United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Environmental Assessment
for the Oak Mesa Coal Exploration License
Uncompahgre Field Office
2465 South Townsend Avenue
Montrose, CO 81401

DOI-BLM-CO-S050-2011-0036-EA
COC74911

April 2012

 Table of Contents
BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 2
Figure 1. Project Location.............................................................................................................. 3
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ACTION ................................................................................ 4
ISSUES AND CONCERNS: .......................................................................................................... 4
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES .......................................... 4
Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................ 4
Schedule and Timing ................................................................................................................ 5
Access ......................................................................................................................................... 5
Staging and Storage .................................................................................................................. 8
Site Clearing .............................................................................................................................. 8
Drilling Activities ...................................................................................................................... 8
Equipment and Personnel ...................................................................................................... 13
Storm Water Control .............................................................................................................. 13
Site Maintenance ..................................................................................................................... 14
Reclamation ............................................................................................................................. 14
Noxious Weed Management................................................................................................... 16
Coordination............................................................................................................................ 17
Design Features ....................................................................................................................... 17
No Action Alternative ............................................................................................................. 18
Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Analysis ..................................... 18
SCOPING AND ISSUES ............................................................................................................. 18
Other Related NEPA Documents .......................................................................................... 25
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES and MITIGATION
MEASURES ................................................................................................................................. 26
AIR QUALITY........................................................................................................................ 28
Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 28
Environmental Consequences/Mitigation: ............................................................................ 28
AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN ............................................... 29
WILDERNESS and LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS .................. 29
WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ............................................................................................. 30
CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................... 30
Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 30
Environmental Consequences/Mitigation: ............................................................................ 30
NATIVE AMERICAN RELIGIOUS CONCERNS ............................................................ 31
FARMLANDS, PRIME AND UNIQUE ............................................................................... 31
Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 31
Environmental Consequences/Mitigation ............................................................................. 32
SOILS (includes a finding on Standard 1) ............................................................................ 32
Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 32
Environmental Consequences/Mitigation: ............................................................................ 35
VEGETATION (includes a finding on Standard 3) ............................................................ 36
Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 36
Environmental Consequences/Mitigation ............................................................................. 45

 INVASIVE, NON-NATIVE SPECIES (includes a finding on Standard 3) ...................... 47
Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 47
Environmental Consequences/Mitigation ............................................................................. 47
THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES (includes a finding on
Standard 4) .............................................................................................................................. 48
Affected Environment:.......................................................................................................... 48
Environmental Consequences/Mitigation ............................................................................. 53
BIRDS (Birds of Conservation Concern of the UFO, Migratory, and Raptors) .............. 56
Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 56
Environmental Consequences/Mitigation ............................................................................. 60
WILDLIFE, TERRESTRIAL (includes a finding on Standard 3) .................................... 61
Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 61
Environmental Consequences/Mitigation ............................................................................. 62
WILDLIFE, AQUATIC (includes a finding on Standard 3) .............................................. 64
Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 64
Environmental Consequences/Mitigation ............................................................................. 64
WETLANDS & RIPARIAN ZONES (includes a finding on Standard 2) ......................... 65
Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 65
Environmental Consequences/Mitigation: ............................................................................ 66
FLOODPLAINS ...................................................................................................................... 67
Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 67
Environmental Consequences/Mitigation: ............................................................................ 67
SURFACE WATER QUANTITY ......................................................................................... 68
Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 68
Environmental Consequences/Mitigation ............................................................................. 68
SURFACE WATER QUALITY (includes a finding on Standard 5) ................................. 69
Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 69
Environmental Consequences/Mitigation ............................................................................. 71
GROUND WATER QUANTITY .......................................................................................... 74
Geologic Framework ............................................................................................................ 74
Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 74
Environmental Consequences/Mitigation ............................................................................. 75
GROUND WATER QUALITY (includes a finding on Standard 5) .................................. 75
Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 75
Environmental Consequences/Mitigation ............................................................................. 76
WASTES, HAZARDOUS OR SOLID .................................................................................. 77
Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 77
Environmental Consequences/Mitigation ............................................................................. 77
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ............................................................................................ 78
Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 78
Environmental Consequences/Mitigation ............................................................................. 78
ACCESS AND TRANSPORTATION .................................................................................. 79
Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 79
Environmental Consequences/Mitigation ............................................................................. 80
REALTY AUTHORIZATIONS ............................................................................................ 81
Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 81
Environmental Consequences/Mitigation ............................................................................. 81
ii

 RANGELAND MANAGEMENT.......................................................................................... 81
Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 81
Environmental Consequences/Mitigation ............................................................................. 82
FIRE 82
Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 82
Environmental Consequences/Mitigation ............................................................................. 83
WATER SUPPLY/WATER RIGHTS .................................................................................. 83
Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 83
Environmental Consequences/Mitigation ............................................................................. 84
NOISE ...................................................................................................................................... 84
Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 84
Environmental Consequences/Mitigation ............................................................................. 85
RECREATION ....................................................................................................................... 85
Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 85
Environmental Consequences/Mitigation ............................................................................. 86
VISUAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................... 86
Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 86
Environmental Consequences/Mitigation ............................................................................. 86
GEOLOGY AND MINERALS .............................................................................................. 87
Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 87
Environmental Consequences/Mitigation ............................................................................. 88
SOCIO-ECONOMICS ........................................................................................................... 88
Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 88
Environmental Consequences/Mitigation ............................................................................. 89
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS SUMMARY .................................................................................... 90
Cumulative Impacts/Effects ................................................................................................... 90
Past Actions ............................................................................................................................. 90
Present Actions ........................................................................................................................ 88
Mining 88
Oil and Gas Leasing .............................................................................................................. 88
Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ............................................................................... 89
LIST OF PREPARERS................................................................................................................. 91
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 93
Appendix A. MSDS for Foamer/DeFoamer ................................................................................ 97
Appendix B. Noxious Weed Management Plan .......................................................................... 98
Appendix C. Mitigations for Coal Exploration License COC-74911.......................................... 99

iii

 U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Uncompahgre Field Office
2465 South Townsend Avenue
Montrose, CO 81401

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NUMBER: DOI-BLM-CO-S050-2011-0036
CASEFILE/PROJECT NUMBER: COC74911
PROJECT NAME: Oak Mesa Coal Exploration License
PLANNING UNIT: Planning Unit 1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Township 13 South, Range 92 West, 6th P.M.
Sec 7, Lots 13-20
Sec 8, S/2
Sec 9, S/2
Sec 15, Lots 13, 18, 19, and 22
Sec 16, All
Sec 17, All
Sec 18, All
Sec 19, All
Sec 20, All
Sec 21, All
Sec 22, Lots 4, 5, 12, and 13
Sec 28, Lots 2-7
Sec 29, All
Sec 30, Lots 5-18

APPLICANT:
Oxbow Mining, LLC
P.O. Box 535
3737 Highway 133
Somerset, CO 81434

1

Township 13 South, Range 93 West, 6th P.M.
Sec 9, Lots 9-16
Sec 10, Lots 9-16
Sec 11, Lots 9-16
Sec 12, Lots 9-16
Sec 13, All
Sec 14, All
Sec 15, Lots 1-10, 14-15
Sec 16, Lots 1-4
Sec 23, Lots 1-15
Sec 24, All
Sec 25, All
Sec 26, Lots 1-15
Sec 35, All
Sec 36, Lots 1-8, 11-14

 The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Uncompahgre Field Office (UFO) currently
manages several active federal coal leases related to three coal mines located in the valley of the
North Fork of the Gunnison River near Paonia, Colorado. Bowie No. 2, West Elk, and Elk
Creek are actively producing longwall coal mines, with a total annual output of nearly 15 million
tons. While each mining operation controls coal reserves with a mix of federal and fee and/or
state coal, about 90% of local production is federal (BLM 2011a). The UFO manages active
federal coal leases for the three mines in the North Fork Valley. Table 1 below shows mining
companies, mines, and typical yearly coal production for each mine.
Table 1. BLM UFO Coal Resources

Company Name

Mine Name

5 year Average Coal Production (tons)
(2006 – 2011)*

Bowie Resources,
LLC

Bowie No. 2

2,808,556

Mountain Coal
Company

West Elk

5,721,944

Oxbow Mining, LLC

Elk Creek

4,378,814

Total

12,909,314

*Periods end September 30, 2011
(BLM 2011b)

Coal exploration drilling is needed to determine seam reserve availability for possible
development of a new underground coal mine in Delta County. The proposed Oak Mesa
exploration area is located in Delta County to the west of the Orchard Valley Mine, a.k.a. the
Bowie No. 1 Mine (see Figure 1). The exploration drilling is proposed to confirm the quality,
quantity, and extent of the coal within this area. The proposed Oak Mesa project extends from
the western edge of the Bowie Mine holdings westward across the mesa to the Leroux Creek
area, encompassing about 13,873 acres, north of Hotchkiss. The area does not reach into the
Grand Mesa National Forest. The Oak Mesa Project is adjacent to existing coal leases in an area
of known coal reserves (see Figure 1).
The North Fork Valley is a historical coal mining area. More than 744 million recoverable
tons of coal is present in the North Fork Valley according to a 2000 USGS report (USGS 2000).
The project area has mixed public and private surface and mineral ownership, a situation called
“split estate”. Most of the project area is in private surface ownership, with BLM-held mineral
(subsurface) ownership. In split estate situations, the surface and subsurface rights (such as the
right to develop minerals) for a piece of land are owned by different parties. Separation of
mineral and surface ownership rights is a result of some of the early homesteading laws
including the Stock Raising Homestead Act (Act of December 29, 1916 (39 Stat. 862)), in which
homesteaders were granted the surface rights and the federal government retained the mineral
rights. Mineral rights are considered dominant, meaning that they take precedence over other
property rights, including those associated with surface ownership. However, the mineral owner
must show due regard for the interests of the surface estate owner, and occupy only those
portions of the surface that are reasonably necessary to develop the mineral estate (BLM 2011a).
2

 r ou x

Le

ek

re

k
m Cre e

Te
r

k

D

C
ry

ha

r
Fo
st

st
Ea

in
g

n

We

C

k

n
Cu

e

Overland Ditch
re

r or

C re ek

We s

t Fo

rk Terr or

Cr

ee

k

k

O v erla n d D i tch
Cr e

e

ca
at

ek

p

ak

C

re

ek

70
1

Rd

ns

ve

Di

Rd

FS

Ro
tc

at

ta

in

pC
re

ek

PAONIA

¾
Z
Y
X
W

ch

ar

No

o
Z
Y
X
W

ca

l
na
it

ou n

F

F

M
ire

Ca

D

Leroux Creek

3100 Rd

Ro

J ay Cr
ee

k

h

sa

W

re

St e

st

e
Oak M

ver C

ld
ie
ef

De

Gu

East Roatcap Creek

We

West
Reservoir

lc

h

C ow

m

s
er

r th

F

k
or

n
Gu

on
n is

Ri

ve

r

Location

HOTCHKISS

CO L OR A D O

Oak Mesa Exploration Project
Exploration Boundary

Stream/Lake

Highway/Road

Figure 1
Project Location

Active Coal Lease
Pending Coal Lease
Bowi #1 Mine
Data Source: CDOT

0

1

2
Miles

±

Portions of this document include intellectual property of ESRI and its licensors and are used herein under license. Copyright © 2011 ESRI and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Prepared for: Oxbow Mining, LLC.
File: 5057 - Figure 1 EA.mxd (WH)
April 2012

 On May 6, 2011, pursuant to regulations in 43 CFR 3410.2-1, Oxbow Mining, LLC (Oxbow)
submitted a Federal Coal Exploration License application to the Colorado State Director of the
BLM. The BLM is charged with administration of the mineral estate on these Federal lands, and
is required, by law, to consider leasing Federally-owned minerals for economic recovery.
The BLM’s purpose for the action is to decide whether, and under which provisions, to
approve the application for exploration drilling of about 13,873 acres of federal coal that
underlies BLM and private surface lands, or to reject the proposal. The objective of exploring
coal deposits is to obtain geological, environmental, and other pertinent data concerning coal
deposits (43 CFR 3410.0-2). The need for the action is to respond to an application to explore
the coal deposits in accordance with 43 CFR Part 3400.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Surface Water Quality and Quantity
Ground Water Quality and Quantity
Water Supply/Water Rights
Traffic
Air Quality
Wildlife Impacts
Socio-economic Effects (beneficial and detrimental)

Proposed Action
Oxbow proposes to drill 43 exploration drill holes (see Figure 2) on private and federal lands
into federal subsurface holdings. The drill holes would be completed from small (1/2 acre) drill
pads, and would be drilled to a depth of 220 to 2,249 feet, depending on the location of each drill
hole (see Table 3). The entire exploration area covers about 13,873 acres, and mostly temporary
surface disturbances from road and pad construction would occur on about 32.9 acres. Most
drilling locations would not require grading/leveling a pad site; however, occupancy disturbance
is anticipated for all pads. Therefore, disturbance from pad creation and occupation is expected
to be about 21.5 acres. Of the 43 proposed drill holes, 10 would require construction of a pad to
create level ground for drilling (about 5.0 acres). Occupation (no grading) would occur on all the
remaining drill pads (about 16.5 acres) (see Table 3). Activities needed to complete the
exploration project include access roads, staging and storage areas, limited clearing and leveling
of areas for drilling equipment (for only 10 of the drill holes), completing exploratory drill holes,
site maintenance, and reclamation activities. Existing access roads would be used wherever
possible. New disturbance from temporary road construction is anticipated to be 2.5 acres on
BLM and 8.8 acres on private surface for a total of 11.3 acres (see Table 2). Wherever possible,
existing ground surface would be used for drilling sites, and construction activities would be
limited to clearing and removal of large boulders. Prior to construction, the limits of
construction disturbance areas along the access road routes and pad locations would be clearly
defined. These limits would be staked and flagged. All construction activities would be
4

 confined to these areas. Stakes and flagging would be removed when construction and
restoration are completed.
See Appendix B and C for further mitigation related to the proposed action.
Schedule and Timing
Exploration activities could expect to begin with issuance of the license and would be
completed within two years after authorization. Road construction and any pad leveling required
would occur in advance of drilling activities. Roads would be constructed about 1 to 2 days prior
to drilling at each site.
Drilling work in the exploration area would be completed with one or two drill rigs (typically
two). Each rig would have two crews working 24 hours per day, on 10 or 12-hour shifts.
Drilling would take approximately two to three days per pad. The sections that follow provide
more details about each part of the exploration project (also see Figure 2).
Access
There are many existing ranch access roads throughout the project area. Some roads may
require maintenance such as grading, drainage ditch repair, and graveling. Where there are no
existing roads and slopes and natural obstacles do not allow cross-country driving/travel, new
temporary roads would be constructed. New roads would have a driving surface about 12 feet
wide, and a total disturbance width of about 14 feet. Specifically, the following design features
would apply to new access roads:
Existing access roads would be used wherever possible to reach the drilling locations.
New roads and other linear facilities would be located and constructed to follow the
contour of the landform or to mimic lines in the vegetation (avoiding straight roads and
steep slopes).
Road beds would be a maximum of 14 feet wide.
Cutting and filling, and crowning and ditching, of temporary roads would be kept to the
minimum necessary.

5

 Table 2. Access Roads Length and Temporary surface disturbance and occupation.

Type of access
Drive-in access on
existing roads (as-is)
Drive-in access on
existing roads/2tracks to be
improved
Subtotal

BLM surface
BLM surface
(length in miles) (acres)
Surface occupation

Private surface
(length in miles)

5.5

24.7

Private
surface (acres)

0.4

0.7*

1

1.7*

5.9

0.7*

25.7

1.7*

Surface disturbance
New temporary
access roads
1.5
2.5
5.2
8.8
Subtotal
1.5
2.5
5.2
8.8
Total
7.4
3.2*
30.9
10.5*
Columns may not sum correctly due to minor rounding errors.
*Surface occupation calculations are based on a maximum width of 14 feet. There would be
minimal new disturbance on existing roads to be used or improved for project purposes.
Existing roads have varying widths of existing disturbance. Acres shown for existing roads in
Table 2 represent occupied area.

6

 i

i
!

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

re
i
xiC
r ou
e
L
i
ei
Cr
w
Co

i

i
i
i
OM-YR-10
i

i

i

i

i

i

i

ek
i

i

i

le d

ec k

i

i

i

i

i

i

!
i

OM-YR-09

i

i

i

i

i
i

i
i

i
!

i

i

i

i

!i

i

i

OM-YR-20
i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i
i
i
OM-YR-14

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i
i

i t ch
D
i
er i

i

OM-YR-42
i

i

!
i

i

OM-YR-08
!i
i
i
i
i
i
i
OM-YR-37
OM-YR-38

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

OM-YR-25

i

i

i

i
i

i
i
i

i
i
i
i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i
i

i

i

i

i

i

i
i

i

i

i

i

i

i

D ev e

i

!

i

i

ek
C re
i

i

i

i

i

i

i!

i

i

i
i

OM-YR-02
i
i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i
!
i

i

i

i

i

i

OM-YR-31

i

i
i

!
i

!

OM-YR-13
i
i

i

i

i

i

i OM-YR-24
i
i
!

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

!
i

i

i

i

!
i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i
i

i
i

i
i

i
i

Ro
a

i

i

i

i

i
i
i
i
OM-YR-23R
!

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i
!

i

i

i

OM-YR-05

i

i

i

i

i
i

i

i

i

i

i

!
i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i!

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

!
i

i

i

i

!

i

i

i

i
i
i
OM-YR-03R
i

i

OM-YR-04R
i
i
i

i

i

i

i

i

i

!
i

i

i
i
OM-YR-33

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

OM-YR-17

i

i
i

i

i

Drill Hole Location

Subsurface Mineral Right
i

i

i

i

i

i

!
i

i
i
OM-YR-39

i

i
i

i
i

OM-YR-21R

!i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

!i

OM-YR-22

i

i

i

i
i

OM-YR-29
i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i
i

i!

i

i

i

OM-YR-12
i
i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i !

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i OM-YR-28
i
i
!

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i
!

ef

i

i

i

i

ak

i

OM-YR-06
i

i

OM-YR-11R

OM-YR-34
i
i
i
i

i
!
i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

!
i

i

i

i

i

!

i el

i

i

i

i

i

i

i
p Ci
r e ek

i

i

i W i

es

tR

i

i

i

i

di

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

oa

ti
ca

OM-YR-27
i

i

i

i

i

OM-YR-07R
i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i
i

i
i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

Figure 2
Proposed Action

Stream/Lake

Private

Federal Minerals Including Coal

Highway/Road

Private Minerals

2-Track Road

Exploration Boundary

New Road

0

2,500

5,000
feet

i

i

OM-YR-19

Bureau of Land Management

i

OM-YR-15R

!
i

i

i

i

i

OM-YR-44

Oak Mesa Exploration Project
!

i

OM-YR-41

h
tc
Di

i

i

i

ee k

i

i

i

i

OM-YR-26

Cr

i

i

i

i

OM-YR-40

OM-YR-30

J ay

i

i

i

M
es
a

i

i

O
ak

i

i

i

W

i

i

Road

i

3100

i

!

!

OM-YR-35

i!

i ! i

OM-YR-16

!
!

West
i
i
Reservoir

i

OM-YR-36
i
i

i

i

r

i

OM-YR-32 !

d

i

i

!
i

!

!

!

i

OM-YR-43
i
i OM-YR-18
i
i

East Roatcap Creek

i

i

i

±

Prepared for: Oxbow Mining, LLC.
File: 5057 - Figure 2 EA.mxd (WH)
March 2012

i

Cr e e
k

i

i

i

R oatc ap

i

i

i

in d

i

D ry C
r eek

i

i

Sh

i

ek

i

i
i
i

 Staging and Storage
The 7X/Bear Ranch LEX property would serve as a casting and laydown area. Other
storage, including equipment and supply storage, would occur along new temporary access roads
or at drill locations within the designated areas. All storage would occur away from public
access areas.
Site Clearing
Clearing and grading would be needed for new access roads and nine of the pad locations.
Where possible, areas of existing disturbance would be used. All of the pad sites would require
clearing of brush and removal of boulders and large rocks. Of the 43 drilling locations, ten are
anticipated to require grading to establish a level pad site (drill holes 14, 21, 22, 25, 33, 36, 37,
39, 41, and 44). Clearing and grading would be accomplished using bulldozers, road graders or
other standard earth-moving equipment. The topsoil component (up to 12 inches, where present)
would be salvaged for use in reclamation activities. In many areas, surface rock is present and
topsoil salvage would be limited. Drill pads that require grading would have a surface area of
about 0.50 acres (about 180 feet by 120 feet). Drill pads not requiring grading would have a
surface occupation and clearing area of no greater than 0.50 acre.
Drilling Activities
Exploratory drilling would use a truck-based, self-leveling rotary drill rig with about a 53
foot mast (fully extended) and with a base dimension of about 10 by 10 feet (see Photo 1). The
drill rig is equivalent in size and capability to those used to drill deep water wells. Bore holes
would be drilled using 8 ¾ inch rotary bit to a depth of up to 200 feet, depending upon ground
conditions and the ultimate depth of the hole at each location. A steel surface casing would be
installed and cemented in place. A 6 ¼ inch rotary bit would be used to drill the borehole to a
preselected depth above the target coal seam (see Table 3); depth ranges from 220 to 2,249 feet
(see Table 3). A 3-inch core barrel and bit would be used to recover a core from the coal seam
and portions of the rock material above and below the coal seam. The cores would provide
information about the depth, quality, and extent of the coal within the project area.

8

 Photo 1. Photo of representative drilling operations on natural surface.

In order to obtain discrete representative samples, bore holes would be drilled to the extent
possible with air, air-water, air-foam, or water as the circulation medium. In some cases it may
be difficult to keep boreholes open, and maintain sample integrity. In those situations, a
lubricating bentonite-based mud would be used. The muds used in these instances would not
contain metallic compounds. It is estimated that approximately 10 percent of the boreholes may
require the use of a mud circulation medium during a portion of the drilling (see attached
Appendix A for Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for drilling supplements).
It is estimated that approximately 3,000 to 4,000 gallons of water would be used for each
borehole under normal drilling conditions (0.528 acre foot of water total for all 43 boreholes).
Water would be delivered to each borehole site by a tanker truck designed to haul water. A
cuttings pit to hold soil and rock material removed from the borehole would be excavated with a
backhoe within the pad area. The pit would be approximately 20 feet in length, 8 feet in width,
and 8 feet deep (47 cubic yards each). All drilling locations would require construction of a pit
for cuttings and containment of produced water (both water injected during air drilling and any
water produced from the formation). If drilling mud is required to maintain hole stability and/or
circulation, a portable mixing tank would be used to mix and contain the drilling mud. It is
anticipated that ten percent of the excavation holes may require drilling mud. Handling of the
drill cuttings would include retaining the cuttings near the drill hole, so that they can either be
put back into the drill hole after drilling is complete, or pushed into the cuttings pit. Reclamation
of the cuttings pits is described in the Reclamation section below.

9

 Table 3. Drill Pad disturbance area.

Drill hole ID

Depth of
drill hole

Total temporary BLM temporary surface
impacts (acres)
disturbance (acres)*

Road
OM-YR-02
OM-YR-03R
OM-YR-04R
OM-YR-05
OM-YR-06
OM-YR-07R
OM-YR-08
OM-YR-09
OM-YR-10
OM-YR-11R
OM-YR-12
OM-YR-13
OM-YR-14
OM-YR-15R
OM-YR-16
OM-YR-17
OM-YR-18
OM-YR-19
OM-YR-20
10

1856
1193
829
429
654
635
1887
725
1245
1108
1261
1832
1510
597
2203
1645
2234
212
932

0.70
0.70
1.22
0.65
1.24
0.82
1.33
0.57
0.55
0.55
0.21
0.50
0.54
1.45
0.50
0.50
1.05
0.50
0.60

0.20
0.72

0.32

0.95

Pad

Private temporary surface disturbance
(acres)*

Road

Pad

0.20

0.50 (O)

0.15
0.74

0.50 (O)
0.50 (O)

0.83
0.07
0.05
0.05
0.86
0.00
0.04

0.50 (O)
0.50 (O)
0.50 (O)
0.50 (O)
0.50 (O)
0.50 (O)
0.50 (G)

0.00
0.00
0.55
0.00
0.10

0.50 (O)
0.50 (O)
0.50 (O)
0.50 (O)
0.50 (O)

0.50 (O)
0.50 (O)

0.50 (O)

0.50 (O)

 Drill hole ID

OM-YR-21R
OM-YR-22
OM-YR-23R
OM-YR-24
OM-YR-25
OM-YR-26
OM-YR-27
OM-YR-28
OM-YR-29
OM-YR-30
OM-YR-31
OM-YR-32
OM-YR-33
OM-YR-34
OM-YR-35
OM-YR-36
OM-YR-37
OM-YR-38
OM-YR-39
OM-YR-40
OM-YR-41
11

Depth of
drill hole

1298
1098
814
1451
773
1400
831
474
427
1719
1967
2117
1634
970
1379
1524
1240
1867
904
862
1677

Total temporary BLM temporary surface
impacts (acres)
disturbance (acres)*

0.73
0.81
0.85
0.89
0.56
1.28
0.53
1.15
0.62
0.50
0.92
0.58
0.50
1.32
0.68
0.94
0.78
0.80
0.66
0.50
0.50

Road

Pad

0.23

0.50 (G)

0.35

0.00

Private temporary surface disturbance
(acres)*

Road

Pad

0.31

0.50 (G)

0.39
0.06
0.78
0.03
0.65
0.12
0.00
0.42
0.08
0.00
0.82
0.18
0.44
0.28
0.30
0.16

0.50 (O)
0.50 (G)
0.50 (O)
0.50 (O)
0.50 (O)
0.50 (O)
0.50 (O)
0.50 (O)
0.50 (O)
0.50 (G)
0.50 (O)
0.50 (O)
0.50 (G)
0.50 (G)
0.50 (O)
0.50 (G)

0.00

0.50 (G)

0.50 (O)

0.50 (O)

 Drill hole ID

Depth of
drill hole

Total temporary BLM temporary surface
impacts (acres)
disturbance (acres)*

Road
OM-YR-42
OM-YR-43
OM-YR-44
Total

1271
2249
1137

Pad

0.84
0.55
0.50

2.77 ac
3.50 ac
32.86 ac
*(O) = Surface occupation and clearing only; (G/Shaded) = Graded disturbance

12

Private temporary surface disturbance
(acres)*

Road
0.34
0.05
0.00
8.59 ac

Pad
0.50 (O)
0.50 (O)
0.50 (G)
18.00 ac

 Oxbow may complete several of these exploration holes as ground water monitoring wells, in
preparation for base line monitoring. Identification of specific boreholes to be completed as
ground water monitoring wells has not been finished. Any boreholes selected to be completed as
monitoring wells would be completed in accordance with the guidelines agreed to by the BLM
for monitoring wells and meet monitoring well completion rules of the Colorado Division of
Water Resources.
Because nighttime drilling activities would be conducted, lighting would be required.
Lighting would consist of one or two “tower” lights near the top of the drill rig at a height of
about 50 feet, and portable lighting units on the ground to allow drillers to monitor drill cuttings
and review the drill cores. Ground lighting units would be aimed at work areas. For safety
reasons, lighting cannot be artificially shielded, but natural topographic and vegetative shielding
would be considered in light placement.
Noise levels from drilling operations would be about 85 decibels (dB), which does not
require hearing protection for workers. The small rig used for exploratory drilling would
produce less noise than the large rigs used for drilling oil and gas wells. For comparison, the
following are noise limits established by the schedule to Division 7 of the Motor Vehicle Act
Regulations:
Light Duty 83 dB
Heavy Duty Gasoline 88 dB
Motorcycles 91 dB
Heavy Duty Diesel 93 dB
Equipment and Personnel
The following personnel and equipment would be required to complete exploration activities:
Bulldozer (1) and Excavator (1) for clearing, excavating, moving, and grading; personnel
about 2 people;
Grader (1) for clearing, moving small amounts of soil and finish grading; personnel 1;
Drilling rig (1 or 2); personnel about 5 to 7 people;
Carpool pickup (1 for each rig crew) to transport drilling staff;
E-log truck (1) and equipment for digital logging of bore holes; personnel 1 to 2 people;
Delivery trucks and semi trucks for delivery of water tanks, and other bulk construction
items; about 1-2 personnel per delivery; about 2 trips per day;
Water Truck for dust suppression (1); personnel 1; and
Pick-up trucks and SUVs with flatbed trailers (1) for small equipment transport;
personnel 1.
Storm Water Control
For locations that require construction of a drill pad, the pad would be graded so that any
water runs toward the cuttings pit. Either silt fencing or straw wattles would be placed to contain
storm water runoff within the pad area. For locations that do not require construction/leveling of
a pad, silt fencing or straw wattles would be used as needed to prevent storm water runoff from
leaving the drilling operations area.

13

 Site Maintenance
During drilling, Oxbow would control dust from drilling and related activities, divert and
control both natural runoff from disturbed areas and fluid loss from drilling, and would clean up
any trash or debris. A water truck would be used to apply water to access roads, as needed, to
control dust. A maximum of about 0.4 acre-foot of water is anticipated to be required for
fugitive dust suppression, depending on seasonal climate conditions. Waste construction
materials and rubbish from all construction areas would be collected, hauled away, and disposed
of in an approved manner. Food-related trash would be stored inside contractor vehicles and
removed daily. If necessary, bear-proof trash containers would be provided. Where fences must
be cut for gate installation or other construction activities, prior to gate cutting, the brace posts
would be installed and wires attached in order to maintain adjacent wire tension. Any fence
damaged during construction would be repaired immediately. Gates, where required, would be
installed in accordance with landowner and BLM agreements, and would be maintained in good
working order. All new or existing gates would remain closed and locked at all times except
when attended or unless otherwise directed by the landowner.
All drilling equipment would be provided with fire extinguishers and shovels for fighting
small fires, if necessary. Drilling crews would be equipped and trained to fight small fires.
Spark arresters would be required for equipment generating sparks, including ATVs and
chainsaws. Smoking would be allowed during construction activities only in designated safesmoking areas. Common sense practices regarding heat/spark sources, particularly in dry
conditions, would be followed. Parking hot vehicles on dry shrubs would not be allowed, and
other logical avoidance practices would be followed.
Reclamation
Upon completion of drilling and related activities, all drill holes would be backfilled, sealed
and abandoned. During drilling, fluid return would be monitored to identify the depth and extent
of any water producing zones. Upon abandonment, in accordance with Drill Hole Plugging
Procedures agreed to by BLM and the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety
(CDRMS), bentonite chips or bentonite plug gel or similar seal would be established in the
bottom of the hole, extending to within ten feet of the surface. A cement plug would be set in the
hole ten (10) feet below the ground to within three (3) feet of the surface. Accumulations of drill
cuttings would be buried in the excavated pit (see Photo 2). If drilling mud (bentonite) is
required for the drilling of a borehole, the mud will be mixed and contained in a portable steel
container. After drilling, any remaining drilling mud will be used along with newly mixed
drilling mud, if additional volume is required, in the well abandonment process. The Colorado
Department of Natural Resources requires all boreholes be abandoned according to State
regulations. Part of the abandonment process includes the use of bentonite mud to seal the
borehole. At no time during the drilling and well abandonment process will any bentonite mud
be placed in the cuttings pit.

