Environmental Assessment, Proposal to Plug-Replug Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Big Thicket National Preserve Texas

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service • Big Thicket National Preserve

Environmental Assessment Proposal to Plug/Replug Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells

February 2010

SUMMARY

The National Park Service (NPS) is preparing this environmental assessment to plug/replug abandoned oil and gas wells in Big Thicket National Preserve (Preserve). A total of eight wells, five water- based and three land- based, within the project area of the Neches Bottom/Jack Gore Baygall, Lance Rosier, and Beaumont units are in need of being properly plugged/replugged and removed to mitigate human health and safety and environmental hazards. Activities on two water- based well sites are funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) project. All other activities would be conducted as funding becomes available.

Through information obtained from an NPS survey (Radian Corporation 1984) and a recent audit of abandoned oil and gas well sites (Michael Baker Jr., Inc. 2009), Preserve staff identified a total of 21 abandoned oil and gas wells located throughout the Preserve that could pose safety risks due to exposed casings. NPS conducted a field verification survey in October 2009 which determined 13 of the 21 well sites contained no evidence of casing failure, leakage, or other health, safety, and environmental problems. These wells will continue to be monitored and some sites will receive minor improvements to correct minor safety issues (e.g., tripping hazards) as part of routine Preserve maintenance activities. Two plugged water- based wells in the Neches River of the Neches Bottom/Jack Gore Baygall Unit and two water- based wells in the Neches River of the Beaumont Unit pose a navigational hazard to park visitors and other boat traffic from exposed casings in the river channel. A fifth water- based well is located on the bank of the Neches River of Neches Bottom/Jack Gore Baygall Unit and could pose a navigational risk in the future due to natural river processes. Three other land- based abandoned oil and gas wells in the Lance Rosier Unit are improperly plugged and require plugging to alleviate human health and safety and environmental hazards.

Two alternatives are presented in this Environmental Assessment (EA). Alternative A, No Action, describes the current management of the well sites, which would continue if no action were taken to properly plug/replug abandoned oil and gas well sites. Alternative B, Proposed Action, describes the action proposed for the eight abandoned well sites in the Preserve which NPS determined needed to be properly plugged/replugged and the well casing cut off below ground level. Alternative B is the environmentally preferred alternative and the agency’s preferred alternative. The alternatives are described in the “Alternatives” section of this document.

This EA has been prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to provide the decision- making framework that (1) explores a reasonable range of alternatives to meet project objectives; (2) evaluates potential issues and impacts to park resources and values; and (3) identifies mitigation measures to lessen the degree or extent of these impacts. Resource topics that have been addressed in this document because the resultant impacts could be measurable include water resources (including wetlands), fish and wildlife (including species of special concern), and visitor use and experience (including public health and safety). All other resource topics have been dismissed because the other resources did not exist within the project area, or the project would result in no or negligible effects to those resources; therefore, a full analysis was not considered necessary. No major effects are anticipated as a result of this project. Public scoping was conducted to assist with the development of this document, and the majority of commenters were in support of the project; however, commenters expressed concern over the methods NPS planned to use for plugging/replugging the wells and the associated impacts of those methods. Multiple commenters felt that the well sites should be left alone if abandoned well sites posed no health and safety and/or environmental risks.

Public Comment

If you wish to comment on this EA, you may do so online at the NPS website “Planning, Environment, and Public Comment” http://parkplanning.nps.gov, or you may mail comments to Todd Brindle, Superintendent; Big Thicket National Preserve; 6044 FM 420; Kountze, Texas 77625. This EA will be available for public review and comment for 30 days. Before including your address, phone number, e- mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Table of Contents

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1: Purpose and Need ...............................................................................................................1

Introduction............................................................................................................................................................ 1

Purpose and Need for Action ............................................................................................................................... 1

Background ............................................................................................................................................................ 4

Objectives of Taking Action..................................................................................................................................5

Guiding Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Plans .................................................................................................5

Scoping ...................................................................................................................................................................13

Issues and Impact Topics Evaluated.................................................................................................................. 15

Issues and Impact Topics Eliminated From Further Analysis ....................................................................... 16

Section 2: Alternatives.......................................................................................................................25

Alternative A: No Action .....................................................................................................................................25

Alternative B: Proposed Action (NPS Preferred Alternative) ........................................................................25

Alternatives Considered but Dismissed ............................................................................................................35

Environmentally Preferred Alternative.............................................................................................................35

Alternatives Comparison Tables ........................................................................................................................36

Summary of Environmental Consequences .....................................................................................................37

Section 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences.............................................. 39

Methods................................................................................................................................................................ 40

Water Resources (including Wetlands)............................................................................................................. 41

Fish and Wildlife (including Species of Special Concern)............................................................................. 47

Visitor Use and Experience (including Public Health and Safety) ................................................................54

Section 4: Consultation and Coordination .......................................................................................61

Individuals and Agencies Consulted.................................................................................................................. 61

List of Document Recipients .............................................................................................................................. 61

List of Preparers .................................................................................................................................................. 66

Section 5: References........................................................................................................................ 69

Proposal to Plug Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells Environmental Assessment

ii

List of Appendices

Appendix A Minor Improvements Summary.....................................................................................73

Appendix B Species of Special Concern.............................................................................................75

List of Figures

Figure 1. Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................................................2 Figure 2. Project Location .........................................................................................................................................3 Figure 3. Beaumont Unit Well Sites........................................................................................................................27 Figure 4. Neches Bottom/Jack Gore Baygall Unit Well Sites............................................................................. 29 Figure 5. Lance Rosier Unit Well Sites....................................................................................................................31 Figure 6. Peak Weekly Stage of Neches River near Evadale, 1995 – 2007 (Sobczak et al. 2010) .................... 42

List of Tables

Table 1. Abandoned Oil and Gas Well Sites Identified for Plugging/Replugging Activity ................................5 Table 2. Scoping Analysis......................................................................................................................................... 14 Table 3. Issue Statements ......................................................................................................................................... 16 Table 4. Summary of Proposed Action Well Sites ................................................................................................25 Table 5. Proposed Action Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................... 33 Table 6. Major Components of Alternatives A and B ..........................................................................................36 Table 7. Analysis of How Alternatives Meet Objectives......................................................................................37 Table 8. Environmental Impact Summary by Alternative ...................................................................................37 Table 9. Wetland/Stream Characteristics..............................................................................................................43 Table 10. Ambient L90 Sound Levels at Various Locations within Big Thicket National Preserve ..............56 Table 11. Preparer’s Names, Roles and Affiliations.............................................................................................. 66

Proposal to Plug/Replug Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells Environmental Assessment

1

SECTION 1: PURPOSE AND NEED

Introduction

Big Thicket National Preserve (Preserve) is located in eastern Texas, northeast of Houston. The Preserve was established by the Act of October 11, 1974, Pub. L. No. 93- 439, 88 Stat. 1254, codified as amended at 16 United States Code (USC) 698- 698e, as the nation’s first Preserve “to assure the preservation, conservation, and protection of the natural, scenic, and recreational values of a significant portion of the Big Thicket area in the State of Texas and to provide for the enhancement and public enjoyment thereof.” The Preserve encompasses approximately 106,684 acres comprised of nine land units and six water corridors located in Jefferson, Hardin, Liberty, Polk, Tyler, Jasper, and Orange Counties (figure 1 – Vicinity Map).

The National Park Service (NPS) has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to plug/ replug abandoned oil and gas wells in the Preserve to mitigate human health and safety hazards within the park. A portion of this project is funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) project. The proposed project area encompasses a total of eight well sites within the Neches Bottom/Jack Gore Baygall, Lance Rosier, and Beaumont units of Hardin, Jefferson, Jasper, and Orange Counties (figure 2 – Project Location).

This EA has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and implementing regulations, 40 CFR 1500–1508; NPS Director’s Order 12 and Handbook, Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision- making, and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 as amended, and implementing regulations, 36 CFR 800.

Purpose and Need for Action

The NPS is considering addressing health and safety issues at eight exposed well casings or open wells located at abandoned oil and gas sites in the Preserve. The purpose of this project is to correct health and safety hazards that pose risks to the public, and protect Preserve resources and values.

This action is needed because the conditions at these eight well sites pose navigational hazards to Preserve visitors and vessels in the Neches River, interrupt the natural terrain and pose safety issues due to protruding well casings or open holes, and may pose additional environmental risks from potential contaminant releases from improperly plugged or corroded casings. A key feature of this project is to address health and safety issues at two water- based plugged and abandoned wells in the Neches River, located in the Neches Bottom/Jack Gore Baygall Unit. These abandoned wells have become exposed due to natural channel meanders and bank erosion in the Neches River, and now present navigational and safety issues. These two mid- channel wells, which have since been fitted with navigational beacons, are the original focus of this project. Through internal scoping, the Preserve has identified actions to be taken at six additional wells. Eight wells are therefore evaluated in this EA. Well plugging, replugging, and other methods to mitigate hazards at each well site are described in the “Alternatives” section of this EA. The highest priority is to mitigate health and safety risks at the two mid- channel wells in the Neches River, as these pose the greatest risks to people and vessels.

Section 1: Purpose and Need

2

Figure 1. Vicinity Map


3

Figure 2. Project Location


4

Background

When the Preserve was created, private entities retained the subsurface mineral interests on most of these lands, while the State of Texas retained the subsurface mineral interests underlying the Neches River and navigable reaches of Pine Island Bayou. Thus, the federal government does not own any of the subsurface oil and gas rights in the Preserve, yet the NPS is required by its laws, policies, and regulations to protect the Preserve from any actions, including oil and gas operations, that may adversely impact or impair Preserve resources and values.

According to the latest Preserve records, a total of 217 wells have been drilled within the boundaries of the Preserve (Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. 2009). Most were plugged and abandoned before the Preserve was established in 1974 and are located in the Lance Rosier, Neches Bottom/Jack Gore Baygall, and Turkey Creek units. During a 1980s inventory, the NPS documented debris, fill, pits or evidence of pits, and berms at abandoned oil and gas well sites. Debris, found on both wellpads and access roads, included pipe, cable, drums, drilling equipment, pipe racks, fences, and household garbage. Pits, used for a variety of purposes, may have contained saltwater, drilling fluid, cuttings, hydrocarbons, wash water for cleaning drill pipe and other equipment, and other oil and gas wastes (NPS 2006a).

In March of 2008, the NPS initiated an audit of abandoned oil and gas sites within the Preserve to rank sites according to environmental conditions and ease/difficulty of access, and to prioritize sites for investigation and cleanup. Using the Tobin SuperBase® data set provided by P2 Energy Solutions (and to a lesser extent, the Texas Railroad Commission [RRC]), the audit identified a total of 217 wells. All 217 sites were surveyed and recorded by GPS location, input into a database, and then ranked according to Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) concentration, presence of contamination, well pad conditions, receptor conditions, equipment conditions, locations (proximity to sensitive ecosystems), and accessibility (Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. 2009). The NPS used this database to determine the public health and safety and environmental risk potential of abandoned oil and gas sites for the purposes of this project, particularly highlighting those with exposed casings or holes that could result in health and safety hazards and/or environmental concerns.

At the time of scoping, a total of 17 abandoned oil and gas well sites had been identified by the Preserve as having exposed casings or holes and potential environmental hazards. It was also thought that there was potential for restoration of well pads and access roads to natural conditions. During the scoping process, the Preserve learned that there were a total of 21 sites that met these criteria and required field investigations. Field investigations for the 21 sites were conducted in October 2009. The Preserve determined that all sites had been restored to relatively natural conditions over time, would continue to do so, and there was not a need for restoration of well pads and access roads. Thirteen of the 21 sites contained no evidence of casing failure, leakage, or other health, safety, and environmental problems. These wells will continue to be monitored and some sites will receive minor improvements to correct minor safety issues (e.g., tripping hazards) as part of routine Preserve maintenance activities. Four water- based wells require plugging/replugging and removal, and one water- based well requires an identifying beacon due to navigational hazards to park visitors and other boat traffic within the Neches River. Three land- based wells require plugging and removal due to general environmental and public safety hazards to park visitors. These sites are described in table 1 below.


5

Table 1. Abandoned Oil and Gas Well Sites Identified for Plugging/Replugging Activity

Well Number

Preserve Unit Well Site Conditions

Water-Based Well Sites

0031 Beaumont Water-based well within logging slip off main Lake Bayou canal channel of Neches River; steel plate on top of well and tagged to 4 feet.

0044 Beaumont Water-based well; could not locate at field investigation. Michael Baker data indicated no tag at 180 feet.

3194 Neches Bottom/ Jack Gore Baygall

Near center of Neches River and properly plugged according to existing records; navigational beacon on top to reduce safety risks.


On edge of Neches River bank; no plugging record; concrete at surface of well casing, assume plugged.


In center of Neches River and properly plugged; Navigational beacon on top to reduce safety risks.

Land-Based Well Sites

0109 Lance Rosier Open well with no tag at a depth of 22 feet.

0956 Lance Rosier Open well with no tag at a depth of 12 feet. Existence of 4 pits surrounding well.

0963 Lance Rosier Open well with no tag at a depth of 40 feet. Existence of small depression surrounding well.

Objectives of Taking Action

Objectives are “what must be achieved to a large degree for the action to be considered a success” (NPS 2001). Any action alternatives must resolve the purpose of and need for action and meet plan objectives to a large degree. The objectives of taking action are to

• Mitigate human health and safety and environmental hazards at abandoned oil and gas wells.

• Avoid or minimize impacts on park natural and cultural resources and values, and visitor use and experience.

• Prevent impairment of the Preserve’s resources and values.

Guiding Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Plans

This section describes the special mandates and direction that govern the scope of this project.

Park Enabling Legislation

The Preserve was established by an Act of Congress on October 11, 1974, Pub. L. No. 93- 439, 88 Stat. 1254, codified as amended at 16 USC 698- 698e (2000), as the nation’s first Preserve “to assure the preservation, conservation, and protection of the natural, scenic, and recreational values of a significant portion of the Preserve area in the State of Texas and to provide for the enhancement and public enjoyment thereof.”


6

Federal Laws and Regulations

NPS Organic Act and General Authorities Act – Prevention of Impairment and Consideration of Unacceptable Impacts and Appropriate Use

The NPS Organic Act of 1916 (16 USC 1, et seq.) provides the fundamental management direction for all units of the national park system. Section 1 of the Organic Act (16 USC 1) states, in part, that the NPS shall

“promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations…by such means and measure as conform to the fundamental purpose of said parks, monuments and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”

The national park system General Authorities Act of 1970 (16 USC 1a- 1 et seq.) affirms that while all national park system units remain “distinct in character,” they are “united through their interrelated purposes and resources into one national park system as cumulative expressions of a single national heritage.” The Act makes it clear that the Organic Act and other protective mandates apply equally to all units of the system. Subsequently, the 1978 Redwood Act Amendments to the General Authorities Act further clarified Congress’ mandate to the NPS to protect park resources and values. The Amendments state, in part (16 USC 1a- 1):

The authorization of activities shall be construed and the protection, management, and administration of these areas shall be conducted in light of the high public value and integrity of the National Park System and shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for which these various areas have been established, except as may have been or shall be directly and specifically provided by Congress.

