver Federal Center
ITEM HAS BEEN DIGITIZED Bldg. 50, OC-521
P.O. Box 25047
Denver, CO 80225
2
The Draft was prepared by developing alternative management strategies to help resolve issues identified during
Scoping. The EIS analyzes the environmental consequences of five alternatives, including the BLM/State Preferred
Alterative (Alternative E).
The Summary found in front of the document briefly describes the issues and alternatives found later in detail.
Chapter 1 contains the legal authority mandating the writing of this document, the purpose and need for the analysis
and its application. The planning area is defined, a general location map provided, lands not analyzed are described,
and the plan’s conformance to the BLM RMPs is discussed. There is a brief discussion on concerns raised during
scoping. The “Planning Criteria” that helped guide the preparation of the Draft are provided in Chapter 1.
Chapter 2 discusses the five alternatives and the rationale for alternatives considered but not analyzed in detail.
Management Common to All Alternatives is discussed first, then the management actions specific to each alternative
are given. Table 2-2 in Chapter 2 compares the five alternative specific management actions.
Chapter 3 describes the existing environment. Each resource or topic is listed alphabetically.
Chapter 4 analyzes the impacts predicted to occur from each of the alternatives described in Chapter 2. The chapter
includes Assumptions for the Analysis. Assumptions are predictions made by specialists based on their knowledge,
education and experience. The Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario makes predictions for development,
including for areas outside the planning area, so that cumulative impacts may be analyzed. For example, although
the Indian Reservations are not part of the planning area, the number of wells that could possibly occur there are
analyzed as part of the cumulative analysis. Chapter 4 describes the impacts from management common to all
alternatives and impacts from each alternative by resource. The conclusion describes cumulative impacts, unavoid¬
able adverse impacts, irreversible or irretrievable impacts, and short-term impacts vs long-term productivity. A
comparative Summary of Impacts table is included at the end of Chapter 4.
The Draft EIS does not set water quality standards. The Montana DEQ held public meetings in December to begin
the process of setting standards. If standards are set in a timely manner, they will be incorporated into the Final EIS.
Chapter 5 contains a listing of the personnel involved in preparing the document, and the public who participated
through scoping meetings and letters.
The appendixes are in alphabetical order by resource. They contain material too detailed and analytical for the
general discussion in the chapters. The appendixes were used to help develop the analysis described in the body of
the document. The Monitoring Appendix gives general oil and gas monitoring guidance for resources or programs.
More specific guidance, for example, a more detailed monitoring plan for wildlife, will be included in the Final EIS.
The Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Technical Advisory Committee also included a
draft monitoring plan that can be found at the end of the Monitoring Appendix.
The Glossary is a list of definitions of technical terms used in the document; the Bibliography cites the references in
the document; and the Index is a listing of words and topics and their location within the Draft EIS.
You are encouraged to comment on the entire document. A 90-day comment period will begin the day the Draft
document is filed by EPA in the Federal Register (anticipated February 15, 2001). Written comments will be
accepted and responded to in the Final EIS if received within the 90-day comment period. Please direct your
comments to one of the following and the comment will be shared with the other parties.
3
Tom Richmond
Project Leader, Board of Oil and Gas Conservation
2535 St. Johns Avenue
Billings, Montana 59102
Greg Hallsten
Project Leader, Department of Environmental Quality
P. O. Box 200901
Helena, Montana 59620-0901
Mary Bloom
Project Leader, Bureau of Land Management
111 Garrvowen Road
■S
Miles City, Montana 59301
The public hearings to answer questions and gather comments concerning this document will be held at the follow¬
ing locations:
Helena Billings
Crow Agency Lame Deer
Broadus
The comments received on the Draft will be given equal consideration in the preparation of the Final EIS and
Proposed RMP Amendment (Final). In the Final, you will be able to evaluate the Agencies’ responses to comments
regarding the Draft EIS. The State will hold a public hearing to discuss the State’s proposed decisions in the Final.
A 30-day protest period will be held for the BLM proposed decisions in the Final.