14

 Photo 2. Example of a Drill Site 1 year after Reclamation.

As mentioned previously, Oxbow may complete several of the exploration holes as ground
water monitoring wells, in preparation for base line monitoring required for permit submission.
Identification of specific drill holes to be completed as ground water monitoring wells would
occur once initial meetings with the CDRMS have occurred. Drill holes selected to be
completed as monitoring wells would be completed in accordance with the guidelines agreed to
by the BLM and CDRMS for monitoring wells. Once monitoring is no longer required, these
wells would be abandoned as described above.
The following design features would apply to road reclamation:
Interim reclamation would include partially revegetating roads in order to reduce the
amount of bare ground created during construction and drilling activities.
The new road segments would be reclaimed to their original contour and rough texture in
order to match the “texture” of the surrounding landscape, and revegetated in accordance
with BLM direction, and using a BLM-approved seed mix.
All trash and debris would be removed from drill sites for disposal. Excavations, including
pits, would be backfilled. Any drilling mud left in the portable mixing tank after the borehole is
completed would be used along with additional bentonite in the hole abandonment process. The
pits may be temporarily fenced and allowed to dry before backfilling with previously excavated
material. The excavated material would be returned to the pits in such a manner as to
approximate the original soil profile, particularly as related to the near-surface soils or top soil.
During backfilling, the material would be mixed and compacted as it is replaced, by running the
equipment over the backfilled area during placement of successive lifts. Following backfilling,
disturbance areas would be graded to their approximate original contour or to a natural looking
configuration that blends with the surrounding topography and the original surface drainage
reestablished. Any salvaged topsoil materials would be re-spread onto the regraded surface and
15

 reseeding of the areas (pads and roads – unless the landowner requests the roads remain) would
take place using the following seed mixture. A metal post with tag would be placed in the
vicinity of the hole as a permanent marker.
Table 4. Seed Mix for Project Area

Seeding would take place in the fall or early spring. Monitoring of re-seeding efforts would
occur for two or three field seasons to determine stand success, re-seeding requirements and
control of any noxious weeds. On previous projects, Oxbow has found this period of time is
adequate for reclamation; however, Oxbow is committed to monitoring until success criteria
have been met (see bullet list below). A temporary perimeter fence would be placed around
reclaimed areas to prevent disturbance by cattle and elk.
Reclamation Success criteria:
Vegetation cover in disturbed areas would be at least 70 percent of the vegetation cover
in adjoining undisturbed areas. For example, if nearby undisturbed areas have
approximately 75 percent vegetation cover, the reclamation success criteria would be
52.5 percent total vegetation cover.
Vegetation cover would be comprised of species included in the seed mix (see Table 4)
and other desirable species found in the surrounding area.
Vegetation patchiness is acceptable, as long as there are no contiguous bare areas greater
than about 3 feet by 3 feet (about 9 square feet).
Noxious Weed Management
Oxbow has developed a Noxious Weed Management Plan for the control of weeds in new
disturbance areas (see Appendix B). The following Best Management Practices (BMPs) that
prevent the spread of noxious weeds would be followed (Partners Against Weeds Action Plan for
BLM).
Clean equipment to remove weed seeds prior to use onsite;
Monitor and spray/perform weed control as necessary.
The operator and the operator’s contractors will disinfect heavy equipment, hand tools,
boots and any other equipment used previously in a river, lake, pond, or wetland, by

16

 routinely cleaning equipment using 140° water and high-pressure sprayers to remove dirt,
mud and foreign debris before equipment is brought on-site.
The operator and the operator’s contractors will clean trucks and equipment at washstations in nearby towns or at the contractor’s yard (off-site) to ensure that all equipment
and vehicles shall be clean of all dirt and debris that can harbor weed seed.
Monitoring and control of noxious or invasive weeds attempting to establish within the
project boundaries throughout the construction and production phases should be
performed in coordination with routine maintenance activities and in accordance with
state law.
The Operator will monitor for and control noxious or invasive weeds throughout the
construction and production phases. Mandatory noxious weed control is required on the
pads, drill holes, and access roads used by the lessee/operator for the life of the project.
Application of pesticides and herbicides on public lands will conform to BLM regulations
and state laws.
To prevent the entry of hazardous substances into surface waters:
o Chemical treatments within the riparian areas shall be applied by hand and shall
be applied only to specific targets.
o Leave a 25-foot buffer along surface waters when chemicals are being applied
through ground application with power equipment.
o Always refer to chemical label instructions for additional guidance on use near
water and required buffer zones.
o To enhance effectiveness and prevent transport into streams, apply chemicals
during appropriate weather conditions (generally calm and dry) and during the
optimum time for control of the target pest or weed.
Coordination
Oxbow is committed to coordinating with landowners and interested parties throughout the
process, including meeting with domestic and irrigation water providers to address concerns
about water supply facilities.
Design Features
In addition to measures described in the previous sections, the following design features have
been incorporated into the proposed action to minimize resource impacts:
Clearances/survey, including cultural resource surveys and biological resource surveys,
would be completed for drill hole and access road locations that were not reviewed in
Fall 2011 because of lack of right-of-access prior to any ground disturbing activities.
Refueling of equipment would not occur within 100 feet of live water.
Any lubricant, oil or grease, or fuel spills shall be reported immediately to the BLM
hazardous material coordinator. Any spills would be removed from the spill area as
quickly as possible and disposed of appropriately off-site. Any spills will be cleaned to
the authorized officer’s satisfaction using standard hazmat procedures.
The point of access (where applicable) would be blocked as directed to prevent motorized
use of a reclaimed road. To discourage access and use of reclaimed areas, natural
barriers and signs would be placed near the point of entry where project roads have been
reclaimed. The BLM would approve barrier locations and techniques.

17

 A red-tailed hawk nest located just south of West Reservoir and within ¼ mile of the
OM-02 site, would be monitored for nesting activity during construction. If the nest is
active, construction and drilling operations could be put off until the young have fledged.
This would eliminate the chances of the nest being impacted.
If project timing would include construction during the migratory bird nesting time frame
for the project area (generally through July 15), potential impacts and modifications to
project schedule needed to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act would be
discussed with BLM prior to exploration activities. Monitoring for migratory birds
would occur if Oxbow wishes to proceed during the nesting season. If monitoring results
in positive active nest data, appropriate avoidance buffers would be developed in
coordination with BLM based on species and site-specific conditions.
For drilling sites where development of a pad is necessary, the topsoil would be
stockpiled, and either silt fencing or straw wattles would be placed around the stockpile.
Straw wattles would be used to minimize erosion until the pad is revegetated.
During and after drilling, the drill site would be fenced to keep animals out of the site to
prevent damage to stormwater BMPs and newly revegetated areas. Oxbow is negotiating
with individual landowners regarding the type of fence installed for reclamation
purposes; electric fencing with solar panels to provide power have been used in the past
and are proposed. Oxbow would be responsible for fence installation, monitoring and
removal.
Where bentonite is used, portable mixing tanks would contain all bentonite. It would not
be placed in the cuttings pit.

No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative means that the proposed action would not take place. In the case
of an exploration license request, this would mean that a request for license to explore would be
denied or rejected. Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM would not grant an exploration
license for the exploratory drilling.

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Analysis
No other alternatives have been proposed to respond to unresolved conflicts concerning
alternative uses of available resources.

Public comments were solicited via a letter dated September 19, 2011, that was mailed to the
appropriate agencies, specific interested parties, and to the general public. The letter was also
posted on the BLM UFO website. Information regarding the exploration proposal was made
available for public review after September 19, 2011, through legal notices published in the
Delta County Independent. In addition there were announcements of the public scoping period
in The Daily Sentinel in Grand Junction. Public comments were received through October 24,
2011. All comment letters were reviewed and considered in the development of the EA.
18

 A total of 394 comment letters were received during the public comment period. The
comments generally fall into five categories, with specific comments listed in the table below.
Comments received were categorized and coded (see Table 5). Comments were coded once for
each letter (i.e., if a comment was made several times in one letter, it was counted once for
purposes of the summary). In general, comments focused on traffic, water, natural resources,
real estate/quality of life, and socioeconomic issues. Subcategories for each comment type also
were developed (see Table 5).
Issues identified in comment letters were separated into two relevance categories; key and
non-key issues. Key issues are those that could be directly or indirectly caused by implementing
the proposed action, coal exploration activities on Oak Mesa. Non-key issues fall into three
types; those that are 1) not relevant to the proposed action, 2) outside of the scope of the
proposed action (i.e., related to future coal mining or other activities), or that are 3) already
determined by existing laws or regulations. Table 5 shows the page and section where key issues
are addressed in the EA.

19

 Table 5. Scoping Comment Summary.

Comment
#

Comment

Number
EA Page/
of specific
Section
comment where issue is
addressed

1
1a

Traffic
Wear and tear on public
roads

1b

8

1c

Public safety concerns
(speed and volume of
traffic)
Dust and noise

1d

Hazardous spills

1

1e

General increase in
traffic/heavy equipment

5

2
2a

Water
Degradation in water
quality (including
erosion/sedimentation)
and reduction in quantity
(domestic, municipal and
agricultural)

2b

Damage to water supply
facilities

1

2c

Stream crossing impacts

2

2d

Toxicity impacts of
fracking fluids

1

3
3a

Landscape/Natural
Resources
Visual impact

4

3b

Deforestation

3

10

Page 79;
Access/
Transportation
Page 79;
Access/
Transportation
Page 28, Page
84; Air
Quality, Noise
Page 77;
Wastes, Solid
or Hazardous
Page 79;
Access/
Transportation

3

12

Key/non-key issue;
notes

Key issue

Key issue

Key issue

Key issue

Key issue

Page 68, 83;
Key issue
Water quality,
surface; Water
quantity,
surface; Water
Supply/ Water
Rights
Page 83;
Key issue
Water Supply/
Water Rights
Page 68;
Key issue
Water quality,
surface
Non-key, not relevant;
drilling activities would
not include fracking.
Fracking is associated
specifically with oil and
gas operations.

Page 86;
Visual
Resources
Page 36;
20

Key issue

Key issue

 Comment
#

3c
3d

3e
3f
3g

Comment

Vegetation impacts and
reclamation
Hazardous waste, trash,
and debris
Increased fire danger
Air pollution/quality and
soil pollution.
Potential increase in
Noxious/Exotic Weeds

Number
EA Page/
of specific
Section
comment where issue is
addressed
Vegetation
7
Page 36;
Vegetation
6
Page 77;
Wastes, Solid
or Hazardous
3
Page 82; Fire
8
Page 28;
Air Quality
2
Page 28;
Invasive,
Non-native
Species
11
Page 48, 56,
61, 64;
Threatened
and
Endangered
Species;
Migratory
Birds;
Wildlife,
Terrestrial and
Wildlife,
Aquatic

3h

Impacts to wildlife and
sensitive natural habitats
(including habitat
fragmentation)

4
4a

Real Estate and Quality
of life
Devaluation of property

3

4b

Damage to private land

2

Key/non-key issue;
notes

Key issue
Key issue

Key issue
Key issue
Key issue

Key issue

Non-key; exploration
activities and associated
impacts would be shortterm and temporary.
Non-key; Oxbow must
enter into landowner
agreements for use of
land surface for
operations related to
exploration. Conditions
of access, including
reclamation would be
negotiated with private
landowners, a process
outside of the scope of
this EA.
21

 Comment
#

Comment

Number
EA Page/
Key/non-key issue;
of specific
Section
notes
comment where issue is
addressed
8
Non-key; Oxbow must
enter into landowner
agreements for use of
land surface including
those with existing
conservation easements, a
process outside of the
scope of this EA.
8
Page 84, 86,
Key issue
Noise; Visual
Resources
4
Page 31;
Key issue
Farmlands,
Prime/Unique

4c

Conservation easements

4d

Noise and light pollution

4e

Degradation of
agricultural land

5
5a

Socioeconomics
More jobs/Long term
work

5b

Tax revenue and support
for schools, roads, other
social infrastructure, and
non-profit organizations

152

5c

Revenue for local
economy

205

5e

Oxbow’s high wages

2

233

Non-key; this EA
evaluates exploration
activities only.
Exploration activities
would determine quality
and quantity of coal
reserves, and the
economic viability of coal
resource extraction.
Non-key; this EA
evaluates exploration
activities only.
Exploration activities
would determine quality
and quantity of coal
reserves, and the
economic viability of coal
resource extraction.
Non-key; this EA
evaluates exploration
activities only.
Exploration activities
would determine quality
and quantity of coal
reserves, and the
economic viability of coal
resource extraction.
Non-key; this EA
22

 Comment
#

Comment

Number
EA Page/
of specific
Section
comment where issue is
addressed

Key/non-key issue;
notes

evaluates exploration
activities only.
Exploration activities
would determine quality
and quantity of coal
reserves, and the
economic viability of coal
resource extraction.
6
6a

Coal
Quality of coal

254

6b

Energy independence

93

6c

Affordable energy

8

6d

Demand for coal energy

39

7
7a

General
Concerns about adequacy
of NEPA analysis

1

7b

Timing and intensive
nature of NEPA process

7c

Modern coal mining
2
technology makes mining
safer and more efficient.
BLM must analyze the
1
cumulative effects of the
August 2011 North Fork

7d

Non-key; this EA
evaluates exploration
activities only.
Exploration activities
would determine quality
and quantity of coal
reserves.
Non-key; this EA
evaluates exploration
activities only
Non-key; this EA
evaluates exploration
activities only
Non-key; this EA
evaluates exploration
activities only
Non-key; the NEPA
process is being
completed in compliance
with state and federal
laws and regulations.
Non-key; the NEPA
process is being
completed in compliance
with state and federal
laws and regulations.
Non-key; this EA
evaluates exploration
activities only
Non-key; the NEPA
process is being
completed in compliance

11

23

 Comment
#

Comment

Number
EA Page/
of specific
Section
comment where issue is
addressed

Valley Oil and Gas Lease
Sale Nomination

Key/non-key issue;
notes

with state and federal
laws and regulations.

24

 PLAN CONFORMANCE REVIEW: The Proposed Action is subject to and has been reviewed
for conformance with the following plan (43 CFR 1610.5-3, BLM 1617.3):
Name of Plan: Uncompahgre Basin RMP
Date Approved: July 26, 1989, as amended
Decision Number/Page: Mineral Resources Decision, Coal Management, page 31,
Record of Decision (ROD)
Decision Language: Management Units 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 16 are acceptable for further
leasing consideration with no special restrictions.
The Proposed Action Alternative is consistent with current land management planning for the
proposed lease.

Other Related NEPA Documents
North Fork Coal EIS (BLM 2000)
Other relevant laws, regulations, policies, program guidance, and permitting requirements
include:
Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended
The BLM manages its minerals program under guidance given in the Mining and Minerals
Policy Act of 1970, which states (in part) that it “is the continuing policy of the federal
government in the national interest to foster and encourage private enterprise in…(the)
development of economically sound and stable domestic mining minerals and mineral
reclamation industries…(and) the orderly and economic development of domestic mineral
resources…” Further, federal mineral leasing follows the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 as
amended by the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 (MLA) and specific procedures
set forth in 43 CFR 3432. Exploration licenses specifically are regulated under 43 CFR 3410.
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) was enacted in 1976. FLPMA laid
out specific land management guidance for BLM-managed lands, and repealed the Homestead
Act (meaning public lands remaining were to be retained in public control). FLPMA formalized
the concepts of managing public lands for multiple use and sustained yield, authorized
management of special resource areas (Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, or ACEC’s),
provided guidance for rangeland and grazing management, and provided support for minerals
leasing and development.
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) created the Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) in the United States Department of the
Interior. The CDRMS developed Colorado’s permanent regulatory program, which is approved
by OSM and authorizes CDRMS to regulate surface coal mining operations and the surface
effects of underground coal mining on private and state lands within the State of Colorado.
25

 Standards for Public Land Health
In January 1997, Colorado Bureau of Land Management (BLM) approved the Standards for
Public Land Health. Standards describe conditions needed to sustain public land health and
relate to all uses of the public lands. A finding for each standard will be made in the
environmental analysis section of this EA.
Table 6. Standards for Public Land Health
Standard
Definition/Statement
#1 Upland Soils
Upland soils exhibit infiltration and permeability rates that are appropriate to soil type, climate,
land form, and geologic processes. Adequate soil infiltration and permeability allows for the
accumulation of soil moisture necessary for optimal plant growth and vigor, and minimizes
surface runoff.
#2 Riparian
Riparian systems associated with both running and standing water, function properly and have
Systems
the ability to recover from major surface disturbances such as fire, severe grazing, or 100-year
floods. Riparian vegetation captures sediment, and provides forage, habitat and bio-diversity.
Water quality is improved or maintained. Stable soils store and release water slowly.
#3 Plant and
Healthy, productive plant and animal communities of native and other desirable species are
Animal
maintained at viable population levels commensurate with the species and habitat’s potential.
Communities
Plants and animals at both the community and population level are productive, resilient,
diverse, vigorous, and able to reproduce and sustain natural fluctuations, and ecological
processes.
#4 Threatened and Special status, threatened and endangered species (federal and state), and other plants and
Endangered
animals officially designated by the BLM, and their habitats are maintained or enhanced by
Species
sustaining healthy, native plant and animal communities.
#5 Water Quality
The water quality of all water bodies, including ground water where applicable, located on or
influenced by BLM lands would achieve or exceed the Water Quality Standards established by
the State of Colorado. Water Quality Standards for surface and ground waters include the
designated beneficial uses, numeric criteria, narrative criteria, and anti-degradation
requirements set forth under State law as found in (5 CCR 1002-8), as required by Section
303(c) of the Clean Water Act.

This section provides a description of the human and natural environmental resources that
could be affected by the Proposed Action and presents comparative analyses of the direct,
indirect and cumulative effects on the environment.
Cumulative impacts of the proposed action are shown in the analysis of each element. A
description of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions is at the end of this section.
Elements specified by statute, regulation, executive order, or the Standards for Public Land
Health are described and analyzed in this section, as well other elements. Those that could be
impacted are brought forward for analysis. Any element not affected by the proposed action or
no action alternatives is not analyzed in this document; the reason for no impact is stated.

26

 Table 7. Specified Elements

Element

Air Quality
Areas of Critical Environmental
Concern
Wilderness and Lands with
Wilderness Characteristics
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Cultural
Native American Religious Concerns
Farmlands, Prime/Unique
Soils
Vegetation
Invasive, Non-native Species
Threatened and Endangered Species
Migratory Birds
Wildlife, Terrestrial
Wildlife, Aquatic
Wetlands & Riparian Zones
Floodplains
Water Quality, Surface and Ground
Wastes, Hazardous or Solid
Environmental Justice
Access
Transportation
Cadastral Survey
Realty Authorizations
Rangeland Management
Forest Management
Fire
Hydrology/Water Rights
Noise
Recreation
Visual Resources
Geology and Minerals
Paleontology
Law Enforcement
Socio-Economics

Not
Applicable
or Not
Present

Present, But
No Impact

Applicable &
Present;
Brought
Forward for
Analysis
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

27

 AIR QUALITY
Affected Environment
Based on a review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported nonattainment areas (EPA 2011), the project area is in an attainment area for all reported state and
federal air quality standards. There are no non-attainment areas in Delta County or any of its
adjoining counties. The Proposed Action is outside a 10-mile radius of any special designation
airsheds or non-attainment areas. Non-attainment areas have air pollution levels that persistently
exceed the national ambient air quality (NAAQ) standards and are tracked and documented by
the EPA. Projects that could impact special designation areas and non-attainment areas may
require special consideration from the air quality regulatory agencies of Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) and the EPA. Special designation airsheds include
wilderness areas and national parks. The closest Class I airsheds to the project area include the
West Elks Wilderness (located about 25 miles southeast of the project area), and the Black
Canyon of the Gunnison National Park (located about 25 miles southwest of the project area).

Environmental Consequences/Mitigation:

Proposed Action
Construction of drill pads and access roads would result in minor short-term impacts to air
quality. Increases to both criteria and non-criteria pollutants could occur due to use of equipment
with combustion engines and soil disturbing activities. Criteria pollutants are those for which
NAAQ standards have been set; non-criteria pollutants do not have set NAAQ standards.
Criteria pollutants are from combustion engines, and include carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen
dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. Non-criteria pollutants include nitric oxide, air toxics such as
benzene, and suspended particulates. Exceedence of NAAQ pollutant standards occurs in urban
areas, with high vehicle concentrations, and where climate conditions induce trapped air and
reduced air flow, such as temperature inversions. Only about 8 project-specific vehicles would
be on-site (within the 13,873 acre project area) at any one time (see Equipment and Personnel
section, page 13). The vehicles would not be concentrated, but instead would be completing
different operations at different locations. Vehicles include both heavy-and light-duty trucks and
engines with no other existing emission sources. For these reasons, increases in criteria and noncriteria pollutants would be unlikely to result in an exceedance of any hourly, 8-hour average, or
daily NAAQ standards or Colorado ambient air quality (CAAQ) standards.
Fugitive dust from soil disturbing activities such as road and drill pad construction could
result in an increase in suspended particulates; however, use of a water truck to control dust
would mitigate this impact. Drill pads and roads would be reclaimed after exploration drilling
operations are completed to minimize impacts from fugitive dust. All impacts to air quality
would be minor, short-term and temporary.

Cumulative Impacts
For Air Quality, the cumulative impacts analysis area is defined as the North Fork Valley
within Delta County, including the eastern portion of the county. The Proposed Action would
result in minor, short-term air quality impacts. Oil and gas exploration, operation and
development could result in similar air quality impacts to the project area. Cumulatively, air
quality impacts are expected to be minor. All anticipated air quality impacts would be short-term
28

 and minimal.

No Action Alternative
Under the No Action alternative, there would be no project-related air quality impacts.

AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) are identified by the BLM through its
resource management planning process to protect or manage sensitive resource values. ACECs
may be designated to protect historic, cultural, visual, natural, and/or biological resources,
systems, or processes. There are no ACECs near the project area. The nearest existing ACEC is
Needle Rock, located about 17 miles southeast of the project area. The Adobe Badlands ACEC
is located about 20 miles west of the project area. Because no ACECs are in or near the project
area, there would be no impacts to this resource and it is not evaluated or discussed further.

WILDERNESS and LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS
There are not any designated Wilderness Areas or Wilderness Study Areas within or adjacent
to the project area.
Through FLPMA (Sec. 201 and 202) of 1976, Congress directed the BLM to maintain an
inventory of the lands under its jurisdiction that possess “wilderness characteristics.” Each BLM
office maintains an inventory of lands with wilderness characteristics, updating it as necessary.
The characteristics are:
A. Size – generally 5,000 acres or greater that do not have mechanically constructed and
maintained roads. Smaller areas that share a boundary with existing wilderness or
wilderness study areas of 5,000 acres or greater may also be considered to have
adequate size.
B. Naturalness – lands must appear to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature,
and people’s work must be substantially unnoticeable.
C. Outstanding opportunities for solitude, or primitive and unconfined type of recreation:
a.
Solitude – visitors can feel alone, secluded and isolated from the sights and sounds
of other people.
b.
Primitive and unconfined recreation – the use of the area is primarily through nonmotorized or non-mechanical means with no or minimal recreation facilities.
D. Supplemental values – the area contains ecological, geological, or other features of
scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.
For an area to possess wilderness characteristics it must meet A, B and C. D is optional.
BLM surface ownership lands within the Uncompahgre Field Office were inventoried for
wilderness characteristics in 2010 through 2011. No lands possessing wilderness characteristics
were found on BLM-managed lands within, or adjacent to the area of this proposed project.
Because no lands with wilderness characteristics are in or near the project area, there would be
no impacts to this resource and it is not evaluated or discussed further.

29

 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS
Congress authorized the National Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) Act in 1968 to preserve
certain rivers with outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational values in a free-flowing
condition for the enjoyment of present and future generations. The purpose of the Act was to
allow for special management or protection of those free-flowing rivers with “outstandingly
remarkable value”, including scenic, recreational, geologic, fish, wildlife, cultural, historic,
vegetation, or other similar value (such as paleontological). A value must also be unique, rare, or
exemplary, as well as significant within a defined region of comparison.
Only Congress or (under certain circumstances) the Secretary of the Interior may designate a
river for inclusion in the WSR system. The UFO completed an inventory and analysis of waters
within the Uncompahgre Planning Area for WSR values and characteristics in 2010 (BLM
2010b) as part of its resource management planning process. There are not any eligible waters
within the Project area. Because there are not any eligible wild and scenic rivers in or near the
project area, there would be no impacts to this resource and it is not evaluated or discussed
further.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Affected Environment
. Eleven cultural resources have been previously documented within the study area. These
include six historic sites, four prehistoric isolates, and one prehistoric site. Only one of these
previously recorded resources intersects areas of proposed drill hole locations or access roads
(Overland Ditch – 5DT.650). Six of these sites represent historic activity on Oak Mesa and
consist of ditch, mining, and homestead/ranching activities. The remaining five resources are
prehistoric and consist of a single open lithic scatter and four isolates.
In addition, a Class III field survey was conducted for the 43 proposed drill hole locations
and approximately 9 miles of new or improved access roads to identify unknown cultural
resources within the area of potential effect (about 7 miles could not be surveyed due to lack of
right-of-entry from the landowner; these roads would be surveyed prior to surface disturbance).
Each drill hole location was surveyed with a 1-acre buffer and a 100-foot corridor was surveyed
for each access road. The survey resulted in the documentation of four segments of irrigation
systems, including a lateral of the Overland Ditch (5DT.650.1) and three localized, unnamed
ditches (Robbins et al. 2011). The Overland Ditch has been preliminarily determined not eligible
for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the three newly documented
ditches are recommended not eligible for listing on the NRHP. Concurrence on these
recommendations is required from the BLM and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO).

Environmental Consequences/Mitigation:

Proposed Action
Because the four newly documented ditch segments and previously recorded ditches are
active or may become active in the future, avoidance is necessary to maintain current or future
operation, regardless of NRHP significance. Since all four cultural resources have been
determined or are recommended not eligible for listing on the NRHP, no further work or
mitigation is necessary pending concurrence by BLM and the SHPO on the determination.
30

 Cumulative Impacts
The Proposed Action would not result in impacts to eligible cultural resources. Therefore, no
cumulative impacts would occur.

No Action Alternative
Without the project, no new exploration drilling would take place to affect potential historic
properties.

NATIVE AMERICAN RELIGIOUS CONCERNS
There are no known Native American religious concerns in the project area.

FARMLANDS, PRIME AND UNIQUE
Prime and other important farmlands are categorized, designated, and regulated by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
under the Farmland Protection Policy Act. Farmlands can fall into one of four categories: Prime
farmland (which may be qualified by a number of sub-classifications), Farmland of statewide
importance, Farmland of local importance, or Farmland of unique importance. Farmland of
unique importance is identified based on its use for the production of specific high value food
and fiber crops. Characteristics of these soils include the adequacy of its moisture supply to
sustain those crops, and other favorable factors including: soil quality, growing season,
temperature, humidity, air drainage, elevation, aspect, or other conditions, and such as nearness
to market. Farmlands of statewide importance are those that “economically produce high yields
of crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods. Some may
produce as high a yield as prime farmlands if conditions are favorable. In some states, additional
farmlands of statewide importance may include tracts of land that have been designated for
agriculture by state law.” The NRCS is tasked to coordinate on any federal actions that could
affect the production of crops on designated farmlands.

Affected Environment
Two soil types categorized as Farmland of Statewide Importance are within the project
boundaries—Cerro loam (soil map unit #21) and Delson loam (soil map unit # 32). These soils
have very limited distribution within the project area, and most are not currently cultivated.
Some areas have been subdivided and are not currently used for agricultural purposes.
Table 8. Soils Classified as Farmland of Statewide Importance

Soil Type, map unit,
and description

Acres within
proposed
exploration
boundary

Percentage of
Project area

Cerro loam (#21), 6 to
12 percent slopes

246.7

1.8

Slight (wind) to
moderate to high
(water)

Delson loam (#32), 3
to 12 percent slopes

316.8

2.3

Slight (wind) to
moderate (water)

Source: USDA 2008
31

Erosion and Rutting
Hazard

 Environmental Consequences/Mitigation

Proposed Action
OM-YR-21, OM-YR-40, OM-YR-09 and portions of their access roads appear to intersect
the two soils classified as farmland of statewide importance. Impacts from exploration activities
would be minor and temporary; in addition, the lands under this classification do not appear to
meet the required characteristics for farmland of statewide importance. These units currently are
uncultivated meadows, uncultivated open space, or hayfields.

Cumulative Impacts
The Proposed Action would result in minor, short-term impacts to soils classified as farmland
of statewide importance. Existing and future oil and gas exploration, operation and development
on existing and proposed lease areas could result in similar impacts in the project vicinity.
Cumulatively, farmland impacts are expected to be minor. All anticipated cumulative impacts
would be short-term and minimal. If oil and gas wells are economically feasible for operation
and production, surface impacts would remain during the productive life of the well, normally
about 30 years.

No Action Alternative
Under the No Action alternative, there would be no project-related impacts to soils classified
as farmland of statewide importance.