Prevention of Impairment. Current laws and policies require the analysis of potential effects to determine whether actions would impair park resources. While Congress has given the NPS the managerial discretion to allow certain impacts within parks, that discretion is limited by the statutory requirement (enforceable by the federal courts) that the NPS must leave park resources and values unimpaired, unless a particular law directly and specifically provides otherwise (sec 1.4 of NPS Management Policies 2006 [NPS 2006b]).

The prohibited impairment is an impact that, in the professional judgment of the responsible NPS manager, would harm the integrity of park resources and values. An impact to any park resource or value may constitute an impairment, but an impact would be more likely to constitute an impairment to the extent that it has a major or severe adverse effect upon a resource or value, the conservation of which is

1. necessary to fulfill a specific purpose identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park;

2. key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the park; or

3. identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning documents.


7

NPS Management Policies 2006 use the terms “resources and values” to mean the full spectrum of tangible and intangible attributes for which the parks are established and are being managed, including fundamental purposes of the Organic Act (as supplemented), and any additional purposes as stated in a park’s establishing legislation. Park resources and values that are subject to the no impairment standard include the biological and physical processes which created the park and that continue to act upon it: scenic features; natural visibility; natural soundscapes and smells; water and air resources; soils; geological resources; paleontological resources; archeological resources; cultural landscapes; ethnographic resources; historic and prehistoric sites, structures and objects; museum collections; and native plants and animals. The NPS also includes the park’s role in contributing to the national dignity, the high public value and integrity, and the superlative environmental quality of the national park system, and the benefit and inspiration provided to the American people by the national park system among the values that are subject to the no impairment standard.

Finally, unless the activity is required by statute, the NPS cannot allow an activity in a park if it would involve or result in

1. inconsistency with the park’s enabling legislation or proclamation, or derogation of the values or purposes for which the park was established;

2. unacceptable impacts on visitor enjoyment due to interference or conflict with other visitor use activities;

3. consumptive use of park resources;

4. unacceptable impacts on park resources or natural processes; or

5. unacceptable levels of danger to the welfare or safety of the public.

Unacceptable Impacts. Sections 1.4 and 1.5 of NPS Management Policies 2006, direct that the NPS must ensure that allowable park uses would not cause impairment of, or unacceptable impacts on, park resources and values. A form of park use may be allowed within a park only after a determination has been made in the professional judgment of the park manager that it will not result in unacceptable impacts. The impact threshold at which impairment occurs is not always readily apparent. Therefore, the NPS applies a standard that offers greater assurance that impairment will not occur by avoiding unacceptable impacts. These are impacts that fall short of impairment, but are still not acceptable within a particular park’s environment. Park managers must not allow uses that would cause unacceptable impacts; they must evaluate existing or proposed uses and determine whether the associated impacts on park resources and values are acceptable.

Virtually every form of human activity that takes place within a park has some degree of effect on park resources and values, but that does not mean the impact is unacceptable or that a particular use must be disallowed. Therefore, for the purposes of these policies, unacceptable impacts are impacts that, individually or cumulatively, would

• be inconsistent with a park’s purposes or values; or

• impede the attainment of a park’s desired future conditions for natural and cultural resources as identified through the park’s planning process; or

• create an unsafe or unhealthful environment for visitors or employees; or

• diminish opportunities for current or future generations to enjoy, learn about, or be inspired by park resources or values; or

• unreasonably interfere with


8

− park programs or activities, or

− an appropriate use, or

− the atmosphere of peace and tranquility, or the natural soundscape maintained in wilderness and natural, historic, or commemorative locations within the park

− NPS concessioner or contractor operations or services

A determination on unacceptable impacts and impairment is made in the “Conclusion” section under each alternative for each of the park resources and values carried forward in the “Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences” section.

Appropriate Use. NPS Management Policies 2006 also requires the NPS to consider where a proposed use is suitable, proper, or fitting. Section 8.1.2 of NPS Management Policies 2006, Process for Determining Appropriate Uses, provides evaluation factors for determining appropriate uses. All proposals for park uses are evaluated for

• consistency with applicable laws, executive orders, regulations, and policies;

• consistency with existing plans for public use and resource management;

• actual and potential effects on park resources and values;

• total costs to the NPS; and

• whether the public interest will be served.

Mitigation of hazards is contemplated in the NPS Management Policies 2006; Section 8.2.5.1 states, “the Service will reduce or remove known hazards and apply other appropriate measures, including closures, guarding, signing…” Therefore, mitigation of hazards is not unusual or an unexpected occurrence, and is an appropriate use of NPS funds. The NPS finds that mitigating health and safety and environmental hazards at abandoned oil and gas well sites is an appropriate use at the Preserve.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)

NEPA is implemented through regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500–1508). The NPS has in turn adopted procedures to comply with the Act and the CEQ regulations, as found in NPS Director’s Order 12, Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision- making (NPS 2001), and its accompanying handbook, and the Department of the Interior regulations implementing NEPA (Department Manual 12).

National Park Service Omnibus Act of 1998

The National Park Service Omnibus Act of 1998 (16 USC 5901 et seq.) underscores NEPA in that both are fundamental to NPS park management decisions. Both acts provide direction for articulating and connecting the ultimate resource management decision to the analysis of impacts, using appropriate technical and scientific information. Both also recognize that such data may not be readily available, and they provide options for resource impact analysis should this be the case.


9

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA)

Section 106 of the NHPA (36 CFR 800) requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, State Historic Preservation Office, and other consulting parties a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. Through this process, concerns associated with historic preservation are addressed at the early stages of project planning. Overall, the objective of consultation is to identify historic properties potentially affected by the undertaking, assess its effects and seek ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse effects on historic properties.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act prohibits unauthorized excavation on federal and Indian lands, establishes standards for permissible excavation, prescribes civil and criminal penalties, requires agencies to identify archaeological sites, and encourages cooperation between federal agencies and private individuals.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended

Protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, kill, capture, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird, including the feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or migratory bird products. In addition, this act serves to protect environmental conditions for migratory birds from pollution or other ecosystem degradations.

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended

The Endangered Species Act requires examination of impacts on all federally listed threatened, endangered, and candidate species. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires all federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (or designated representative) to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency does not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or critical habitats.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (commonly referred to as Clean Water Act)

The purpose of the Clean Water Act (40 CFR 100–149) is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.” To enact this goal, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has been charged with evaluating federal actions that result in potential degradation of Waters of the United States and issuing permits for actions consistent with the Clean Water Act. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also has responsibility for oversight and review of permits and actions, which affect Waters of the United States.

Executive Orders

Wetlands

For regulatory purposes under the Clean Water Act, the term wetlands means “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas.”


10

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, requires each agency to provide leadership and take action to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out the agency’s responsibilities for (1) acquiring, managing, and disposing of federal lands and facilities; (2) providing federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements; and (3) conducting federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities.

National Park Service Management Policies

This is the basic NPS- wide policy document, adherence to which is mandatory unless specifically waived or modified by the NPS Director or certain Departmental officials, including the Secretary. Several sections from the NPS Management Policies 2006 (NPS 2006b) are particularly relevant to topics discussed in this EA, as described below.

Cultural Resources – The NPS is the steward of many of America’s most important cultural resources. These resources are categorized as archeological resources, cultural landscapes, ethnographic resources, historic and prehistoric structures, and museum collections. The NPS cultural resources management program involves

• research to identify, evaluate, document, register, and establish basic information about cultural resources and traditional associated peoples;

• planning to ensure that management processes for making decisions and setting priorities integrate information about cultural resources and provide for consultation and collaboration with outside entities; and

• stewardship to ensure that cultural resources are preserved and protected, receive appropriate treatments (including maintenance) to achieve desired conditions, and are made available for public understanding and enjoyment.

The cultural resource management policies of the NPS are derived from a suite of historic preservation, environmental, and other laws, proclamations, executive orders and regulations (NPS 2006b, sec. 5).

Visitor Use and Experience – Enjoyment of park resources and values by the people of the United States is part of the fundamental purpose of all parks. The NPS is committed to providing appropriate, high- quality opportunities’ for visitors to enjoy the parks, and the NPS will maintain within the parks an atmosphere that is open, inviting, and accessible to every segment of American society (NPS 2006b, sec. 8.2).

Safety – The saving of human life will take precedence over all other management actions as the NPS strives to protect human life and provide for injury- free visits. While recognizing that there are limitations on its capability to totally eliminate all hazards, the NPS and its concessioners, contractors, and cooperators will seek to provide a safe and healthful environment for visitors and employees. The NPS will work cooperatively with other federal, tribal, state, and local agencies; organizations; and individuals to carry out this responsibility (NPS 2006b, sec. 8.2.5). Section 8.2.5.1 specifically addresses visitor safety and reduction of known hazards and appropriate measures to ensue safety, including closures, guarding, signing or other forms of education.

Wildlife and Biota – The NPS will maintain as parts of the natural ecosystems of parks all plants and animals native to park ecosystems by preserving and restoring the natural abundances, diversities,


11

dynamics, distributions, habitats, and behaviors of native plant and animal populations and the communities and ecosystems in which they occur; restoring native plant and animal populations in parks when they have been extirpated by past human- caused actions; and minimizing human impacts on native plants, animals, populations, communities, and ecosystems, and the processes that sustain them (NPS 2006b, sec. 4.4.1).

Species of Special Concern – The NPS is required to inventory, monitor, and manage state and locally listed species in a manner similar to its treatment of federally listed species to the greatest extent possible. The NPS is also required to inventory other native species that are of special management concern to parks (such as rare, declining, sensitive, or unique species and their habitats) and manage them to maintain their natural distribution and abundance (NPS 2006b, sec. 4.4.2.3).

Natural Soundscapes – According to NPS Management Policies 2006, park natural soundscape resources encompass all of the natural sounds that occur in parks, including the physical capacity for transmitting those natural sounds and the interrelationships among park natural sounds of different frequencies and volumes. NPS will preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the natural soundscapes of parks.

Water Resources – NPS will perpetuate surface waters and groundwaters as integral components of park aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. NPS policies also require protection of water quality consistent with the Clean Water Act (NPS 2006b, sec. 4.6.1).

Director’s Memoranda and Orders

Director’s Orders provide NPS managers and staff with comprehensive guidance on specific policies and required or recommended practices and procedures that should be implemented to manage and protect national parks.

Director’s Memorandum - Mitigating High- Risk Abandoned Mine Land Features

On October 2, 2008, the Director of the NPS issued a memorandum addressing AML issues. To ensure that AML sites are secured for visitor safety, each region was directed to identify and implement quick response measures for high- risk AML features. Parks were directed to immediately identify those AML features that pose a high- risk for visitor safety and to develop initial cost estimates for mitigation or safeguarding of those features. Parks were directed to fulfill needed compliance responsibilities and implement plans for quick response measures (e.g., fences and warning signs) on a prioritized basis, within funding and personnel constraints.

To assist in addressing AML issues, guidance was provided to lay out the initial actions to be implemented by parks, regions and the Washington Office to address the high risk hazards at AML sites in parks.

Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision

Director’s Order 12: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision- making and its accompanying handbook (NPS 2001) set forth the policy and procedures by which NPS carries out its responsibilities under NEPA.


12

Cultural Resources

Director’s Order 28B: Archeology and NPS- 28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline (NPS 1998) – As custodian of the national park system, the NPS is steward of many of America's most important natural and cultural resources. The NPS is charged with preserving the parks unimpaired for the enjoyment of present and future generations. If the natural and cultural resources of the parks are degraded or lost, so is the parks' reason for being. Almost every park in the system has cultural resources, the material evidence of past human activities. Finite and nonrenewable, these tangible resources begin to deteriorate almost from the moment of their creation. Once gone, they cannot be recovered. In keeping with the Organic Act and varied historic preservation laws, park management activities must reflect awareness of the irreplaceable nature of these material resources.

Protection of Wetlands, Executive Order 11990

In compliance with Executive Order 11990, NPS under Director’s Order 77- 1: Wetlands Protection (NPS 2002) strives to prevent the loss or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. In accordance with Director’s Order 77- 1: Wetlands Protection, proposed actions that have the potential to adversely impact wetlands must be addressed in a Statement of Findings for wetlands. Exceptions are provided for actions involving small acreages that are associated with the restoration of degraded wetlands or aquatic habitats or the maintenance, repair, or renovation of facilities or structures.

Approved Park Planning Documents

Existing plans must be examined to ensure that proposed actions are consistent with plan provisions. These include the Big Thicket National Preserve General Management Plan (NPS 1980), Big Thicket National Preserve Oil and Gas Management Plan (NPS 2006a), and the Big Thicket National Preserve Resource Management Plan (NPS 1996). Following is information pertaining to how this proposal meets the goals and objectives of these plans.

General Management Plan (1980)

The Big Thicket National Preserve General Management Plan (NPS 1980) outlines the following objectives for natural resource management and management zoning:

• To perpetuate and protect the Preserve’s unique mixture of temperate and subtropical botanical communities;

• To initiate joint planning and natural resource management programs with neighboring landowners to promote continued compatible land use;

• To proceed with research activities that provide baseline data necessary for future planning and management efforts and for the evaluation of the environmental impacts of human use on the Preserve.

Most of the Preserve is designated a “natural zone,” which places management emphasis on conservation of natural resources and processes while providing for uses that do not adversely affect these resources and processes. The General Management Plan states that wells, storage facilities, and pipelines that are abandoned due to inactivity will be removed, and the area will be reclassified as a natural environment subzone, which is managed to ensure minimum impact on the natural and ecological integrity of the Preserve. It also states that NPS will monitor all inactive sites to evaluate


13

impacts on the area and determine the processes of regeneration and the time necessary for the sites to return to their natural conditions (NPS 1980).

Resource Management Plan (1996)

The Big Thicket National Preserve Resource Management Plan (NPS 1996) outlines the following natural resource management objectives for the Preserve:

• To perpetuate, protect, interpret, and where appropriate restore, the Preserve’s unique mixture of temperate and subtropical botanical and biological communities.

• To establish and nurture partnerships with appropriate state and federal agencies and other entities for the purpose of managing significant scenic and natural resources of the Preserve in a manner that will assure their integrity and “health” of the greater ecosystem.

• To initiate joint planning, educational, and natural resource management programs with neighboring landowners and the general public to promote good land stewardship and to minimize conflicting uses that might be detrimental to the resources of the Preserve and region.

• To continue an aggressive research program that provides baseline data necessary to facilitate the future planning and management decision process, and for the evaluation of the environmental impacts of human use on the Preserve.