Sincerely,
Jan P. Sensibaugh
Montana Department of Environmental Quality
Tom Richmond
Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation
Aden L. Seidlitz
Bureau of Land Management
DRAFT
STATEWIDE OIL & GAS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
AND
AMENDMENT OF THE POWDER RIVER AND BILLINGS
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS
U.S. Department of the Interior
and
State of Montana
2002
/nh
2
Recommended by:
-
Sandra S. Brooks, Billings Field Manager Date
Recommended by:
David Mcllnay, Miles City Field Manager Date
(/so/c&-
Recommended by:
Jan R Sensibaugh, Director, MT DE1 'Date
Mat Millenbach, State Director, Montana BLM Date
|lO<6%0?/^0<? MG
M3
.rv\\
Statewide Oil and Gas Environmental Impact Statement cry-
and Amendment of the Powder River
and Billings Resources Management Plans
Lead Agencies: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; and the State of Montana: Board of
Oil and Gas Conservation and Department of Environmental Quality.
Type of Action: Administrative
Jurisdiction: State: Statewide.
BLM: Powder River RMP Area—Powder River, Carter, and Treasure counties and portions of Big Horn, Custer and
Rosebud counties. Billings RMP Area—Carbon, Golden Valley, Musselshell, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Wheatland,
and Yellowstone counties and the remaining portion of Big Horn County.
Abstract: This document addresses alternatives for managing federal and state oil and gas administered by the
Miles City and Billings Field Offices, Bureau of Land Management, and the State of Montana. The BLM planning
area comprises approximately 1,506,011 acres of federally managed surface and 5,009,784 acres of federal mineral
estate.
Five alternatives have been developed to evaluate the impacts related to the various development scenarios
associated with CBM exploration and production. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would continue existing
management. Alternative B would allow CBM development while emphasizing the resource protection.
Alternative C would emphasize CBM development with minimal environmental restrictions. Alternative D would
encourage CBM exploration and development while maintaining existing land uses. Alternative E is the Preferred
Alternative and would allow for CBM exploration and development while minimizing the impacts to environmental
resources.
The five alternative plans presented in Chapter 2 focus on allocating resource uses and prescribing general
management actions. The impacts expected from implementing each of the alternatives are analyzed in Chapter 4.
When this document is published in final form, it will provide a comprehensive framework for managing oil and gas
resources on public lands in the Powder River and Billings RMP areas of the Miles City and Billings Field Offices
and state-administered land in Montana. Further information regarding this draft environmental impact statement
and resource management plan amendment can be obtained from the address below. Comments will be accepted for
90 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of filing of this draft in the
Federal Register. Comments received by that date will be considered in the final environmental impact statement
and resource management plan amendment. When commenting, please type or print your name and complete
mailing address and send to:
Mary Bloom, Team Leader
Bureau of Land Management
Miles City Field Office
111 Garryowen Road
Miles City, MT 59301
Telephone: [phone]
ITEM HAS BEEN DIGITIZED
ABS-l

SUMMARY
SUMMARY
Introduction identification of cultural areas where CBM
development may be incompatible were identified as
major planning issues.
Background
Geology and Minerals
This proposed amendment of the resource
management plans and environmental impact Planning issues associated with geology and minerals
statement addresses future exploration for and include effects on the coal resource and the ability to
development of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) recover it, drainage of adjacent methane resources,
and State of Montana (state) managed coal bed and the effect of water production on methane
methane gas (CBM) resources and conventional oil recovery.
and gas. When completed, this document will provide
Hazardous Materials and Waste
a comprehensive framework for management of the
CBM resource.
Management
The planning area encompassed by this document
includes the oil and gas estate administered by the Use and potential misuse of hazardous materials as
BLM within the Powder River and Billings Resource part of CBM development was the only planning
Management Plan (RMP) Areas, and for the state, it issue identified for this category.
is statewide with emphasis on the state-administered
Groundwater
oil and gas within the BLM planning area and in
Blaine, Park, and Gallatin counties. The planning
area excludes those lands administered by other Issues associated with groundwater include the
federal agencies, such as Forest Service and Park quality of produced water and its beneficial uses,
Service, and the Crow, Northern Cheyenne, and other potential impacts to domestic water wells from
Indian lands. This 16-county area, referred to as the groundwater drawdown by CBM wells, natural
“CBM emphasis area,” is the area of CBM springs drying up, water rights, groundwater
development interest. recharge, and opportunities to inject produced water.