SOILS (includes a finding on Standard 1)
Affected Environment
According to the North Fork Landscape Health Assessment (LHA), all soils around the
project area meet the Standard 1 Rating for soils (table 6) and do not exhibit soil loss problems.
In addition, there are no sites near the project area with runoff drainage problems (BLM 2007).
The most abundant soils in the project area (accounting for about 72% of the surface area) are
Delson stony loam and Delson very stony loam. These soils have slight (wind) to moderate
(water) erosion and rutting hazard. Soil types (USDA 1981) present in the project area include:
Delson loam, 3 to 12 percent slopes (#32) – Delson loam is deep and well drained. It is
on fans and mesas and is formed in stony alluvium. The hazard of water erosion is high and is
slight from wind. Most of these soils are used for irrigated crops, mainly pasture, small grains,
and alfalfa.
Cerro loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes (#21) – Cerro loam is well drained and deep. It is
formed on glacial outwash and old landslides and is found on mountain sides, terraces, and
alluvial fans. The hazard of erosion is slight from wind and moderate to high from water. It is
used for livestock and wildlife grazing and if irrigated, it can be used for crops.
Cerro stony loam, 10 to 35 percent slopes (#22) – This soil is deep and well drained. It
is formed in old landslide deposits and glacial outwash and is on terraces, alluvial fans, and
mountain side slopes. The hazard from wind erosion in slight, but is high from water erosion.
Cerro stony loam is primarily used for recreational purposes and livestock and wildlife grazing.
Ascalon sandy loam, 3 to 10 percent slopes (#8) – Ascalon sandy loam is a formed in
colluviums and alluvium derived from sandstone and is on fans and uplands. It is well drained
32

 and deep. The hazard from wind erosion is slight to moderate and erosion from water is
moderate to high. Ascalon can be used for irrigated crops, grazing of wildlife and livestock, and
recreational purposes.
Delson very stony loam, 20 to 60 percent slopes (#34) – Delson very stony loam is
deep and well drained soil. It is found on mountain side slopes and is derived from stony
alluvium and colluviums. The erosion hazard from wind is slight and moderated from water.
This soil is primarily used for recreational purposes and limited wildlife and livestock grazing.
Torriorthents-Rock outcrop, sandstone, complex (#75) – This soil consists of Rock
outcrop and moderately steep to very steep soils on the side slopes of mesas, uplands, and
pediments. For Torriorthents, the hazard of erosion is lessened by the stony surface.
Torriorthents-Rock is typically used for wildlife cover/habitat and recreational purposes.
Delson stony loam, 3 to 20 percent slopes (#33) – This soil is well drained and deep. It
is found on fans and mesas and is formed in stony alluvium. The hazard of erosion from water is
moderate and from wind is slight. Delson stony loam is used for limited wildlife and livestock
grazing and recreational purposes.
Cochetopa stony loam, 10 to 40 percent slopes (#25) – Cochetopa stony loam is deep
and well drained. It is drived from landslide deposits and alluvium and is found on the side
slopes of mountains and valleys. The hazard of wind erosion is slight and is moderate to high
from water erosion. This soil is typically used for recreational purposes and limited livestock
and wildlife grazing.
Beenom-Absarokee association, 20 to 60 percent slopes (#13) – These soils are hilly to
very steep. Beenom is shallow well drained soils Absarokee is also well drained and overlies
bedrock. The hazard of erosion from wind for both of these soils is slight, and moderate to high
for water. Beenom soil is often used for winter range or mule deer and at high elevations, elk.
Absarokee soil is used for wildlife and livestock grazing and for recreational purposes.
Saraton-Agua Fria complex, 20 to 50 percent slopes (#70) – These soils are
moderately steep to very steep and are found on side slopes of benches, terraces, and mesas. The
hazard of erosion from water is moderate to high and slight from wind. Saraton and Agua Fria
are both deep and well drained, derived from basalt, and formed in cobbly, stony outwash
alluvium. These soils are used for recreational purposes and limited livestock and wildlife
grazing.
Work loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes (#82) – Work loam is deep and well drained soil
found on uplands, in depressions, and on alluvial fans. It is formed in “reworked material that
was weathered from sandstone.” The hazard of erosion from water is high and slight from wind.
This soil is mainly used for livestock and wildlife grazing and recreational purposes; however, it
can be irrigated and used for crops, primarily hay, small grains, and pasture.
Absarokee-Work loams, 6 to 25 percent slopes (#2) – Absarokee-Work loams are on
valley sides and uplands and are moderately sloping to moderately steep. Both soils are deep
and well drained and formed from weather sandstone. The hazard of erosion for Absarokee is
moderate for water and slight for wind. Work is also slight for wind, but high for water. This
complex is primarily used for wildlife and livestock grazing and recreation.
Midway-Gaynor silty clay loams, 10 to 40 percent slopes (56) – These soils are hilly,
steep, and strongly sloping. Midway soil is shallow and well drained and is formed in weathered
silty calcareous shale. Gaynor soil is moderately deep and well drained and is also formed in
silty calcareous shale. The hazard of erosion for both soils is slight for wind and high for water.
Midway-Gaynor soils are used for livestock and wildlife grazing and recreational purposes.

33

 Table 9. Soil Resources in the Proposed Exploration Area

Soil Type, map unit,
and description

Acres within
proposed
exploration
boundary

Percentage of
Project area

Erosion and Rutting
Hazard

Beenom-Absarokee
association (#13), 20 to
60 percent slopes

266.6

1.9%

Slight (wind) to
moderate to high
(water)

Cerro stony loam (#22),
10 to 35 percent slopes

1240.0

8.9%

Slight (wind) to high
(water)

Delson loam (#32), 3 to
12 percent slopes

316.8

2.3%

Slight (wind) to high
(water)

Cerro loam (#21), 6 to
12 percent slopes

246.7

1.8%

Slight (wind) to
moderate to high
(water)

0.4

0.0%

Slight to moderate
(wind) to moderate to
high (water)

5008.1

36.2%

Slight (wind) to
moderate (water)

513.8

3.7%

Moderate (water)

4978.3

35.9%

Slight (wind) to
moderate (water)

Ascalon sandy loam
(#8), 3 to 10 percent
slopes
Delson very stony loam
(#34), 20 to 60 percent
slopes
Torriorthents-Rock
outcrop, sandstone,
complex (#75)
Delson stony loam
(#33), 3 to 20 percent
slopes
Cochetopa stony
loam(#25), 10 to 40
percent slopes

681.6

4.9%

Slight (wind) to
moderate to high
(water)

Saraton-Agua Fria
complex (#70), 20 to 50
percent slopes

549.1

4.0%

Slight (wind) to
moderate to high
(water)

33.1

0.2%

Slight (wind) to high
(water)

Work loam (#82), 6 to
12 percent slopes
Absarokee-Work loams
(#2), 6 to 25 percent
slopes

20.2

0.2%

Slight to moderate
(wind) to moderate to
high (water)

Midway-Gaynor, silty
clay loams (56), 10 to 40
percent slopes

18.4

0.1%

Slight (wind) to high
(water)

Source: USDA 2008
Note: Cerro loam (#21) and Delson loam (#32) are described in Table 8.

34

 Environmental Consequences/Mitigation:

Proposed Action
The proposed action would include surface-disturbing activities such as access road
construction and drill pad construction. About 32.9 acres of total temporary disturbance is
anticipated from the proposed action, including about 21.5 acres for graded/occupied drill pad
locations and 11.4 acres for construction of new access roads. Drill site occupation and
construction of cuttings pits at each drilling location would also have direct soil disturbance.
Drilling and transport activities would occur primarily in the Delson Stony Loam and Delson
Very Stony Loam soil types. These soil types have slight to moderate erosion hazard. Soil
compaction due to drilling activities would reduce aeration, permeability, and water-holding
capacities of soils on the access roads and the drilling sites. Erosion control measures, including
silt logs and berms, would be used to minimize soil erosion. These measures would limit
stormwater flows off disturbed areas. Reclamation activities, as described in the proposed
action, would take place as soon as possible after drilling is completed. Each drilling location,
including cuttings pits and access roads, would be restored to near-original topographic position
and re-seeded. The combination of temporary erosion control measures and rapid reclamation
implementation would minimize soil impacts. Sites would be monitored to ensure adequate
revegetation occurs to avoid or limit soil loss.
Due to the healthy vegetation and soils with low erosion risk, along with erosion control
measures incorporated in the Proposed Action, soil erosion and impacts to soil productivity
following reclamation would be minimal.

Cumulative Impacts
The Leroux Creek basin (including Dever Creek and Cow Creek), Jay Creek basin, and West
Roatcap Creek basin were considered the cumulative effects analysis area. The Proposed Action
would result in minor, temporary impacts to soils. Oil and gas exploration, operation and
development on existing and future leases could result in similar impacts to soils in the project
vicinity, from drillpad and access road disturbance. If oil and gas wells are economically
feasible for operation and production, surface impacts to project area soils would remain during
the productive life of the well, normally about 30 years. Cumulatively, impacts to soils are
expected to be minor. With mitigation, including erosion control measures and
revegetation/reclamation activities, all anticipated soil impacts would be minimal, and
temporary.

No Action Alternative
Without the project, there would be no project-related effects to soils.

Finding on the Public Land Health Standard for upland soils
According to the North Fork LHA, all soils around the project area meet the Standard 1
Rating for soils and do not exhibit soil loss problems. In addition, there are no sites near the
project area with runoff drainage problems. There are some sites that are lacking soil protection
due to lack of vegetation and bare soil exposure along the western edge of the project area (BLM
35

 2007). With mitigation, including revegetation of drill pads and access roads, this action is
unlikely to reduce the productivity of soils impacted by surface disturbing activities.

VEGETATION (includes a finding on Standard 3)
Upland vegetation communities are discussed in the section below. Open water, wetlands,
and riparian areas are discussed in the Wetland and Riparian Zones section on page 65.

Affected Environment
Within the project area there are large expanses of mature and over-mature (also called
decadent, or old) Gambel oak/mountain shrub habitat. This habitat type makes up about 80
percent of habitat within the project area, with Pinyon-Juniper Oak the second most common
habitat type (about 7 percent) with large stands at lower elevations along the southern border of
the project area. Small open meadows are scattered throughout the project area. There are aspen
stands along the northern border of the exploration area that extend to the north. There are also a
few small aspen pockets found at higher elevations. Riparian habitat is found in perennial
drainages in the project area (see Figure 3 for vegetation map).

36

 Table 10. Vegetation in Project Area

Vegetation
Description
Gambel Oak Mountain Shrub
Pinyon - Juniper Gambel Oak
Pinyon – Juniper
Meadow
Cottonwood/Riparian
Riparian
Aspen
West Reservoir
Total

Area (Acres)

Area (Percent)

11,290.1

81.4%

970.6

7.0%

658.7
277.8
136.9
38.5
468.5
32.0

4.7%
2.0%
1.0%
0.3%
3.4%
0.2%

13,873.0

100.00

37

 !

OM-YR-10
OM-YR-42

OM-YR-09

!
!

!

!

OM-YR-43
OM-YR-18

OM-YR-32 !

OM-YR-16

!

OM-YR-14

!

!

OM-YR-20

OM-YR-08
!
OM-YR-37
OM-YR-38

!

!

!

!

West
Reservoir

OM-YR-25

OM-YR-36

!

!

!

OM-YR-31

!
!

OM-YR-41

OM-YR-33
OM-YR-21R

OM-YR-13

!

OM-YR-40

!

OM-YR-02
!

OM-YR-30

!

OM-YR-17
OM-YR-39

OM-YR-35
!

!

!

OM-YR-22

!

OM-YR-24
!

OM-YR-26

OM-YR-03R

!

!

OM-YR-12

!

!

OM-YR-44

OM-YR-15R

OM-YR-11R

!

OM-YR-23R

!

!

OM-YR-34

OM-YR-04R

!

!
!

OM-YR-05
!

OM-YR-29
!

OM-YR-06
!
!

OM-YR-28

OM-YR-27

OM-YR-07R

OM-YR-19

!

Oak Mesa Exploration Project
Aspen

Pinyon Juniper

Gambel Oak Mountain Shrub

Pinyon Juniper Gambel Oak

Road

Meadow

Riparian

Exploration Boundary

!

Drill Hole Location

0
Portions of this document include intellectual property of ESRI and its licensors and are used herein under license. Copyright © 2011 ESRI and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Figure 3
Vegetation Communities

2,500

5,000
feet

±

Prepared for: Oxbow Mining, LLC.
File: 5057 - Figure 3 EA.mxd (WH)
February 2012

 Gambel oak – Mountain shrub vegetation type
The Gambel oak-mountain shrub vegetation community is dominant across the project area
and occurs on ridge slopes, along drainages, and over level to moderately rolling terrain. This
type accounts for approximately 81 percent of the vegetation in the area. In some areas, nearpure stands of Gambel oak dominate slopes, drainages, and some areas on top of Oak Mesa.
Where the community occurs in larger meadows and along drainages, there is a variety of other
shrub species that are co- or sub-dominant depending upon growing conditions. Other shrubs
that occur in slightly more moist areas include snowberry (Symphoricarpos oreophilus or S.
rotundifolius) and serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia). The dominant shrub species is Gambel
oak. Toward the south end of Oak Mesa on the benches below approximately 7,800 feet, stands
of Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemesia tridentata wyomingensis) with isolated occurrences of
Basin big sagebrush (Artemesia tridentata tridentata) are found interspersed in the Gambel Oak
vegetation type. These areas of sagebrush are typically no more than a few acres in size. In
more moist areas, chokecherry (Prunus virginiana) is also found. Small, sub-dominant aspen
(Populus tremuloides) are found in wetter areas where the chokecherry community borders the
aspen community.

Photo 3. Typical Gambel oak-mountain shrub community on Oak Mesa.

Pinyon-Juniper (PJ) vegetation type
Two PJ vegetation types are found in the project area. The PJ woodland is dominated by
Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma), with Colorado pinyon (Pinus edulis) in some areas along
the south edge of Oak Mesa. In this area, a few Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum)
are also present. There is typically a sparse and variable understory that may contain remnant
shrubs such as Wyoming big sagebrush, birchleaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus),
bitterbrush (Purshia stansburiana), siltbush (Zuckia brandegeei), snakeweed, potato cactus
(Opuntia fragilis), muttongrass (Poa fendleriana), and bottlebrush squirreltail (Elymus
elymoides).

39

 Photo 4. Pinyon-Juniper vegetation type on south face of Oak Mesa.

With increasing elevation, Utah juniper and Colorado pinyon drop out of the community and
Gambel oak and mountain shrubs dominate the vegetation. In both these communities where
there are openings between the typically dense shrub canopies, or in areas where the canopy is
well above the ground surface, a productive understory of forbs and grasses exists. Commonly
found species are elk sedge (Carex geyeri), Letterman’s needlegrass (Acnatherum lettermanii),
Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), muttongrass, Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda),
bottlebrush squirreltail, western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), and nodding brome (Bromus
anomalus). Forbs are numerous with many species. The most widespread and dominant include
western yarrow (Achillea millefolium), lupine (Lupinus spp.), western sweetcicily (Osmorhiza
occidentalis), southern ligusticum (Ligusticum porteri), biscuitroot (Lomatium dissectum), and
aspen peavine (Lathyrus lanzwertii).

40

 Photo 5. Transition from Pinyon-Juniper to Gambel oak-mountain shrub on south end of Oak Mesa.

Photo 6. Gambel oak-mountain shrub with pockets of sagebrush and scattered pinyon-juniper; view to west
near south end of Oak Mesa.

Aspen vegetation type
Aspen stands occur at elevations greater than 8,800 feet near the northern edge of the project
area and beyond, especially at the heads of drainages. This vegetation type inhabits more moist
areas on all slopes in these northern, higher elevation areas. It mixes with most of the other
vegetation types on site and has a more open, highly productive understory. The dominant tree
species is aspen. Common understory species include Woods rose (Rosa woodsii), snowberry,
41

 chokecherry, mountain brome (Bromus marginatus), elk sedge, white- flowered peavine, Fendler
meadow-rue (Thalictrum fendleri), and American vetch (Vicia americans).
At somewhat lower elevations in small mesic drainages associated with the larger drainages,
there are small pockets of aspen vegetation. In most cases, there are only a few aspen and many
of these are dying out. The aspen understory typically contains snowberry and sometimes black
chokecherry or willows with a very productive understory of the grasses and forbs.

Photo 7. Stands of mature aspen; view up West Roatcap Creek near the north border of the project area.

Photo 8. View of aspen stand that has been logged and is regenerating.

42

 Riparian vegetative community
Within the broad category of riparian vegetation are several distinct plant communities. The
most common riparian community is dominated by narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus
angustifolia) and distinguished by various associated shrubs, forbs and grasses. The cottonwood
vegetation community is generally limited to the lower reaches of the Jay, West Roatcap, and
Leroux Creek drainages at elevations below approximately 8,800 feet. As shown on Figure 3,
the cottonwood community ends at higher elevations in Jay and West Roatcap drainages.
Riparian zones occur along project area drainages and are characterized by comparatively
narrow vegetation communities requiring wetter growing conditions than the surrounding
uplands. Riparian zones occur in a very narrow band along the drainages and, in most cases, are
no more than one or two trees wide (50 to 200 feet). There is a limited amount of understory
associated with the cottonwoods. There are some pockets of willows scattered along the
bottoms.

Photo 9. View of cottonwoods along West Roatcap Creek and representative of cottonwoods along Jay
Creek. Hillsides are dominated by Gambel oak-mountain shrub.

43

 Photo 10. Riparian zone along Dever Creek.

In other drainages, such as Dever Creek, there are some small pockets of aspen and willows.
These pockets are usually very small, not over 50 to 100 feet wide and 200 to 300 feet long, and
found only in the bottom of the drainages.
The boundaries of riparian zones are limited in width by the steep topography associated with
drainage systems. These zones may or may not include a recognized wetland component. A
variety of tree species are usually associated with the riparian zones of the project area and,
where occurring, the shrub component is denser than in the surrounding uplands due to soil
moisture conditions.
Meadow vegetative community
Scattered across the project area, the meadow vegetation community is associated primarily
with nearly level to moderately sloping sites on a variety of aspects and elevations. This
community occurs as small natural clearings within other vegetation types, revegetated
development disturbances, and heavily grazed meadows often associated with developed
stockponds. Dominant vegetation includes a variety of native and introduced herbaceous
species. Native species present include wheatgrasses (Agropyron sp.), bluegrasses (Poa sp.),
needlegrasses (Stipa sp.), and a variety of penstemons (Penstemon sp.), as well as rushes (Juncus
sp.) and spikerushes (Eleocharis sp.) bordering stock pond margins. Introduced species present
include smooth brome (Bromus inermis), orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), and mountain
timothy (Phleum alpinum).
On the western portion of the project area there are some irrigated and seeded meadow areas
that receive a limited amount of irrigation. Species include orchard grass, brome, and mountain
timothy. At the north edge of the project area, overflow from the Overland Ditch occurs during
the spring of some years which benefits the grasses in this area. Lower on the property, a limited
amount of water is diverted from the Wakefield Ditch to supplement naturally occurring
moisture in the spring and early summer. However, most of the water taken from the ditch is

44

 used to insure that stock ponds are filled to provide water for cattle during the summer and early
fall.

Photo 11. Meadow on west end of project area.

Environmental Consequences/Mitigation

Proposed Action
Under the proposed action, there would be impacts to vegetation communities from new road
and drill pad construction. In addition to direct impacts to vegetation communities from clearing
and grading, there would be indirect impacts from deposition of fugitive dust, increased risk of
exotic species/noxious weed introduction, introduction of new genetic strains from re-seeding
efforts, and change in age class and successional pattern in revegetation areas.
Design features have been incorporated into the proposed action to avoid and minimize
impacts to the extent possible. The proposed roads and drill pads have been oriented to
minimize clearing and disturbance, and take advantage of topography and vegetation gaps. Only
10 of the proposed drilling locations would require construction of a graded pad; the other
locations would require only minor clearing and removal of large rocks. This use of surface
occupation only rather than grading would ensure rapid revegetation due to limited soil
disturbance. Dust suppression using application of water to roads, pad locations, and soil
stockpile locations would minimize fugitive dust. Implementation of a weed management plan
to minimize risk of introduction, monitor disturbed and occupied areas (including existing roads
used as access), and control existing and new noxious weed populations would limit impacts
from weed spread. Proposed reclamation measures would ensure that all impacts would be
temporary, unless the landowner requests that new roads remain. Revegetation is not always
successful; therefore the sites would be monitored until revegetation success criteria have been
met. All new roads and all drill pads would be revegetated as described in the Proposed Action
section. Table 11 quantifies impacts to the vegetation communities, from both drill pad and road

45

 construction. In summary, the overall impacts from the proposed project on vegetation
communities are minor and represent about 0.3% of the project area.
Table 11. Vegetation Community Clearing Impacts from the Proposed Action.

Vegetation
Community

Temporary Impacts, BLM
surface (acres)

Temporary Impacts, Private
surface (acres)

Gambel Oak-Mountain
Shrub

3.9

22.2

Pinyon-JuniperGambel Oak

0.5

1.1

Pinyon-Juniper

0.0

0.0

Meadow

1.6

2.4

Cottonwood-Riparian

0.0

0.0

Riparian

0.0

0.1

Aspen

0.0

1.0

Total

6.0

26.9

Note: acres may not sum due to minor rounding errors.

Cumulative Impacts
The Leroux Creek basin (including Dever Creek and Cow Creek), Jay Creek basin, and West
Roatcap Creek basin were considered the cumulative effects analysis area for vegetation. The
Proposed Action would result in minor, temporary impacts to vegetation communities. Some
impacts on successional stage of vegetation may be long-term (20 to 30 years); this would occur
primarily in shrub/tree areas. Oil and gas exploration, operation and development and coal lease
modifications in the cumulative effects analysis area could result in similar impacts in the project
vicinity. Cumulatively, impacts to vegetation communities are expected to be minor. With
mitigation, including dust suppression, erosion control measures, implementation of a weed
management plan and revegetation/reclamation activities, all anticipated impacts would be,
minimal, and temporary. If oil and gas wells are economically feasible for operation and
production, surface impacts would remain during the productive life of the well, normally about
30 years.

No Action Alternative
Without the project, there would be no project-related effects to vegetation communities on
Oak Mesa.

Finding on the Public Land Health Standard for plant and animal communities
(partial, see also Wildlife, Aquatic; Wildlife, Terrestrial; and Invasive, Non-native Species)
According to the North Fork LHA, the southern portion of the project area is classified as
“meeting with problems” the Standard 3 Rating for Healthy Biotic Communities. All other areas
are either uplands or are meeting the Standard. There are no sites around the project area that
have plant diversity problems, however, there are several sites, primarily on the east and west
46

 boundaries of the project area that have cool season perennial grass problems and low perennial
forb cover. Just one site on the south-western edge of the project area has both warm season
perennial grass problems and PJ invasion and pinyon decline problems (BLM 2007).
There are several sites on the south west edge of the project area where the shrubs are
moderately to seriously hedged and there are sites on all but the north edge of the project area
that exhibit plants in low vigor (BLM 2007).
The Proposed Action would not change to the Standard 3 Rating for the project area. Some
areas could see an improvement in the vegetative communities with reclamation following the
exploration, and shrub clearing could have a beneficial effect on herbaceous vegetation.

INVASIVE, NON-NATIVE SPECIES (includes a finding on Standard 3)
Affected Environment
One State of Colorado listed noxious weed species (Colorado Department of Agriculture
2010), Canada thistle (Breea arvense), was observed in the project area during the September
2011 vegetation surveys. Other observed species in or near the project area include hoary cress
(Cardaria draba) and Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens). During surveys for other projects
in the North Fork Valley in similar habitat types and elevations other listed species have been
observed. Those that could occur in the project area include Perennial pepperweed (Lepidium
latifolium), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), cheatgrass (Anisantha
techtorum) and hounds tongue (Cynoglossum officinale). Yellow starthistle (Centaurea
solstitialis) is known to occur near the east edge of the project area, and could spread to the
project area. Non-county listed weeds present in the project that are invasive include horehound
(Marrubium vulgare), and cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium). The existing weeds in the project
area could be a result of landowner activities, grazing, transport of cattle and other equipment
access, and previous oil and gas exploration and drilling activities.

Environmental Consequences/Mitigation

Proposed Action
The proposed project would result in ground-disturbing activities or occupation on 32.9 acres
during construction of new access roads and drill pads. During construction and reclamation, the
disturbed areas would be open for noxious weed establishment and potential spread onto
adjacent lands. Additional existing road areas would be occupied by vehicles, though the ground
would not be disturbed by grading. Equipment used for construction and drilling can introduce
and spread new weed species that currently are not established. The species mentioned above
are typically aggressive and highly competitive with more desirable species. New roads and pad
disturbance were minimized during project design by using existing roads, and using flat
topographic areas as much as possible for drilling. Using this approach, only 10 pads would
require grading. Other design features including prompt reclamation of disturbed areas,
monitoring and weed control following the project, washing equipment prior to use in the project
area, and following the Weed Management Plan would help avoid the introduction and spread of
weeds.

47

 Cumulative Impacts
The Leroux Creek basin (including Dever Creek and Cow Creek), Jay Creek basin, and West
Roatcap Creek basin were considered the cumulative effects analysis area for noxious weeds.
The Proposed Action would result in increased risk for spread of noxious weeds. Oil and gas
exploration, operation and development, and coal lease modifications on adjacent lands could
also result in the spread of noxious weeds. However, with mitigation for the proposed action and
similar requirements for oil and gas operations, the increased risk is anticipated to be minimal.

No Action Alternative
Without the project, there would be no project-related effects to invasive, non-native species
on Oak Mesa. Existing weed infestations likely would continue to spread.

Finding on the Public Land Health Standard for plant and animal communities
(partial, see also Wildlife, Aquatic; Wildlife, Terrestrial; and Vegetation)
There are only two sites in the exploration area that present potential “exotic” plant problems
in undisturbed areas. One is on the eastern edge and the other is on the southern edge of the
project area. There is one site on the southwest edge of the exploration area that, according to
the North Fork LHA has significant cheatgrass cover. There are minor patches of noxious weeds
scattered around the boundary of the project area with one significant infestation located along
the northeastern edge of the project area (BLM 2007). Although the species is not identified in
the North Fork LHA, most common weeds in the project vicinity are identified as Russian
knapweed, hoary cress, tamarisk, and Canada thistle (BLM 2007).
The Proposed Action would not change the Standard 3 Rating for the project area. Weed
management and reclamation could have a beneficial effect.

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES (includes a finding on
Standard 4)
Affected Environment:
Federal and State
No terrestrial threatened and endangered (T & E) wildlife or plant species listed by the U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) or Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) were observed during
habitat and wildlife surveys (Table 12). Occupied and suitable habitat in the exploration area is
lacking for all of the T&E listed species, including plants. The only listed fish species are found
downstream in the Gunnison and Colorado Rivers. The yellow-billed cuckoo and Gunnison sage
grouse are listed as federal candidate species. There is no suitable habitat for these two species
in the proposed exploration area (See further explanation below). The paragraphs that follow
provide a description of the species in Table 12.

48

 Table 12. Federal and State Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species

Species

Status

Habitat Present

Species Present

Canada lynx

FT,SE

No

No

Black-footed ferret

FE,SE

No

No

North American
Wolverine

FE,SE

No

No

Greenback cutthroat

FT

No

No

Colorado pikeminnow

FE, ST

No

No

Humpback chub

FE, ST

No

No

Razorback sucker

FE, SE

No

No

Bonytail chub

FE, SE

No

No

Yellow-billed cuckoo

FC, SC

No

No

Gunnison sage grouse

FC, SC

No

No

FE - Federal Endangered
FT - Federal Threatened
FC - Federal Candidate Species

SE - State Endangered
ST - State Threatened
SC - State Species of Concern

Source: FWS 2011
Canada lynx
The project area is not located within or near any mapped lynx habitat (USFS 2011b). The
CPW lynx data base does not show that any lynx have been observed within miles of the area
since lynx were first reintroduced into the state. Under the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment
guidelines aspen is classified as secondary habitat. However, aspen stands that would fit this
classification are found at the northern edge of the exploration area. Some of these stands have
been logged and in others there are existing roads. In five years of winter habitat and track
surveys conducted by Monarch on Grand Mesa and near the West Elk Wilderness in similar
aspen habitat, it was found that suitable prey base for lynx is lacking. The only predator tracks
found in these areas were those of coyotes and these were few in number. The only prey tracks
were a very limited number of rodents (Monarch 2011).
Black-footed ferret
There is no black-footed ferret habitat in the project area. Their primary prey, white-tailed
prairie dogs are known to occur in Delta County, but none are in or near the Oak Mesa area
(Monarch 2011). Black-footed ferret are also assumed to be extirpated from the Uncompahgre
Field Office (UFO) management area.
North American wolverine
There is no wolverine habitat in the project area. The nearest areas where there could
potentially be wolverine habitat are in the West Elk Wilderness Area which is miles from the
project area (Monarch 2011).