The Resource Management Plan discusses past oil and gas activities and the existence of abandoned oil and gas operations areas and access roads as identified by Radian Corporation (1984). It also discusses the existing and potential impacts of these sites and indicates the need for some form of restoration on most of the sites. The Resource Management Plan lists mitigation impacts of abandoned wells and roads as a line item in the plan’s project list.

Oil and Gas Management Plan (2006)

The Big Thicket National Preserve Oil and Gas Management Plan (NPS 2006a) requires management of oil and gas operations associated with nonfederal oil and gas interests underlying the Preserve in accordance with 36 CFR 9, Subpart B (9B). It does not address actions on abandoned well pads and access roads.

Scoping

The planning process for this EA to plug/replug abandoned oil and gas wells included formal and informal efforts to involve the public and local, state, and federal agencies. All applicable public participation has been documented and analyzed, and is on file.

Internal Scoping

Internal scoping was conducted by an interdisciplinary team of professionals from Big Thicket National Preserve and the NPS Intermountain Regional Office. The interdisciplinary team initiated consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department about threatened and endangered species that occur or could occur in the Preserve, with the Texas State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) about cultural resources, and with the Alabama- Coushatta Tribe of Texas to inform them of the planning process and issues that could affect lands and waters


14

that may be culturally significant, and to determine if there were any resource issues with which the Tribe had ethnographic affiliation.

External Scoping

The planning process was officially initiated through publication of a scoping brochure to inform the public about the proposal to prepare an EA to Plug Orphaned Wells and Reclaim Abandoned Wellpads and Access Roads. The scoping brochure was posted to the park’s Planning, Environment, and Public Comment (PEPC) website, and was available for comment for a 30- day period, extending from August 7, 2009, through September 8, 2009. In addition, the scoping brochure was mailed to approximately 196 individuals, organizations, and government agencies. The brochure announced the beginning of the EA scoping period, provided information on the planning process and schedule, and described how agencies and the public could be involved in the planning process. The scoping brochure identified resources and concerns and a preliminary range of alternatives. The NPS developed the preliminary planning framework to inform agencies and the public about what the NPS was considering, but more importantly, to provide agencies and the public with enough information with which they could bring other ideas, comments, suggestions, and management strategies to the decision- making process. In addition, a press release was distributed to local media sources for further outreach.

In response to consultation letters and mailing of the public scoping brochure, eight comment letters were received. Substantive comments are shown in table 2.

Scoping Analysis

The following table lists, by category, the issues and questions raised in the comment letters received by the NPS during formal public scoping.

Table 2. Scoping Analysis

Project Background, Goals, and Objectives

How does the NPS define desired future conditions for these sites? How does the Preserve/NPS define reclamation and remediation for these sites? What are the specific criteria that will be used to evaluate and implement this work and success?

Is there a priority list for which wells and well pads will be worked on and in what order?

The EA should state what the NPS’s official definition for reclamation, remediation, and other terms used so that the public and decision-makers can review, comment on, and understand fully this proposal.

Are there other park units that have completed similar work? Are there reference materials on these projects?

Impact Analysis

Will the Preserve consider that in some cases removing large amounts of soil and vegetation may cause more disturbance and damage than if left intact? How will the NPS weigh the positive and negative impacts of proposed work?

There is concern over the use of soil/fill brought in from other locations that may contain non-native seed or plant material which would further compromise the Preserve’s native ecosystems.

Will the NPS request that all heavy equipment and vehicles used in this project be subject to cleaning prior to entry to the Preserve to prevent additional establishment of non-native species on the Preserve?

The EA should state how much soil will need to be removed and or replaced. The EA should discuss soil, groundwater, and surface water quality and what sampling and analysis has revealed with regard to contamination of the environment by the seventeen unplugged wells.

Use of native species and seed mixes appropriate for the West Gulf Coastal Plain and Big Thicket region are recommended.


15

One principle that the NPS should use for mitigation of the plugging and reclamation proposed, is that as little damage should occur from these activities as possible in Big Thicket National Preserve. This means the plugging and reclamation footprint should be as small as possible with as little vegetation as possible cut or cleared and as little soil compaction and rutting allowed as possible. Extensive soil erosion mitigation measures must be used.

“Clean” soil should be used for backfilling and “similar to native soils” should be used. Clean should not just mean clean from chemical contamination, but also clean with regard to non-native invasive plant species seeds or other parts of these species so that infestations are not begun due to this proposed reclamation plan.

Does the Preserve currently have complete inventory information on terrestrial and aquatic species/ habitats to determine what the impacts of reclamation and remediation will be?

Our concerns begin with the absence of cultural resource protections when these wells and roadways began, operated, and abandoned. We maintain a curiosity of whether these resources continue to exist despite the amount of disturbance that previously occurred in each location since these exploration activities pre-date preservation laws and the governance of the NPS.

We are concerned with efforts to reclaim or rehabilitate these locations. Within our ancestral territories lie natural resources and landscapes for which our Tribe maintains a traditional relationship to. Some relate to traditional medicines while others exist for our Tribal customs. Our concerns are whether these resources will be impacted in each of these locations once reclamation begins. It is pertinent for our Tribe to know what is in each location and where the proposed activities are planned. We are requesting the opportunity to view these areas and associated documentation to ascertain the extent of impacts that will occur prior to implementation.

Potential Elements of the Alternatives

The text of the public scoping notice of August 7, 2009, described two plugged wells in the Neches River and exposed casings for a total of 17 orphaned oil and gas wells. According to the map legend, only 13 exposed casings are identified. Where are the additional casings to total seventeen as described in the notice? Are there more in the Lance Rosier Unit and hidden by the lettering on the map?

The map included with the August 7, 2009, public scoping notice shows sixteen wells but the narrative refers to seventeen wells. Which figure is correct and where are all the wells located?

Are there requirements for monitoring these sites following project completion? What type of monitoring and analysis will be done, what will be the time frame for monitoring, who will do the monitoring and analysis and what will be the cost?

What will be the sampling protocol regarding soil, surface water quality, and groundwater? Who will do the sampling and analysis? How long will sampling be done? What will be the cost?

Will the NPS Exotic Plant Team be involved in evaluation and treatment of non-native/invasive species on these sites and roads? If so, for what time period? Of most concern are deep-rooted sedge, Chinese tallow, Japanese privet, Chinese privet, Japanese climbing fern, and non-native grasses.

Will additional sampling and analysis be needed to delineate the extent of the problem? If so, what types of sampling and analysis will be done; how much will each type of sampling and analysis cost; and who will do the sampling and analysis? Will any surface or groundwater restoration (cleaning) be needed?

Will additional monitoring and analysis be needed after the wells are plugged? If so, what types of monitoring and analysis will be done; how much will each type of monitoring and analysis cost; and who will do the monitoring and analysis?

A board road or similar mitigation measure should be required to reduce soil damage due to access to wells that need to be plugged or reclaimed or any roads that need to be obliterated. Road obliteration should be required, which includes gating and the destruction of the roadbed and replanting with native plant species to make illegal all-terrain vehicle use less likely.

At least a three to four year post reclamation monitoring program should be implemented to ensure that full restoration of all sites and roads is accomplished. It is very important that non-native invasive plant species monitoring and control occur so that exotic species like Chinese Tallow, privet, and other similar species are killed and not allowed to expand their populations onto reclaimed and restored sites and roads.

Issues and Impact Topics Evaluated

Impact topics for this project have been identified on the basis of federal laws, regulations, and orders; NPS Management Policies 2006; and NPS knowledge of resources at the Preserve. All impact topics were discussed and the potential degree of impact was determined. Based on project scoping


16

concerns and the level of potential impacts likely to occur, NPS determined which impact topics would have more than minor impacts and, therefore, would be carried forward for detailed analysis in this EA. Impact topics that were determined to have minor or lesser effects were dismissed from further analysis. Issue statements (table 3) were developed for the remaining impact topics retained for further analysis to describe the cause- and- effect relationship between the proposed action and corresponding resource, value, or concern. The issue statements were used in developing and evaluating alternatives.

Table 3. Issue Statements

Impact Topic Issue Statement

Water Resources, including Wetlands

Plugging/replugging water-based wells and gaining access to sites with required equipment could result in increased sedimentation in the Neches River from disruption of the riverbed to remove the tops of well casings. For land-based wells, direct impacts to wetlands on well sites could occur from removal of vegetation, moving equipment around the site as needed for plugging/replugging procedures, and general vegetation/soil disturbance from workers in the area. Increased sedimentation in the Neches would be short term due to the temporary nature of the activity to remove the casings from the river. Potential impacts to wetlands on land-based well sites would be mitigated through the use of mats on the site. All equipment and personnel would be placed upon the mats in order to protect sensitive vegetation and soils.

Fish and Wildlife, including Federally-Listed Species and Species of Management Concern

Plugging/replugging of water- and land-based wells and gaining access to sites with required equipment could directly harm or kill fish and wildlife; and disrupt fish and wildlife feeding, denning, nesting, and spawning/ reproduction. These activities could also result in avoidance of the area by fish and wildlife due to increased noise and human presence. Avoidance of areas by fish and wildlife would be short term due to the temporary nature of the activity. Properly plugging wells and/or cutting casings below the surface would reclaim sites over the long-term and reestablish habitat conditions that support wildlife populations.

Visitor Use and Experience, including Human Health and Safety

Abandoned oil and gas wells can pose health and safety hazards including collisions with exposed casings by boats and other visitors of the Preserve, potentially falling into open casings, and exposure to hydrocarbons and other oil and gas drilling wastes. Plugging/replugging of wells and gaining access to sites with required equipment could adversely affect visitor experience by increasing background sound levels over the short term that closure work is occurring; however, properly plugging wells and removing casings would provide for a safer visitor experience by eliminating potential navigation, safety, and environmental hazards.

Issues and Impact Topics Eliminated From Further Analysis

NPS determined that either there would be no effect on the following impact topics associated with the proposed action, or adverse effects would likely be negligible to minor. Therefore, these topics were dismissed from further analysis in this EA. Impact topics dismissed from further analysis are listed below along with the reasons for dismissal.

Air Quality

Section 4.7.1 of NPS Management Policies 2006 (NPS 2006b) states that the NPS has a responsibility to protect air quality under both the NPS Organic Act of 1916 and the Clean Air Act. The management policies also note that the NPS actively promotes and pursues measures to protect air quality related values from the adverse impacts of air pollution, and seeks to protect integral vistas (those views perceived from within certain national parks of a specific landmark or panorama located outside the park), through cooperative means.


17

The Preserve is located north of the Beaumont/Port Arthur airshed and northeast of the Houston airshed. The primary pollutants transported from airsheds affecting the Preserve are volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX). Other air pollutants that could affect the Preserve include carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter (PM) (including heavy metals and lead) (NPS 2006a). The Preserve is designated a Class II area under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions of the Clean Air Act. As such, the Preserve’s air quality is protected by allowing limited increases (i.e., allowable increments) over baseline concentrations of pollution for the pollutants sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter.

Plugging/replugging abandoned oil and gas wells would result in some impacts on air quality. Increased emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter would result from combustion of gasoline and diesel- powered helicopters, vehicles, and boats used to transport equipment and supplies to well sites. In addition, gases would be released from welding and other equipment used to cut well casings. Hydrocarbons could be released from well casings. These sources could affect air quality, but emissions would be readily dispersed from the sources by prevailing winds, resulting in short- term negligible to minor impacts on air quality. Cumulative impacts to air quality from existing and future oil and gas operations were assessed in the Oil and Gas Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement completed for Big Thicket National Preserve in February 2006 (NPS 2006a), and moderate adverse impacts were identified from all actions that could affect air quality in the area of analysis. Considering the short- term nature of emissions and the minimal inputs to air pollution that would occur from the proposed actions in this EA, the effects of the proposed action would not contribute more than negligible adverse impacts to the overall cumulative impact on air quality in the Preserve. Therefore, the topic of air quality was dismissed from further analysis in this EA.

Topography, Geology, and Soils

Section 4.8 of NPS Management Policies 2006 addresses geologic resource management, including geologic features and processes. This policy states that the NPS “will (1) assess the impacts of natural processes and human activities on geologic resources; (2) maintain and restore the integrity of existing geologic resources; (3) integrate geologic resource management into Service operations and planning; and (4) interpret geologic resources for park visitors” (NPS 2006b).

The Preserve lies within the Flatwoods and Lower Coastal Plain geographic areas of southeast Texas. The topography is nearly level in the southern part to gently rolling in the northern part of the Preserve. Slopes in the Flatwoods Area (Beaumont and Lance Rosier Units) are generally less than one percent. Slopes in the Lower Coastal Plain Area (Neches Bottom/Jack Gore Baygall, Turkey Creek, Big Sandy Creek, and Beech Creek Units) are generally one to three percent, and range from 0.5 to 12 percent (NPS 2006a).

The portion of the project area containing land- based well sites is located within the Lance Rosier Unit. Well sites contain silt loam to clay soil types (Louis Berger Group, 2010). The other portion of the project area containing water- based well sites lies within the 100- year floodplain of the Neches River and therefore has clayey textured hydric soils. Soils with a high clay content are most subject to compaction. These soils are also moderately to highly erodible. Compaction damages the structure of the soil and restricts transport of air and water to plant roots. As a result, soil productivity and plant growth rates may be reduced. The degree of compaction depends on composition, grain size, density, and moisture content of soils at the time of disturbance.

Natural fluvial processes in the Neches River including channel migration, erosion, and flooding, have exposed plugged well casings in the northern part of the Neches Bottom/Jack Gore Baygall


18

Unit, creating navigational hazards to vessels and precipitating the need for this project. The proposed action would permit natural geological processes to continue, while removing the hardened obstructions in the river channel. Unplugged wells in the Lance Rosier Unit occupy an area of little topographical relief, with no significant geologic features. Disturbance of soils and sediment would occur from the use of equipment and vehicles at the sites, but impacts would be limited by the use of barges and portable coffer dams for project activities on the river, and by the use of mats and helicopters to limit disturbance at land well sites in the Lance Rosier Unit. The land sites would be expected to rapidly revegetate following any minor disturbance from foot or vehicle traffic, with herbaceous vegetation likely regrowing the next season and trees recovering in a few years. Any spills of petroleum products to the surface soils would be cleaned up. The impacts of the actions would be short- term, negligible to minor, and adverse, and very localized. Cumulative impacts to topography, geology, and soils from existing and future oil and gas operations were assessed in the Oil and Gas Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement completed for Big Thicket National Preserve in February 2006, and negligible to minor adverse impacts were identified from all actions that could affect topography, geology and soils in the area of analysis (NPS 2006a). Considering the minimal disturbance to topography, geology, and soils that would occur from the proposed action in this EA, the effects of the proposed action would not contribute more than negligible adverse impacts to the overall cumulative impact on topography, geology, and soils in the Preserve. Therefore, the topic of topography, geology, and soils was dismissed from further analysis in this EA.