Planning Issues Surface Water
High sodium adsorption ratio and flow rate effects,
A variety of planning issues were identified through a
water quality, and aquatic resource organisms and
process involving input from the public, other
habitat were planning issues associated with surface
agencies, and BLM personnel. A brief synopsis of
water resources.
each major planning issue category is presented in
this summary, but refer to Chapter 1 of this document
Indian Trust Resources and Native
for a complete listing of all the planning issues within
each major planning issue category. American Concerns
Air Quality
Native American planning issues included effects of
discharged water to Indian resources and land uses,
Planning issues for air quality revolve around the traditional values, protection of Indian trust assets,
variety of emissions emanating from CBM activities water quality, Class I area, impacts on culturally
and their effects on the natural and human important sites, increased use of Reservation
environments. Of particular interest is the effect on resources, socio-economic impacts, and tribal
the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation’s Class I members.
airshed.
Lands and Realty
Cultural Resources
Construction effects and infrastructure needs and
Disturbance of cultural resource sites, effects on the distribution to current land uses were identified as
eligibility of cultural resource sites for placement on planning issues.
the National Register of Historical Places, and
SUM-1
SUMMARY
Wilderness Study Areas
Livestock Grazing
Effects on wilderness study areas was the only
Livestock grazing and ranching impacts from high
planning issue associated with wilderness.
salinity water and from increased water quantities,
grazing land displacement, and vegetation changes to
Wildlife
non-palatable plants were planning issue concerns.
Paleontological Resources Fragmentation of habitat, impacts on habitat, effects
of water availability, quality, and quantity, vehicle
Planning issues are impacts to paleontological hazards, and migration interruption are wildlife
localities, vandalism, and unauthorized collecting. planning issues.
Recreation Management Actions
Effects on recreational activities and huntable This document presents management common to all
wildlife were identified issues. alternatives, existing management, and management
actions specific to each alternative. For a complete
Social and Economic Values understanding of management actions that would be
implemented under a specific alternative, existing
Noise, depressed land values, real estate price management and management common to all
escalation, agricultural job loss, social services alternatives must be considered in conjunction with
impacts, tax and other revenue, local economy each alternative.
effects, and agricultural productivity are a few of the
many socio-economic planning issues. Alternatives
Environmental Justice Alternatives are fully described in Chapter 2 of this
document.
Distributive justice, and the Northern Cheyenne’s
Alternative A, the “no action” alternative, would
reliance on operator lease fees, were listed as
continue existing management direction. Only CBM
planning issues.
exploration and development authorized under
Soils existing BLM and state management directives
would be implemented.
Soil planning issues include high sodium effects,
Alternative B, which emphasizes protection of soil,
erosion from water discharge, irrigated soil impacts,
water, air, vegetation, wildlife, and cultural resources,
and land subsidence.
allows for CBM development with special protection
of resources.
Vegetation
Alternative C places management emphasis on full
High sodium water effects on salt intolerant plants,
development of the CBM resource. It is less
vegetation community changes, exotic plant and
protective of natural resources, but still provides for a
noxious weed infestations, loss of plant productivity,
minimum level of resource protection to avoid loss or
grassland protection, and agricultural land
degradation of those resources.
withdrawal are vegetation planning issues.
Alternative D encourages CBM exploration and
Special Status Species
development while maintaining existing land uses.
Protection of downstream water consumers is also
Planning issues are loss of threatened and endangered emphasized.
species and mitigation/avoidance measures to protect
Alternative E is the Preferred Alternative, which
these species.
combines features of Alternatives B through D. It
Visual Resource Management manages development of CBM in an environmentally
sound manner.
Visual degradation and visual pollution are the
planning issues associated with visual resources.
SUM-2