Greenback cutthroat trout
49

 Greenback cutthroats are known to occur in Leroux Creek. However, surveys conducted by
the CPW and USFS show that these fish are all found upstream from the project area on the
Grand Mesa National Forest (Dare 2011).
Endangered Fish
Four federally listed endangered species (Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail
chub, and razorback sucker) occur in offsite areas including the Gunnison and Colorado Rivers.
These four species of fish occur in warm water habitats downstream of the project area in the
Gunnison and Colorado Rivers. None of these species of fish are known or expected to occur in
the project area. However, water depletions associated with this type of project are known to
affect these species.
In May 2008, BLM prepared a Programmatic Biological Assessment (PBA) that addresses
water depletion activities associated with BLM’s fluid minerals program in the Colorado River
Basin in Colorado. In response to BLM’s PBA, the FWS issued and Programmatic Biological
Opinion (PBO)(ES/GJ-6-CO-08-F-0006) on December 19, 2008, which determined that BLM
water depletions from the Colorado River Basin are not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail, or razorback sucker, and that
BLM water depletions are not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat.
The PBO addresses water depletions associated with fluid minerals development on BLM lands,
including water used for well drilling, hydrostatic testing of pipelines and dust abatement on
roads. The PBO includes reasonable and prudent alternatives developed by the FWS which
allow BLM to authorize oil and gas wells that result in water depletion while avoiding the
likelihood of jeopardy to the endangered fishes and avoiding destruction or adverse modification
of their critical habitat. As a reasonable and prudent alternative in the PBO, FWS authorized
BLM to solicit a one-time contribution to the Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered
Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin (Recovery Program) in the amount equal to the
average annual acre-feet (ac-ft) depleted by fluid minerals activities on BLM lands (Monarch
2011).
This project would result in a one-time depletion of approximately one acre-foot to the
Gunnison and Colorado river systems from water used for drilling and dust control. The FWS
has determined any amount of water depletion in the Upper Colorado River will jeopardize the
continued existence of the four listed Colorado River fishes. Therefore, the depletion of one
acre-foot of water would result in a may affect, likely to adversely affect to the four listed
Colorado River fishes. However, as discussed above, the BLM has completed a programmatic
consultation covering small water depletions associated with well drilling activities (Biological
Opinion Ref # (PBO) (ES/GJ-6-CO-08-F-0006). The scope of this PBO encompasses the
proposed action.
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Although there are cottonwoods along Jay, West Roatcap, and Leroux creeks, these are
narrow stringers and do not provide suitable nesting habitat for the yellow-billed cuckoo.
Overall, nesting habitat for these birds is lacking in the project area. They have been found in
large cottonwood gallery forests along the North Fork of the Gunnison River, about 4 miles
south of the project area (BLM 2007). There is a slight chance that a yellow-billed cuckoo might
be found in the stringers in lower portions of the drainages (Monarch 2011).
Gunnison sage grouse
There are no records of Gunnison sage grouse having been observed in the Oak Mesa area.
There are small areas of sagebrush on the large benches near the south end of the mesa. These
50

 birds require large areas of continuous sage brush. The small pockets of sagebrush found in the
project area are not of sufficient size to support these birds. In addition, these pockets are found
where there are larger shrubs and in some cases PJ that could be used as hunting perches by
raptors. This further reduces that chances that any of these birds might occur in the area. The
nearest known populations of these birds are in the Crawford area several miles south of the
project area. CPW mapped historic range for Gunnison sage grouse reaches as far north at
Wakefield Mesa, greater than 2 miles southeast of the project area. Based upon what is known
about habitat requirements for these birds suitable habitat is lacking for these birds in the project
area (Monarch 2011). The nearest known Gunnison sage grouse habitat is greater than 8 miles
south of the project area (BLM 2007).
BLM Sensitive Species of the UFO
The BLM lists a total of 43 terrestrial vertebrates, fish, invertebrates and plant species, which
occur, potentially occur, or habitat for which occurs in the UFO area. A review of information
on these species shows that only six terrestrial vertebrates, one amphibian, and one fish are
known to occur or have suitable habitat in the project area (see Table 13). There is no suitable
habitat for any sensitive plant species in the project area (Monarch 2011; BLM 2007).
Table 13. BLM Sensitive Species of the UFO Potentially Occurring in the Project Area

Species

Habitat Present

Species Present

Terrestrial vertebrates
Spotted bat

Yes

Unknown

Fringed myotis bat

Yes

Unknown

Townsend’s big-eared bat

Yes

Unknown

Bald eagle

Forging habitat only

Unknown

American peregrine falcon

No nesting habitat

Yes

Brewer’s sparrow

Yes

Unknown

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Amphibians
Northern leopard frog
Fish
Bluehead sucker

Source: Monarch 2011; BLM 2007
Spotted bat
The spotted bat can be found in many western states and provinces, but its distribution is
quite patchy, likely due to its dependence on large, isolated cliffs for roosting. In localities
where such habitat is abundant (e.g., the Grand Canyon), spotted bats are believed to be
moderately common. However, given the scarcity of suitable habitat, range- wide abundance is
still thought to be fairly low. This, combined with unknown population trends, a suite of
potential threats, and lack of basic life history data contribute to a broad level of conservation
concern (Luce and Keinath 2007).
The main threats to the persistence of spotted bat populations are loss or reduction in value of
wet meadows and other foraging areas, at least at a local scale. Such impacts could result from

51

 over-grazing by livestock, water diversion, or changes in land use such as conversion of native
habitats to tilled cropland.
No spotted bat occurrence has been formally documented within the proposed project area.
No cliffs or rock walls, which this species requires for roosting, occur in the project area, which
further reduces chances that any spotted bats occur in the project area (Garrison 2011).
Townsend’s big-eared bat
Because of its narrow roosting preferences, local distribution of Townsend’s big-eared bat
tends to be restricted by the presence of suitable roosting habitat (i.e., primarily caves and mines,
abandoned buildings, and large tree hollows) (Gruver and Keinath 2006).
Suitable roosting habitat is lacking within the proposed project area. Suitable foraging
habitat is limited within the proposed project area. There are records of Townsend’s big-eared
bats for Delta County, but none have been formally documented in the project area (Garrison
2011).
Fringed myotis
Suitable roosting sites are a critical habitat component, the availability of which can
determine population sizes and distributions (Humphrey 1975, Kunz 1982, Adams 2003,
Fitzgerald, 1994). Maternity roosts, diurnal roosts, nocturnal roosts, and winter hibernacula must
all be considered. Throughout their range, fringed myotis use caves, mines, and buildings as
maternity colonies, solitary day and night roosts, and hibernacula. (Keinath, D.A. 2004).
Fringed myotis are gleaners foraging close to the plant canopy. They commonly forage
around the edges to forests and within shrub communities such as Gambel oak. Suitable roosting
habitat is present in Gambel oak in the project area (Adams 2003). Fringed myotis bats have not
been formally documented in the project area (Garrison 2011).
Bald eagle
No occurrence of the bald eagle has been formally documented within the proposed project
area. The nearest known bald eagle activity is along the North Fork of the Gunnison River.
Suitable nesting and reproductive habitat for the bald eagle is found along the river, but is not
present in the proposed project area. Bald eagles do winter along the North Fork of the
Gunnison River and in the winter possibly make foraging flights through the area searching for
carrion. Winter range is documented south of the project area. Winter roost habitat for the bald
eagle is not present within the project area (Monarch 2011; BLM 2007).
Peregrine falcon
One peregrine falcon was observed foraging in the area during spring surveys in 2011. This
is the only occasion that a peregrine has been observed in the area. However, there have been
numerous sightings of peregrines in the North Fork Valley and there is a known nest site several
miles to the east in Dove Gulch. Suitable cliff nesting habitat for this species is lacking in the
project area. Known peregrine falcon areas occur on the Grand Mesa National Forest greater
than 10 miles north of the project area (Monarch 2011; BLM 2007).
Brewer’s Sparrow
This species prefers rabbitbrush and sagebrush habitat (Kingery 1998). There are a few
small stands of sagebrush that could provide suitable habitat for this species along the southern
portion of the project area (Monarch 2011).
Northern leopard frog
The northern leopard frog prefers the banks and shallow portions of marshes, wet meadows,
ponds, lakes, and streams particularly where rooted aquatic vegetation is present (Hammerson
52

 1999). They prefer permanent bodies of water and are a wide-ranging species known to
elevations of 3,355 meters (11,000 feet). Northern leopard frogs can range up to 5 kilometers (3
miles) and feed on insects, spiders, and worms. Northern leopard frog tadpoles are herbivorous
scavengers (USFS 1997). There is suitable northern leopard frog habitat along drainages and in
stock ponds in the project area (Monarch 2011).
Colorado River cutthroat trout
Suitable habitat for the Colorado River cutthroat trout does not occur within the project area.
This fish may occur in Leroux Creek north of the exploration boundary in the Grand Mesa
National Forest, greater than 3 miles north of the project area (Monarch 2011).
Bluehead sucker
This species is known to occur in streams in the North Fork Valley (Speas 2011). However,
during stream sampling conducted by the BLM in 2007 below the confluence of Leroux and
Dever creeks no bluehead suckers were found (Fresques 2011).

Environmental Consequences/Mitigation

Proposed Action
Federally Threatened and Endangered Species
Canada lynx
There would be no additional disturbance of the older aspen stands in this area during road
building associated with the exploration program. It would be necessary to build one short
section of road to the OM-18 drill site through an aspen stand that has been logged and is
regenerating. This stand would not be considered lynx habitat. The OM-18 drill site would be
constructed in Gambel oak-mountain shrub habitat. Based on the above information, it has been
determined that the project would have no effect on Canada lynx.
Black-footed ferret
There is no habitat for the black-footed ferret in the project area, and the project would have
no effect on this species.
North American wolverine
There is no habitat for the wolverine in the project area, and the project would have no effect
on this species.
Greenback cutthroat trout
There is no habitat for the greenback cutthroat trout in the project area, and habitat for the
species in Leroux Creek is greater than 3 miles upstream of the project area on the Grand Mesa
National Forest. The project would have no effect on this species.
Endangered Fish
This project would result in a one-time depletion of approximately one acre-foot to the
Gunnison and Colorado River systems. The FWS has determined any amount of water depletion
in the Upper Colorado River will jeopardize the continued existence of the four listed Colorado
River fishes. Therefore, the depletion of one acre-foot of water would result in a may affect,
likely to adversely affect to the four listed Colorado River fishes. However, as discussed
previously, the BLM has completed a programmatic consultation covering small water
depletions associated with well drilling activities (Biological Opinion Ref # (PBO) (ES/GJ-6CO-08-F-0006) such as the proposed action.

53

 Yellow-billed Cuckoo
There is no habitat for the yellow-billed cuckoo in the project area, and habitat for the species
along the North fork of the Gunnison River is greater than 3 miles south of the project area. The
project would have no effect on this species.
Gunnison sage grouse
There is no habitat for the Gunnison sage grouse in the project area, and habitat for the
species is greater than 8 miles south of the project area. The project would have no effect on this
species.
BLM Sensitive Species
The purpose of this section is to analyze the effects of the proposed project, to determine if
the proposed activities are likely to cause a loss of viability or a trend toward Federal listing
under the Endangered Species Act for any of these species.
Spotted bat
No spotted bat occurrence has been formally documented within the proposed project area.
No cliffs or rock walls occur in the project area, which further reduces changes that any spotted
bats could be affected. Activities from the project would have no impact to the spotted bat.
Townsend’s big-eared bat
Suitable roosting habitat for the Townsend’s big-eared bat is lacking near the proposed
activities, and suitable foraging habitat is limited or lacking. No Townsend’s big-eared bat
occurrence has been formally documented within the proposed project area. Activities from the
project would have no impact to the Townsend’s big-eared bat.
Fringed myotis
The fringed myotis has not been formally documented in the project area. Suitable foraging
and roosting habitat occurs, but given the large expanses of foraging habitat and small amount of
disturbance it is doubtful there would be any impact to these bats as a result of the exploration
drilling activities. Activities from the project would have no impact to the fringed myotis.
Bald eagle
The bald eagle has not been formally documented in the project area. No suitable nesting or
winter roost site habitat for the bald eagle is present in the project area. The bald eagle may
forage in the project area for carrion during the winter months, but no activities are proposed
during this time frame. Activities from the project would have no impact to the bald eagle.
Peregrine falcon
Peregrine may occasionally forage in the project area. There is no suitable cliff nesting
habitat, and the nearest known nest site is several miles east of the proposed project activities.
Activities from the project would have no impact to the peregrine falcon.
Brewer’s sparrow
Disturbance to the limited sagebrush habitat present in the project area would only occur at
two sites and the disturbance would be minor. There could be minor impacts to the Brewer’s
sparrow if construction activities occur between June 1 and July 15 and no impact if work is
conducted outside of this time frame. Preconstruction surveys would be conducted if disturbance
to sagebrush habitat is expected between June 1 and July 15. Exploration activities would have
minimal impact on Brewer’s sparrow if construction occurs outside of the nesting period or if the
site is Brewer’s sparrow is determined not to be present. Activities may adversely affect
individuals, but are not likely to result in a loss of viability in the project area, nor cause a trend
towards federal listing or a loss of species viability.
54

 Northern leopard frog
Direct impacts on northern leopard frogs could possibly occur if sediment enters water
bodies where they are present. However, leopard frogs are found in ponds used by livestock
where turbidity is often high. With proposed erosion control mitigation measures potential
indirect effects on this species would be minimized. Activities may adversely affect individuals,
but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the project area, nor cause a trend towards federal
listing or a loss of species viability.
Bluehead sucker
This species is known to occur in Leroux Creek. All drilling activity associated with
exploration operations would occur greater than ½ mile from Leroux Creek. Leroux Creek Road
and other existing ranch roads would be used and no new crossings of Leroux Creek would be
required. Sediment control measures, in addition to distance from the stream, would prevent
impacts to stream water quality. The small areas of disturbance, location of construction activity
and implementation of sediment control measures minimize the chances that silt would reach the
stream.
The small areas of disturbance and location of construction activity and proposed sediment
control measures minimizes the chances that these fish would be impacted. Exploration activities
may adversely affect individuals, but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the Planning
area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of species viability.

Cumulative Impacts
The Leroux Creek basin (including Dever Creek and Cow Creek), Jay Creek basin, and West
Roatcap Creek basin were considered the cumulative effects analysis area for listed and sensitive
species. The Proposed Action would not result in impacts to any federally listed species (ESA).
There would be no cumulative effects to ESA-listed species. For three BLM species of concern
(Brewer’s sparrow, northern leopard frog, and bluehead sucker), a determination of “may
adversely affect individuals” has been made, due to surface disturbance and increased risk of
sedimentation.
Cumulative impacts from other activities that are reasonably foreseeable would be similar in
nature to those associated with the proposed action. Oil and gas exploration, drilling, and
operation would result in access roads and small (5 to 7 acre) pad sites that would increase
vegetation disturbance. Ongoing grazing impacts likely would continue. While existing and
proposed leases occur in the project vicinity, few wells have been drilled and even fewer have
been completed. Production is very limited in the identified cumulative impacts analysis area.
Without substantial changes to the oil and gas economy or extraction technology, the low
existing level of exploration and drilling is likely to continue. Within the past 10 years, only 14
oil and gas wells have been drilled within 10 miles of the 13,873-acre project area. Given the
small project impacts and low level of anticipated impacts from reasonably foreseeable actions,
impacts to populations are unlikely. With the design features incorporated into the proposed
action and similar measures required of oil and gas development, habitat impacts would not
threaten any populations of Brewer’s sparrow, northern leopard frog, and bluehead sucker that
inhabit the cumulative effects analysis area.

55

 No Action Alternative
Without the project, there would be no project-related effects to any federally listed species,
or BLM species of concern.

Finding on the Public Land Health Standard for Threatened & Endangered
species:
Based on the North Fork Land Health Assessment NFLHA, there is no habitat for threatened
and endangered species in the project area. The southern edge of the project area is adjacent to
the northern edge of potential Bald Eagle Winter Range (BLM 2007). All areas surrounding the
project area are meeting Standard 4 Special Status Species (BLM 2007). The proposed project
would not change the ability of the project area to meet Standard 4.

BIRDS (Birds of Conservation Concern of the UFO, Migratory, and Raptors)
Affected Environment
Birds of conservation concern of the UFO
The USFWS (2008) lists 26 bird species as occurring in the UFO district. Of these, habitat is
lacking in the project area for all but 8 species (Table 14; Monarch 2011).
Table 14. Birds of Conservation Concern of the UFO

Species

Habitat Present

Species Present

Golden eagle

Foraging only

Yes

Peregrine falcon

Foraging only

Yes

Prairie falcon

Foraging only

Yes

Lewis’s woodpecker

Yes

Yes

Gray vireo

Yes

Yes

Pinyon jay

Yes

Yes

Juniper titmouse

Yes

Yes

Brewer’s sparrow

Yes

Unknown

Source: FWS 2008.
The golden eagle, peregrine falcon and prairie falcon are known to forage in the area. There
are some cottonwood trees along Leroux Creek within the project area that could be utilized by
golden eagles for nesting. However, there are no records of golden eagles nesting in that area or
in any other cottonwood stands in or near the project area. Golden Eagle nest sites occur both
east and west of the project area, in cliff habitat (BLM 2007). There is no suitable nesting
habitat for peregrine or prairie falcons in the project area (Monarch 2011).
There are other Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) that utilize other habitat types in the
project area. These include the Lewis’s woodpecker, Gray vireo, Pinyon Jay, and Juniper
titmouse. The Lewis’s woodpecker is known to nest in riparian habitat and sometimes in PJ.
The Gray vireo, Pinyon Jay and Juniper titmouse are known to nest in PJ. These birds may also
forage in the Gambel oak-mountain shrub habitat (Monarch 2011).
The Brewer’s sparrow is known to nest in sagebrush stands in the North Fork Valley. There
are small pockets of sagebrush in the Gambel oak-mountain shrub habitat in the project area
56

 these birds could utilize. However, the pockets are few in number and small in size which limits
the number of these birds that might use the sagebrush stands for nesting (Monarch 2011).
Raptors
During surveys conducted in September 2011 all suitable nesting habitat, which included
aspen, cottonwood and PJ was checked. Areas surveyed included the delineated exploration area
and in some cases, areas outside the delineated area when suitable raptor nesting habitat was
within ¼ mile of a proposed drill site or access road. Also taken into consideration were
vegetation and topographic conditions that would preclude a nest site from being observed from
a drill site. There are also a few aspen stands in the area that are dying out and do not provide
suitable nesting conditions for raptors. Declining aspen stands and the lack of use by nesting
raptors in these stands has been commonly observed over the last few years during surveys in the
North Fork Valley (Monarch 2011).
Only one active nest, that of a red-tailed hawk known to be active in 2010 and 2011 was
located. This nest is located just south of West Reservoir. The remnants of two nests of
unknown species were located in small aspen stand stringers at the north end of the West
Roatcap Creek drainage. None were found in larger mature aspen stands (Monarch 2011).
Aspen logging has occurred in the area in the past and there are some regenerating stands that
are very dense and do not provide suitable conditions for raptor nesting. It will be a number of
years before aspen in these stands grow to sufficient size to be used by raptors (Monarch 2011).
No surveys were conducted for raptor nests in Gambel oak-mountain shrub habitat, as this
vegetation community does not provide suitable nest habitat (Monarch 2011).
Raptors observed during the September 2011 surveys included golden eagle, sharp-shinned
hawk, Cooper’s hawk, red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, and American peregrine falcon.
During prior wildlife surveys in the area in the spring of 2010 and 2011 prairie falcons and
northern harriers were observed flying over the area (Monarch 2011).
Golden eagles were observed flying over the area at a level and pattern that indicated they
were foraging. These birds were observed in both 2010 and 2011 (Monarch 2011).
Prairie falcons were observed on two occasions in 2010 and 2011 flying over the area. These
appeared to be migrants moving through the area. There are no suitable nest sites for these birds
in the project area (Monarch 2011).
Migratory birds
Plant communities within the analysis area provide habitats for a variety of migratory bird
species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service list of Birds of Conservation Concern was used as to
complete this analysis (USFWS 2008, Table 14, p.32, BCR 16 [Southern Rockies/Colorado
Plateau]). A variety of migratory bird species use habitat in the project area for nesting,
particularly the gambel oak-mountain shrub community. Those birds that have been observed in
this habitat type in the North Fork Valley are shown on Table 15. This species list is based upon
observations within this habitat type at other projects in the North Fork Valley over the past ten
years (Monarch 2011). Only those species which are known to, or may nest in this habitat type
within the project area are shown on the list.

57

 Table 15. Observed Bird Species (in Prior Studies of the North Fork Valley) that are Known to Nest in Gambel
Oak-Mountain Shrub Habitat

Mourning dove
Great horned owl
Broad-tail hummingbird
Black-chinned hummingbird
Olive-sided flycatcher
Dusky flycatcher
Loggerhead shrike
Plumbeous vireo
Warbling vireo
Western scrub-jay
Black-billed magpie
Black-capped chickadee
White-breasted nuthatch
House wren
Blue-gray gnatcatcher
Hermit thrush
American robin

Orange-crowned warbler
Virginia's warbler
Yellow warbler
MacGillivary's warbler
Western tanager
Black-headed grosbeak
Lazuli bunting
Green-tailed towhee
Spotted towhee
Chipping sparrow
Brewer's sparrow
Vesper sparrow
Lark sparrow
Gray-headed junco
Brewer's blackbird
Brown-headed cowbird
Pine siskin

In addition to the species listed on Table 15 there are numerous other migratory species that
would be expected to be found in those habitat types in the project area. Those species known to
occur, or could occur in the habitat types found in the project area are shown on Table 16. This
species list has also been compiled from surveys conducted for other projects in the North Fork
Valley over the last 10 years. Some of these birds were observed during the September 2011
surveys in the project area.

58

 Table 16. Bird Species Observed in Habitat other than Gambel Oak-Mountain Shrub in the Project Area*

Western grebe

Flycatcher spp.

Great blue heron
Mallard

Olive-sided flycatcher
Western wood peewee

Blue winged teal
Cinnamon teal
Green winged teal
Ring-necked duck
Turkey vulture

Dusky flycatcher
Loggerhead shrike
Plumbeous vireo
Warbling vireo
Gray vireo
Gray jay
Stellar's jay
Western scrub-jay
Stellar’s jay
Black-billed magpie
American crow
Common raven
Tree swallow
Violet-green swallow
Purple martin
Black-capped chickadee
Mountain chickadee
Plain titmouse

Golden eagle
Bald eagle
Northern harrier
Sharp-shinned hawk
Cooper's hawk
Red-tailed hawk
Swainson’s hawk
American kestrel
Peregrine falcon
Prairie falcon
Willet
Spotted sandpiper
Dusky grouse

Mountain bluebird
Townsend’s solitare
Ruby-crowned kinglet
Lewis’s woodpecker
Swainson's thrush
Hermit thrush
American robin
Gray catbird
Orange-crowned warbler
Virginia's warbler
Yellow warbler
Yellow-rumped warbler
MacGillivary's warbler
Common wellowthroat
Wilson's warbler
Western tanager
Black-headed grosbeak
Lazuli bunting
Green-tailed towhee
Cedar waxwing
Spotted towhee

Merriam's turkey
Bushtit
Chipping sparrow
Mourning dove
Red-breasted nuthatch
Brewer's sparrow
Great Horned owl
White-breasted nuthatch
Gray-headed junco
Northern pygmy owl
House wren
Brewer's blackbird
Long eared owl
Blue-gray gnatcatcher
Brown-headed cowbird
Common nighthawk
Hairy woodpecker
Cassin's finch
Pine siskin
Broad-tail hummingbird
Northern flicker
Black-chinned
hummingbird
Red-naped sapsucker
Downy woodpecker
*Bird species that have been observed during surveys at this and other project sites with similar
habitat types over the last ten years in the North Fork Valley

59

 Environmental Consequences/Mitigation

Proposed Action
Birds of Conservation Concern
No PJ habitat that could be used by these birds would be lost as a result of road or drill pad
construction. These birds may also forage in the Gambel oak-mountain shrub habitat. When
considering the large expanses of Gambel oak-mountain shrub habitat in the project area (13,873
acres), the temporary loss of about 32.9 acres for road and pad construction would not be
expected to have an effect on activities by these birds in the area. The temporary habitat loss
represents about 0.3 percent of total habitat in the project area.
Raptors
For all but four drill sites and access roads (OM-02, OM-14, OM-16 and OM-18 ) suitable
raptor nesting habitat is either more than ¼ mile from the site or in those cases where it is closer
than ¼ mile, the habitat is shielded from the site by either topographic or vegetative relief. Only
one active raptor nest, that of a red-tailed hawk known to be active in 2010 and 2011 was
located. This nest is located just south of West Reservoir and within ¼ mile of the OM-02 site.
However, this nest site is over a ridge and in a large aspen stand that precludes the nest from
being observed from the drill site. Red-tailed hawks nesting within 100 yards of active mining
operations has been observed at numerous mines over the years (Monarch 2011), so it is unlikely
the construction and drilling operations would disturb nesting activities at this nest if it is active.
If the nest were active, construction and drilling operations could be put off until the young have
fledged. This would eliminate the chances of the nest being impacted.
There is no suitable golden eagle nesting sites within 1/2 mile of any proposed drill sites or
access roads. The nearest known active golden eagle nest sites are several miles from the
exploration area.
Migratory birds
The BLM has determined that if construction and drilling activities for projects occur
between May 1 and July 15 migratory bird nesting would be affected. During an average spring,
conditions are too wet to allow for construction activities to occur before June 15. This means
that if work commences between June 15 and July 15, nesting migratory birds would be affected.
In this situation the BLM requires that acreages that would be disturbed, potential impacts and
species that might be impacted be determined and discussed prior to exploration activities. Of
the 11,290 acres of mapped Gambel oak-mountain shrub habitat, it is expected that less than 28
acres would be affected during the mid-June to July 15 period. Further, many of the road
corridors circumvent shrub stands and many of the drill sites are also found in open areas that
would not require any shrub removal.
Because wet conditions commonly persist in aspen stands until sometime in July, no road
and pad construction in the aspen community is expected until after the middle of July. Except
for the possibility of one or more raptors nesting in the aspen stands, there would be no impacts
to migratory birds. In addition, current plans call for reconditioning existing roads in the aspen
stands that would not result in the removal of any aspen trees. This further reduces the chances
of migratory birds being directly affected.
If work commences after the middle of July, migratory birds would have finished nesting and
the young will have fledged. BLM has determined that disturbing nesting habitat after that time
would not result in more than minimal impacts to nesting migratory birds. Location of roads and
60

 pads to minimize loss of nesting habitat would reduce chances of the loss of nests or young.
Activities may adversely affect individuals, but are not likely to result in a loss of viability on the
Planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of species viability.

Cumulative Impacts
The Leroux Creek basin (including Dever Creek and Cow Creek), Jay Creek basin, and West
Roatcap Creek basin were considered the cumulative effects analysis area for the various
categories of bird species. The Proposed Action would result in temporary increased risk for
disturbance to birds of conservation concern, raptors, and migratory birds.
Cumulative impacts from other activities that are reasonably foreseeable would be similar in
nature to those associated with the proposed action. As noted previously in the EA section
covering Threatened, Endangered, and sensitive species, oil and gas exploration, drilling, and
operation would result in access roads and small (5 to 7 acre) pad sites that would increase
vegetation disturbance. Ongoing grazing impacts likely would continue. While existing and
proposed leases occur in the project vicinity, few wells have been drilled and even fewer have
been completed. Production is very limited in the identified cumulative impacts analysis area.
Without substantial changes to the oil and gas economy or extraction technology, the low
existing level of exploration and drilling is likely to continue. Within the past 10 years, only 14
oil and gas wells have been drilled within 10 miles of the 13,873-acre project area. Given the
small project impacts and low level of anticipated impacts from reasonably foreseeable actions,
impacts to migratory bird populations and reproductive success are unlikely. With the design
features incorporated into the proposed action and similar mitigation measures required of oil
and gas development, habitat impacts would not threaten bird populations that inhabit the
cumulative effects analysis area.
Oil and gas exploration, operation and development on adjacent lands could also result in
disturbance to these species. However, with mitigation for the proposed action and similar
requirements for oil and gas operations, the increased risk is anticipated to be minimal.

No Action Alternative
Without the project, there would be no project-related effects to birds of conservation
concern, raptors, or migratory birds.

WILDLIFE, TERRESTRIAL (includes a finding on Standard 3)
Affected Environment
Big Game
Elk, mule deer, and black bear are commonly observed in the study area. There are also
suitable conditions in the area for mountain lions.
A review of CPW mapping shows the area as elk winter and summer range and mule deer
summer range. Lower elevations in the project area are identified as mule deer winter range.
Elk populations within the project area move seasonally to and from higher to lower elevation
habitat. Shifts in distribution and habitat use patterns occur as a result of migration in response
to snow cover. In deep snow winters the elk move off Oak Mesa into the valley, and habitat
along the North Fork Gunnison River and adjoining agricultural lands. During milder winters
when there is less snow, some animals do winter on the mesa (Madariaga 2011; Morris 2011).
61

 During a winter 2011 survey (January 18), limited elk tracks were encountered. All tracks were
encountered at lower elevations on the southern end of Oak Mesa in Gambel oak-mountain shrub
habitat.
No elk production areas have been identified in the project area by the CPW. Good elk
calving habitat is found at higher elevations on the foot of Grand Mesa. There are some aspen
stands (both mature and regenerating after logging) at the northern boundary of the exploration
area that might be used by elk for calving.
During the September 2011 surveys, a few elk were observed in mountain shrub and aspen
habitat in the study area. Other evidence of recent elk activity in the area was minimal indicating
that use during that period of the year is low (Monarch 2011).
Observations made during the spring of 2010 and 2011 and well as September 2011 indicate
that mule deer numbers and habitat use are similar to what has been observed in similar habitat at
mining operations in the valley over the years. Wintering deer tend to move off the top of Oak
Mesa to lower elevations in the valley to winter and return in the spring after snowmelt. This is
the pattern for deer seasonal habitat use throughout the North Fork Valley (Monarch 2011).
Although production areas are not mapped by CPW in the project area, fawning likely occurs in
the gambel oak habitat.
Bears are common in the area. Habitat and forage are not limiting to these animals here or
elsewhere in the North Fork Valley (Monarch 2011).
There is suitable mountain lion habitat in the area and these animals are known to occur on
and around the exploration area. These animals are very secretive, and the chance of an
encounter with one of them is very remote. One or more lions may be in the area at any time
during the year (Monarch 2011).

Environmental Consequences/Mitigation

Proposed Action
Big Game
When evaluating potential effects on big game habitat use from proposed development
activities two things must be considered; (1) numbers of animals that might use the area for
winter or transition range and (2) total amount of habitat available. Deer and elk numbers are
low from spring through fall in the project area. In the winter, most deer and elk are found lower
in elevation in the North Fork Valley.
Because activities associated with the exploration operations would occur during the summer
and early fall they would not affect winter habitat use by elk. With several thousand acres of
suitable habitat and only approximately 31 acres to be disturbed there is little chance that elk
wintering activity or foraging habitat would be affected. The small disturbance footprint also
means that chances of elk that move through or remain in the area from late spring through fall
being disturbed are minimal. In addition, elk in the area have habituated to human activity over
time which further minimizes the chances of these animals being affected. This habituation to
human activity has been observed while conducting wildlife surveys at the three mines in the
North Fork Valley. At all these operations, elk are commonly observed throughout the areas
where exploration and methane drainage well operations are ongoing. Well monitoring
operations throughout the year at these mines have not affected elk habitat use.

62

 Only one drill site (OM-18) in a potentially suitable elk production/calving area might affect
habitat. No drilling is planned in the project area before the middle of June, which is after the
elk calving season. Drilling would even come later in those areas such as the aspen stands where
conditions would be too wet for road and pad construction until late June or early July.
Of the total estimated acres of disturbance that would occur during construction, more than
80% would occur in Gambel oak-mountain shrub habitat. When considering total amount of
year around habitat in the area available to elk, loss of a very small amount of habitat is unlikely
to adversely affect elk. No mature aspen habitat that is utilized by elk would be lost during road
and drill site construction.
Given the large expanses of potential fawning habitat in the region, the small area of
disturbance associated with the exploration operations, and timing of those activities, the
potential for adverse effect to individual deer or the deer population is minimal.
The presence of human activity associated with the exploration operations is not anticipated
to affect bear activities in the area. It would be important that food waste is rigidly controlled
around the drilling operations to prevent the bears from becoming habituated to human food. All
waste and food-related trash would be stored in a vehicle during the day and disposed of off-site
prior to the vehicle returning to the project area. No on-site food or trash storage would occur.
There is suitable mountain lion habitat in the area and these animals are known to occur on
and around the exploration area. These animals are very secretive, and the chance of an
encounter with one of these animals is very remote. One or more lions may be in the area at any
time during the year, but there is little chance exploration operations will affect their activities.