Floodplains

Under NPS Management Policies 2006, section 4.6.4, the NPS is required to protect, preserve, and restore the natural resources and functions of floodplains to avoid long- term and short- term environmental effects associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains; and avoid the direct and indirect support of floodplain development and actions that could adversely affect the natural resources and functions of floodplains or increase flood risks (NPS 2006b).

Floodplains comprise roughly 50 percent of the Preserve, and most of the Preserve’s wetlands are located within floodplains (NPS 2006a). The water- based wells in the Neches River are within the 100- year floodplain; however, no temporary or permanent structures are proposed for the project and the topography would remain unchanged as a result of the project. Also, no impacts to floodplain functions or values would occur as a result of plugging/replugging activities. As such, no Statement of Findings for floodplains would be required. Cumulative impacts to floodplains from existing and future oil and gas operations were assessed in the Oil and Gas Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement completed for Big Thicket National Preserve and up to minor to moderate adverse impacts were identified from all actions that could affect floodplains in the area of analysis. Considering the temporary negligible disturbance to floodplains that would occur from the proposed action in this EA, and the fact that the effects of the proposed action would not contribute more than negligible adverse impacts to the overall cumulative impact on floodplains in the Preserve, the topic of floodplains was dismissed from further analysis in this EA.

Vegetation

All of the land- based well sites are vegetated with mostly native vegetation comprised of a mixture of large loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) to secondary growth forest. Invasive species (mostly Chinese tallow [Triadica sebifera]) are also present on all sites, with well 0109 containing the highest percentage (approximately 30%). For water- based well site 3195 located on the edge of the Neches River bank, vegetation is comprised of wetland fringe.


19

Only a minimal amount of vegetation (a maximum of six to eight loblolly pine trees cut off at surface level) would have to be removed for plugging/replugging activities on land- based wells. The remainder of impacts to vegetation for land- based wells would be in the immediate vicinity of the well sites of short duration due to the use of mats for equipment and workers, which could crush underlying vegetation. No roads or trails would be constructed, and the helicopter staging area is already disturbed. Measures would be taken to ensure that any equipment or vehicles brought to the site would be weed free, and disturbed areas in the project footprint would be reseeded with a native plant mix in an effort to ward off the spread of invasives. It is expected that any areas disturbed during plugging/replugging activities would revegetate within a few years, with herbaceous vegetation likely regrowing the next season and trees recovering in a few years. Impacts of the proposed action on land- based wells would therefore be localized, short- term, negligible to minor and adverse. For water- based wells, there would be no impacts to vegetation due to access by boat/barge. Cumulative impacts to vegetation from existing and future oil and gas operations were assessed in the Oil and Gas Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement completed for Big Thicket National Preserve in February 2006, and minor to moderate adverse impacts were identified from all actions that could affect vegetation in the area of analysis. Considering the minimal disturbance to vegetation that would occur from the proposed action in this EA, the effects of the proposed action would not contribute more than negligible adverse impacts to the overall cumulative impact on vegetation in the Preserve. Therefore, the topic of vegetation was dismissed from further analysis in this EA.

Soundscapes

Section 4.9 of NPS Management Policies 2006 states that the NPS will preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the natural soundscapes of the park, both biological and physical. Natural sounds are intrinsic elements of the environment that are vital to the functioning of ecosystems and can be used to determine the diversity and interactions of species within communities. Natural soundscapes are often associated with parks and are considered important components of the visitor experience as well as the natural wildlife interactions.

Existing natural soundscapes in the parks are relatively unaffected by human development, with the exception of routine park operations such as mowing along roads, prescribed fire, and other facility management activities throughout the parks that are concentrated at or near park facilities and visitor use developments. Helicopter transport of materials and supplies used in plugging/replugging land- based abandoned oil and gas wells could introduce noise that would affect the quality of the natural soundscape in the general vicinity of well sites. Helicopters would be scheduled to minimize the number of trips, and helicopters would remain at least 100 feet off the ground to minimize noise impacts at ground level. Resultant impacts would be short- term, localized, minor and adverse. Impacts to soundscapes are considered and addressed in the fish and wildlife and visitor use and experience topics in this EA, and therefore the topic of soundscapes was not retained as a stand-alone impact topic.

Socially or Economically Disadvantaged Populations

Executive Order 12898, “General Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low- Income Populations,” requires all federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice into their missions by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs and policies on minority and low- income populations and communities. The alternatives contemplated in this EA would not have disproportionate health or environmental effects on minority or low- income populations or communities as defined in the


20

CEQ Environmental Justice Guidance (1997). Therefore, the topic of socially or economically disadvantaged populations was dismissed from further analysis in this EA.

Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands

As a result of a substantial decrease in the amount of open farmland, Congress enacted the Farmland Protection Policy Act (Public Law 97- 98). In August 1980, the CEQ directed that federal agencies must assess the effects of their actions on prime or unique farmland soils classified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service. Prime or unique farmland is defined as a soil that particularly produces general crops such as common foods, forage, fiber, and oil seed; unique farmland is defined as soil that produces specialty crops such as fruits, vegetables, and nuts. Prime and unique farmland soils are those that are actively being developed and could be converted from existing agricultural uses to nonagricultural purposes, as described above. Urban or built- up land, public land, and water areas cannot be considered prime farmland. Soils in the park cannot be considered prime and unique farmland soils because they are public lands unavailable for food or fiber production. There are no prime and unique farmland soils in the park. Therefore, this topic was dismissed from further analysis in this EA.

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential

Section 4.9 of NPS Management Policies 2006 states that the NPS will conduct its activities in ways that use energy wisely and economically. Park resources and values will not be degraded to provide energy for NPS purposes. The NPS will adhere to all federal policies governing energy and water efficiency, renewable resources, use of alternative fuels, and federal fleet goals as established in the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The proposed action is not concerned with construction and maintenance of dwellings or structures for public use; therefore, this topic was not evaluated.

Cultural Resources

Under the NHPA of 1966, as amended, NPS has a responsibility to consider the effects that undertakings may have on cultural resources that are listed, or are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The law also requires that agencies discuss their actions beforehand with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, if necessary, as well as other consulting parties, such as certified local governments. Letters to initiate consultation were sent to the SHPO at the Texas Historical Commission and the THPO of the Alabama- Coushatta Tribe of Texas on August 7, 2009. The SHPO contacted the Preserve by phone during the public scoping period. The NPS indicated that more information on which to base an assessment of impacts to cultural resources would be provided in this EA. Consultation between the NPS and the SHPO is ongoing. The THPO provided a response to the request for consultation during scoping through a PEPC webform on September 4, 2009, and also participated in field investigations that took place in October 2009.

NPS defines cultural resources to include archeological resources, historic structures, cultural landscapes, ethnographic resources, and museum collections (NPS 1998). For this project, all of these were dismissed as topics.

Archeological Resources

NPS Management Policies 2006 defines archeological resources as any material remains or physical evidence of past human life or activities which are of archeological interest, including the record of


21

the effects of human activities on the environment. An archeological resource is capable of revealing scientific or humanistic information through archeological research.

A cultural resource reconnaissance survey of the well locations was conducted in October 2009 by a qualified professional archeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (URS 2009). An area of approximately 100 by 100 feet (approximately 30 by 30 meters) surrounding each well was subjected to a cursory surface survey to search for obvious signs of cultural material. No shovel testing or subsurface survey methods were conducted to indicate if resources were present below ground. No archeological resources were identified during the field survey within the immediate vicinity of the proposed well sites for plugging.

Ground- disturbing activities from removal of vegetation and use of equipment during plugging activities could alter the distribution of, disturb, or destroy surface or buried archeological materials, and alter the condition of archeological or prehistoric/historic resources. Any ground- disturbing activities that would exceed two inches below the surface in areas of high probability for discovery of archeological resources would be monitored by a qualified archeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. No new roads, work areas, or helicopter pads are required. Disturbance of soils and sediment would occur from the use of equipment and vehicles at the sites, but impacts would be limited by the use of barges and portable coffer dams for project activities on the river, and by the use of mats and helicopters to limit disturbance at land well sites in the Lance Rosier Unit. In the event of a discovery that might alter or destroy any scientific or cultural resource encountered, work would stop until the NPS evaluates the discovery and determines what action would be taken with respect to such discovery.

In addition, shipwrecks are known to occur in the Neches River near the wells in the river. For wells proposed to be accessed by barge, shipwrecks located in the Neches River would be avoided to the greatest extent possible.

Cumulative impacts to cultural resources (including subsurface resources) from existing and future oil and gas operations were assessed in the Oil and Gas Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement completed for Big Thicket National Preserve in February 2006, and minor to moderate adverse impacts were identified from all actions that could affect cultural resources in the area of analysis. Considering the minimal disturbance to the sites that would occur from the proposed actions in this EA, and the fact that no archeological resources were observed within the immediate vicinity of well sites and proposed plugging activities, the impact of plugging abandoned oil and gas wells would not contribute more than negligible to minor adverse impacts to subsurface cultural resources. Therefore, this topic was dismissed as an impact topic in this document.

Historic Structures

The NPS defines historic structures as “a constructed work, usually immovable by nature or design, consciously created to serve some human activity” (NPS 1998). Examples of historic structures are buildings, monuments, dams, roads, railroad tracks, canals, millraces, bridges, tunnels, locomotives, nautical vessels, stockades, forts and associated earthworks, Indian mounds, ruins, fences, and outdoor sculpture.

A cultural resource reconnaissance survey of the well locations was conducted in October 2009 by a qualified professional archeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (URS 2009). An area of approximately 100 by 100 feet (approximately 30 by 30 meters) surrounding each well was subjected to a cursory surface survey to search for evidence of


22

historic structures. No historic structures were identified during the field survey within the immediate vicinity of the proposed well sites for plugging.

Due to a lack of records, the ages of six of the wells are unknown. Although there is a possibility that they may be over 50 years old, these six wells were not the discovery wells for their field, and are therefore not considered historic properties. Cumulative impacts to cultural resources (including historic structures) from existing and future oil and gas operations were assessed in the Oil and Gas Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement completed for Big Thicket National Preserve in February 2006, and minor to moderate adverse impacts were identified from all actions that could affect cultural resources in the area of analysis. Given that no historic structures were observed within the immediate vicinity of well sites and proposed plugging activities, and that the park has committed to recording any such structures if identified, the impact of plugging abandoned oil and gas wells would not contribute more than negligible adverse impacts to historic cultural resources. Therefore, this topic was dismissed as an impact topic in this document.

Cultural Landscapes

Section 5.3.5.2 of the NPS Management Policies 2006 defines cultural landscapes as settings that humans have created in the natural world. There are no designated cultural landscapes within the project area; therefore, this topic was dismissed as an impact topic in this document.

Ethnographic and Indian Trust Resources

Under Section 5.3.5.3 of the NPS Management Policies 2006, ethnographic resources are defined as the cultural and natural features of a park that are of traditional significance to traditionally associated peoples. These peoples are the contemporary park neighbors and ethnic or occupational communities that have been associated with a park for two or more generations, and whose interests in the park’s resources began before the park’s establishment. The project area includes lands with which the Alabama- Coushatta Tribe of Texas maintains a traditional relationship; however, the impact of plugging/replugging abandoned oil and gas wells would not contribute more than negligible effects to cultural and natural features that have ethnographic importance. Therefore, ethnographic resources was dismissed as an impact topic.

Museum Collections

According to Director’s Order 24, Museum Collections, the NPS requires the consideration of impacts on museum collections (historic artifacts, natural specimens, and archival and manuscript material), and provides further policy guidance, standards, and requirements for preserving, protecting, documenting, and providing access to and use of NPS museum collections. In the event that artifacts or specimens would be collected through the plugging of abandoned oil and gas wells, the NPS would properly catalog and transport to an NPS repository that meets NPS standards, resulting in no adverse impacts on museum collections. Therefore, this topic was dismissed from further analysis.

Climate Change

Ongoing scientific research has identified the potential impacts of climate- changing pollutants on global climate. These pollutants are commonly called “greenhouse gases” and include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane; nitrous oxide; water vapor; and several trace gas emissions. Through complex interactions on a regional and global scale, these emissions cause a net warming effect of the atmosphere, primarily by decreasing the amount of heat energy radiated by the Earth back into


23

space. Although climate- changing pollutant levels have varied for millennia (along with corresponding variations in climatic conditions), recent industrialization and burning of fossil carbon sources have caused CO2 concentrations to increase dramatically, and are likely to contribute to overall climatic changes, typically referred to as global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently completed a comprehensive report (2007) assessing the current state of knowledge on climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC has suggested that the average global surface temperature could rise 1 to 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in the next 50 years, with significant regional variation. The National Academy of Sciences (2006) has confirmed these findings, but also indicated that there are uncertainties regarding how climate change may affect different regions.

NPS recognizes the importance of climate change and the potential effects it may have on the natural environment. Cumulatively, park operations and recreational activities that involve the use of combustion engines would also generate CO2 and methane. Other activities may help sequester carbon, such as managing vegetation to favor perennial grasses and increase vegetative cover, which may help build organic carbon in soils and function as “carbon sinks.” Because of the low greenhouse gas emissions anticipated from vehicle and helicopter access and the limited, short- term use of equipment associated with plugging/replugging abandoned oil and gas wells, the effect on climate change at the Preserve, regional, national, and global levels is expected to be negligible. Therefore, climate change was dismissed from further analysis.

Park Operations and Management

The Preserve’s General Management Plan (NPS 1980) identifies three management zones: natural, development, and special use zones. This zoning system recognizes differences in resources and focuses future management on particular types of activities and developments appropriate for each zone. Management zoning specifies how the Preserve is to be managed at full implementation of the General Management Plan, not merely how the area is currently managed (NPS 1980). The proposed project is located in an area designated as a natural zone.

The proposed action would have a short- term minor demand for park staff and resources during the proposed operations for monitoring and direction of contractors. Plugging operations would occur over a limited period of time and would be handled under contract. Monitoring and oversight would be scheduled as part of the periodic workload for park staff or would be contracted. Because impacts to park management and operations would be mostly short- term and minor, this impact topic was dismissed from further analysis in this EA.

Natural Lightscapes

NPS Management Policies 2006 (NPS 2006b, sec. 4.10) emphasize the protection of natural lightscapes not only for the enjoyment and experience of visitors, but also for protection of ecological integrity. Mitigation strategies are identified, including restricting the use of artificial lighting only where necessary, utilizing minimum impact techniques, and shielding lights to prevent unwanted light scatter. Light, visible electromagnetic radiation streaming through the atmosphere, has a tremendous amount of natural variation. The spectrum of the brightest day to the darkest night spans over eight orders of magnitude (NPS 2003). Disruption of this cycle can have significant ecological effects. Darkness is an important habitat component, providing cover, security, navigation, or predatory advantage to both nocturnal and diurnal species. Light pollution, defined as stray unwanted light outside the range and timing of natural variation, is not only an ecological disrupter, but it also adversely affects the natural scenery of the night. The NPS mission to “conserve scenery” extends to night and the sky above. The ability to view a pristine night sky where thousands


24

of stars are visible has diminished with increasing development. The loss of this resource represents a direct reduction in enjoyment for park visitors who regularly stargaze.

Land- based operations would not use lighting, since all work would be done during daylight hours. Given the nature of the water- based well operations, the barges must remain on the river 24/7 and have lighting at night for security and worker safety reasons. During that time, the contractor would be directed to use light shields and/or focus light downward toward work areas. Effects of lighting on water- based wells would be localized to the river corridor due to heavily vegetated edges along the Neches River. It is expected that the barges would remain on the river no longer than 13 days. Considering the short- term, localized, negligible effects from disturbance to natural lightscapes that would occur from the proposed action in this EA, the topic of natural lightscapes was dismissed from further analysis in this EA.

Biosphere Reserve Designation

The Big Thicket is often referred to as a “biological crossroads,” and is a transition zone where southeastern swamps, eastern deciduous forest, central plains, pine savannas, and xeric (dry) sandhills intersect. The area provides habitat for rare species and favors unusual combinations of plants and animals.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 1968 Conference on the Conservation and Rational Use of the Biosphere launched the Man and the Biosphere Program. The Biosphere Reserve concept was a key element for achieving the Man and the Biosphere objective to create a balance between the conflicting goals of conserving biodiversity, promoting economic and social development, and maintaining associated cultural values. Biosphere reserves innovate and demonstrate approaches to conservation and sustainable development. They are under national sovereign jurisdiction, yet share their experience and ideas nationally, regionally, and internationally within the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. There are 531 sites worldwide in 105 countries. Of these, 47 units are in the United States, of which 29 are managed by the NPS. UNESCO designated the Preserve as a biosphere reserve in 1981 to protect the Preserve’s vegetation and physiographic features (UNESCO 2008).

Plugging abandoned oil and gas wells would neither result in impacts nor change the Preserve’s biosphere designation; therefore, this topic was dismissed.


25

SECTION 2: ALTERNATIVES

NEPA requires that federal agencies develop a range of reasonable alternatives and provide an analysis of what impacts the alternatives could have on the human environment (the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment). The alternatives under consideration must include a “no action” alternative as prescribed by 40 CFR 1502.14.

This section describes the actions that would occur under the two alternatives analyzed in this EA: Alternative A, No Action (continue current management), and Alternative B, Proposed Action (implement the plugging/replugging decision for each of the eight well sites identified for plugging action in the Preserve). The action alternative presented in this section was derived from the analysis performed by an interdisciplinary planning team during internal scoping, information obtained from a field survey in October 2009, and through feedback from the public during the public scoping period. The interdisciplinary team includes NPS resource specialists from the Preserve and Intermountain Regional Office and the private contractor working with NPS on this EA.

Alternative A: No Action

Under the no action alternative, the well sites listed in the tables of this section would maintain current management status and remain in their present condition, subject to natural forces. The NPS would conduct routine monitoring, checking for safety and environmental concerns. Although Preserve staff would continue to periodically monitor well sites for safety and environmental concerns, the well sites would continue to pose a safety risk to park visitors and NPS staff. No correction of hazards would be undertaken.

Alternative B: Proposed Action (NPS Preferred Alternative)

The proposed action is to take corrective actions needed to mitigate human health and safety and environmental hazards at eight abandoned oil and gas well sites (as determined by the status of each well upon commencement of activities), while minimizing impacts on fish and wildlife and water resources.

Details of the Proposed Action

Table 4 provides details, including permits required and means of access to each site, of the eight abandoned oil and gas well sites included in the proposed action. For purposes of clarity and representation of the action, well sites have been broken into two categories: water- based wells and land- based wells.

Table 4. Summary of Proposed Action Well Sites

Well sites to be closed with ARRA funding are shaded

Well Number (NPS

database)

Preserve Unit Well Site Conditions Proposed Action on

Well Site Permit(s) Required Access

Water-Based Wells

0031 Beaumont Water-based well within logging slip off main Lake Bayou canal channel; steel plate on top of well and tagged to 4 feet.

Attach navigational beacon to well casing for safety; monitor.

USACE Nationwide Permit #1

Boat from Collier's Ferry Recreation Area & Natural Preserve boat ramp

Section 2: Alternatives

26

Well Number (NPS

database)

Preserve Unit Well Site Conditions Proposed Action on

Well Site Permit(s) Required Access

0044 Beaumont Water-based well; could not locate at field investigation. Michael Baker data indicates no tag at 180 feet.

Locate, tag, and plug below mud line; cut and remove well casings.


Boat/barge from deepwater access, on the south side of the boat pass at the Saltwater Barrier


Within Neches River and properly plugged. Contains a navigational beacon on top of casing to reduce safety risks.

Replug and cut well casings to 5 feet below riverbed and remove.



3195 Neches Bottom/Jack Gore Baygall

On edge of Neches River in/near bank; no plugging record; concrete at surface of well casing, assume plugged.

Determine if properly plugged. Replug and cut well casings to 5 feet below riverbed and remove.




Within Neches River and properly plugged. Contains a navigational beacon on top of casing to reduce safety risks.

Replug and cut well casings to 5 feet below riverbed and remove.



Land-Based Wells


Plug to Texas RRC and NPS specifications.


Helicopter


Plug to Texas RRC and NPS specifications.

N/A Helicopter


Plug to Texas RRC and NPS specifications


Helicopter

Water- Based Wells

Well 0031 is located off the main channel of the Neches River in a logging slip of the Lake Bayou canal (see figure 3). This well would be difficult to access with needed plugging/replugging equipment and access could result in unacceptable impacts to surrounding resources (e.g., cypress swamps). Because of these concerns, the proposed action on this well site is to access the site with a standard boat from the Collier's Ferry Recreation Area & Natural Preserve boat ramp and place a navigational beacon on the well casing for safety. The site would continue to be monitored.

Well 0031


27

Figure 3. Beaumont Unit Well Sites


28

Wells 0044, 3194, 3195, and 3196 (see figures 3 and 4) would require plugging/replugging activities and removal of casings. Wells 3194 and 3196 have existing Texas RRC plugging records, are properly plugged, but would be replugged so that exposed well casings could be cut off below the riverbed surface and removed. It is unknown if wells 0044 and 3195 are plugged and/or properly plugged. Depending on the status of these wells at the time of activity, wells would be plugged/replugged so that exposed well casings could be cut off and removed. Wells would be cut off far enough below the surface to allow for the movement of the riverbed and prevent re- exposure of the well casing. It is not expected that the river will cut deeper (due to the Preserve’s sea- level elevation), but the depth of the riverbed could change slightly.

Well 0044 Well 3194

Well 3195 Well 3196


29

Figure 4. Neches Bottom/Jack Gore Baygall Unit Well Sites


30

Description of the Well Plugging Process

The following section generally describes the process that would be used to plug/replug water- based wells 0044, 3194, 3195, and 3196. Plugging/replugging activities would take place during a period of high water (generally between November and April) and outside of the hurricane season (June to November) to ensure boat/barge access to all sites, to eliminate disturbance during breeding and spawning, and to avoid a stop work order. Activities would take place 24 hours a day. The exact timeline (a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 13 days) and equipment needed to conduct plugging activities would depend on the status of each well at the time of activity as plugging records are only available for two of the four wells where activity would occur. Crews would consist of approximately 15 people onsite during activities. Additional people would be required at staging areas for mobilization/demobilization procedures.

Mobilization. Mobilization for wells 0044, 3194, 3195, and 3196 would take place at the deepwater access located south of the boat pass at the Saltwater Barrier, pending agreements between the Lower Neches River Valley Authority (LNVA), the NPS, and the operator. All equipment and supplies would be trucked in from the surrounding area. A tugboat and barges would be lifted off trucks and into the water by a crane and all plugging equipment would then be loaded on the barges. It is estimated that mobilization would take approximately two days. Once loaded with equipment and supplies, the tugboat would pull the barges to each well site location. Travel would be expected to take approximately one day to arrive at the northernmost well sites and two hours to arrive at the southernmost well site from the respective boat ramp locations.

Plugging/Replugging. Once onsite, the barges would be configured and stabilized on the riverbed around the well casing to create a work platform for conducting activities. The well would then be assessed to determine the location of cement plugs inside the casing, if present, and whether their locations are in the proper place to remove the well casing and keep it properly plugged (according to NPS and Texas RRC standards). If not in the proper locations or not plugged, any water and/or debris present in the well would be removed and placed into barrels for proper disposal and cement plugs would then be placed in proper locations to plug the well for removal of the casing. Coffer dams would then be placed around the well casing, water removed, and the casing cut below the surface and removed.

Demobilization. Demobilization would consist of the reverse mobilization procedure once wells are properly plugged/replugged and the top portion of the casing removed.

Land- Based Wells

The proposed action contains three land- based abandoned oil and gas well sites, wells 0109, 0956, and 0963 (see figure 5). It is unknown whether these wells are plugged and/or properly plugged as there are no Texas RRC records on the wells. Depending on the status of these wells at the time of activity, wells would be plugged/replugged and well casings cut off below the surface and removed. The existing hole would then be buried and contoured to surface grade.


31

Figure 5. Lance Rosier Unit Well Sites


32

Description of the Well Plugging Process

The following section generally describes the process that would be used to plug/replug land- based wells 0109, 0956, and 0963. Plugging activities would take place in late fall to early winter to avoid sensitive biological periods, such as nesting or breeding for bats and birds. Activities would be conducted during daylight hours, with the crew working a maximum 12- hour day. The exact timeline (a minimum of 9 and a maximum of 12 days) and equipment needed to conduct plugging activities would depend on the status of each well at the time of activity. Crews would consist of approximately 10 people onsite during activities. Additional people would be required at staging areas for mobilization/demobilization procedures. Activities would also be coordinated to minimize disruption to high use visitor areas and any special events, while maximizing the efficient use of park staff.

Mobilization. Mobilization for land- based well activities would take place at the equipment staging area, a previously disturbed area along Little Rock Road in the Lance Rosier Unit (see figure 5). All equipment and supplies would be trucked in from the surrounding area and would be sling- loaded by helicopter in bags or other containers and lowered via cable to target areas at well site locations.

Well 0109 Well 0956

Well 0963


33

The helicopter would take off and land at Hawthorne Airfield near Kountze, Texas (see figure 2) and keep a minimum altitude of 100 feet to minimize noise at ground level. Helicopter loads would be managed and scheduled to minimize the number of trips needed and to keep these trips to the shortest time period possible. Crews would arrive at well sites by vehicle at the nearest access point and hike in. It is estimated that mobilization would take approximately five days.

Plugging/Replugging. Once onsite, the well would be assessed to determine the location of cement plugs inside the casing, if present, and whether their locations are in the proper place to remove the well casing and keep it properly plugged (according to NPS and Texas RRC standards). If not in the proper locations or not plugged, any water and/or debris present in the well would be removed and placed into barrels for proper disposal and cement plugs would then be placed in proper locations to plug the well for removal of the casing. The casing would then be cut below the surface and removed. The remaining hole would be backfilled and contoured to the surface grade.

Demobilization. Demobilization would consist of the reverse mobilization procedure once wells are properly plugged/replugged, the top portion of the casing removed, and the hole backfilled and contoured.

Mitigation

In order to reduce impacts to the Preserve and the environment, the NPS would implement the following plans:

• Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan – this plan is required for all projects with storage capacity of oil and/or oil- containing products (i.e., diesel, lubrications) exceeding the EPA- specified threshold of 1,320 gallons and where a spill has the potential to discharge into or upon navigable Waters of the United States.

• Unanticipated Discovery Plan – this plan outlines the procedures to follow, in accordance with state and federal laws, if archeological materials or human remains are discovered during activities.

• Chinese Tallow Management Plan – this plan will be developed in conjunction with the NPS to outline the mitigation procedures the contractor will follow to prevent the reestablishment of Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera) on land- based well sites.

Table 5 lists the specific mitigation measures for the Proposed Action.

Table 5. Proposed Action Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measure Resource(s) Protected

Regulatory Requirement

All Well Sites

NPS staff would monitor all plugging/replugging activities to minimize potential impacts.

All Natural Resources and Human Health and Safety

NPS Mitigation Measure

Activities would be conducted in late fall to early winter to avoid sensitive biological periods, such as nesting or breeding for bats and birds.

Fish and Wildlife NPS Mitigation Measure


34



Fueling of vehicles and equipment would take place outside the Preserve whenever possible; if fueling within the Preserve is required, these activities would be attended by no fewer than two people, and would be completed over a physical barrier, such as a tarp, and with absorbent materials.



Control measures (e.g., cleaning/washing of vehicles/vessels, equipment, and personal equipment before entering/re-entering the Preserve) would be implemented where directed to help minimize the potential for the introduction and spread of nonnative species.

All Natural Resources


NPS personnel trained in the identification of species of special concern would accompany contractors into well site areas, and would survey the area immediately surrounding the well sites for the species. Work would be postponed if a species of special concern is encountered.


The NPS would notify Preserve employees and visitors about activities that may impact visitor use or experience.

Visitor Use and Experience


NPS staff would conduct education training including implementation for the Preserve’s standard “no harassment / no kill wildlife policy” for all work crew members.


Water-Based Well Sites

The contractor would use a tugboat/barges to access and conduct activities on the wells

Water Resources, Vegetation, Geology and Soils


The contractor would prepare and comply with the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) plan to prevent spills and properly clean up should a spill occur.


EPA requirement per 40 CFR, Chapter 1, Subchapter D, Part 112 - Oil Pollution Prevention

The contractor would decontaminate the tugboat, barges, and all equipment being used in the Neches River to avoid spread of invasive mussels.

Water Resources and Fish and Wildlife


The contractor would utilize coffer dams to reduce disturbance of sediment.

Water Resources NPS Mitigation Measure

Land-Based Well Sites

The contractor would use a helicopter to sling load equipment and supplies to well sites. Equipment would be washed prior to sling loading to prevent the spread of invasive plant species.

All Natural Resources


Care would be taken to minimize compaction of vegetation and soils and erosion.

Vegetation, Geology and Soils.


Regular use of two-way communications between ground and flight crews would minimize risks associated with the use of the helicopter.

Health and Safety NPS Mitigation Measure

Work would be conducted during daylight hours only with a maximum 12-hour work day.

Fish and Wildlife; Health and Safety


Contractor would reseed disturbed areas in the project footprint with a native seed mix per NPS recommendations. NPS would monitor the area for revegetation progression until successful, usually one to three years.

Vegetation, Geology and Soils


Proposed helicopter transport of plugging equipment would minimize impacts by scheduling trips to the fewest number of days possible.



Helicopter flight times and routes would be limited to time periods and assigned corridors to minimize impacts to visitor use.



As appropriate, helicopter operations would be coordinated with NPS Health and Safety NPS Mitigation Measure


35



aviation specialists to minimize the risks to health and safety.