Cumulative Impacts
The entire North Fork Valley was considered the cumulative effects analysis area for the big
game. These are wide-ranging species that use multiple watersheds and migrate widely
throughout the valley. The Proposed Action would result in temporary increased risk for
disturbance to big game activities.
Cumulative impacts from other activities that are reasonably foreseeable would be similar in
nature to those associated with the proposed action. As noted previously in the EA section
covering Threatened, Endangered, and sensitive species, oil and gas exploration, drilling, and
operation would result in access roads and small (5 to 7 acre) pad sites that would increase
vegetation disturbance. Ongoing grazing impacts likely would continue. While existing and
proposed leases occur in the project vicinity, few wells have been drilled and even fewer have
been completed. Production is very limited in the identified cumulative impacts analysis area.
Without substantial changes to the oil and gas economy or extraction technology, the low
existing level of exploration and drilling is likely to continue. Within the past 10 years, only 14
oil and gas wells have been drilled within 10 miles of the 13,873-acre project area. With overall
limited temporary habitat disturbance from proposed action and low level of anticipated impacts
from reasonably foreseeable actions, cumulative impacts to big game would be minimal. With
the design features incorporated into the proposed action and similar mitigation measures
required of oil and gas development, habitat impacts would not threaten big game populations
that inhabit the cumulative effects analysis area.

No Action Alternative
Without the project, there would be no project-related effects to terrestrial wildlife.
63

 Finding on the Public Land Health Standard for plant and animal communities
(partial, see also Vegetation; Invasive, Non-native Species; and Wildlife, Aquatic)
According to the North Fork LHA, the project area does not provide suitable habitat for mule
deer or elk severe winter or winter concentration (BLM 2007). Some evidence of overall big
game range is present. In addition, there are no biodiversity focal areas in the project area (BLM
2007). All areas surrounding the project area are meeting Standard 3, plant and animal
communities (BLM 2007). Under the proposed action, with reclamation activities as proposed,
the project area would continue to meet Standard 3.

WILDLIFE, AQUATIC (includes a finding on Standard 3)
Affected Environment
Amphibians and reptiles
There are bodies of water including West Reservoir, some spring fed ponds, and streams and
ditches that are capable of supporting northern leopard frogs and chorus frogs. Northern leopard
frogs have commonly been observed at perennial ponds and other water bodies at similar
elevations throughout the North Fork Valley (Monarch 2011).
Fisheries
The only stream that supports viable fisheries in the project area is Leroux Creek, the only
perennial water within the exploration boundary. The other drainages in the project area dry up
during normal conditions during some portion of the year (Monarch 2011).

Environmental Consequences/Mitigation

Proposed Action
There would be no disturbance to Leroux Creek, West Reservoir, or natural/constructed
ponds during construction or drilling operations. Drilling locations have been located outside of
aquatic habitat. Existing access roads that cross aquatic resources would not require
improvement to allow drilling access; however, maintenance of existing features including
culverts and low water crossings would be completed as needed. No culverts have been
specifically identified for replacement. There would be no new disturbance to aquatic resources
from the Proposed Action. Stormwater management mitigation measures outlined in the Surface
Water Quantity section on page 61 of the EA would be protective of aquatic resources, including
fisheries.

Cumulative Impacts
The Proposed Action would not result in impacts to aquatic habitat; therefore there would be no
cumulative impacts to this resource. There are no anticipated effects to aquatic resources.

No Action Alternative
Without the project, there would be no project-related effects to aquatic wildlife.

64

 Finding on the Public Land Health Standard for plant and animal communities
(partial, see also Vegetation; Wildlife, Terrestrial; and Invasive, Non-native
Species)
The southern portion of the project area is classified as “meeting with problems” the
Standard 3 Rating for Healthy Biotic Communities. Low perennial forb problems were
identified at several locations in the southern edge of the proposed exploration area (BLM 2007).
There would be no project-related impacts to aquatic resources, and therefore no change to the
public land health standard.

WETLANDS & RIPARIAN ZONES (includes a finding on Standard 2)
Affected Environment
Wetlands and riparian areas are limited within the project area. Riparian areas, including
cottonwood riparian zones, were identified as part of the vegetation community mapping effort.
Riparian areas are concentrated along perennial and intermittent drainages in the project area, as
well as the borders of ditches, reservoirs and stock ponds. Along these water features,
wetland/upland transition zones are typically narrow to abrupt as a function of channel
topography found in this area. Wetlands exist outside of these drainages along stock ponds,
reservoirs, and seeps/springs in the project area. Existing impacts to wetlands and riparian areas
include existing ranch access roads with culverts or low-water crossings, agricultural activities
such as stock ponds that dam drainages, and cattle/sheep grazing (Monarch 2011).
Seeps, Springs, and Stockponds
Seeps and springs are naturally occurring and are primarily associated with sandstone
outcrops at lower elevations along slopes in the larger drainages. Recharge comes from direct
precipitation or snowmelt infiltration. Seeps and springs on steeper slopes support small pockets
of aspen along with a variety of grasses and forbs. Aspen typically provide a tree component
where one exists, though this species is not a consistent indicator of wetland seep or spring
conditions.

65

 Photo 12. Spring fed stock pond on west side of Oak Mesa.

Stock ponds are man-made features which are filled either by flow from springs, overland
runoff, or water taken from the Wakefield or Overland ditches. On the top of Oak Mesa, stock
ponds dry out in the summer and dryland grasses and forbs found throughout the area grow
immediately adjacent to the high water line. A few ponds found off the top of Oak Mesa have a
narrow bank fringe around the stock pond depressions. The fringe is dominated primarily by
spikerush and rush species. Other species such as small-winged sedge (Carex microptera),
clustered field sedge (Carex praegracilis), northwest cinquefoil (Potentilla sp.), and a variety of
buttercups (Ranunculus sp.) may also be present. A wetland shrub or tree stratum is rare,
presumably as a direct result of animal use and/or soil compaction from earthwork by dozers or
other equipment.
Wetlands
Wetlands occur along constructed stock ponds and the Wakefield Ditch. Most drainages in
the project area are intermittent and only have water in them during spring runoff or during
heavy rain events that may occur in the summer. Other drainages in the project area are
ephemeral and only carry water during precipitation events. None of these drainages support
wetland conditions. Additional information regarding wetlands and riparian areas is on page 65.

Environmental Consequences/Mitigation:

Proposed Action
Under the proposed action, no impacts to wetlands or riparian areas would occur. Surface
disturbing activities have been located in a manner that would avoid impacts. No new roads or
road improvements crossing wetlands or riparian areas are proposed. No drilling locations
would be within wetlands or riparian areas. Although not anticipated, depending on conditions
during drilling it may be necessary to improve culverts or low water crossings on existing routes
to avoid downstream impacts. Where culverts or low water crossings are poorly constructed,
undersized, or in need of maintenance (i.e., are inducing erosion or have been trampled by
66

 livestock), those features would be maintained within the footprint of the existing disturbance.
Mitigation/design features to help eliminate impacts to wetlands/riparian zones include:
New ground disturbing activities would avoid water features such as drainages and
reservoirs;
Sediment control, as identified in the stormwater management plan, would be used as
necessary in areas with soil disturbing activities such as grading.
No new access roads would cross wetlands or riparian areas.

Cumulative Impacts
Because there would be no impacts to wetlands or riparian resources under the proposed
action, there would be no cumulative impacts.

No Action Alternative
Under the no action alternative, there would be no project-related effects to wetlands or
riparian areas.

Finding on the Public Land Health Standard for riparian systems
According to the North Fork LHA, the project area meets the Standard 2 Rating for riparian
areas. Inadequate vegetation and species without strong rooting capabilities were noted in the
NFLHA as problems along lower Jay Creek, outside of the exploration area (BLM 2007). The
Proposed Action would not change the ability of the project area to meet the Standard 2 Rating
for riparian areas.

FLOODPLAINS
Affected Environment
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for mapping
floodplains and floodways. Floodplains along the Project Area’s watercourses are managed in
accordance with Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management. Floodplains along lower
order streams have no delineated floodplains, but are commonly considered to include the extent
of the riparian zone bordering the channel, in reaches that are not incised. Floodplains are
narrow in the project area due to steep terrain. Riparian areas were mapped in the Project Area
along Leroux Creek, Cow Creek, Dever Creek, Jay Creek, and West Roatcap Creek, and are
shown on the vegetation map (see Figure 3); these can be considered an estimate of the
floodplain. The primary benefit of floodplains is to dissipate floodwater energy and attenuate the
magnitude of high flows. Other benefits include sustaining healthy riparian plant communities,
and recharging alluvial ground water systems.

Environmental Consequences/Mitigation:

Proposed Action
No drilling activities would occur within the floodplains. Under the proposed action existing
ranch access roads would be used during exploration activities and would cross some
riparian/floodplain areas; however, no new access roads would be constructed in riparian areas or
floodplains, and no new impacts would occur to riparian/floodplain areas.
67

 Cumulative Impacts
There would be no impacts to floodplains from the proposed action; therefore there would be
no cumulative effects.

No Action Alternative
Under the no action alternative, there would be no project-related effects to floodplains.

SURFACE WATER QUANTITY
Affected Environment
Streams located within the project area include Leroux Creek, Dever Creek, Jay Creek, West
Roatcap Creek, Short Draw, Love Gulch, and Cow Creek. Leroux Creek is a perennial stream
whose flows were measured just west of Hotchkiss by the USGS from 1976 to 1996 (EarthInfo
2010). The highest average monthly flow of 112 cfs occurred in May, with the second highest
flows occurring in April and June. A maximum creek flow of 256 cfs occurred in June 1995.
High flows occur during the period of snowmelt runoff from the Grand Mesa. The lowest
average monthly flows of about 10 cfs occurred during December through March, and the lowest
measured flow was less than 1 cfs. The USGS description of the flow measurement site is that
the natural flow is affected by upstream diversions and irrigation return flows, and that most of
the flow after June is irrigation return flows. Other streams in the project area are known to flow
only intermittently due to snowmelt or storm runoff and as a result of irrigation return flows.
The project area is a ground water discharge area, expressed as springs that discharge either
perennially or intermittently, typically at the contact between bedrock and alluvial or colluvial
deposits and/or within incised drainages. There are numerous springs in and near the project
area. Springs discharging from the Mancos shale or fractured bedrock generally produce
between 1 and 30 gpm (Cordilleran 2002). Two springs located in Long Draw, a tributary to
West Roatcap Creek, have been monitored for many years; these springs have flows that have
ranged from being dry to about 35 gpm (Bowie 2011). There is one reservoir, West Reservoir,
located near the north end of the project area, which is supplied entirely or nearly entirely by
surface runoff, much of which is collected via feeder ditches (Hughes 2011). There are numerous
ponds, some natural and some manmade, located within the project area and some outside the
project area near the north boundary of the inclusion area. Some of the ponds are spring-fed and
may also collect runoff, and some are supplied just by surface runoff.

Environmental Consequences/Mitigation

Proposed Action
The water used for drilling would be bought or leased from West Reservoir and/or another
nearby agricultural water right owner. The drill holes would be located at least 200 feet from
any active stream channel, flowing spring, or surface water body. During drilling, storm water
would be routed around the disturbed area, so the natural flow of runoff to a stream may be
slightly altered. Because the well would be sealed within the unconsolidated sediments
(typically to a depth of 200 feet), if the drill hole produces water, it would be bedrock ground
water, not shallow ground water that discharges as springs. No water used in drilling would be
allowed to flow towards any natural drainage, but would be stored in the drill hole mud pit or
68

 other drill hole pits. Water stored in the pits would either evaporate or seep into ground water,
which, if the pit were located near a steep slope, may express itself temporarily as a seep down
gradient from the pit until the pit became as dry as the surrounding soils. It is not expected that
the drilling exploration program would measurably change surface water availability or affect
streamflows, spring flows, or the amount of water stored in nearby reservoirs or ponds.
There is no proposed mitigation for surface water quantity/flow effects for the exploratory
drilling program because no adverse effects are expected.

Cumulative Impacts
There would be no impacts to water quantity from the proposed action; therefore there would
be no cumulative effects.

No Action Alternative
Under the no action alternative, there would be no project-related effects to availability of
water for streams, springs, and stored water bodies on and downstream of Oak Mesa.

SURFACE WATER QUALITY (includes a finding on Standard 5)
Affected Environment
The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC) has adopted water use
classifications for streams, lakes and reservoirs that identify the uses to be protected on a stream
segment or in a lake or reservoir, and adopted numerical standards for specific water quality
parameters to protect these uses (CDPHE 2012). With a few exceptions, all of the streams in and
near the project area are listed in Segment 4 or 5 of the North Fork of the Gunnison River basin
and are classified for the following uses:
Aquatic Life Cold 1 (waters that currently are capable of sustaining a wide variety of cold
water biota, including sensitive species, or could sustain such biota but for correctable
water quality conditions; waters are considered capable of sustaining such biota where
physical habitat, water flows or levels, and water quality conditions result in no
substantial impairment of the abundance and diversity of species)
Recreation P (waters have the potential to be used for primary contact recreation)
Water Supply (waters are suitable or intended to become suitable for potable water
supplies; after receiving standard treatment (defined as coagulation, flocculation,
sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection with chlorine or its equivalent) these waters
will meet Colorado drinking water regulations)
Agriculture (waters are suitable or intended to become suitable for irrigation of crops
usually grown in Colorado and are not hazardous as drinking water for livestock).
All of the streams in Segments 4 and 5 must be maintained and protected at their existing
water quality unless it is determined by the state that allowing lower water quality is necessary to
accommodate important economic or social development in the area. No degradation is allowed
unless deemed appropriate following an antidegradation review by the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment (CDPHE 2011). All of the lakes and reservoirs in and near the
project area not located on national forest lands, as well as Love Gulch, Cow Creek, and Dever
Creek, are listed in Segment 6b of the North Fork of the Gunnison River basin, and are
designated Use Protected. These are poorer quality waters that the state has determined do not
69

 warrant the special protection provided by the antidegradation review process. These streams,
lakes and reservoirs are classified for the following uses:
Aquatic Life Warm 2 (waters not capable of sustaining a wide variety of warm water
biota, including sensitive species, due to physical habitat, water flows or levels, or
uncorrectable water quality conditions that result in substantial impairment of the
abundance and diversity of species)
Recreation P
Water Supply
Agriculture.
The non-attainment of water quality standards is reported every two years in Colorado’s
303(d) list (CDPHE 2010). Stream segments, lakes, or reservoirs on the 303(d) list are
considered impaired for one or more water quality parameters and a Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) effort will need to occur to resolve the impairment. The EPA defines TMDL as a
calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet
water quality standards, and an allocation of that amount to the pollutant’s sources. The
mainstems of Leroux Creek, Jay Creek and Short Draw, and the mainstem and tributaries of
Roatcap Creek are on Colorado’s 2010 303(d) list for selenium. A TMDL for the Gunnison
Basin, including the North Fork Gunnison River basin, was completed in November 2010
(CDPHE 2010). The TMDL assessment stated that point sources such as wastewater treatment
plants and gravel operations are a source of selenium to streams, and that an important pathway
by which selenium is introduced into surface water within the Gunnison Basin is associated with
irrigation within the basin. Seepage from irrigation canals, particularly when unlined, and deep
percolation of irrigation waters dissolve selenium from Mancos shale derived soils as well as
from the underlying parent material. Other pathways include surface runoff of irrigation water,
whether associated with agriculture or urban land uses. Annual loads from the North Fork
Gunnison River total 3,124 pounds annually. The TMDL assessment has calculated a total
selenium load reduction for Jay Creek of 75 percent, a 78 percent reduction in Short Draw, and
monthly load reductions of 39 to 72 percent in Leroux Creek to meet the selenium standard in
each creek (CDPHE 2010).
Water quality samples have been collected by the Colorado Water Quality Control Division
(WQCD), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Bowie Resources and its predecessors, and Gunnison
Energy during the past 20 years from Leroux Creek, Dever Creek, Jay Creek, Roatcap Creek,
and Short Draw (WQCD 2011, EarthInfo 2008, Bowie Resources 2011, Oxbow 2011). In
general, the water quality of the creeks is good near the north end of the project area at higher
elevations, and is of poorer quality south of the project area near Hotchkiss. There are likely two
sources of poorer water quality in the lower reaches of the creeks: irrigation return flows and the
Mancos shale, which crops out on the southern slopes of Oak Mesa and is the source of the
selenium in surface waters. Stream water quality can generally be characterized as
calcium/magnesium-bicarbonate water. At all locations, the water is alkaline, with a pH of 8 to
8.6. An example of the change in water quality from higher to lower elevations is specific
conductivity, a measure of dissolved solids content, in Leroux Creek. At a location slightly north
of the project area, the specific conductivity in Leroux Creek was measured at less than 100
µS/cm, at a point below the confluence with Dever Creek it was measured at about 300 µS/cm,
and just west of Hotchkiss it was measured at greater than 1,000 µS/cm. In general, metal
concentrations are low in project area creeks except for selenium. In upper Leroux Creek, the
dissolved selenium concentration was measured at less than 1 µg/L, but near Hotchkiss, selenium
70

 concentrations in the creek averaged about 6 µg/L. In Dever Creek, the total iron concentration
was elevated, the dissolved selenium concentration was slightly elevated, and specific
conductivity was about 1,000 µS/cm. Nitrogen concentrations were low in Leroux and Dever
Creeks. The average sulfate concentration in Leroux Creek at Hotchkiss was 280 mg/L, and the
water was extremely hard (average of 475 mg/L). Water quality data for Jay and Roatcap Creeks
are available only at Highway 133, not at higher elevations in the project area. Both creeks have
similar water quality to Leroux Creek at Hotchkiss: very hard, high specific conductivity, low
nitrogen concentrations, low metal concentrations except for dissolved selenium, and elevated
total iron concentrations in Roatcap Creek. Short Draw in Hotchkiss also has high specific
conductivity and dissolved selenium concentrations.
Springs and ponds in and near the area of proposed coal exploration were also sampled by
Gunnison Energy for water quality between 2002 and 2010 (Oxbow 2011). Two springs in Long
Draw, a tributary of West Roatcap Creek within the project area, were sampled for many years
by Bowie Resources, LLC and its predecessors (Bowie 2011). West Reservoir was sampled, as
were ponds north of West Reservoir within or just north of the project area. The water quality of
the reservoir and ponds was good. The water was slightly alkaline, with generally low metal,
nitrogen, and sulfate concentrations, and specific conductivities averaging 110 µS/cm. Springfed ponds had an average specific conductivity of about 245 µS/cm. There were elevated total
iron concentrations in West Reservoir and in one spring-fed pond. Spring water quality was
quite variable, probably due to varying contributions from shallow and deeper ground water and
variability in the unconsolidated sediments from which the springs flow (alluvium and
colluvium). In addition, water quality varies depending on the flow of the spring at different
times of the year. Specific conductivities ranged from less than 100 to more than 7,000 µS/cm,
and sulfate concentrations ranged from 2 to more than 4,000 mg/L. The spring water was neutral
to slightly alkaline (pH of 7 to 7.8), some nitrate concentrations were elevated, and some total
aluminum, total iron, and total selenium concentrations were high in different springs. One of
the springs in Long Draw have water that is somewhat alkaline, and sometimes has elevated
calcium, bicarbonate, sodium and sulfate concentrations. Specific conductivity averages about
700 µS/cm in both springs.

Environmental Consequences/Mitigation

Proposed Action
Prior to constructing new roads, drill pads, or beginning drilling, Oxbow would need to
obtain a construction stormwater permit from the Colorado WQCD. As part of the permit,
Oxbow would need to prepare a stormwater management plan (SWMP) for the project, which
would include:
A designated SWMP Administrator who would be on-site during construction activities
Descriptions of structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) for
erosion and sediment control within disturbed areas, and prevention of pollutant laden
water from flowing off of disturbed areas
A list of all possible pollutant sources
A description of good housekeeping practices to be used to keep construction areas as
neat and clean as possible
Preventive maintenance and spill response procedures
A description of materials handling and storage procedures
71

 A schedule and description of inspections and maintenance of BMPs
Methods for record keeping and documentation of BMP inspections and repairs
A description of final stabilization after completion of drilling at each drill hole locations
and for roads that would no longer be used.
The SMWP would need to be kept on-site, be available for any site inspectors, and all on-site
Oxbow employees would need to be familiar with and follow the requirements of the SWMP.
The drill holes would be drilled approximately 200 feet from the ground surface through
unconsolidated sediments into underlying bedrock and would be secured with steel casing
cemented into place. This would prevent the leakage of any water from the drill hole to nearby
shallow water resources, such as springs, creek channels or stored water bodies. Up to 4,000
gallons of water, delivered by water truck to each drill hole, would be used during drilling. All
wet cuttings, drilling mud, or water produced from the drill hole would be stored in a shallow pit
near the drill hole. No water from the drill hole would be allowed to drain away from the drill
hole, the pit, or any of the area disturbed by the drilling activities. All natural runoff from
snowmelt or storm events would be routed around the disturbed areas at each drill site with the
use of berms. The berms would also serve to keep all runoff within the disturbed area from
flowing out of the disturbance area. Rerouted stormwater would be prevented from creating
erosion with the use of stormwater BMPs such as temporary diversion dikes, swales, or sediment
entrapment facilities such as straw wattles or silt fences). It is not expected that much water
would be produced from the exploratory boreholes, but if more water were produced than could
be used or stored at the site pit, the water would be pumped out of the hole into a water truck,
then used elsewhere for drilling other boreholes, or stored in other borehole pits. For drilling
sites where development of a pad is necessary, the topsoil would be stockpiled, and either silt
fencing or straw wattles would be placed around the stockpile. Straw wattles would be used to
minimize erosion until the pad is revegetated. During and after drilling, the drill site would be
fenced to keep animals out of the site to prevent damage to stormwater BMPs and newly
revegetated areas.
The drill holes may need drilling supplements to improve circulation to bring the cuttings to
the surface. The foamer and defoamer compounds would be the only chemicals used during
drilling, with the exception of fuel, oil and grease used in the trucks and drilling equipment. Any
spills of fuel, oil or grease would be removed from the spill area as quickly as possible and
disposed of appropriately off-site. The MSDS provided for the foaming agent “F-485” states
that the product contains one hazardous ingredient, isopropanol, which is approximately 10
percent of the foaming agent by weight. The MSDS for the defoamer “DF-104” states that there
is one hazardous ingredient in the product, which is methanol, of which the percent weight in the
defoamer is confidential. Both MSDSs state “prevent flow/discharge into lakes, ponds, streams,
waterways or public water supplies.” The foaming agent would be used down hole, and would
be sent via pipeline along with drilling cuttings and any drilling mud to the pit. The defoamer
would be used in the pit, if needed, to prevent any foaming over the top of the pit. Oxbow
estimates that between 1.5 and 6 gallons of the foamer may be used in each drill hole. Assuming
a use of 6 gallons of foamer, mixed with 4,000 gallons of water, the percent of isopropanol in the
water mixture pumped from the drill hole to the pit would be 0.015 percent. Oxbow estimates
that between 0.3 and 1.2 gallons of the defoamer may be used in each pit. Assuming a use of 1.2
gallons of defoamer, mixed with 4,000 gallons of water, the percent of methanol in water in the
pit (assuming a worst case of 85 percent methanol by weight) would be 0.025 percent. The
concentrations of isopropanol and methanol in the drill hole and in the pit would be very dilute,
72

 so it is expected that any seepage of water from the pit would not cause adverse environmental
effects. The site Health and Safety Manager would ensure that the drilling crew handling the
foaming agent and defoamer would be familiar with the MSDSs, would follow the transport and
storage recommendations, would use the recommended personal protection equipment to prevent
any adverse health effects, would make all efforts to prevent spills, would follow the spill control
and disposal procedures described in the MSDSs if a spill occurred, and would prevent any of
the foaming agent or defoamer from entering nearby surface water or public water supplies.
With no movement of surface water from the disturbed area at each borehole, no leakage of
water from the borehole, immediate cleanup of any spills, and minimal and very careful use of
the foamer and defoamer products, it is not expected that the water quality of streams, springs,
stored water, and water supply ditches or pipelines would be affected by drilling. Water would
be used for dust suppression, but would not be applied at rates causing runoff from disturbed
areas or roads. Additional erosion from roads due to increased use during drilling activities
might occur; the project manager and/or SWMP Administrator would inspect the roads at least
every two weeks. If additional erosion along roadways were observed by Oxbow, property
owners, or the BLM during use of the roads during exploration, Oxbow would repair the road
and use BMPs, if needed, to prevent runoff of sediment-laden water from the road to nearby
stream channels or surface water bodies.
There is no proposed mitigation for water quality effects, other than implementation of best
management practices per the stormwater management plan, because no adverse effects from the
exploratory drilling program are expected. Regular inspections of the active drill sites and roads
in use during the drilling program should prevent any drilling activity from causing more than a
very temporary, quickly repairable water quality problem that would not reach and measurably
affect the quality of streams, springs, ditches, pipelines, or stored water bodies in and near the
project area.

Cumulative Impacts
There would be no impacts to water quality from the proposed action; therefore there would
be no cumulative effects.

No Action Alternative
Under the no action alternative, there would be no project-related effects to water quality.

Finding on the Public Land Health Standard for Water Quality
Stream segments 5 and 6b of the North Fork of the Gunnison River basin currently do not
meet state standards for selenium impairment. The source of contamination is the Mancos shale
and irrigation of private lands over the Mancos shale, which increases the rate of selenium
loading to surface water bodies. This problem is outside the control of BLM management. As
such, implementation of the proposed action or no action alternative would not alter the current
finding.

73

 GROUND WATER QUANTITY
Geologic Framework
The proposed exploration area is located in the southern edge of the Piceance Basin of
Western Colorado (Hettinger et al., 2004). The area is underlain by coal-bearing strata in several
of the Cretaceous formations, the most significant of which economically is coal in the Upper
Cretaceous Mesaverde Formation. Of particular interest in the proposed exploration area are
coal beds stratigraphically above the Rollins Sandstone Member of the Measverde Formation.
The bedrock formations exposed at the surface in the proposed exploration area are the
Upper Cretaceous Mancos Shale and Mesaverde Formation. The marine Mancos Shale is a dark
brown to gray nonresistant clay shale with minor thin interbedded resistant sandstone, calcareous
shale and sandstone, and locally thin limestones. The Mancos Shale has a maximum thickness in
this region of 4,000 to 5,000 feet thick (Hail 1972a and b). The Mancos Shale is exposed at the
surface between the valley of the North Fork of the Gunnison River and elevations of about
7,000 to 7,400 feet.
The Mesaverde Formation, and specifically the Rollins Sandstone Member, conformably
overlies the Mancos Shale. The Rollins Sandstone is composed of light gray to white cliff
forming sandstone, interbedded with carbonaceous shale and coal with a maximum thickness in
the area of about 160 feet. Overlying the Rollin Sandstone are medium-grained sandstones and
gray shales and commercially important coal beds near its base (Hail 1972a and b).
Unconsolidated or surficial geologic deposits that overlie the Cretaceous bedrock formations
include Holocene Alluvium, Holocene Alluvial terrace gravels, Holocene Landslide and
mudflow deposits, and Upper Pleistocene High Level alluvial gravels. The Holocene or Recent
alluvium is limited to the lowest reaches of Leroux Creek up to an elevation of about 6,000 feet.
Refer to Hail (1972a and b) for the location and distribution of these unconsolidated deposits.
The High-level alluvial gravels generally consist of basalt boulders derived from volcanic flows
capping Grand Mesa and are probably mostly a result of glacial outwash (Hail 1972a and b).

Affected Environment
There is limited information regarding the occurrence of ground water within the proposed
exploration area. The lack of data is most likely the result of limited ground water development
in the area due to the overall poor ground water resources and the regional dependency on
surface water sources.
In general, the low permeability marine Mancos Shale does not produce ground water at
economic rates, and what is available is typically of poor quality. The thin sandstone interbeds
within the Mancos Shale have been reported to yield ground water at usable rates and quality,
but their extent is limited (Galloway 1980). The sandstone layers within the Mesaverde
Formation, including the Rollins Sandstone Member can produce ground water, but production
rates are generally low due to the well cemented, and therefore, low permeability sands.
Fractures within the sandstone units may account for some of the available ground water.
Because of limited ground water development in the Mesaverde in this area, there is little
information concerning the occurrence of ground water.
The surficial materials (High-level gravels and colluvium) that occur in the proposed
exploration area probably contain and transmit most of the ground water in the proposed
exploration area. Because of their generally higher permeability, compared to the bedrock
74

 formations, these unconsolidated materials receive some amount of recharge from precipitation
and transmit ground water down gradient (downhill). Springs may occur at the downhill end or
toe of any particular deposit. An inventory of wells in the vicinity of the proposed exploration
area indicate there are several wells located along Leroux Creek near the north boundary of the
proposed exploration area (Oxbow 2011a). It is presumed that these wells are screened in one of
the High-level gravel units mapped along the creek. However, it is possible that one or more of
these wells is also screened in a sandstone of the Mesaverde Formation below the gravels.

Environmental Consequences/Mitigation

Proposed Action
It is highly unlikely that the proposed action would affect ground water resources in the
proposed exploration area. The exploration wells may produce limited quantities of ground
water during drilling, but after the well is completed, the borehole would either be plugged and
abandoned or would be completed as a monitoring well. In either case, Oxbow would be
required to use procedures required by the Colorado Division of Water Resources. Depending
on the depth to the coal at each location, the upper portion of the borehole (up to 200 feet in
some cases) would be cased and cemented to provide both borehole stability and isolation of
shallow water-bearing zones (if any) from the rest of the borehole.
There would be no permanent use of ground water during the exploration program. Other
than temporary production of ground water during drilling, if encountered, all other water use
would be from other sources, and delivered by truck.

Cumulative Impacts
There would be no impacts to ground water quantity from the proposed action; therefore
there would be no cumulative effects.

No Action Alternative
There would be virtually no difference between the no action alternative and the proposed
action with respect to ground water quantity.

GROUND WATER QUALITY (includes a finding on Standard 5)
Affected Environment
Water quality data from the various geologic units in the vicinity of the proposed exploration
area are limited due to minor ground water development and use in the area. However, some
data exist from wells and springs that are mostly located outside of the proposed exploration area
(Oxbow 2011). Where ground water quality data are available from the Mancos Shale, the
quality is typically poor with total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations greater than 1,000
mg/L, most of which is due to high calcium, sodium, and sulfate (Galloway 1980). Mancos
Shale ground water also typically contains high concentrations of iron and manganese. Although
a geologic or drill log is not available, one well located southwest of the proposed exploration
area may be screened in the Mancos Shale and produces sodium sulfate water with a TDS
concentration of about 1,000 mg/L. Because this well is located along Dever Creek, it may
represent a mixture of water sources.
75

 Other wells in the vicinity of the proposed exploration area appear to be screened in either
High-level gravels or a combination of the gravels and underlying sandstone beds within the
Mesaverde Formation. As described in the previous section, this group of wells is located along
Leroux Creek at the north boundary of the proposed exploration area or outside of the area to the
north. Water quality data from these wells indicate that ground water in this area is generally of
good quality, with TDS values of less than 500 mg/L. The ground water in these wells is either
sodium or calcium bicarbonate water.