Any ground-disturbing activities that would exceed 2 inches below the surface in areas of high probability for discovery of archeological resources would be monitored by a qualified archeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. In the event of a discovery that might alter or destroy any scientific or cultural resource encountered, work would stop until the NPS evaluates the discovery and determines what action would be taken with respect to such discovery.

Cultural Resources NPS Mitigation Measure

If American Indian human remains or objects are discovered during the course of closure activities, the NPS would comply with Section 3 of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA).

Cultural Resources NPS Mitigation Measure

Mats would be used within delineated wetland areas to reduce effects to soil and vegetation.

Water Resources NPS Mitigation Measure

Alternatives Considered but Dismissed

To develop the proposed action for water- based wells, consideration was given to the effects of creating access to well sites from the bank of the Neches River using large cranes, fill, and other methods. In all cases, the effects of creating access to well sites from the river bank would result in unacceptable impacts to vegetation and other resources and was therefore dismissed from further consideration.

To develop the proposed action for land- based wells, consideration was given to the effects of creating access to wells sites through reestablishing abandoned roads or constructing new roads into each well site. However, in all cases, the effects of recreating access to well sites would result in unacceptable impacts to vegetation and other resources and was therefore dismissed from further consideration.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

The environmentally preferred alternative is determined by applying the criteria suggested in NEPA, which guides the CEQ. CEQ provides direction that the environmentally preferred alternative is the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA Section 101:

1. Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations;

2. Assure for all generations safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;

3. Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk of health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences;

4. Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage and maintain, wherever possible, an environment that supports diversity and variety of individual choice;

5. Achieve a balance between population and resource use that will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and


36

6. Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.

Alternative B (proposed action) is the environmentally preferred alternative because it would better address all six evaluation factors, and it best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources (40 CFR 1500- 1508). Alternative A (no action) would not meet criteria 1 as well as alternative B because alternative B would ensure that the sites are protected against potential leaks or ruptures from abandoned oil and gas wells. Alternative B would also better satisfy criteria 2, as it would assure that all generations have a safe and healthful environment by corrected current dangerous conditions at the well location, especially for water- based wells that present a navigational hazard. The proposed action would ensure long- term protection from potential safety hazards that could threaten park staff, visitors, and wildlife (including sensitive species) in the future if no action were taken. While alternative B has more potential for unintentional consequences than alternative A, it would attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, or risk of health or safety (criterion 3). Alternative B would better preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage by ensuring that the abandoned wells are secured and sites are reclaimed without causing adverse effects to cultural features or important biological resources, with little impact on site appearance or character, thus supporting diversity of visitor experience at these sites (criterion 4). Both alternatives would contribute to achieving a balance between population and resource use that will permit sharing of life's amenities (criterion 5), but alternative B would better ensure that the amenities are preserved for the future by ensuring that wells would not release harmful substances into the environment. Finally, alternative B would better enhance the quality of renewable resources by providing securely plugged oil and gas wells that would not adversely affect renewable resources such as water, fish, and wildlife (criterion 6).

Alternatives Comparison Tables

Tables 6 and 7 summarize the major components of alternatives A and B and compare the ability of these alternatives to meet the project objectives (the objectives for this project are identified in the “Purpose and Need” section). As shown in table 6, alternative B meets each of the objectives identified for this project, while the no action alternative does not address all of the objectives.

Table 6. Major Components of Alternatives A and B

Alternative A. No Action Alternative B, Well Site Plugging/Replugging Implementation

Abandoned oil and gas well sites listed in the tables of this section would maintain current management status and remain in their present condition, subject to natural forces. The NPS would conduct routine monitoring, checking for safety and environmental concerns. Although Preserve staff would continue to periodically monitor well sites for safety and environmental concerns, the well sites would continue to pose a safety risk to park visitors and NPS staff. No correction of hazards would be undertaken.

Abandoned oil and gas well sites would be properly plugged/replugged, as determined by the status of the well upon commencement of activities, and exposed casings would be cut below the surface and removed. Impacts on fish and wildlife and water resources would be minimized. Collectively, the proposed action for each well site at the Preserve constitutes a comprehensive plan to address all improperly plugged and abandoned oil and gas wells, including ARRA-funded well sites, that pose an environmental and safety risk to Preserve visitors and NPS staff.


37

Table 7. Analysis of How Alternatives Meet Objectives

Objectives Alternative A, No Action Alternative B, Well Closure Implementation

Mitigate human health and safety and environmental hazards at abandoned oil and gas wells.

Does not meet objective. No additional management actions would be taken to plug or replug abandoned oil and gas well sites.

Fully meets objective. Proposed plugging/replugging actions and access would mitigate existing health and safety and environmental hazards.

Avoid or minimize impacts on park natural and cultural resources and values, and visitor use and experience.

Does not meet objective. Park natural and cultural resources at well sites remain subject to environmental hazards; health and safety risks continue to exist.

Fully meets objective. Proposed plugging/replugging actions would eliminate threats or risks to natural and cultural resources and to public safety from potential contamination, and would enhance visitor use and experience including public safety in the vicinity of the wells. The alternative includes mitigation to minimize or avoid adverse impacts to natural and cultural resources and values during plugging operations.

Prevent impairment of the park’s resources and values.

Meets objective. Park resources and values could potentially be adversely affected, but probably not to the extent of impairment,

Fully meets objective. Proposed plugging/replugging actions would eliminate the environmental hazards and health and safety risks which could potentially impair park resources and values.

Summary of Environmental Consequences

Table 8 summarizes the impacts of the project alternatives, including no action, based on the analysis in the “Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences” section.

Table 8. Environmental Impact Summary by Alternative

Impact Topic Alternative A, No Action Alternative B, Proposed Action

Water Resource including Wetlands

No effect to water resources in the short term, but could result in moderate adverse effects in the long term if there would be a release due to corroded well casings. Cumulative impacts from the no action alternative would be long-term, minor to moderate and adverse.

Short-term negligible to minor adverse effects on water resources including wetlands, and long-term beneficial impacts. Cumulative impacts from the proposed action alternative would be long-term, minor and adverse.

Fish and Wildlife including Species of Special Concern

No effect to fish and wildlife in the short term, but could result in moderate adverse effects in the long term if there would be a release due to corroded well casings in the river. Cumulative impacts from the no action alternative would be long-term, minor to moderate and adverse.

Long-term, negligible to minor adverse effects to fish and wildlife. Cumulative impacts from the proposed action alternative would be long-term, minor and adverse.

Visitor Use including Public Health and Safety

Minor to moderate, long-term, adverse impacts on visitor use and safety. Open features would continue to present a safety hazard to visitors. Cumulative impacts from the no action alternative would be long-term, negligible and adverse.

Beneficial impacts to visitor use and experience, including health and safety. Adverse impacts to visitor use and experience, including health and safety, under alternative B would be localized short-term minor to moderate. Cumulative impacts from the proposed action alternative would be short- and long-term, minor, and adverse on visitor use and experience, including health and safety. Overall, long-term beneficial effects would accrue from the closure of abandoned wells in the Preserve.


38


39

SECTION 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section provides descriptions of the resources and values that comprise the affected environment and estimated environmental consequences for the impact topics carried forward for detailed analysis in the EA. Topics analyzed in this section include Water Resources (including wetlands), Fish and Wildlife (including species of special concern), and Visitor Use and Experience (including public health and safety). All remaining impact topics were dismissed as discussed in the “Purpose and Need” section. A description of the affected environment for each resource topic included in this section precedes the analysis of that topic under the subheading “Affected Environment.”

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, as well as impairment and unacceptable impacts, are analyzed for each resource topic carried forward. The impact analyses are presented by alternative, starting with the no action alternative. The analysis first addresses the impacts of actions taken under the alternative, then presents a cumulative impact analysis, followed by a conclusion or summary of the impacts discussed for both the alternative- specific actions and the relevant cumulative actions. A determination of unacceptable impacts and impairment is made at the end of each of the Conclusion sections; impairment is not assessed for visitor use and experience.

Potential impacts are described in terms of type, context, duration, and intensity. General definitions are given as follows, while more specific impact thresholds are given for each resource at the beginning of each resource section.

Type describes the classification of the impact as either beneficial or adverse:

Beneficial: A positive change in the condition or appearance of the resource or a change that moves the resource toward a desired condition.

Adverse: A change that moves the resource away from a desired condition or detracts from its appearance or condition.

Context describes the area or location in which the impact would occur, i.e. are the effects site-specific, local, regional, or even broader?

Duration describes the length of time an effect would occur, either short- term or long- term. For this EA, duration is defined as follows:

• Short- term impacts generally last only during project activities, but it could take up to three years for resources to resume their conditions following project activities.

• Long- term impacts could take more than three years beyond the period of project activities for resources to resume their conditions.

Intensity describes the degree, level, or strength of an impact. For this analysis, intensity has been categorized into negligible, minor, moderate, and major for adverse impacts (beneficial impacts are not qualified). Because definitions of intensity vary by resource topic, intensity definitions are provided separately for each impact topic analyzed in this EA.

Section 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

40

Methods

The evaluation of each impact topic was based on a qualitative assessment of plugging/replugging activities and how they would affect the resources. To assess impacts on impact topics, the following steps were taken:

• Identification of which resources were likely to be affected by plugging/replugging activities (described in the “Affected Environment” section).

• Analysis of alteration caused by plugging/replugging activities.

• Analysis of the disturbance potential of proposed actions and the resources to be affected by the disturbance.

Information in the analysis was obtained through best professional judgment, input from Preserve staff and experts in the field, and available literature.

The area of analysis for this topic focuses on the areas in the immediate vicinity of abandoned oil and gas well sites where plugging/replugging activities would occur. In cases where plugging/replugging activities could affect the impact topic, mitigation measures are suggested.

Cumulative Impact Analysis Method

This EA also includes an assessment of cumulative impacts. The CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA (CEQ 1978) require assessment of cumulative effects in the decision- making process for federal projects. Cumulative effects are defined as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative effects are considered for both the no action and the proposed action alternative, and are presented at the end of each impact topic discussion analysis.

Cumulative effects were determined by qualitatively estimating the effects of the alternatives with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions relevant to plugging activities in the Preserve. The temporal boundary for the analysis was five years, and the areas of analysis for impact topics were the boundaries of the Lance Rosier, Neches Bottom/Jack Gore Baygall, and Beaumont units. The following is a summary of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions taking place within the Preserve that would have a relationship to the proposed plugging/replugging activities:

• According to the latest audit conducted by the NPS (Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. 2009) using the Tobin SuperBase® data set provided by P2 Energy Solutions (and to a lesser extent, the RRC), a total of 217 abandoned oil and gas sites exist within the Preserve. The NPS will implement a range of restoration, remediation, and/or monitoring actions on these wells as funding becomes available.

• The Reasonably Foreseeable Development scenario in the Oil and Gas Management Plan (NPS 2006a) projected that up to 40 additional wells could be drilled over the next 15 to 20 years to develop hydrocarbons underlying the Preserve.

• Ongoing analysis of three abandoned oil and gas well sites with potential contamination will be included in a Focused Site Investigation project in 2010.


41

• As determined by the October 2009 survey for this project, minor improvements will be made to 13 abandoned oil and gas well sites, and each site will continue to be monitored for public health and safety and environmental risks. Minor improvements include filling in small depressions around the well casing to surface grade and in those cases where cement does not reach the top of the casings, filling in the remaining area of the casing to the top with cement. Improvements would be made as part of routine Preserve maintenance as funding becomes available. Preserve staff would develop a monitoring program for the wells. See appendix A for detailed information on each site.

• Town Bluff Dam, referred to as Dam B, and B.A. Steinhagen Lake were completed in 1953. Dam B assists the Sam Rayburn Reservoir in providing flood control to the Angelina and Neches river basins in southeast Texas, supplies water to the Lower Neches Valley Authority and the Beaumont area, and produces a clean source of electric power generation. Dam B operations continue to have an impact on environmental resources in the analysis area.

• The current General Management Plan for the Preserve was completed in 1980 and is currently being revised due to changes at the Preserve and the surrounding area, including the addition of new lands, substantial changes in the way visitors use the Preserve, and changes in the way the land around the Preserve is used. The revision process will take approximately four years to complete, producing a final General Management Plan for management of the Preserve for the next 15 to 20 years in 2012.

• NPS operations – NPS performs regular management oversight and maintenance activities which pertain to visitor uses, oil and gas projects, and resource preservation within the Preserve. Application of current legal and policy requirements such as to avoiding or minimizing adverse impacts on fish and wildlife in the Preserve, hunting, trapping, prescribed fire management practices, and the reclamation of abandoned operations sites, has and will continue to improve the condition of resources in the Preserve.

• Recreational activities – Preserve visitors and adjacent landowners use the analysis area for hunting, motorized boating, canoeing, kayaking, and recreational fishing. These activities may impact environmental resources in the analysis area.

• Houseboats – Houseboats present in the Neches River may cause impacts to water quality and visitor use and experiences in the analysis area from continued improper disposal of graywater (non- sewage wastewater) and/or blackwater (sewage) directly into the river.

Water Resources (including Wetlands)

Affected Environment

Neches River

The Neches River is the primary drainage, capturing the majority of water from precipitation and overland flow, for most units of the Preserve and all of the project area. The Neches is a large, low-gradient river with regulated flow. It also shares certain similarities with blackwater rivers, a subset of coastal plain rivers of the southeastern United States. Four units of the Preserve are located between the 88- mile segment from Town Bluff Dam (Dam B) to its confluence with Pine Island Bayou in the Beaumont Unit. Additionally, all three primary drainages join within or near the Beaumont Unit. The tidal portion of the watershed extends from the confluence with Sabine Lake upstream into the southeast portion of the Beaumont Unit. Flows in the Neches River downstream of this area are also


42

influenced by tides, water quality of the ocean, and discharges from the upper watershed. The tidal segment of the Neches River between Sabine Lake and the Port of Beaumont is highly developed, industrialized, and is dredged to maintain a navigation channel. There is a permanent saltwater barrier on the Neches River just south of the Preserve.

Within the Neches River basin, two major impoundments are located within 30 river miles upstream of the Preserve. The larger of the two, the Sam Rayburn Reservoir, is located on the Angelina River approximately 25 miles above the confluence of the Neches and Angelina Rivers. The B. A. Steinhagen Reservoir is located upstream of the Upper Neches River Corridor Unit. The construction and subsequent operation of these reservoirs have altered the flow characteristics of the Neches River by reducing the frequency and duration of both high and low flows (see figure 6). Changes in the duration and frequency of floods have also resulted in changes in species composition and distribution of floodplain forest communities (NPS 2006a).