Environmental Consequences/Mitigation

Proposed Action
The proposed action is not expected to affect ground water quality within and adjacent to the
proposed exploration area. The proposed action does not include the use of any chemicals or
compounds that could adversely affect ground water. Drilling fluids would be limited to air, airwater, air-water, and air-foam, and limited use of standard drilling muds (composed primarily of
clay). The characteristics of the foamer and defoamer are discussed in more detail in the Surface
Water Quality Section. The exploration drilling does not include the use of any procedures
where chemicals would be injected into the borehole under sufficient pressure to force these
fluids into any water bearing zone for any reason. The drilling fluids would be used for
circulation purposes only to remove drill cuttings from the hole and lubricate the drill bit and
core barrel.
As described in the previous sections, upon completion of each borehole, the borehole would
be either plugged and abandoned or completed as a monitoring well using procedures required
by the Colorado Division of Water Resources.
If ground water is produced during the drilling of a borehole, the water would accumulate in
shallow pits and would be allowed to evaporate and/or seep into the surface materials. Given the
likely quality of this water (as described previously) and the limited volume of the produced
water, it is unlikely that this water would negatively affect ground water resources of the area.
No drill holes are proposed near known springs.
Other than drilling fluids, chemicals or materials used during the exploration program would
include typical petroleum based materials, such as lubricating oils and fuels. The volume of
fuels and lubricating oils at the site at any one time would be limited to vehicle fuel tanks and
crankcases and would not include large volume storage. If a fuel spill were to occur, Oxbow
would be required to immediately clean up the material, including affected soils, and remove
from the site. With the limited volume of onsite fuels and immediate removal, the impact to
ground water quality would be limited to the immediate area around the spill.

Cumulative Impacts
There would be no impacts to ground water quality from the proposed action; therefore, there
would be no cumulative effects.

No Action Alternative
Under the no action alternative, there would be no project-related effects to ground water
quality.

76

 Finding on the Public Land Health Standard for water quality
BLM’s Land Health Assessment did not identify any specific ground water issues in this
area. The assessment acknowledged that ground water resources are limited to unconsolidated
deposits, such as alluvium and colluvium and the ground water in the Mesa Verde Formation
flows down dip to the north out of the North Fork Valley. Springs which discharge within the
Land Health Assessment area generally have good water quality. The proposed exploration
action will not likely affect the existing sources of ground water.

WASTES, HAZARDOUS OR SOLID
Affected Environment
There are no known hazardous or other solid waste in the vicinity of the proposed project
activities. No hazardous materials are known to have been used, stored, or disposed of at sites in
the project area. The project area has been used historically for grazing and ranching, and no
industrial activity other than small-scale coal mining has occurred.

Environmental Consequences/Mitigation

Proposed Action
The Proposed Action would use regulated materials, and generate solid waste. Equipment
and materials used onsite during drilling include combustion engines that require fuel, oils,
antifreeze, and other fluids to operate; and there is some risk of these fluids. Accidents and
mechanical breakdowns are a possibility. The drill rig(s) may require drilling fluids to complete
exploration holes. The WATER QUALITY, SURFACE section above describes the
foamer/defoamer agents that are anticipated to be used on-site. The MSDS for these agents is
included in Appendix A.
As described in the WATER QUALITY, SURFACE section, a SWMP would be prepared to
maintain a safe workplace and prevent and minimize releases of hazardous materials. Additional
measures for management and containment of hazardous materials is described in the WATER
QUALITY, SURFACE section, including cuttings, drilling mud, produced water, and handling
of the foaming agent and defoamer. The proposed measures would minimize the risk associated
with hazardous or other solid waste, and no adverse impacts are anticipated.

Cumulative Impacts
The Proposed Action is not expected to increase risk from hazardous or other solid waste. Oil
and gas exploration, operation and development could result in use of similar materials
(foamer/defoamer agents) in the project area; however, those operations would use similar
avoidance and minimization measure to reduce the risk from hazardous or other solid waste.
Cumulatively, impacts are expected to be minimal. Use of drilling fluids and combustion
engines associated with the exploration activities would be short-term and temporary.

No Action Alternative
Under the No Action alternative, there would be no project-related hazardous materials
impacts.

77

 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Affected Environment
Executive Order 12898, signed on February 11, 1994, directs federal agencies to make
achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high adverse human health or environmental effects of its activities on
minority and low-income populations. Environmental Justice involves fair treatment, which
means that no group of people, including a racial, ethnic, or socio-economic group, should bear a
disproportionate share of negative environmental consequences resulting from a federal action.
US Census Bureau summary data for Delta County (Census 2011) does not indicate that
there are ethnic groups or communities or low income populations in the upper drainage of the
North Fork of the Gunnison River or in adjacent portions of Delta County that may be affected
by the proposed action. The Hispanic community has the largest minority population in Delta
County, at 14.0 percent. African Americans, American Indians and Pacific Islanders account for
approximately two percent of the Delta County population (Census 2011). 13.9 percent of the
population in Delta County is below the poverty level compared with 12.9 percent in Colorado as
a whole (Census 2011).

Environmental Consequences/Mitigation

Proposed Action
The proposed action to conduct exploratory drilling on the proposed exploration area is not
expected to negatively or disproportionately impact minority or low income populations.

Cumulative Impacts
There would be no environmental justice impacts from the proposed action; therefore there
would be no cumulative effects.

No Action Alternative
Under the No Action alternative, there would be no project-related disproportionate negative
effects to minority and low-income populations.

78

 ACCESS AND TRANSPORTATION
Affected Environment
General access to the proposed exploration area is from two directions—from the west off of
3100 Road (Leroux Creek Road) and Oak Mesa Road, and from the east off of Steven’s Gulch
Road (FS Rd 701; see Figure 1). Primary access to the project area is on private lands and
private ranch roads. There is no existing public access to the exploration area, other than Oak
Mesa Rd. There is an extensive network of private roads within the exploration area that is used
for ranching and other private access. The Oak Mesa Road is the only public access to the
project area.
Within the project area, 3100 Road and Oak Mesa Road (up to the gate onto private property) are
County Roads, maintained by Delta County. The Steven’s Gulch Road on the east side of the
project area is maintained by Delta County via “Schedule A” arrangements with the USFS.
Traffic data for Leroux Creek Road and Steven’s Gulch Road was obtained from the Delta
County Engineering Department (Kalenak pers. Comm. 2011). According to Mr. Kalenak, use
of these roads is highly seasonal, with peak use occurring during hunting season in the Fall.
Dates for traffic count collection were not available, but likely were completed during the
summer months. Counts near the highway on Leroux Creek Rd are significantly higher than
those further north. There are many homes, residences, and orchard operations on Rogers Mesa
that are destinations for vehicle traffic. North of Redlands Mesa Road there are fewer
residences. Traffic in this vicinity is attributable to residences and access to recreational
opportunities in the Forest north of the project area. Firewood cutting in the Forest is an
additional use that contributes to traffic north of Redlands Mesa Road.
Posted speed limits on Leroux Creek Road are 45 mph between Highway 92 and the end of
pavement, and 30 mph in unpaved sections of road (north of the Redlands Mesa Road).
Use of Oak Mesa Road east of Leroux Creek Road is limited. Occasional mountain biking or
hiking use may occur on this road. However, because there are no recreation facilities or
destinations on Oak Mesa, use is likely limited to area residents.
Table 17. Traffic Counts on Leroux Creek and Steven’s Gulch roads.

Road

Location

Leroux Creek Rd (3100 Rd)

Immediately north of
Highway
Immediately north of
Highway
½ mile north of
Highway
North of Redlands
Mesa Rd (North Rd)
North of Redlands
Mesa Rd (North Rd)
Immediately north of
Highway

Leroux Creek Rd (3100 Rd)
Leroux Creek Rd (3100 Rd)
Leroux Creek Rd (3100 Rd)
Leroux Creek Rd (3100 Rd)
Steven’s Gulch Rd (FS 701)

79

Year

Vehicle Count
(trips per day)

2002

1187

2005

1843

2007

1102

2002

53

2007

59

2002

120

 Road

Location

Steven’s Gulch Rd (FS 701)

Immediately north of
Highway
South of Johnson Rd

Steven’s Gulch Rd (FS 701)

Year

Vehicle Count
(trips per day)

2005

176

2002

65

Source: Kalenak 2011.

Environmental Consequences/Mitigation

Proposed Action
Personnel and equipment would use both Leroux Creek Rd and Steven’s Gulch Rd to access the
proposed exploration area. Most equipment would be transported to the project area and would
remain on-site until the drilling activities are completed. Transport for a bulldozer, excavator,
grader and one or two drilling rigs would be required, and would be a one-time transport. An elog truck and delivery trucks would access the project area intermittently, and are anticipated to
account for about 2 vehicle trips per day during the project duration. All loading/unloading
activities would take place either at the staging area on the 7X Ranch, or on drill pads/access
roads. Additional vehicles, including pick-up trucks (some with flatbed trailers) and SUVs
would be needed for personnel and small equipment transport, and are anticipated to account for
3 to 5 vehicle trips per day. A total of about 5 to 8 vehicle trips per day, mostly for crew
transport, are anticipated during exploration activities. A carpool plan is in place to transport
drilling crews and minimize vehicle traffic on area roads.
The proposed project would result in a minor, temporary increase in traffic on Leroux Creek Rd
and Steven’s Gulch Rd. The magnitude of increase would vary by location along the roads, and
would vary by season. Based on available data, traffic on Leroux Creek Rd south of Redlands
Mesa Rd would increase by about 1%, and north of Redlands Mesa Road would increase by
about 15% during the exploration activities. North of Redlands Mesa Rd, traffic counts drop
from about 1,100 vehicle trips per day to only 59, which results in a higher percentage of
increased traffic. Traffic on Steven’s Gulch Rd would increase by about 5 to 12%, depending on
location along the road. The increase would be temporary, would occur during spring through
fall, and for a maximum of 2 years.
All traffic related to exploration activities would be required to comply with posted speed limits.
Occasional recreational and landowner use of Oak Mesa Rd could be affected by increased
traffic. Actual use of the road is unknown, but the Oak Mesa area does not offer any formal
recreation opportunities on BLM lands and use is likely very low. Traffic resulting from the
proposed project could temporarily impact recreation and landowner use on Oak Mesa Rd.
No new BLM access routes for public use would be created as a result of the proposed project.
All new access roads constructed on BLM and private land would be reclaimed and revegetated,
unless private landowners request that improved or constructed roads remain.

Cumulative Impacts
Oil and gas activities on active leases in the project vicinity could also result in increased traffic
on Leroux Creek Rd and Steven’s Gulch Rd. Specific proposed drilling operations have not
been identified. Increased traffic from oil and gas operations would be temporary.
80

 No Action Alternative
Under the No Action alternative, there would be no project-related effects to access or
transportation.

REALTY AUTHORIZATIONS
Affected Environment
Various right-of-way authorizations are present within the project area. Typical rights-of-way
authorizations within this area could include powerlines, telephone lines, access roads to private
land, pipelines, ditches and irrigation facilities.

Environmental Consequences/Mitigation

Proposed Action
Existing rights-of-way will be avoided to the extent possible. If they cannot be avoided, caution
will be taken to ensure no damage to the facility or disruption of use occurs. As necessary, rightof-way holder(s) will be contacted to coordinate activities that may influence their facilities.
Oxbow will obtain permits from the county for use of or work inside county road rights-of-way.
Coal companies are not required to obtain a right-of-way from BLM for activities on Federal
surface within their exploration area.

Cumulative Impacts
There should be no cumulative impacts to existing rights-of-way and no new rights-of-way are
required for this project.

No Action Alternative
Under the No Action alternative, there would be no effects to existing rights-of-way.

RANGELAND MANAGEMENT
Affected Environment
Several grazing allotments are managed on BLM and private lands within the project vicinity. A
total of 14,157 acres (12,765 BLM-owned and 987 private-owned) are managed for cattle
grazing (some grazing allotments overlap the exploration boundary; therefore the total acreage is
greater than the exploration extent). An Animal Unit Month (AUM) is defined as the amount of
forage needed to sustain one cow, five sheep, or five goats for a month. Allotments are
summarized in Table 18 below. All allotments in the project area are authorized for cattle. The
West Roadcap allotment is authorized for summer use (mid-June through mid-October); the
other allotments are authorized for spring and/or fall use.

81

 Table 18. Grazing Allotments in the Project Area.

Allotment number and
name
Oak Mesa #14506
Overland #14511
Roatcap-Jay Creek #14507
Leroux #14550
West Roatcap #14510

Total Acres
(public/private)
1,375 (735/640)
507 (160/347)
9,955 (9,955/0)
2,000 (2,000/0)
320 (320/0)

Total

14,157 (12,765/987)

Actual Active AUMs
51
30
955
32
88

Status
Active
Active
Active
Active
Active

1,156

Environmental Consequences/Mitigation

Proposed Action
Effects to rangeland resources and management would be minor and temporary. Traffic from
exploration activities would be minimal and are not likely to affect grazing cattle or range
movement. Temporary impacts from construction of new roads and pads would be minimal.
Reclaimed areas would be temporarily fenced to exclude grazing until vegetation has
reestablished. Oxbow is negotiating with individual landowners regarding the type of fence
installed for reclamation purposes; electric fencing with solar panels to provide power have been
used in the past and are proposed. Oxbow would be responsible for fence installation,
monitoring and removal.

Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative impact analysis area for grazing was defined as the 14,157 acres of grazing
allotments that overlap with the proposed exploration boundaries. About 0.2 percent of the
cumulative impact analysis area would be temporarily affected by the proposed action. Any
future oil and gas development would have similar effects to grazing in the vicinity of the
project; however those effects would be long-term due to the long lifespan of oil and gas wells.
Existing mine leases (Bowie No. 1 Mine, a.k.a. Orchard Valley Mine) to the east of the proposed
exploration area could be developed further, but surface impacts would be limited. Cumulative
effects to rangeland would be minimal.

No Action Alternative
Under the No Action alternative, there would be no project-related effects to rangeland
resources or management.

FIRE
Affected Environment
Hot, dry conditions are normal during the summer months within the project area, contributing to
a moderate fire risk. Portions of the project area have heavy oak-mountain shrub cover, which
contributes to fire risk. There are no known recent fires in the project area, but one major fire
has occurred in pinyon-juniper dominated areas to the southeast (Wake Fire in 1994).
82

 Environmental Consequences/Mitigation

Proposed Action
The Proposed Action is not expected to increase the risk of fire, or to affect the rate, duration,
frequency of future fires. All drilling equipment would be provided with fire extinguishers and
shovels for fighting small fires, if necessary. Drilling crews would be equipped and trained to
fight small fires. Spark arresters would be required for equipment generating sparks, including
ATVs and chainsaws. Smoking would be allowed during construction activities only in
designated safe-smoking areas. Common sense practices regarding heat/spark sources,
particularly in dry conditions, would be followed. Avoiding parking hot vehicles on dry shrubs
and other logical avoidance practices would be followed. Drilling crews would have access to
telephones to contact the necessary fire officials if a fire occurred, or if one were observed in the
project vicinity. Minor brush clearing for road and pad construction could provide a minor,
immeasurable benefit by removing excess fuel.

Cumulative Impacts
The Proposed Action is not expected to increase fire risk; therefore there would be no
cumulative impacts.

No Action Alternative
Under the No Action alternative, there would be no project-related effects to fire hazards or
management.

WATER SUPPLY/WATER RIGHTS
Affected Environment
There are numerous surface water direct diversion and storage rights listed by the Colorado
Division of Water Resources whose sources are within or near the project area, and no wells near
the project area (CDSS 2011). According to landowner Nick Hughes, water supply on Oak
Mesa is reliable, although during the 2002 to 2003 drought, water was in short supply (Hughes
2011). Surface rights include diversions from Leroux Creek, Jay Creek, and Roatcap Creek,
storage within the watersheds of these three creeks, and diversions and storage from numerous
springs. The majority of the rights are for irrigation or stock water. The largest storage right is
454.5 acre-feet per year in West Reservoir, which was constructed in 1905 (CDSS 2011). Hunt
Reservoir, with a storage right for 124 acre-feet per year, is also within the project area. Many of
the stock ponds are very old, small, not decreed, and were constructed to capture runoff. The
largest spring, based on decreed diversion rate, is the Hanson Spring, located in alluvium near
Dever Creek near the project area. The decree for Hanson Spring is for 135 gpm, and the decree
states that the spring cannot physically provide the original request for a right for 225 gpm.
Various ditches are used to collect water for storage and/or to route water for irrigation purposes.
One of these is the Roberts Stucker Ditch, first constructed in 1896, that diverts water in the
Roatcap Creek drainage (CDSS 2011). The Wakefield Ditch is not a decreed ditch, but is a
delivery ditch for water from West Reservoir to several farms (Schmucker 2011).
Stucker Mesa Water Company has the right to divert water for domestic purposes from two
springs in the West Roatcap Creek watershed within the project area. The company has a
83

 pipeline to deliver water to its 21 taps. Other water providers in the area, including Sunshine
Mesa Domestic Water Company, Domestic Pipeline, and Pitkin Mesa Domestic Water, divert
water either north and above the project area, or east or west of the project area from drainages
that are entirely outside of the project area. The Town of Hotchkiss and Rogers Mesa Domestic
get their water directly from Leroux Creek at the Highline Ditch headgate. Hanson Mesa gets
its water from the Town of Hotchkiss after filtration.

Environmental Consequences/Mitigation

Proposed Action
Before beginning any exploratory drilling or building of new roads, Oxbow would coordinate
with any water providers concerned about possible effects to their water supply. If needed, drill
sites, disturbance areas, and roads would be moved to prevent any effects to the water supply
sources and/or infrastructure of any water supply providers. All actions necessary to prevent
harm or injury to any existing water rights, and/or water supply diversion and storage structures
would be taken. Water used for drilling would be obtained by purchase or lease of a nearby
water supply that is available for use. Although these measures should prevent any damage to
existing water rights and water users, if a water supply is temporarily disrupted, such as due to
accidental rupture of a water pipeline or ditch, Oxbow would provide a temporary clean alternate
water source to that user.

Cumulative Impacts
Oil and gas operations in the project vicinity may require water for drilling; water would
likely would be leased or purchased from local water rights holders. Temporary water use is a
cumulative effect of both the proposed action and other reasonably foreseeable activities in the
project area. Neither oil and gas operations, nor the Proposed Action, would negatively impact
existing water rights in the project area.

No Action Alternative
Without the project, there would be no effects to water rights and water supply on and
downstream of Oak Mesa other than those currently occurring due to existing land and water
uses.

NOISE
Affected Environment
The project area setting is rural, with limited background noise. Engine noise is limited to access
by landowners via truck and ATV. Some existing oil and gas exploration activities have caused
occasional short-term, temporary increases in noise in the vicinity of the project. There are
several residences along the west side of the proposed exploration area.
Colorado Noise Statutes (25-12-103) provide the following maximum noise limits that apply to a
distance of 25 feet from a property line:

84

 Table 19. Maximum Noise Limits

Zone

7:00 am to next 7:00 pm

7:00 pm to next 7:00 am

Residential

55 db (A)

50 db (A)

Commercial

60 db (A)

55 db (A)

Light Industrial

70 db (A)

65 db (A)

Industrial

80 db (A)

75 db (A)

Construction projects are subject to the maximum permissible noise levels specified for
industrial zones.

Environmental Consequences/Mitigation

Proposed Action
Noise from the proposed action would be short-term and temporary, and isolated to the proposed
pad and road construction and drilling activities. Noise levels from drilling operations are
anticipated to be about 85 dba at the drill pad, a noise level that does not require hearing
protection for workers. Noise levels will be in compliance with state and federal standards.
Noise levels for compliance with state limits are measured at 25 feet from the property line.
Noise sources would be attenuated by dense vegetation cover and topography at most locations,
and are greater than about 1,000 feet from any permanent residence. Sound impacts from
drilling and construction would be minimal and temporary. Impacts would not exceed state
statutes.

Cumulative Impacts
The Proposed Action would result in minor, short-term noise impacts that are not anticipated to
exceed state statutes. Oil and gas exploration, operation and development could result in noise
impacts to the project area, and are subject to noise regulations promulgated by the Colorado Oil
and Gas Conservation Commission (Act §34-60-103, Section 802). Cumulatively, noise impacts are
expected to be minor due to the topography and dense vegetation in the project area. All
anticipated noise impacts would be short-term, minimal, and temporary.

No Action Alternative
Under the No Action alternative, there would be no project-related noise impacts.

RECREATION
Affected Environment
There are no public recreation facilities within the project area. Intermittent use of Oak Mesa
Road for hiking and mountain biking may occur. Limited recreation destinations occur north of
the project area in the National Forest, and include unimproved campgrounds, fishing areas
along Leroux Creek, and informal hiking trails, and access to several small reservoirs (Bailey
Reservoir, Goodenough Reservoir, and other small reservoirs). No motorized boating is
permitted. Big game and small game hunting are common on private land in the project area.

85

 Environmental Consequences/Mitigation

Proposed Action
No impacts to recreation use of the project area or the Grand Mesa National Forest are
anticipated from exploration activities. A minor, temporary increase in traffic on 3100 Rd,
Steven’s Gulch Rd and Oak Mesa Rd would not disrupt existing recreation uses. No new
recreation uses are proposed as part of the Proposed Action. Exploration activities could affect
the hunting season for up to two years. Oxbow has developed agreements with individual
landowners, some of which include timing restrictions to avoid hunting impacts.

Cumulative Impacts
The Proposed Action is not expected to impact recreation; therefore there would be no
cumulative impacts.

No Action Alternative
Under the No Action alternative, there would be no project-related recreation impacts.

VISUAL RESOURCES
Affected Environment
BLM completed a Scenic Quality Field Inventory for the project area in June 2009 (BLM 2009).
The proposed affected area falls within Class III in the inventory. Class III objective is to
partially retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic
landscape should be moderate. Management activities may attract attention but should not
dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic elements found in the
predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. The proposed exploration project is
in the Stevens Gulch Scenic Quality rating unit, which was evaluated for landscape character and
scored on a scale of A (highest scenic quality) to C (lowest scenic quality). The Stevens Gulch
unit was scored as B, or medium rated. Variability in landform (hills, ridges and outcrops),
vegetation (patchiness and variable vegetation types and shapes), and structural interest were
noted. The primary sensitive viewing area would be from 3100 Rd/Leroux Creek Rd. The
visual character of the project area is defined as “Foothills…covered in dense vegetation with
meadow breaks. The landform is rolling and varied with a few rock formations poking out, and
drainages leading through and down to the valley below. Vegetation is dense with meadow
openings: aspens, pinyon/juniper, conifers, and sage.” (BLM 2009).
Existing nighttime lighting is limited to scattered residences and outbuildings in the project area.

Environmental Consequences/Mitigation

Proposed Action
Most of the proposed activities would not be visible from Leroux Creek Rd or Steven’s Gulch
Rd, the primary public access roads near the project area, due to topographic barriers and dense
vegetation. Use of existing roads and limited creation of drill pads would minimize visual
impacts. New roads and pads have been positioned to minimize vegetation clearing, and all
disturbance would be temporary. In addition, most drill sites would not require grading a formal
86

 pad area, and disturbance would be limited to brush clearing and rock removal. Disturbed areas
would be returned to their previous topographic position (including replacing rocks that were
moved during clearing operations) and reseeded as soon as possible (within 1 to 6 months)
following drilling. The proposed action would not result in permanent facilities that would be
visible from public access routes. There may be minor, short-term impacts to the visual
character of the landscape that would result from access road and drill pad construction. Visual
modifications would be consistent with existing land uses in the project area, including ranching
and grazing. The Class III objective of partial retention would be maintained within the project
area. There would be no permanent facilities visible within the project area.
Nighttime drilling activities would be conducted, and lighting would be required for safe
nighttime operations. Lighting would consist of one or two “tower” lights near the top of the
drill rig at a height of about 50 feet, and portable lighting units on the ground would allow
drillers to monitor drill cuttings and review drill cores. Depending on the number of drill rigs
used (one or two), nighttime drilling would add one or two light sources during drilling
operations. Light sources would be attenuated by dense vegetation cover and topography at most
locations. Impacts from lighting would be minimal and temporary.

Cumulative Impacts
The Proposed Action would result in minor, short-term visual impacts. Oil and gas exploration,
operation and development could result in impacts to the visual character of the landscape in and
surrounding the project area. Dispersed residential development also could change the visual
character of the landscape, and is unregulated. Cumulatively, visual impacts are expected to be
minor due to the topography and dense vegetation in the project area, and the limited amount of
use on area roads with views toward the project area.

No Action Alternative
Under the No Action alternative, there would be no project-related visual resource impacts.

GEOLOGY AND MINERALS
Affected Environment
The proposed exploration area is located in the southern edge of the Piceance Basin of
Western Colorado (Hettinger et al., 2004). The area is underlain by coal-bearing strata in several
of the Cretaceous formations, the most significant of which economically is coal in the Upper
Cretaceous Mesaverde Formation. Of particular interest in the proposed exploration area are
coal beds stratigraphically above the Rollins Sandstone Member of the Measverde Formation.
The bedrock formations exposed at the surface in the proposed exploration area are the
Upper Cretaceous Mancos Shale and Mesaverde Formation. The marine Mancos Shale is a dark
brown to gray nonresistant clay shale with minor thin interbedded resistant sandstone, calcareous
shale and sandstone, and locally thin limestones. The Mancos Shale has a maximum thickness in
this region of 4,000 to 5,000 feet thick (Hail 1972a and b). The Mancos Shale is exposed at the
surface between the valley of the North Fork of the Gunnison River and elevations of about
7,000 to 7,400 feet.
The Mesaverde Formation, and specifically the Rollins Sandstone Member, conformably
overlies the Mancos Shale. The Rollins Sandstone is composed of light gray to white cliff
87

 forming sandstone, interbedded with carbonaceous shale and coal with a maximum thickness in
the area of about 160 feet. Overlying the Rollin Sandstone are medium-grained sandstones and
gray shales and commercially important coal beds near its base (Hail 1972a and b).
Unconsolidated or surficial geologic deposits that overlie the Cretaceous bedrock formations
include Holocene Alluvium, Holocene Alluvial terrace gravels, Holocene Landslide and
mudflow deposits, and Upper Pleistocene High Level alluvial gravels. The Holocene or Recent
alluvium is limited to the lowest reaches of Leroux Creek up to an elevation of about 6,000 feet.
Refer to Hail (1972a and b) for the location and distribution of these unconsolidated deposits.
The High-level alluvial gravels generally consist of basalt boulders derived from volcanic flows
capping Grand Mesa and are probably mostly a result of glacial outwash (Hail 1972a and b).
Within the proposed exploration area, there is only one mapped fault. The northwest
trending fault appears to have normal displacement (south side down) and is located within the
Mesaverde and possibly the overlying Wasatch formations. The mapped trace of the fault is
about 2 miles long. The general dip of the bedrock formations is slightly to the north (into the
Piceance Basin) at 2 to 4 degrees.

Environmental Consequences/Mitigation

Proposed Action
The purpose of the proposed action is to provide geologic information regarding the coal
reserves that underlie the project area.

Cumulative Impacts
There would be no negative impacts from the Proposed Action; therefore there would be no
adverse cumulative impacts.

No Action Alternative
Under the No Action alternative, there would be no project-related geology impacts.

SOCIO-ECONOMICS
Affected Environment
The area of influence for the social and economic elements of this EA includes Delta County in
west central Colorado. Delta County is the area of influence for the population and demographic
component because the majority of employees at the coal mining facilities and their families live
within the communities in its jurisdiction.
The cumulative impact area would include Delta County. Baseline data for Delta County in the
area of influence includes population and demographic data as well as current business and
economic statistics information. The information in this section was obtained from the US
Bureau of the Census based on the 2000 census and 2009 Census Bureau data
(www.census.gov). Additional information was obtained from the Colorado Department of
Local Affairs (CDOLA) State Demography Office (www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/DOLAMain/).
Population. Table 20 presents basic population and demographic information for Delta County
and the State of Colorado.
88

 Table 20
Population by Category, 2000 and 2009, Delta County and the State of Colorado
Population
2000
2009
% Change
Male (2008)
Female (2008)
Under 5 years
Under 18 years
65 years and over
% Minority (2008)
% Below poverty (2008)

Delta County
27,834
31,322
12.5%
49.8%
50.2%
5.8%
21.4%
19.9%
16.4%
12.1%

Colorado
4,302,015
5,024,748
16.8%
50.4%
49.6%
7.3%
24.4%
10.3%
29%
11.2%

Source: US Census Bureau, 2008a.

Delta County comprises 1,142 square miles with 24.4 people per square mile and a total
population of 31,322 people in 2009. Delta County grew by almost 12.5% between 2000 and
2009. According to CDOLA, Delta County grew slower than the state but faster than the nation
between 1970 and 2000, with an annual average growth rate of 2.7%. The median age in Delta
County is 42.3 years with 21.4% of the population being under the age of 18 and almost 20%
being 65 years or older. According to census data, over 80% of the people age 25 and older in
Delta County have graduated from high school and just over 17% have graduated from college.
The Town of Delta is the largest town in Delta County with a 2000 population of 6,400, an
increase of 75% since 1990. Other communities in the county include Cedaredge (2000
population of 1,854), Crawford (2000 population of 366), Hotchkiss (2000 population of 968),
Orchard City (2000 population of 2,880), and Paonia (2000 population of 1,497). The 2009 US
Census reports that there were 13,391 housing units in Delta County that housed 11,058
households, indicating a vacancy rate of approximately 17%. Only 3.7% of the vacant houses
are classified as seasonal, recreational, or for occasional use. Approximately 8% of rental units
were classified as vacant. There were 2.43 persons per household. Delta County had a home
ownership rate of 77.5% in 2000, well above the state average of 67%. The median value of an
owner occupied housing unit was $115,500, well below the state average of $166,600.

Environmental Consequences/Mitigation

Proposed Action
A minor temporary increase in jobs could result from the proposed action. Approximately 15 to
25 seasonal positions, lasting up to two years, could potentially be anticipated by the proposed
action.

Cumulative Impacts
The Proposed Action would result in a minor, temporary increase in employment in Delta
County during exploration activities. If oil and gas exploration activities occur in or near the
project area, they also could provide employment. Coal lease modifications in the project area
would provide continued employment to miners at the affected mines.