Figure 6. Peak Weekly Stage of Neches River near Evadale, 1995 – 2007 (Sobczak et al. 2010)

The uppermost aquifer underlying the Neches River corridor is the Chicot aquifer. This aquifer includes all of the Quaternary formations including the Quaternary Alluvium. The total thickness of the Chicot aquifer is roughly 425 feet, however it is likely that only the upper Chicot aquifer influences groundwater in this area. Surface deposits, areas likely in the upper reaches of the river where the exposed bedrock is the Bentley Formation, are permeable enough to allow infiltration of precipitation into the upper Chicot aquifer. Additionally, alluvial aquifers associated with the drainages probably serve as freshwater aquifers (Ryder 1988).

As detailed in “Alternatives” section, five of the eight wells that NPS determined needed improvements or plugging/replugging and removal of the top portion of the casing to reduce safety hazards are located within or on the banks of the Neches River. All wells are located in nontidal waters north of the tidal influence. Because activities are being conducted within navigable Waters of the United States, they fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE and must be permitted. The activity proposed for well 0031 falls under Nationwide Permit #1, Aids to Navigation, due to the placement of the navigational beacon on the well casing. The activity proposed for all other wells falls under Nationwide Permit #22, Removal of Vessels, due to the removal of man- made obstructions to navigation (Dodson 2009).


43

Surface Water Quality

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2006 Texas Water Quality Inventory summarizes the status of the state’s surface waters, including concerns for public health, fitness for use by aquatic species and other wildlife, and specific pollutants and their possible sources. This inventory identified and classified the Neches River according to segments. The project area is located within the 88- mile segment number 0602 of the Neches River, which is located below Lake B.A. Steinhagen. In accordance with EPA guidelines, TCEQ classifies this segment as a freshwater stream with the following uses: aquatic life, contact recreational, general, fish consumption, and public water supply (TCEQ 2006).

NPS has divided the water resources of the Preserve into three categories based on a combination of ambient water quality and monitoring status. Category 1 waters are streams where water quality presently ranges from very good to excellent. Category 2 waters exhibit water quality degradation for one or more parameters, often due to non- point source pollution and/or legally permitted point-source discharges. Category 3 waters are major stream segments within the Preserve which are included in the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards and are routinely monitored by the U.S. Geological Survey. The Neches River is a Category 3 stream (NPS 2006a).

Wetlands

Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. Wetlands must have one or more of the following three attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytic vegetation; (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year (Cowardin et al. 1979).

Wetlands provide a large amount of primary production and important habitat for the wildlife of the Preserve. A variety of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals require wetlands during substantial parts of their lives, and depend on wetlands spaced throughout the landscape. Wetlands also provide essential habitat for 60% of all threatened and 40% of all endangered species (Feierabend 1992). Overall, each type of wetland may provide similar functions but for different organisms.

Field investigations in October 2009 and a wetland delineation conducted in December 2009 identified three jurisdictional wetlands/Waters of the United States within the project area (see table 9). Determination of the occurrence of jurisdictional wetlands was based on criteria established in the USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE 1987), and wetlands delineated on the property were characterized by a dominance of hydrophytic vegetation, the presence of hydric soil indicators, and evidence or the presence of wetland hydrology. Wetlands were classified under the Cowardin Classification System.

Table 9. Wetland/Stream Characteristics

Wetland/Stream Identification (Jurisdiction)

Preserve Unit Type Area (acres)

Well Site 0109 Lance Rosier Palustrine, forested, broad leaved deciduous, temporarily flooded (PFO1A)

0.11

Well Site 0963 Lance Rosier Palustrine, forested, needle leaved evergreen, temporarily flooded (PFO4A)

0.12


44

Wetland/Stream Identification (Jurisdiction)

Preserve Unit Type Area (acres)

Well Site 3195 Neches Bottom/Jack Gore Baygall

Riverine lower perennial, unconsolidated perennial, permanently flooded (R2UBH)

NA

The wetland delineation attempted for well 3195 in December 2009 was based on field investigations conducted in October 2009 which determined the presence of partially vegetated wetland fringe below the ordinary high water mark near the well that could potentially be affected. In December 2009, water conditions were high and the area identified in October as potential wetland was part of the river.

Because land- based well activities are being conducted within jurisdictional wetlands, they fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE and must be permitted. The activity proposed for wells 0109 and 0963 falls under Nationwide Permit #12, Utility Line Activities (substation subcategory), due to no permanent impact on jurisdictional wetlands over 0.10 acre, and impacts to wetlands of less than 0.5 acre. There would also be no fill placed in the wetland and no permanent roads created (Dodson 2009). Activities within wetlands also fall under 4.21 Excepted Actions (items g and h) of Director’s Order 77- 1 (see the “Purpose and Need” section). Each site would have less than 0.1 acre of disturbance for repair of the existing facilities (Section 4.21, item g), and the actions would serve to restore degraded wetlands and aquatic habitats with less than 0.25 acre of new long- term adverse impacts on natural wetlands (Section 4.21, item h). Therefore, activities within wetlands are excepted from NPS Statement of Findings requirements (Noon 2009).

Environmental Consequences

Impact Criteria and Thresholds

The thresholds for intensity of impact were defined as follows:

Negligible: Impacts would result in a change to water resources, but the change would be so slight that it would not be of any measurable or perceptible consequence.

Minor: Impacts would result in a detectable change to water resources, but impacts would be expected to be small, of little consequence, and localized. Mitigation measures, if needed to offset adverse effects, would be simple and successful.

Moderate: Impacts would result in a change to water resources that would be readily detectable and localized. Occasional alterations of historical or baseline water quality or flow characteristics may occur. Mitigation measures, if needed to offset adverse effects, could be extensive, but would likely be successful.

Major: Impacts would result in a change to water resources that would have substantial consequences on a regional scale. Frequent alterations in the historical or baseline water quality and stream flow conditions would occur over a large area and could result in modifications to the natural channel and instream flow characteristics. Extensive mitigation measures would be needed to offset any adverse effects, and their success would not be guaranteed.


45

Impacts on Water Resources under No Action

Under the no action alternative, no plugging/replugging activities would take place on abandoned oil and gas well sites, and the Neches River and existing wetlands within proposed well site locations would continue to function at their present state, resulting in negligible effects to water resources. Over time, well casings within or near the Neches River could rust out and break off, which could potentially result in hydrocarbon gases and fluids escaping into the river and surrounding environment as well as pollutants contaminating groundwater, and most importantly the usable water quality zone. The range of potential effects would greatly depend on the location of breakage and whether wells have been properly plugged; however the probability of well casings breaking off is extremely low. If a release were to occur, it could result in moderate adverse effects to the Neches River and areas downstream, including wetlands.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative impact analysis for water resources includes oil and gas activities within the Preserve, other actions on abandoned oil and gas wells, Dam B, recreational activities, and houseboats. Water quality and wetlands could be impacted by ongoing oil and gas drilling and production activities in the Preserve as well as plans for restoration and remediation of abandoned oil and gas wells. Direct cumulative, adverse impacts may include increased turbidity and sedimentation from vegetation and ground- disturbing activities, contamination from accidental leaks or spills of contaminating substances (i.e., oil and fuel) from equipment or vessels within or near water resource, and direct soil compaction and vegetation removal within wetlands of the Preserve from use of equipment. Direct adverse impacts from ongoing oil and gas drilling and production activities in the Preserve as well as plans for restoration and remediation of abandoned oil and gas wells would likely be minor to moderate due to NPS- required mitigation measures for water resources.

Although Dam B provides long- term beneficial impacts to some resources, the construction and operation of this impoundment has had a substantial adverse impact on the Neches River. This impoundment changed the flow characteristics of the river and reduced the frequency and duration of both high and low flows on the Neches River (NPS 2006a). Changes in the amount and timing of stream flow may have directly affected the river’s channel structure, rate of bank migration, water quality, and the amount and type of aquatic habitat. Water impoundment structures can also reduce sediment movement throughout the river system which can affect a variety of downstream natural resources.

Motorized recreational watercraft and houseboats within the Neches River degrade water quality by churning up fine sediments and keeping them in suspension. Exhaust and motor fuel or oil releases, depending on the amount, can contaminate water quality in varying degrees. Houseboats especially degrade water quality by improper disposal of graywater (non- sewage wastewater) and/or blackwater (sewage) directly into the river. Overall boat use would have short- and long- term, minor to moderate adverse impacts on water quality.

Protection provided to water resources, including wetlands, in the Preserve under current legal and policy requirements is expected to continue to improve the condition of these resources. In addition, the Preserve’s prescribed fire management program would provide long- term cumulative beneficial impacts on wetland pine savannas by restoring and maintaining the wetland vegetation community and biodiversity. Continued protection under current legal and policy requirements would have long- term beneficial impacts for water resources and wetlands.


46

The impacts of all these other actions, added to the long- term, negligible to moderate adverse impacts of no action, would result in mostly long- term, minor to moderate adverse cumulative impacts on water resources and wetlands under the no action alternative.

Conclusions

The no action alternative could result in negligible to moderate adverse effects to water resources, including wetlands. The potential for moderate impacts stems from the potential for the release of hydrocarbons if well casings would rust through and break off, which, although not extremely likely, could have adverse consequences. Cumulative impacts from the no action alternative would be long- term, minor to moderate and adverse.

Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the parks; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Preserve or to opportunities for enjoyment of the parks; or (3) identified as a goal in any park’s or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the parks’ resources or values. Implementation of this alternative would not result in unacceptable impacts and is consistent with NPS Management Policies 2006.

Impacts on Water Resources under the Proposed Action

Water- Based Wells

Under the proposed action, abandoned oil and gas well sites would be properly plugged/replugged and exposed casings would be cut below the surface and removed. For four of the five water- based wells, plugging/replugging activities would result in temporary, localized disruption to the river bed from stabilization of barges as well as the removal of casings. Disruption of the river bed would result in increased turbidity and sedimentation in the river; however, effects would be short- term and minor due to the temporary, localized nature of activities and the use of coffer dams to reduce sediment transport. Contamination from accidental leaks or spills of contaminating substances (i.e., oil and fuel) from equipment or vessels within the river could also occur. In the long term, properly plugging/replugging the wells and removing casings from four of five well sites within the Neches River would greatly reduce the potential environmental risks associated with well casings rusting out and breaking off in the river, a beneficial effect.

Based on conditions of well 3195 in December 2009, no effects to wetlands associated with water-based wells would occur under the proposed action.

Land- Based Wells

Two of the three proposed plugging/replugging actions for wells sites in the Lance Rosier unit would result in minor adverse effects to jurisdictional wetlands surrounding the well sites from removal of trees and vegetation from the area immediately surrounding the well casing. The acreage affected is estimated to be approximately 0.005 acre each for wells 0109 and 0963, for a total impact of 0.01 acre. Reseeding would occur within the disturbed area with a native seed mix per NPS recommendations, reducing the effects of vegetation removal to negligible. Soil and vegetation compaction and removal would also occur from the use of equipment within wetlands, resulting in short- term minor to moderate effects to wetland resources; however, the use of mats for equipment would greatly reduce compaction, reducing effects to negligible to minor.


47

See the “Alternatives” section for proposed mitigation measures associated with all plugging/replugging activities.

Cumulative Effects

The same actions identified as contributing to cumulative effects under the no action alternative would apply to the proposed action, with long- term minor to moderate adverse effects. The proposed action would contribute localized short- term negligible to minor adverse effects during project activities to water resources and wetlands, and a substantial long- term beneficial impact to water quality and wetlands from the plugging/replugging of wells that present a risk of release of hydrocarbons to the environment. Impacts of the other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, combined with the impacts of actions under alternative B, would result in long- term, minor adverse impacts to water resources and wetlands.

Conclusions

The proposed action would result in short- term negligible to minor adverse effects on water resources, including wetlands, and long- term beneficial impacts to water quality and wetlands from the reduction of risk to water resources from the potential release of contaminants from unplugged wells. Cumulative impacts under the proposed action alternative would be long- term, minor, and adverse.

Although the conservation of water resources is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation of the Preserve; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity if the Preserve; and (3) identified as a goal in the Preserve's General Management Plan (1980) and other relevant NPS planning documents, selection of alternative B would not result in a major impact, thus, the proposal would not result in its impairment. Implementation of this alternative would not result in unacceptable impacts and is consistent with NPS Management Policies 2006.

Fish and Wildlife (including Species of Special Concern)


The Big Thicket region has long been recognized for possessing a diverse array of fauna and flora. This area provides habitat for plant and animal species of the southeast swamps, pineywood forest, post- oak belt, Great Plains, southwest deserts, and the coastal prairie. The Preserve’s unique natural features and species diversity have earned its designation as an International Biosphere Reserve and Globally Important Bird Area. The Preserve hosts approximately 60 mammal species, in addition to 92 reptile and amphibian species, at least 176 bird species, and thousands of invertebrate species (NPS 1996).

The Preserve consists of eight discrete land units connected by four narrow water corridor units. The water corridor units, varying in width from 1,000 to 1,500 feet, were established in part to offset the effects of fragmentation by providing ecological connectivity between otherwise isolated units. However, the degree to which these habitat corridors serve as migration routes or enhance the persistence of fish and wildlife species has not been adequately tested (NPS 2006a). With few exceptions, the Preserve’s land and corridor units are crossed by roads, trails, pipeline and power line corridors, oil and gas operations, and one railway. Therefore, the geographic configuration of the units, along with the further contributions of human- induced developments, results in fragmentation of wildlife habitat (NPS 2006a).


48

Mammals

Of the 181 mammals listed for Texas, 60 are either documented or believed to inhabit the Preserve. Several large species are now extirpated in Big Thicket due to a variety of factors including habitat destruction and overhunting. These include the jaguar (Panthera onca), ocelot (Leopardus pardalis), and red wolf (Canis rufus). Although occasional sightings of the Louisiana subspecies of the American black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) have been reported near the Preserve, no populations are believed to be reproducing in east Texas (NPS 2006a).

Birds

Birds are the most visible and diverse group of vertebrate fauna found in the Preserve. Currently 176 species have been documented. This figure is thought to be low, because no comprehensive inventory of birds has ever been performed. The Preserve lies on a major migratory flyway, and many species of birds are transient during spring and fall migrations. Birds found in the Preserve predominantly consist of three categories: passerines (including many neotropical songbirds), raptors, and waterfowl. The abundance and variety of birds in the Preserve contribute to one of the favorite visitor activities, bird watching (NPS 2006a).

Reptiles and Amphibians

Approximately 85 species of reptiles and amphibians are believed to inhabit the Preserve (Harcombe et al. 1996). This figure represents roughly 33% of the 235 species of reptiles and amphibians in Texas. Snakes represent the most diverse group of reptiles in the Preserve. Texas has 68 species of snakes, and half of these inhabit the Preserve. Other types of reptiles include skinks, lizards, turtles, and the American alligator. Three types of amphibians including frogs, toads, and salamanders inhabit the Preserve (NPS 2006a).