No Action Alternative
Under the No Action alternative, there would be no project-related socio-economic impacts.
89

 Cumulative impacts are the environmental impacts that could result from the implementation of
the Proposed Action, when added to the impacts from all other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable activities, regardless of who is conducting such activities. Cumulative impacts can
result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of
time. The cumulative effects analysis considers the geographic scope of the cumulative effects
and past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions.

Cumulative Impacts/Effects
Cumulative impacts for each element or resource are discussed within each of the sections.
Impacts resulting from the proposed coal exploration could add incrementally to impacts from
other activities discussed below, resulting in a low-level increase in noise, human presence, soil
erosion, invasive weeds, vegetation loss or conversion, and slight temporary decrease in access.
Cumulative impacts associated with coal mining activities in the area were analyzed in greater
detail in the Uncompahgre Basin Resource Management Plan, Environmental Impact Statement
(BLM 1988) as well as the North Fork Coal EIS (USFS and BLM 2000).

Past Actions
The primary existing (past) disturbances within the proposed lease are associated with mining,
oil and gas, livestock grazing, and residential/agricultural development.
Historic mining activities over the past century include the following:
Hawks Nest Mine;
Blue Ribbon Mine;
Oliver Mine No. 1 and No. 2;
King Mine;
Bear Mine No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3;
Farmers Mine;
Edwards Mine;
Oxbow Sanborn Creek;
USS Steel Mine;
Bowie No. 1 Mine
Over the last century, there has been noticeable subsidence in a number of areas above the
historic mines. However, there has been no known damage to overlying resources or to structures
attributable to this subsidence. Subsidence may have aggravated or contributed to some landslide
movements, but this is difficult to identify given the pre-mining instability of many areas of the
valley.
Past oil and gas activity within the region has included coal-bed methane wells and conventional
gas wells. Existing leases occur throughout the project area and surrounding area. There are
about 55 permitted wells within about 10 miles of the project area, and 17 of those are within 5
miles of the proposed project’s exploration boundary. Many of these wells were completed
greater than 30 years ago, and no longer produce (many were not completed and never
produced). In the past 10 years, there has been an increase in oil and gas activities. About 14 of
the wells within 10 miles of the project area were drilled and/or completed within the last 10
years. Many of the recent wells were drilled about 8 miles northeast of the project area in the
Hubbard Creek drainage. Another cluster of activity is about 5 miles northwest of the project
area in the Surface Creek drainage near Cedaredge. Three wells were drilled (2 completed)
90

 about 10 miles northwest of the project area along Highway 65. Three additional wells were
drilled along the northern edge of the exploration boundary between 2003 and 2010.

Present Actions
Present actions include mining, oil and gas activity, livestock grazing, and residential/
agricultural development.

Mining
Three mines, Bowie No. 2, West Elk, and Elk Creek, are currently active. In addition, Bowie
No. 1 is permitted, but idle; it is permitted for a production rate of 1.5 million tons per year.
When active, it operated as a room-and-pillar mine and hauled its coal to the Bowie No. 1
loadout near Paonia. Bowie No. 2 was opened in 1997 as a room-and-pillar mine but converted
to a longwall system in late 1999. It is located northeast of Paonia with a loadout northeast of
Paonia. There are 14,543 acres permitted in the combined permits of the Bowie No. 1 and No. 2
accessed by the Bowie No. 2 mine. The Elk Creek Mine is a longwall operation north of
Somerset, with a loadout immediately north of Somerset. There are 13,429 acres permitted. The
West Elk Mine is a longwall operation located south and east of Somerset with a loadout about 1
mile east of Somerset. There are 17,155 acres permitted.
The North Fork Branch of the Union Pacific Railroad operates exclusively to serve these coal
mines. This line branches from the main line in Grand Junction and passes through Delta,
Hotchkiss, Paonia, and Somerset.
The following table contains recent production data for the three coal mines in the North Fork
Valley.
Table 1. Raw Coal Production - North Fork Valley - BLM-UFO 1 Year Averages
Average based on:
Bowie No. 2 Elk Creek
West Elk
Totals (NF)
5 Year
2,808,556
4,378,814
5,721,944
12,909,314
1 Year
1,873,357
3,495,575
6,499,048
11,867,980
Periods end Sept. 30, 2011
NOTE: The total yearly production is expected to remain about the same -- between 12 and 13 million tons. Each of
these mining operations control coal reserves with a mix of Federal and fee coal; however, 90 percent or more of
local production is Federal. As mining progresses, only Federal coal will be available in the reserve base.

Oil and Gas Leasing
Oil and gas exploration and operations are ongoing and proposed throughout the North Fork
Valley. There are approximately 418,469 total acres of federal oil and gas mineral estate within
the cumulative impacts area. Approximately 124,192 unleased acres are within inventoried
roadless areas which, due to on-going litigation, may have surface use restrictions related to road
building if ever nominated for leasing. Overall, there are approximately 173,646 acres currently
leased. This includes 54,580 acres of inventoried roadless areas which were leased prior to
implementation of the USFS roadless rule. If these pre-2001 leases expire and are subsequently
leased again, they will have surface use restrictions for whatever roadless rule may be in place.
Approximately 120,631 acres of Federal oil and gas mineral estate remains available for
nomination to be leased at this time. Drilling activities for oil and gas require specialized
equipment (including drilling rigs and fracturing equipment), access roads, and constructed drill
pads (normally 3 to 5 acres for single-well pads).
88

 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions
Underground coal mining is expected to continue in the North Fork Valley. In addition to
existing coal leasing and exploration activities, four leasing actions have been proposed by the
three coal companies currently operating in the North Fork area. The following paragraphs
summarize applicable information:
Oxbow Tract 5. Oxbow requested a 157-acre lease modification to existing federal coal
lease COC-61357. A Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was
issued by the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest (USFS-GMUG) for
the project on August 3, 2011 to consent to allow the BLM to modify the existing coal lease.
No new surface facilities would be required for this lease modification. Information
regarding the GMUG EA is at:
http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/project_content.php?project=34307 . In addition, the BLM
evaluated the lease modification and issued a FONSI and a Record of Decision on March
15, 2012. Information regarding the BLM EA is at: DOI-BLM-CO-S050-2012-0013 EA
Oxbow Lease-by-Application. Oxbow Mining, LLC ( Elk Creek Mine) submitted a Leaseby-Application (LBA) to the BLM seeking to lease 786 acres of BLM mineral estate under
public lands located adjacent to their currently operating Elk Creek Mine near Somerset.
The BLM evaluated the LBA and issued a FONSI and a Record of Decision on June 7,
2011. The decision to lease was appealed, and on March 27, 2012, the Interior Board of
Land Appeals upheld the BLM decision. Surface disturbance would be temporary, and
would be limited to approximately 5.63 acres for gob vent boreholes, associated temporary
drill pads, and light-use roads. The lease sale will be held on May 15, 2012.
West Elk 2009 MOD (Sunset Trails). Mountain Coal Company (West Elk Mine) applied
for modification of their West Elk Mine existing federal coal leases. The USDA USFSGMUG (as the surface management agency) completed an EA and FONSI (November 8,
2011) to consent to allow the BLM to modify two existing coal leases (COC-1362 and
COC-67232) by adding about 800 and 922 acres, respectively, to the leases. The EA was
appealed to the USFS Regional Office and was remanded back to the USFS-GMUG. The
USFS-GMUG is, in cooperation with BLM and OSM, currently preparing an EIS to be
released for public comment on May 15, 2012. The lease modification would have limited
surface impacts, with 48 methane drainage wells and about 6.5 miles of temporary road
required to access those wells. A total of 73 total acres of temporary surface disturbance is
anticipated over the 25-year life of the lease modifications. More information is available at
http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?project=32459
Bowie 2011 MOD (37210 and 61209). On July 11, 2011 Bowie Resources, LLC
submitted an application seeking to modify their existing federal coal leases north of Paonia,
CO. The lease modifications would add about 505 acres to existing coal leases. Temporary
access roads (about 2.2 miles of improved existing jeep roads and new roads) and pads for 4
new gob vent boreholes on the proposed modification as well as a single hole on one
existing lease would be needed, totaling about 16.6 acres of surface disturbance. All surface
disturbance would be reclaimed soon after the related mining activities are completed. On
April 30, 2012 the BLM posted a preliminary EA and unsigned FONSI for a 30-day public
comment period. The EA is available at: DOI-BLM-CO-S050-2012-0001 EA.
89

 Additional actions including coal lease modifications and new coal lease applications could be
expected in the North Fork Valley. These factors may affect how long mining would continue in
this area; however, it is likely that mining would continue for another decade at a minimum.
It is difficult to forecast future oil and gas development within the cumulative impact assessment
region. The area is seeing an increase in development which exceeds the past average. Activity
increases are due to changes in technology for the drilling and development of the conventional
mancos shale wells and wells used to capture methane from coal mines. It is estimated that the
area will average 20 new wells per year (assumes at least 2 wells per pad – 10 new pads per
year). This will then create approximately 68 acres of new disturbance per year from oil and gas
development.
SG Interests I, Ltd (SG) has proposed a 150 gas well Master Development Plan to develop
mineral leases they hold within the Bull Mountain Unit located in Gunnison County, Colorado.
SG is proposing to drill and produce 150 wells from approximately 41 individual well pads and
associated infrastructure. Approximately 50% of the wells are targeting coalbed methane
production and the other 50% will be exploring other potentially productive natural gas zones
encountered by drilling into other geologic zones in the area of the Bull Mountain Unit.
August 2012 Oil and Gas lease sale: The BLM is currently developing an EA regarding the
nominations to lease nearly 30,000 acres of federal oil and gas mineral estate which were going
to be included in the Colorado BLM August 2012 Quarterly Lease Sale. A decision was made
recently to defer until an adequate analysis can be made. 22,000 acres of the proposed
nominations lie within the cumulative impacts assessment area of this EA.
Other past, present and reasonably foreseeable development activities in the project area and
vicinity include fruit orchards and vineyards, ranching, water storage and irrigation, transmission
lines, residential developments, recreation, and forest treatments (controlled burning and
logging). Fruit orchards along the valley floor and low mesas have historically been important to
the local economy. More recently, vineyards have expanded into the area. Sheep and cattle are
grazed in pastureland around Paonia and Hotchkiss and also at higher elevations during the
summer. There are a number of water storage reservoirs and canals around the North Fork Valley
to serve agriculture and domestic uses. Western Area Power Administration operates the
Curecanti-Rifle 230/345 kV transmission line that parallels Terror Creek. In recent years, the
area around the communities of Paonia, Hotchkiss, Crawford, and Delta has been growing in
population, with many new houses being built. Most of this development has been down-valley
from the coal mines in broader portions of the North Fork Valley. This development has
increased the traffic load and demand for maintenance on State Highway 133. There is little
developed recreation in the area, but the area is widely used for dispersed recreational activities
such as hunting, four-wheeling, hiking, picnicking, horseback riding, snowmobiling, and sightseeing. Timber sales have been fairly limited in the area.
If BLM authorizes the requested coal exploration license, a separate action would be required
to authorize a coal lease. The proposed exploration activities would allow Oxbow to determine
whether an economically viable coal reserve is present in the project area, and then apply for a
coal lease. Coal lease issuance would require BLM to conduct a separate NEPA analysis. A
subsequent analysis would analyze the effects of the lease, including the proposed plan for coal
extraction. The coal lease process is competitive, which means Oxbow might not be the lease
recipient.

90

 PERSONS / AGENCIES CONSULTED
Public comments were solicited via a letter dated September 19, 2011, that was mailed to the
appropriate agencies, specific interested parties, and to the general public. The letter was also
posted on the BLM UFO website. Information regarding the exploration proposal was made
available for public review after September 19, 2011, through legal notices published in the
Delta County Independent. In addition there were announcements of the public scoping period
in The Daily Sentinel in Grand Junction. Public comments were received through October 24,
2011. All comment letters were reviewed and considered in the development of the EA.

BLM Staff
Name
Amanda Clements
Alan Kraus
Bruce Krickbaum

Title
Ecologist
Hazmat Specialist
NEPA Coordinator

Jedd Sondergard
Edd Franz
Julie Jackson
Glade Hadden

Outdoor Recreation Planner
Archaeologist

Lynae Rogers

Range Specialist

Melissa Siders

Wildlife Biologist

Dan Huisjen
Ken Holsinger
Rob Ernst
Linda Reed
Desty Dyer
3rd Party NEPA
Consultant Staff
Name
Aleta Powers, ERO

Fire Specialist
Fuels Specialist
Geologist
Realty Specialist
Mining Engineer

Barbara Galloway,

Title
Environmental Scientist/Natural
Resource Specialist
Hydrologist
91

Area of Responsibility
Wetlands and riparian
Waste, hazardous or solid
NEPA review and compliance;
Environmental justice; Socioeconomics
Air Quality; Farmlands (Prime and
Unique); Floodplains; Water Quality,
Surface and Ground; Soils;
Hydrology / Water Rights
Wild and Scenic rivers
Wilderness; Recreation; Visual
Resources; Transportation
Cultural Resources; Native American
Religious Concerns; Paleontology
Invasive, Non-Native Species;
Vegetation
ACEC; Migratory Birds; Threatened,
Endangered, and Sensitive Species;
Wildlife, Aquatic; Wildlife,
Terrestrial
Fire
Forest Management
Geology and Minerals
Access; Realty Authorizations

Area of Responsibility
Project manager
Surface water and water rights

 BLM Staff
Name
ERO
Michael Galloway,
ERO
Jennifer McLeland,
ERO
John Monarch,
Monarch & Assoc.

Title

Area of Responsibility

Hydrogeologist
Ground water and geology
Technical Editor
Technical editing
Biologist
Biological resources

92

 Adams, R.A. 2003. Bats of the Rocky Mountain West. University Press of Colorado.
Bowie Resources, LLC. 2011. Water Quality and Flow Data for Two Springs (31 and 32) in
Long Draw, west edge of S. 16, T. 13S, R. 92 W. Personal communication with Art Etter,
Engineer, Bowie Resources, LLC.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2000. Final Environmental Impact Statement, North Fork
Coal, Delta and Gunnison Counties, Colorado.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2007. North Fork Land Health Assessment 2006 – 2007.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2009. Uncompahgre Field Office: Visual Resource
Management. Available Online at
http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/ufo/uncompahgre_rmp/visual_resource_management.html.
Last Accessed: December 26, 2011.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2010a. Draft Evaluation of Proposed and Existing
AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN for the Uncompahgre Planning
Area. June. Available:
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/co/field_offices/uncompahgre_field/rmp/rmp_d
ocs.Par.96192.File.dat/Draft%20ACEC%20Report%20071510.pdf. Last accessed September
7, 2011.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2010b. FINAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVER
ELIGIBILITY REPORT FOR THE BLM UNCOMPAHGRE PLANNING AREA. June.
Available:
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/co/field_offices/uncompahgre_field/rmp/rmp_d
ocs.Par.16348.File.dat/Final%20WSR%20Eligibility%20Report%20Final%20Web%2007121
0.pdf. Last accessed September 7, 2011.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2011a. Uncompahgre Field Office: Energy and Mineral
Resources. Available Online at: http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/ufo/solids_and_fluids.html.
Last Accessed: September 7, 2011.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2011b. Uncompahgre Field Office: Energy and Mineral
Resources, Active Federal Coal Leasing. Available Online at:
http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/ufo/solids_and_fluids/CoalLeasing.html. Last Accessed:
September 7, 2011.
Colorado Department of Agriculture. 2010. Noxious Weed List. Available at:
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/Agriculture-Main/CDAG/1174084048733. Last
accessed: December 28, 2011.
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Water Quality Control
Commission. 2012. Regulation No. 35: Classifications and Numeric Standards for Gunnison
and Lower Dolores River Basins. Effective January 1, 2012.
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Water Quality Control
Commission. 2011. Regulation No. 31: The Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface
Water. Effective January 1, 2011.

93

 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Water Quality Control
Commission. 2010. Regulation No. 93: Colorado’s Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters
and Monitoring and Evaluation List. Effective April 30, 2010.
Colorado Water Quality Control Division (WQCD). 2011. Water quality data for Segments 5
and 6a of the North Fork of the Gunnison River Basin. Personal communication with Robert
Hillegas, Physical Sciences Researcher/Scientist, Environmental Data Unit, WQCD.
Colorado’s Decision Support Systems (CDSS). 2011. Water Rights for Division 4, Gunnison
River Basin, North Fork and Tributaries.
http://cdss.state.co.us/onlineTools/Pages/WaterRights.aspx. Last Accessed November 2011.
Cordilleran Compliance Services, Inc. (Cordilleran). 2002. Hydrogeology of the South Flank of
the Grand Mesa in the Vicinity of Cedaredge and Paonia, Delta County, Colorado. Prepared
for Gunnison Energy Corporation, Denver, CO. June 10, 2002.
Dare, Matt. 2011. Fisheries Biologist. USFS GMUG. Personal communications concerning
listed fish species in Leroux Creek.
EarthInfo Inc. 2008. U.S. Geological Survey Quality of Surface Water, West 1 (includes
Colorado). Huntington Beach, CA.
EarthInfo Inc. 2010. U.S. Geological Survey Daily Values, West 1 (includes Colorado).
Huntington Beach, CA.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. Currently Designated Nonattainment Areas for
All Criteria Pollutants. Available: http://epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/ancl.html. Last accessed:
December 21.
Fresques, Tom. 2011. BLM West Slope Fish Biologist, Silt Colorado. Leroux Creek stream
survey report. September, 2007.
Galloway, Michael J. 1980. Hydrogeologic and Geothermal Investigation of Pagosa Springs,
Colorado. Colorado Geological Survey. Special Publication 10.
Garrison, Dennis. Wildlife Biologist. USFS Paonia Ranger Distrist. Per. Comm. 2009. Bat
activity in the North Fork of the GunnisonValley.
Gruver, J.C. and D.A. Keinath. 2006. Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii): a
technical conservation assessment USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.
Hail, W. J. 1972a. Reconnaissance geologic map of the Cedaredge Area, Delta County,
Colorado. Washington, D.C. : U.S. Geological Survey Map I-697.
Hail, W. J. 1972a. Reconnaissance geologic map of the Hotchkiss area, Delta and Montrose
Counties, Colorado. Washington, D.C. : U.S. Geological Survey Map I-698.
Hammerson, G. 1999. Amphibians and Reptiles in Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife.
Hettinger, R., L. Roberts, and M. Kirschbaum. 2004. Coal Resources and Coal Resource
Potential. In: Bankey, V, Editor. Resource Potential and Geology of the Grand Mesa,
Uncompahgre, and Gunnison (GMUG) National Forests and Vicinity, Colorado. U.S.
Geological Survey Bulletin 2213-M.
Hughes, Nick. 2011. Personal communication regarding water rights/water supply on Oak
Mesa.
94

 Kalenak, B. 2011. Personal communication between Bob Kalenak, Delta County Engineer, and
Aleta Powers, ERO Resources Corp. December 28.
Keinath, D.A. 2004. Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes): a technical conservation assessment.
USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.
Kingery, H.E. 1998. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and the
Colorado Division of Wildlife.
Luce, R.J. and D. Keinath. 2007. Spotted Bat (Euderma maculatum): a technical conservation
assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.
Madariaga, K, Colorado Parks & Wildlife. 2011. Personal communications concerning elk and
other wildlife activity in the Oak Mesa project area.
Monarch, J. 2011. OXBOW MINING, LLC OAK MESA EXPLORATION PROJECT
HABITAT AND WILDLIFE STUDIES. Completed by John Monarch, Monarch and
Associates.
Morris, R. Colorado Parks & Wildlife. 2011. Personal communications concerning wildlife
and habitat use in the Oak Mesa project area.
Oxbow Mining LLC (Oxbow). 2011. Water Quality Data for the Oak Mesa Exploration Area,
Collected by Gunnison Energy. Personal communication with Steve Weist, Manager Special
Projects.
Oxbow Mining LLC. 2011a (Oxbow). Ground Water Wells in the Oak Mesa Exploration Area.
Personal communication with Steve Weist, Manager Special Projects
Robbins, Jesse, Ian Crosser, Jenny Engleman, and Sean Larmore. 2011. Class III Cultural
Resource Inventory Oak Mesa Coal Development Project Environmental Assessment of
Proposed Drill Locations and Access Roads. Prepared by ERO Resources Corporation for
Oxbow Mining, LLC. December.
Schmucker, Paul. 2011. Water Commissioner for Leroux Creek/Oak Mesa, Colorado Division
of Water Resources, Division 4, Water District 40. Personal communication regarding water
rights/water supply on and near Oak Mesa.
Siders, Missy. Wildlife Biologist. BLM Uncompaghre Field Office. Personal communications
2011. Provided lists of BLM Sensitive Species and Bird Species of Conservation Concern and
other input on BLM policies concerning energy development and wildife on BLM lands.
Speas, Clay. 2010. Personal Commuications concerning listed fish species in small stream
tributaries of the North Fork of the Gunnison River in the North Fork Valley.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern. Available:
http://library.fws.gov/Bird_Publications/BCC2008.pdf
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2011. Current list of federally listed Threatened and
Endangered and candidate species species. Letter dated October 4.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2008. Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO)(ES/GJ6-CO-08-F-0006) December 19, 2008, on water depletions in the North Fork Drainage that
may affect endangered fish and their habitat in the Colorado River Basin.
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 1997. Final environmental impact statement for Arapaho and
Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grasslands. Fort Collins, CO.
95

 U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2011a. EA, Federal Coal Lease COC-61357 Modification, Tract 5.
Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/project_content.php?project=34307.
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2011b. Lynx Analysis Unit mapping for those units in the North
Fork Valley.
United States Census Bureau (Census). 2011. QuickFacts. Available online at:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/08/08029.html. Last accessed December 19, 2011.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2008. Natural Resources Conservation
Service Metadata. Available online
at: http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/GDGOrder.aspx. Last accessed: December 2011.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2000. Geologic Assessment of Coal in the Colorado
Plateau: Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah; Edited by M.A. Kirschbaum, L.N.R.
Roberts, and L.R.H. Biewick; U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1625–B*.

96

 Appendix A. MSDS for Foamer/DeFoamer

97

Bachman Drilling & Production Specialties, Inc.
2220 S. Prospect
Oklahoma City, OK 73143

Emergency Response: 800-535-5053
Information: 405-677-8296

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET
1. Chemical Identification

Product:
General Description:
Chemical Family:
Revision Date:
Primary Hazard:

F-485
Foaming Agent
Blend
January 4, 2012
Combustible Liquid

Hazard Rating
Health
Fire
Reactivity
Personal Protection

Rating Scale
2
2
0
B

4 = Extreme
3 = High
2 = Moderate
1 = Slight
0 = Insignificant

2. Hazardous Ingredients
Our hazard evaluation has identified the following chemical ingredient(s) as hazardous. One or more
component is being claimed as a trade secret under OSHA’s Hazard Communication Rule, 29 CFR
1910.1200. Consult section 14 for the nature of the hazard(s).
Ingredient(s)
Isopropanol

CAS Number
67-63-0

Approximate Wt. %
10

3. Handling Precautions
DANGER! Combustible Liquid. May cause irritation to skin and eyes. Prolonged inhalation of vapor may be
harmful. Do not use, store, spill or pour near heat, sparks or open flame. Keep container closed when not
in use. Use with adequate ventilation. Do not take internally. Avoid prolonged or repeated breathing of
vapor. Avoid contact with skin, eyes or clothing. Empty containers may contain residual product. Do not
reuse container unless properly reconditioned.

4. First Aid Information
EYES:

Remove victim from exposure and into fresh air. Immediately flush with water for at least
15 minutes while holding eyelids open. Call a physician at once.

SKIN:

Remove contaminated clothing. Immediately wash exposed area with soap and water for
at least 15 minutes. For a large splash flood body under a shower. Call a physician at
once. Launder clothes before reuse.

INGESTION:

Do not induce vomiting. Give water.
victim unattended.

INHALATION:

Remove to fresh air. If breathing is difficult, administer oxygen. Treat symptoms. Keep
victim warm and quiet. Seek immediate medical attention.

CAUTION:

If unconscious, having trouble breathing or in convulsions, do not induce vomiting or give
water.

Call a physician at once. If possible, do not leave

 F-485
Material Safety Data Sheet

Revision Date: January 4, 2012
Page 2 of 6

Note To Physicians
Based on individual reactions of the patient, the physician’s judgment should be used to control symptoms
and clinical condition.

5. Health Effects Information
Primary Route(s) Of Exposure: Eye, Inhalation, Skin
Eye Contact:
Irritating to the eyes with possible permanent damage depending on the length of
exposure and on the first aid action given. Symptoms may include stinging, tearing, redness and swelling.
Skin Contact:
Can cause mild to severe skin irritation depending on the length of exposure and on the
first aid action given. Symptoms may include redness and burning. Can cause allergic contact dermatitis in
susceptible individuals.
Ingestion:
Ingestion of this product may cause central nervous system depression, abdominal
distress, with nausea, vomiting and diarrhea probable depending on the first aid action given.
Inhalation:
Prolonged inhalation of mist or vapor in excess of the recommended exposure limits can
be harmful, causing nausea, irritation, dizziness, light-headedness, vomiting, fatigue, headache or
unconsciousness depending on the length of exposure and the first aid action given.
Symptoms
Of Exposure:

ACUTE: A review of available data does not identify any symptoms from exposure not
previously mentioned.
CHRONIC: Prolonged skin contact can cause dry skin and defatting resulting in irritation
and dermatitis. See Section 6 for additional information.

Aggravation Of Existing Conditions:
existing conditions.

A review of available data does not identify any worsening of

6. Toxicological Information
Toxicity Studies
This product contains isopropanol. In concentrated form, this chemical has been reported in one animal
study to be fetotoxic at levels of 2.5% in drinking water. No tetratogenic effects were, or have been
reported. There are no reports of adverse reproductive effects in humans exposed to this chemical.

7. Physical & Chemical Properties
Appearance:
Odor:
Specific Gravity:
Density:
pH (neat):
Viscosity:
Solubility:

Clear, Amber Liquid
Alcohol
1.020
8.50
8.0 - 8.5
o
~25 cst @ 100 F
Water Soluble

Pour Point:
0oF
Initial
Boiling Point:
180 oF
o
Flash Point:
53 F TCC
Vapor Pressure:
31.2 mm HG @ 100 oF
Vapor Density:
> 1.0 (Air = 1.0)
Evaporation Rate: 1.7 (Butyl Acetate = 1.0)

Note: These physical properties are typical values for this product and not specifications.

 F-485
Material Safety Data Sheet

Revision Date: January 4, 2012
Page 3 of 6

8. Fire & Explosion Information
Flash Point:
Lower Explosive Limit:
Upper Explosive Limit:

53oF
2.0%
12.0%

Extinguishing Media:
Based on NFPA guide, use water fog, dry chemical, foam, carbon dioxide or
other extinguishing agent suitable for Class B fires. Use water to cool containers exposed to fire. For large
fires, use water spray or fog, thoroughly drench the burning material.
Unusual Fire And Explosion Hazards: May evolve CO, CO2 and/or NOx under fire conditions. Containers
exposed in a fire should be cooled with water to prevent vapor pressure buildup leading to rupture.

9. Reactivity Information
Incompatibility: Avoid contact with strong oxidizers (eg. chlorine, peroxides, chromates, nitric acid,
perchlorates, concentrated oxygen, permanganates) which can generate heat, fires, explosions and the
release of toxic fumes.
Thermal Decomposition Products: In the event of combustion CO, CO2 and/or NOx may be formed. Do
not breathe smoke or fumes. Wear suitable protective equipment.

10. Personal Protection Equipment
Respiratory Protection: Respiratory protection is not normally needed under typical use and handling
conditions. If it is possible to generate significant levels of vapors, mists or smoke, a NIOSH approved or
equivalent respirator is recommended. For large spills, entry into large tanks, vessels or enclosed small
spaces with inadequate ventilation, a positive pressure, self-contained breathing apparatus is
recommended.
Ventilation: General ventilation is recommended. Additionally, local exhaust ventilation is recommended
where vapors, mists or aerosols may be released.
Protective Equipment:
Wear impermeable gloves, boots, apron and face shield with chemical splash
goggles. A full slicker suit is recommended if gross exposure is possible.
The availability of an eye wash fountain and safety shower are recommended. If clothing is contaminated,
remove clothing and thoroughly wash the affected area. Launder contaminated clothing before reuse.

11. Spill & Disposal Information

In case of transportation accident, call the emergency response phone number: 800-535-5053

Spill Control And Recovery:
Small Spills:
Contain with absorbent material, such as clay, soil or any commercially available
absorbent. Shovel reclaimed liquid and absorbent into recovery or salvage drums for disposal. Refer to
CERCLA in Section 14.

 F-485
Material Safety Data Sheet

Revision Date: January 4, 2012
Page 4 of 6

11. Spill & Disposal Information (continued)
Large Spills:
Dike and prevent further movement and reclaim into recovery or salvage drums or tank
truck for disposal. Refer to CERCLA in Section 14.
For large indoor spills, evacuate employees and ventilate area. Eliminate all sources of spark or flame.
Those responsible for control and recovery should wear the protective equipment specified in Section 10.
Ventilate area and evacuate employees from exposure if the airborne concentration exceeds the TLV. Refer
to Section 14.
Prevent flow/discharge into lakes, ponds, streams, waterways or public water supplies.
Disposal:
If this product becomes a waste, it meets the criteria of a hazardous waste as defined
under the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 40 CFR 261. Hazardous Waste D001.
As a hazardous liquid waste, it must be solidified with stabilizing agents (such as sand, fly ash, or cement)
so that no free liquid remains before disposal to a licensed industrial waste landfill (Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage and Disposal facility). A hazardous liquid waste can also be incinerated in accordance
with local, state and federal regulations.

12. Environmental Information
If released into the environment, see CERCLA in Section 14.

13. Transportation Information
The proper shipping name and/or hazard class for this product may vary according to packaging, properties
and mode of transportation. Typical proper shipping names for this product are:
Drums & Pails:
Totes & Bulk:
UN/ID Number:
Hazard Class:
Packing Group:
Flash Point:
Hazardous Components:
RQ lbs:
RQ Component(s):

Not D.O.T. Regulated
Combustible Liquid, N.O.S.
NA-1993
3, Combustible Liquid
III
53oF
Isopropanol
None
None

14. Regulatory Information
The following regulations apply to this product:
Federal Regulations:
OSHA’s Hazard Communication Rule, 219 CFR 1910.1200:
Based on our hazard evaluation, the following ingredients in this product are hazardous and the reasons are
shown below.
Isopropanol – Flammable

 F-485
Material Safety Data Sheet

Revision Date: January 4, 2012
Page 5 of 6

14. Regulatory Information (continued from page 4)
Isopropanol = TWA 400 ppm, STEL 500 ppm

ACGIH/TLV

Isopropanol = TWA 400 ppm, STEL 500 ppm

OSHA/PEL

CERCLA/Superfund, 40 CFR 117, 302:
This product does not contain any Reportable Quantity (RQ) substance.

SARA/Superfund Amendments And Reauthorization Act Of 1986
(Title III) – Sections 302, 311, 312 and 313:
Section 302 – Extremely Hazardous Substance (40 CFR 355):
This product does not contain ingredients listed in Appendix A and B as an Extremely Hazardous Substance
Section 311 and 312 – Material Safety Data Sheet Requirements (40 CFR 370):
Our hazard evaluation has found this product to be hazardous. The product should be reported under the
following EPA hazard categories.
*****
*****

Immediate (acute) health hazard
Delayed (chronic) health hazard
Fire hazard
Sudden release of pressure hazard
Reactive hazard

*****

Indicates Primary Hazards

Under SARA 311 and 312, the EPA has established threshold quantities for the reporting of a hazardous
chemical. The current thresholds are: 500 pounds or the threshold planning quantity (TPQ), whichever is
lower, for extremely hazardous substances and 10,000 pounds for all other hazardous chemicals.

Section 313 – List Of Toxic Chemicals (40 CFR 372):
This product contains the following ingredient(s), (with CAS# and % range) which appear(s) on the List Of
Toxic Chemicals:
None
Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) (40 CFR 710):
The chemical ingredients in this product are on the 8 (b) inventory list.
Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA), 40 CFR 261 Subpart C & D:
Consult Section 11 for RCRA classification.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Clean Water Act, 40 CFR 401.15 (formerly Sec. 307), 40 CFR 116,
(formerly Sec. 311):
None of the ingredients of this product are specifically listed.

 F-485
Material Safety Data Sheet

Revision Date: January 4, 2012
Page 6 of 6

14. Regulatory Information (continued from page 5)
Clean Air Act, Sec 111 (40 CFR60), Sec 112 (40 CFR 61, 1990 Amendments), Sec 611 (40 CFR 82,
Class I and II Ozone Depleting Substances):
This product contains the following ingredients covered by the Clean Air Act:
Isopropanol – Section 111

State Regulations:
California Proposition 65:
This product does not contain any chemicals which require warning under California Proposition 65.

Michigan Critical Materials:
This product does not contain any ingredients listed on the Michigan Critical Materials Register.

State Right To Know Laws:
This product is regulated in those states using the TLV for isopropanol as a criteria for listing.

15. User’s Responsibility
The information accumulated herein is believed to be accurate based on the information provided, although
no guarantee or warranty, either expressed or implied is made as to the accuracy or completeness of this
information, whether originating with this company or not. Recipients are advised to confirm in advance of
need that the information is correct, applicable and suitable to their circumstances. The conditions or
methods of handling, storage, use and disposal of the product and container are beyond our control and
may be beyond our knowledge. For this and other reasons, we do not assume responsibility and expressly
disclaim liability for loss, damage or expense arising out of or in any way connected with the handling,
storage or use of this information or product. If the product is used as a component in another product, this
information may not be applicable.
Prepared By:
Original Date:

L.V. Robertson
February 20,2003

 Bachman Drilling & Production Specialties, Inc.
2220 S. Prospect
Oklahoma City, OK 73143

Emergency Response: 800-535-5053
Information: 405-677-8296

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET
1. Chemical Identification

Product:
General Description:
Chemical Family:
Revision Date:
Primary Hazard:

DF-104
Defoamer
Blend
January 4, 2012
Flammable Liquid
RQ Component

Hazard Rating
Health
Fire
Reactivity
Personal Protection

Rating Scale
2
3
0
B

4 = Extreme
3 = High
2 = Moderate
1 = Slight
0 = Insignificant

2. Hazardous Ingredients
Our hazard evaluation has identified the following chemical ingredient(s) as hazardous. One or more
component is being claimed as a trade secret under OSHA’s Hazard Communication Rule, 29 CFR
1910.1200. Consult section 14 for the nature of the hazard(s).
Ingredient(s)

CAS Number

Methanol

67-56-1

Approximate Wt. %
Confidential

3. Handling Precautions
DANGER! Flammable Liquid. Contains methanol. May cause blindness if swallowed. May be harmful if
inhaled. Do not use, store, spill or pour near heat, sparks or open flame. Keep container closed when not in
use. Use with adequate ventilation. Do not take internally. Avoid prolonged or repeated breathing of vapor.
Avoid contact with skin, eyes or clothing. Empty containers may contain residual product. Do not reuse
container unless properly reconditioned.

4. First Aid Information
EYES:

Remove victim from exposure and into fresh air. Immediately flush with water for at least
15 minutes while holding eyelids open. Call a physician at once.

SKIN:

Remove contaminated clothing. Immediately wash exposed area with soap and water for
at least 15 minutes. For a large splash flood body under a shower. Call a physician at
once. Launder clothes before reuse.

INGESTION:

If victim is conscious and alert, induce vomiting by giving syrup of ipecac or by gently
stimulating victim’s uvula. Give water. Call a physician at once. If victim is drowsy or
unconscious, do not induce vomiting or give anything by mouth; place victim on the left
side with the head down. If possible, do not leave victim unattended.

INHALATION:

Remove to fresh air. If breathing is difficult, administer oxygen. Treat symptoms. Keep
victim warm and quiet. Seek immediate medical attention.

CAUTION:

If unconscious, having trouble breathing or in convulsions, do not induce vomiting or give
water.

 DF-104
Material Safety Data Sheet

Revision Date: January 4, 2012
Page 2 of 6

Note To Physicians
This product contains methanol. Ethanol decreases the metabolism of methanol to toxic metabolites.
Ethanol should be administered as soon as possible in cases of severe poisoning. If ethanol therapy is
indicated, administer a loaded dose of 7.6 to 10 mL of 10% ETOH in D5W over 30 – 60 minutes.
Maintenance dose of 1.4 mL/Kg/Hr of 10% ETOH, to achieve a 100 to 130 mg/dL blood ETOH level during
ethanol therapy. (If charcoal is administered, ethanol should be administered intravenously and not orally.)

5. Health Effects Information

Primary Route(s) Of Exposure: Eye, Ingestion, Inhalation, Skin
Eye Contact:
Irritating to the eyes with possible permanent damage depending on the length of
exposure and on the first aid action given. Symptoms may include stinging, tearing, redness and swelling.
Skin Contact:
Irritating to the skin. Symptoms may include redness and burning. Skin adsorption
possible, but harmful effects are not expected from this route of exposure under normal conditions of
handling and use. Can cause allergic contact dermatitis in susceptible individuals.
Ingestion:
Can cause blindness due to methanol. Ingestion of this product will also cause sever
abdominal distress, with nausea, vomiting and diarrhea probable depending on the first aid action given.
See note to physician, above.
Inhalation:
Prolonged inhalation of mist or vapor in excess of the recommended exposure limits can
be harmful, causing nausea, irritation, dizziness, light-headedness, vomiting, fatigue, headache or
unconsciousness depending on the length of exposure and the first aid action given.
Symptoms
Of Exposure:
mentioned.

A review of available data does not identify any symptoms from exposure not previously

Aggravation Of Existing Conditions:
existing conditions.

A review of available data does not identify any worsening of

6. Toxicological Information
Toxicity Studies: No toxicity studies have been conducted on this product. However, this product contains
methanol. Ingestion of methanol, even in small amounts, can cause blindness and death. This material is
not listed as a carcinogen by IARC, NTP or OSHA.

7. Physical & Chemical Properties
Appearance:
Odor:
Specific Gravity:
Density:
pH (neat):
Viscosity:
Solubility:

Clear Liquid
Alcohol
0.802
6.69
7.0 – 8.5
4 cst @ 100oF
Water Soluble

o
Pour Point:
-30 F
Initial
o
Boiling Point:
147 F
o
Flash Point:
54 F TCC
o
Vapor Pressure:
96 mm HG @ 100 F
Vapor Density:
> 1.0 (Air = 1.0)
Evaporation Rate: 3.5 (Butyl Acetate = 1.0)

Note: These physical properties are typical values for this product and not specifications.

 DF-104
Material Safety Data Sheet

Revision Date: January 4, 2012
Page 3 of 6

8. Fire & Explosion Information
Flash Point:
Lower Explosive Limit:
Upper Explosive Limit:

54oF
2.0%
36.0%

Extinguishing Media:
Based on NFPA guide, use water fog, dry chemical, foam, carbon dioxide or
other extinguishing agent suitable for Class B fires. Use water to cool containers exposed to fire. For large
fires, use water spray or fog, thoroughly drench the burning material.
Unusual Fire And Explosion Hazards: May evolve CO, CO2 and/or NOx under fire conditions. Containers
exposed in a fire should be cooled with water to prevent vapor pressure buildup leading to rupture.

9. Reactivity Information
Incompatibility: Avoid contact with strong oxidizers (eg. chlorine, peroxides, chromates, nitric acid,
perchlorates, concentrated oxygen, permanganates) which can generate heat, fires, explosions and the
release of toxic fumes.
Thermal Decomposition Products: In the event of combustion CO, CO2 and/or NOx may be formed. Do
not breathe smoke or fumes. Wear suitable protective equipment.

10. Personal Protection Equipment
Respiratory Protection: If it is possible to generate significant levels of vapors or mists, a NIOSH
approved or equivalent respirator is recommended. For large spills, entry into large tanks, vessels or
enclosed small spaces with inadequate ventilation, a positive pressure, self-contained breathing apparatus
is recommended.
Ventilation: General ventilation is recommended. Additionally, local exhaust ventilation is recommended
where vapors, mists or aerosols may be released.
Protective Equipment:
Wear impermeable gloves, boots, apron and face shield with chemical splash
goggles. A full slicker suit is recommended if gross exposure is possible.
The availability of an eye wash fountain and safety shower are recommended. If clothing is contaminated,
remove clothing and thoroughly wash the affected area. Launder contaminated clothing before reuse.

11. Spill & Disposal Information

In case of transportation accident, call the emergency response phone number: 800-535-5053

Spill Control And Recovery:
Small Spills:
Contain with absorbent material, such as clay, soil or any commercially available
absorbent. Shovel reclaimed liquid and absorbent into recovery or salvage drums for disposal. Refer to
CERCLA in Section 14.

 DF-104
Material Safety Data Sheet

Revision Date: January 4, 2012
Page 4 of 6

11. Spill & Disposal Information (continued)
Large Spills:
Dike and prevent further movement and reclaim into recovery or salvage drums or tank
truck for disposal. Refer to CERCLA in Section 14.
For large indoor spills, evacuate employees and ventilate area. Eliminate all sources of spark or flame.
Those responsible for control and recovery should wear the protective equipment specified in Section 10.
Ventilate area and evacuate employees from exposure if the airborne concentration exceeds the TLV. Refer
to Section 14.
Prevent flow/discharge into lakes, ponds, streams, waterways or public water supplies.
Disposal:
If this product becomes a waste, it meets the criteria of a hazardous waste as defined
under the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 40 CFR 261. Hazardous Waste D001.
As a hazardous liquid waste, it must be solidified with stabilizing agents (such as sand, fly ash, or cement)
so that no free liquid remains before disposal to a licensed industrial waste landfill (Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage and Disposal facility). A hazardous liquid waste can also be incinerated in accordance
with local, state and federal regulations.

12. Environmental Information
If released into the environment, see CERCLA in Section 14.

13. Transportation Information
The proper shipping name and/or hazard class for this product may vary according to packaging, properties
and mode of transportation. Typical proper shipping names for this product are:
All Transportation Modes:
UN/ID Number:
Hazard Class:
Packing Group:
Flash Point:
Hazardous Components:
RQ lbs:
RQ Component(s):

Flammable Liquid, N.O.S.
UN-1993
3, Flammable Liquid
III
o
54 F
Methanol
7,540
Methanol

14. Regulatory Information
The following regulations apply to this product:
Federal Regulations:
OSHA’s Hazard Communication Rule, 219 CFR 1910.1200:
Based on our hazard evaluation, the following ingredients in this product are hazardous and the reasons are
shown below.
Methanol – Flammable, Systemic effects (refer to Section 5)

 DF-104
Material Safety Data Sheet

Revision Date: January 4, 2012
Page 5 of 6

14. Regulatory Information (continued from page 4)
Methanol = TWA 200 ppm, STEL 250 ppm

ACGIH/TLV

Methanol = TWA 200 ppm, STEL 250 ppm

OSHA/PEL

CERCLA/Superfund, 40 CFR 117, 302:
This product contains methanol, a Reportable Quantity (RQ) substance. If 7,540 pounds of this product is
notification to the NATIONAL RESPONSE CENTER, WASHINGTON, D.C., is required at 1-800-424-8802.

SARA/Superfund Amendments And Reauthorization Act Of 1986
(Title III) – Sections 302, 311, 312 and 313:
Section 302 – Extremely Hazardous Substance (40 CFR 355):
This product does not contain ingredients listed in Appendix A and B as an Extremely Hazardous Substance
Section 311 and 312 – Material Safety Data Sheet Requirements (40 CFR 370):
Our hazard evaluation has found this product to be hazardous. The product should be reported under the
following EPA hazard categories.
*****
*****

Immediate (acute) health hazard
Delayed (chronic) health hazard
Fire
Sudden Release Of Pressure
Reactive

*****

Indicates Primary Hazards

Under SARA 311 and 312, the EPA has established threshold quantities for the reporting of a hazardous
chemical. The current thresholds are: 500 pounds or the threshold planning quantity (TPQ), whichever is
lower, for extremely hazardous substances and 10,000 pounds for all other hazardous chemicals.

Section 313 – List Of Toxic Chemicals (40 CFR 372):
This product contains the following ingredient(s), (with CAS# and % range) which appear(s) on the List Of
Toxic Chemicals:
Methanol

67-56-1

Confidential

Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) (40 CFR 710):
The chemical ingredients in this product are on the 8 (b) inventory list.
Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA), 40 CFR 261 Subpart C & D:
Consult Section 11 for RCRA classification.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Clean Water Act, 40 CFR 401.15 (formerly Sec. 307), 40 CFR 116,
(formerly Sec. 311):
None of the ingredients of this product are specifically listed.

 DF-104
Material Safety Data Sheet

Revision Date: January 4, 2012
Page 6 of 6

14. Regulatory Information (continued from page 5)
Clean Air Act, Sec 111 (40 CFR60), Sec 112 (40 CFR 61, 1990 Amendments), Sec 611 (40 CFR 82,
Class I and II Ozone Depleting Substances):
None of the ingredients of this product are covered by the Clean Air Act.

State Regulations:
California Proposition 65:
This product does not contain any chemicals which require warning under California Proposition 65.

Michigan Critical Materials:
This product does not contain any ingredients listed on the Michigan Critical Materials Register.

State Right To Know Laws:
This product is regulated in those states using the TLV for methanol as a criteria for listing.

15. User’s Responsibility
The information accumulated herein is believed to be accurate based on the information provided, although
no guarantee or warranty, either expressed or implied is made as to the accuracy or completeness of this
information, whether originating with this company or not. Recipients are advised to confirm in advance of
need that the information is correct, applicable and suitable to their circumstances. The conditions or
methods of handling, storage, use and disposal of the product and container are beyond our control and
may be beyond our knowledge. For this and other reasons, we do not assume responsibility and expressly
disclaim liability for loss, damage or expense arising out of or in any way connected with the handling,
storage or use of this information or product. If the product is used as a component in another product, this
information may not be applicable.
Prepared By:
Original Date:

L.V. Robertson
January 22, 2003

 This weed control plan is concerned with the control of a wide variety of noxious weeds, thistles,
etc. located on mine disturbance areas.
The Delta County Noxious Weed website and personnel have been consulted regarding a
Noxious Weed Program. Disturbed areas, topsoil stockpiles and reclaimed/seeded areas could be
invaded by the following noxious weed species with control afforded by the described
techniques:
Musk, Scotch Thistles; Burdock, Houndstongue, Tamarisk, Puncturevine—Controlled by
Banvel/2,4,-D mixture, Curtail or Redeem herbicides and non-ionic surfactant applied in
spring or early summer.
Canada thistle, Russian, diffuse and spottend knapweeds, yellow toadflax and oxeye
daisy, bindweed—controlled by Curtail or Redeem or Tordon herbicides and surfactant
applied in spring or fall.
White top—controlled by Escort or Telar herbicides with surfactant in the spring.
Leafy spurge—controlled by Tordon in spring or early summer.

Contractors and/or Oxbow employees may apply the herbicides. Procedures to be followed
include but are not limited to the following:
The herbicides and surfactant will be applied in accordance with the individual label
requirements using a hand held or backpack or pickup/ATV mounted sprayer. Care will
be taken to avoid drift onto desirable species and to avoid spraying in windy conditions.
Oxbow will maintain records of herbicide use on the property for inspection by CDRMS
personnel. The weed control records will document the location where weed control was
performed, the type of weed control employed and the date when the weed control was
performed.
As part of its Annual Reclamation Report, Oxbow will summarize its weed control
activities for the year.

Other mechanical or biological means of weed control such as discing, shoveling and insects
may also be employed to control weeds on disturbed areas.

98

 Drill Pads
Wherever possible, existing ground surface would be used for drilling sites, and
construction activities would be limited to clearing and removal of large boulders.
Prior to construction, the limits of construction disturbance areas along the access
road routes and pad locations would be clearly defined.
o These limits would be staked and flagged.
o All construction activities would be confined to these areas.
o Stakes and flagging would be removed when construction and restoration
are completed.
Access
Existing access roads would be used wherever possible to reach the drilling locations.
New roads and other linear facilities would be located and constructed to follow the
contour of the landform or to mimic lines in the vegetation (avoiding straight roads
and steep slopes).
Road beds would be a maximum of 14 feet wide.
Cutting and filling, and crowning and ditching, of temporary roads would be kept to
the minimum necessary.
Staging
The 7X/Bear Ranch LEX property would serve as a casting and laydown area.
Other storage, including equipment and supply storage, would occur along new
temporary access roads or at drill locations within the designated areas.
All storage would occur away from public access areas.
Site Clearing
Where possible, areas of existing disturbance would be used.
All of the pad sites would require clearing of brush and removal of boulders and large
rocks.
Clearing and grading would be accomplished using bulldozers, road graders or other
standard earth-moving equipment.
The topsoil component (up to 12 inches, where present) would be salvaged for use in
reclamation activities.
o In many areas, surface rock is present and topsoil salvage would be limited.
Drill pads that require grading would have a surface area of about 0.50 acres (about
180 feet by 120 feet).
Drill pads not requiring grading would have a surface occupation and clearing area of
no greater than 0.50 acre.
Drilling Activities

99

 Exploratory drilling would use a truck-based, self-leveling rotary drill rig with about
a 53 foot mast (fully extended) and with a base dimension of about 10 by 10 feet.
The drill rig is equivalent in size and capability to those used to drill deep water
wells.
Bore holes would be drilled using 8 ¾ inch rotary bit to a depth of up to 200 feet,
depending upon ground conditions and the ultimate depth of the hole at each location.
A steel surface casing would be installed and cemented in place. A 6 ¼ inch rotary bit
would be used to drill the borehole to a preselected depth above the target coal seam.
A 3-inch core barrel and bit would be used to recover a core from the coal seam and
portions of the rock material above and below the coal seam.
Bore holes would be drilled to the extent possible with air, air-water, air-foam, or
water as the circulation medium.
A lubricating bentonite-based mud would be used in holes that are difficult to keep
open.
o The muds used in these instances would not contain metallic compounds.
Approximately 3,000 to 4,000 gallons of water would be used for each borehole
under normal drilling conditions (0.528 acre foot of water total for all 43 boreholes).
Water would be delivered to each borehole site by a tanker truck designed to haul
water. A cuttings pit to hold soil and rock material removed from the borehole would
be excavated with a backhoe within the pad area.
The pit would be approximately 20 feet in length, 8 feet in width, and 8 feet deep (47
cubic yards each).
All drilling locations would require construction of a pit for cuttings and containment
of produced water (both water injected during air drilling and any water produced
from the formation).
If drilling mud is required to maintain hole stability and/or circulation, a portable
mixing tank would be used to mix and contain the drilling mud.
Lighting
Lighting would consist of one or two “tower” lights near the top of the drill rig at a
height of about 50 feet, and portable lighting units on the ground to allow drillers to
monitor drill cuttings and review the drill cores.
Ground lighting units would be aimed at work areas.
For safety reasons, lighting cannot be artificially shielded, but natural topographic
and vegetative shielding would be considered in light placement.
Noise
Noise levels from drilling operations would be about 85 decibels (dB), which does
not require hearing protection for workers. Noise levels will be in compliance with
state and federal standards.
Equipment and Personnel
100

 The following personnel and equipment would be required to complete exploration
activities
o Bulldozer (1) and Excavator (1) for clearing, excavating, moving, and
grading; personnel about 2 people;
o Grader (1) for clearing, moving small amounts of soil and finish grading;
personnel 1;
o Drilling rig (1 or 2); personnel about 5 to 7 people;
o Carpool pickup (1 for each rig crew) to transport drilling staff;
o E-log truck (1) and equipment for digital logging of bore holes; personnel 1 to
2 people;
o Delivery trucks and semi trucks for delivery of water tanks, and other bulk
construction items; about 1-2 personnel per delivery; about 2 trips per day;
o Water Truck for dust suppression (1); personnel 1; and
o Pick-up trucks and SUVs with flatbed trailers (1) for small equipment
transport; personnel 1.
Storm Water Control
For locations that require construction of a drill pad, the pad would be graded so that
any water runs toward the cuttings pit.
Either silt fencing or straw wattles would be placed to contain storm water runoff
within the pad area.
For locations that do not require construction/leveling of a pad, silt fencing or straw
wattles would be used as needed to prevent storm water runoff from leaving the
drilling operations area.
Site Maintenance
Oxbow would control dust from drilling and related activities, divert and control both
natural runoff from disturbed areas and fluid loss from drilling, and would clean up
any trash or debris.
A maximum of about 0.4 acre-foot of water is anticipated to be required for fugitive
dust suppression, depending on seasonal climate conditions.
o A water truck would be used to apply water to access roads, as needed, to
control dust.
Waste construction materials and rubbish from all construction areas would be
collected, hauled away, and disposed of in an approved manner.
Food-related trash would be stored inside contractor vehicles and removed daily.
If necessary, bear-proof trash containers would be provided.
Where fences must be cut for gate installation or other construction activities, prior to
gate cutting, the brace posts would be installed and wires attached in order to
maintain adjacent wire tension.
Any fence damaged during construction would be repaired immediately.

101

 Gates, where required, would be installed in accordance with landowner and BLM
agreements, and would be maintained in good working order.
All new or existing gates would remain closed and locked at all times except when
attended or unless otherwise directed by the landowner.
Fire Prevention
All drilling equipment would be provided with fire extinguishers and shovels for
fighting small fires, if necessary.
Drilling crews would be equipped and trained to fight small fires.
Spark arresters would be required for equipment generating sparks, including ATVs
and chainsaws.
Smoking would be allowed during construction activities only in designated safesmoking areas.
Common sense practices regarding heat/spark sources, particularly in dry conditions,
would be followed.
Parking hot vehicles on dry shrubs would not be allowed, and other logical avoidance
practices would be followed.
Reclamation – Bore Hole
All drill holes would be backfilled, sealed and abandoned.
During drilling, fluid return would be monitored to identify the depth and extent of
any water producing zones. Upon abandonment, in accordance with Drill Hole
Plugging Procedures agreed to by BLM and CDRMS, bentonite chips or bentonite
plug gel or similar seal would be established in the bottom of the hole, extending to
within ten feet of the surface.
A cement plug would be set in the hole ten (10) feet below the ground to within three
(3) feet of the surface.
Accumulations of drill cuttings would be buried in the excavated pit.
Part of the abandonment process includes the use of bentonite mud to seal the
borehole.
At no time during the drilling and well abandonment process will any bentonite mud
be placed in the cuttings pit.
Several of the exploration holes may be completed as ground water monitoring wells,
in preparation for base line monitoring required for permit submission.
o Identification of specific drill holes to be completed as ground water
monitoring wells would occur once initial meetings with the CDRMS have
occurred. Drill holes selected to be completed as monitoring wells would be
completed in accordance with the guidelines agreed to by the BLM and
CDRMS for monitoring wells.
o Once monitoring is no longer required, these wells would be abandoned in the
same manner as the original bore holes.
A metal post with tag would be placed in the vicinity of the hole as a permanent
marker.
102

 Reclamation – Roads
Interim reclamation would include partially revegetating roads in order to reduce the
amount of bare ground created during construction and drilling activities.
The new road segments would be reclaimed to their original contour and rough
texture in order to match the “texture” of the surrounding landscape, and revegetated
in accordance with BLM direction, and using a BLM-approved seed mix.
Reclamation – Pits
Any drilling mud left in the portable mixing tank after the borehole is completed
would be used along with additional bentonite in the hole abandonment process.
The pits may be temporarily fenced and allowed to dry before backfilling with
previously excavated material.
The excavated material would be returned to the pits in such a manner as to
approximate the original soil profile, particularly as related to the near-surface soils or
top soil.
During backfilling, the material would be mixed and compacted as it is replaced, by
running the equipment over the backfilled area during placement of successive lifts.
Following backfilling, disturbance areas would be graded to their approximate
original configuration or to a natural looking configuration that blends with the
surrounding topography and the original surface drainage reestablished.
Reclamation – General
All trash and debris would be removed from drill sites for disposal. Excavations,
including pits, would be backfilled.
Any salvaged topsoil materials would be re-spread onto the regraded surface and
reseeding of the areas (pads and roads – unless the landowner requests the roads
remain) would take place using the pre-determined seed mixture.
Reclamation – Re-seeding
Seeding would take place in the fall or early spring.
A temporary perimeter fence would be placed around reclaimed areas to prevent
disturbance by cattle and elk.
Monitoring of re-seeding efforts would occur for two or three field seasons to
determine stand success, re-seeding requirements and control of any noxious weeds.
Reclamation Success criteria:
o Vegetation cover in disturbed areas would be at least 70 percent of the
vegetation cover in adjoining undisturbed areas. For example, if nearby
undisturbed areas have approximately 75 percent vegetation cover, the
reclamation success criteria would be 52.5 percent total vegetation cover.
o Vegetation cover would be comprised of species included in the seed mix and
other desirable species found in the surrounding area.

103

 o Vegetation patchiness is acceptable, as long as there are no contiguous bare
areas greater than about 3 feet by 3 feet (about 9 square feet).

Noxious Weed Management
Clean equipment to remove weed seeds prior to use onsite;
Monitor and spray/perform weed control as necessary.
The operator and the operator’s contractors will disinfect heavy equipment, hand
tools, boots and any other equipment used previously in a river, lake, pond, or
wetland, by routinely cleaning equipment using 140° water and high-pressure
sprayers to remove dirt, mud and foreign debris before equipment is brought on-site.
The operator and the operator’s contractors will clean trucks and equipment at washstations in nearby towns or at the contractor’s yard (off-site) to ensure that all
equipment and vehicles shall be clean of all dirt and debris that can harbor weed seed.
Monitoring and control of noxious or invasive weeds attempting to establish within
the project boundaries throughout the construction and production phases should be
performed in coordination with routine maintenance activities and in accordance with
state law.
The Operator will monitor for and control noxious or invasive weeds throughout the
construction and production phases. Mandatory noxious weed control is required on
the pads, drill holes, and access roads used by the lessee/operator for the life of the
project.
Application of pesticides and herbicides on public lands will conform to BLM and
state laws.
To prevent the entry of hazardous substances into surface waters:
o Chemical treatments within the riparian areas shall be applied by hand and
shall be applied only to specific targets.
o Leave a 25-foot buffer along surface waters when chemicals are being applied
through ground application with power equipment.
o Always refer to chemical label instructions for additional guidance on use
near water and required buffer zones.
o To enhance effectiveness and prevent transport into streams, apply chemicals
during appropriate weather conditions (generally calm and dry) and during the
optimum time for control of the target pest or weed.
Coordination
Coordination with landowners and interested parties will occur throughout the drilling
process, including meeting with domestic and irrigation water providers to address
concerns about water supply facilities.
Existing rights-of-way will be avoided to the extent possible. If they cannot be
avoided, caution will be taken to ensure no damage to the facility or disruption of use

104

 occurs. As necessary, right-of-way holder(s) will be contacted to coordinate activities
that may influence their facilities.

General Design Features
Clearances/survey, including cultural resource surveys and biological resource
surveys, would be completed for drill hole and access road locations that were not
reviewed in Fall 2011 because of lack of right-of-access prior to any ground
disturbing activities.
Refueling of equipment will not occur within 100 feet of live water.
Any lubricant, oil or grease, or fuel spills shall be reported immediately to the BLM
or USFS hazardous material coordinator. Any spills would be removed from the spill
area as quickly as possible and disposed of appropriately off-site. Any spills will be
cleaned to the authorized officer’s satisfaction using standard hazmat procedures.
The point of access (where applicable) would be blocked as directed to prevent
motorized use of a reclaimed road. To discourage access and use of reclaimed areas,
natural barriers and signs would be placed near the point of entry where project roads
have been reclaimed. The BLM would approve barrier locations and techniques.
A red-tailed hawk nest located just south of West Reservoir and within ¼ mile of the
OM-02 site, would be monitored for nesting activity during construction. If the nest
is active, construction and drilling operations could be put off until the young have
fledged. This would eliminate the chances of the nest being impacted.
If project timing would include construction during the migratory bird nesting time
frame for the project area (generally through July 15), potential impacts and
modifications to project schedule needed to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act would be discussed with BLM prior to exploration activities. Monitoring for
migratory birds would occur if Oxbow wishes to proceed during the nesting season.
If monitoring results in positive active nest data, appropriate avoidance buffers would
be developed in coordination with BLM based on species and site-specific conditions.
For drilling sites where development of a pad is necessary, the topsoil would be
stockpiled, and either silt fencing or straw wattles would be placed around the
stockpile.
Straw wattles would be used to minimize erosion until the pad is revegetated.
During and after drilling, the drill site would be fenced to keep animals out of the site
to prevent damage to stormwater BMPs and newly revegetated areas. Oxbow is
negotiating with individual landowners regarding the type of fence installed for
reclamation purposes; electric fencing with solar panels to provide power have been
used in the past and are proposed. Oxbow would be responsible for fence installation,
monitoring and removal.
Where bentonite is used, portable mixing tanks would contain all bentonite. It would
not be placed in the cuttings pit.

105