Fish

Of all faunal groups in the Preserve, fish are perhaps the most thoroughly inventoried: 92 species are believed to inhabit Preserve waters. In small tributaries, the most abundant species of fish include minnows, darters, bass, and bullhead catfish. This pattern shifts in larger tributaries, which are dominated by channel, blue, and flathead catfish; sunfish; largemouth and spotted bass; and crappie (NPS 2006a).

Invertebrates

A recent inventory of Lepidoptera (butterflies, moths, and skippers) has documented over 1,800 species (Bordelon and Knudson 1999); this is believed to be the greatest species diversity in the contiguous United States. In aquatic environments, insects and mussels are the most thoroughly documented species. Comprehensive inventories in the Village Creek drainage have documented 249 species of common macroinvertebrates including dragonflies, caddisflies, mayflies and stoneflies. Three species of aquatic insects are endemic to the Preserve region (Abbott, Stewart, and Moulton 1997), and two are candidates for federal listing. Thirty- four species of mussels, including the Texas heelsplitter (Potamilus amphichaenus) live in the Lower Neches River watershed (Howells 1996). This portion of the watershed includes most of the units of the Preserve.


49

Species of Special Concern

Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, NPS has the responsibility to address impacts to federally listed, candidate, and proposed species. The terms “threatened” and “endangered” describe the official federal status of certain species in the Preserve as defined by the Endangered Species Act. The term “candidate” is used officially by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service when describing those species for which sufficient information exists on biological vulnerability and threats to support issuance of a “proposed rule to list,” but issuance of the proposed rule is precluded. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department has enacted regulations similar to the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 that confer threatened and endangered status to certain species that inhabit areas within the state. NPS policies dictate that state- listed threatened and endangered species, as well as state species of special concern are to be managed in a manner similar to federally listed species to the greatest extent possible. There is no federally designated critical habitat in or near the Preserve or the rest of the project area.

Appendix B provides the list of all federal and state- threatened or endangered species that could potentially occur in the study area. It also provides the list of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department state species of concern that NPS Preserve biologists determined could potentially occur within or near proposed action well site locations. This determination was made based on the exhaustive lists of species for Hardin, Jefferson, Jasper, and Orange Counties. This includes one federally threatened species (Louisiana black bear), 13 state threatened species, and 20 state species of concern. Species of special concern which are on the county lists but which are not included in appendix B either did not have suitable habitat within the project area, would not be present within the region during the proposed times of plugging/replugging activities, and/or have no recorded occurrences within the project area.




Negligible: Impacts on fish and wildlife species, their habitats, and the natural processes sustaining them would be at or below the level of detection. There would be no measurable or perceptible effects on fish or wildlife populations, including species of special concern.

Minor: Detectable impacts on fish and wildlife or their habitats would occur within a small area but would not result in substantial changes in populations or the natural processes, such as competition and dispersal that sustain them. While the mortality of individuals might occur, population effects would be within the range of natural variation, and the viability of fish and wildlife populations would not be affected. Mitigation measures, if needed to offset adverse effects, would be simple and successful.

Moderate: Readily detectable impacts outside the range of natural variability would occur on fish and wildlife populations, their habitats, or the natural processes sustaining them. The change would be measurable in terms of population abundance, distribution, quantity, or quality and would occur over a relatively large area. Mitigation measures, if needed to offset adverse effects, could be extensive, but would likely be successful.


50

Major: Readily apparent impacts outside the range of natural variability would occur on fish and wildlife populations, their habitats, or the natural processes sustaining them. The change would be measurable in terms of population viability and could involve the displacement, loss, or restoration of a fish or wildlife population or assemblage. Extensive mitigation measures would be needed to offset any adverse effects and their success would not be guaranteed.

Impacts on Fish and Wildlife and Species of Special Concern under No Action

Under the no action alternative, no plugging/replugging activities would take place on abandoned oil and gas well sites and fish and wildlife species, including species of special concern, and associated terrestrial and aquatic habitats within proposed well site locations would continue to function at their present state, resulting in no effect to these resources. As discussed under “Water Resources” above, over time well casings within the Neches River could rust out and break off, which could potentially result in hydrocarbon gases and fluids escaping into the river and surrounding environment, depending on the location of breakage and whether wells have been properly plugged. If this occurs, it could result in long- term moderate adverse effects to species within the Neches River and areas downstream from potential contamination; however the probability of occurrence is extremely low.


The nature of effects under the no action alternative would be the same as described for fish and wildlife. If one or more of the well casings would break off; long- term adverse effects could be experienced by 22 species of special concern that live in or near the Neches River, including five birds, four fish, 11 mollusks, one amphibian, one reptile, and one insect.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative impact analysis for fish and wildlife, including species of special concern, includes oil and gas activities within the Preserve, other actions on abandoned oil and gas wells, Dam B, recreational activities, and houseboats. Dam B, through flow alterations of the Neches River, may indirectly impact the growth of the bottomland hardwood forest and other habitats in the Preserve. Changes in the amount and timing of stream flow from Dam B may have also directly affected the river’s channel structure, rate of bank migration, water quality, and the amount and type of aquatic habitat. Direct adverse impacts to fish and wildlife habitat could also include increased turbidity and sedimentation from vegetation and ground- disturbing activities, contamination from accidental leaks or spills of contaminating substances (i.e., oil and fuel) from equipment or vessels within or near habitat, and direct soil compaction and vegetation removal from use of equipment. These activities have already and could continue to stress wildlife species and alter habitats. Impacts may result in the long- term minor decline in diversity of wildlife species within the Preserve.

Impacts from recreational activities including camping, vehicular and foot traffic, boating, and hunting have caused and would continue to cause stress to wildlife, resulting in avoidance of affected areas. These effects would be long- term, negligible and adverse. Motorized recreational watercraft and houseboats within the Neches River degrade water quality of habitat by churning up fine sediments and keeping them in suspension. Depending on the amount, exhaust and motor fuel or oil releases could also contaminate water quality of habitat in varying degrees. Houseboats especially degrade water quality of habitat by improper disposal of graywater (non- sewage wastewater) and/or blackwater (sewage) directly into the river, a negligible to minor adverse effect on aquatic fauna.


51

Over the long term, the application of current legal and policy requirements to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on fish and wildlife in the Preserve, hunting, trapping, prescribed fire management practices, and the reclamation of abandoned operations sites, would result in improving fish and wildlife habitat, a cumulative beneficial impact for fish and wildlife of the Preserve.

The impacts of all these other actions, added to the long- term, negligible to potentially moderate adverse impacts of no action, would result in mostly long- term, minor to potentially moderate adverse cumulative impacts on fish and wildlife, including species of special concern, under the no action alternative.

Conclusions

The no action alternative would result in no effects to fish and wildlife, including species of special concern, in the short term, but could result in up to moderate effects in the long term if well casings would rust through and break off. Cumulative impacts under the no action alternative would be long- term, minor to moderate and adverse.

Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the parks; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Preserve or to opportunities for enjoyment of the parks; or (3) identified as a goal in any park’s or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the parks’ resources or values. Implementation of this alternative would not result in unacceptable impacts and is consistent with NPS Management Policies 2006.

Impacts on Fish and Wildlife and Species of Special Concern under the Proposed Action

Water- Based Wells

For four of the five water- based wells, plugging/replugging activities would result in temporary, localized disruption to the river bed from stabilization of barges as well as the removal of casings. Disruption of the river bed would result in increased turbidity and sedimentation in the river and therefore temporary minor adverse effects to the water quality of aquatic habitat; however, effects would be short- term and minor due to the temporary, localized nature of activities and the use of coffer dams to reduce sediment transport. Contamination from accidental leaks or spills of contaminating substances (i.e., oil and fuel) from equipment or vessels within the river could also occur, affecting the water quality of habitat. Effects would be minor and adverse due to the temporary, localized nature of activities.

Effects of lighting on fish and wildlife near water- based wells would be localized to the river corridor due to heavily vegetated edges along the Neches River. Darkness is an important habitat component, providing cover, security, navigation, or predatory advantage to both nocturnal and diurnal species, and disruption of this cycle can have ecological effects. Considering that barges would remain on the river no longer than 13 days and that lights would be shielded and focused downward, effects to fish and wildlife from night lighting would be short- term, localized, and negligible adverse.

Activity areas would likely be temporarily avoided by mobile species, including terrestrial bird, mammal, fish, reptile and amphibian species. In the long term, properly plugging/replugging and removing casings from well sites within the Neches River would eliminate the potential


52

environmental risks associated with well casings rusting out and breaking off in the river and would therefore result in long- term beneficial impacts to fish and wildlife.


The nature of effects under the proposed action would be the same as described for fish and wildlife. Appendix B provides an assessment of impacts on the species of special concern expected in the area of analysis, including those species that could be affected by actions taken at water- based wells. These impacts would be mostly short- term minor and localized, due to the disturbance and noise from plugging activities. Most of the river- based species (e.g. fish species, eel [Anguilla rostrata] and snapping turtle [Macrochelys temminckii]) are highly mobile and would temporarily avoid the area during project activities. The special concern birds that may occur along the river corridor (e.g. wood stork [Mycteria americana] and white- faced ibis [Plegadis chihi]) are also mobile and, as noted in appendix B, the location and temporary nature of activities would result in no impacts to the breeding or feeding patterns of these species, should they be present within the project area. In addition, activities would be conducted in late fall to early winter to avoid sensitive biological periods, such as nesting or breeding for bats and birds.

The spread of invasive mussel species which could be located on equipment and vessels, depending on where the equipment and vessels originated from, could also occur and could result in long- term minor to potentially moderate adverse effects to native mussel populations that are species of concern. However, equipment and vessels would be decontaminated prior to use within the Neches River, which would reduce effects to long- term negligible and adverse. Plugging/replugging activities in these areas would also result in short- term localized negligible to moderate adverse effects to mussel species due to proposed riverbed disturbances being temporary and in a relatively small area within the river.

Land- Based Wells

Plugging/replugging activities in the Lance Rosier Unit would result in minor adverse effects to wildlife habitat surrounding the well sites from removal of trees and vegetation from the area immediately surrounding the well casing. Two of these areas would result in effects to wetland habitat. Depending on the size and type of tree, removal could affect nesting habitat for birds as well as roosting habitat for bats. Due to the small area that would be affected and due to actions by the NPS to reseed areas affected within the project footprint with a native seed mix, the resulting impacts would be long- term minor and adverse, and be highly localized.

Wildlife could be disturbed along the routes that ground personnel take to access well site locations and at well site locations themselves. Disturbance from noise (from personnel and plugging equipment) and the presence of contractor personnel would likely result in the temporary displacement of wildlife along the routes and at the sites, but would be highly localized and temporary in nature resulting in short- term negligible adverse effects, with wildlife resuming normal activities once activities have ceased and left the area.

Use of equipment for plugging activities could result in some hydraulic fluid or gasoline leaking onto the ground; however, leaks would be contained and cleaned up according to the required SPCC plan. Effects to wildlife would be highly localized and temporary in nature and would likely have a short- term minor adverse effect.

Operation of the helicopter for sling- loading equipment would contribute to impacts on wildlife at well site locations and along the flight paths from the helicopter staging area to well site locations,


53

located approximately 0.5 mile to 1.4 miles. Noise and rotorwash from the helicopter would likely disturb wildlife, especially birds and mammals. Wildlife could be startled and temporarily dispersed along the flight path. It is estimated that it would take approximately two to five minutes per round trip to pick up equipment from the staging area and drop it off at the well site. Multiple trips would be required; however, the dispersing of wildlife would be temporary in nature resulting in short-term negligible to minor adverse effects, with wildlife resuming normal activities once helicopter operations conclude.

The downwash from the helicopter rotors is powerful and if nesting birds are in the area of operations, the downwash could potentially destroy nests or knock chicks out of their nest, likely resulting in their death. The potential for this would only occur in the immediate vicinity of the well sites where plugging activities are occurring, which constitutes only a small portion of the Lance Rosier Unit. Activities would be conducted in late fall to early winter to avoid sensitive biological periods. The helicopter take- off and landing site and staging areas are also located in previously disturbed areas. As a result, helicopter take- off and landing, as well as staging of equipment, effects to fish and wildlife would be localized, short- term minor and adverse.


The nature of effects under the no action alternative would be the same as described for wildlife. Appendix B provides an assessment of expected impacts for all listed and special status species, and the “Alternatives” section summarizes the proposed mitigation measures associated with all plugging activities. Nesting or roosting species of special concern, including Bachman’s sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis), Rafineque’s big- eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesqyuii), and the Southeastern myotis bat (Myotis austroriparius) could be adversely affected, depending on the size and type of tree, by removal of trees for plugging activities. Activities would be conducted in late fall to early winter to avoid sensitive biological periods, such as nesting or breeding for bats and birds. Due to the small area that would be affected and due to actions by the NPS to conduct activities outside of critical periods and reseed areas affected within the project footprint with a native seed mix, the resulting impacts would be long- term minor and adverse.

The only federally listed species that could occur in the study area is the Louisiana black bear. If this species would be present in the project area, adverse impacts would be negligible to minor and not likely to adversely affect the species due to its ability to temporarily avoid and relocate during plugging/replugging activities. Similar short- term minor adverse impacts would be expected for other mobile species such as the black bear (Ursus americanus; state–listed), Plains spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius interrupta), and timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) if they were present in the area during plugging activities.

Cumulative Effects

The same actions identified as contributing to cumulative effects under the no action alternative would apply to the proposed action. The proposed action would contribute long- term, negligible to minor adverse effects during project activities to fish and wildlife, and long- term benefits to river-based species from the reduction of risk of release to the environment. Overall, when combined, these actions would have long- term, minor adverse impacts to fish and wildlife, including species of special concern.


54

Conclusions

The proposed action alternative would result in short- to long- term, minor adverse effects to fish and wildlife, including species of special concern. Cumulative impacts from the proposed action alternative would be long- term, minor and adverse.

Although the conservation of fish and wildlife, including species of special concern is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation of the Preserve; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity if the Preserve; and (3) identified as a goal in the Preserve's General Management Plan (1980) and other relevant NPS planning documents, selection of alternative B would not result in a major impact, thus, the proposal would not result in its impairment. Implementation of this alternative would not result in unacceptable impacts and is consistent with NPS Management Policies 2006.

Visitor Use and Experience (including Public Health and Safety)


Visitation Trends

While recorded visitation statistics for Big Thicket National Preserve are based largely on information station counts and may underestimate the actual number of annual visitors to the park, they record a general trend. Yearly visitation to the Preserve during the period from 1981 to 2008 was approximately 80,500. The majority of visitor use is regional in nature. Yet, looking at the visitor registration log found at the Preserve’s information station, all 50 states and at least 20 countries are represented annually.

Seasonal visitor use is predictable during the spring and fall seasons. Spring is the busiest visitor use period. Early spring travelers, mostly bird watchers from a majority of states and several countries, converge on the general area and Preserve. School groups participating in Preserve educational programs arrive daily in late spring in groups of 100 for several weeks. Weekend use increases as visitors from the region hike trails, fish, and boat. Summer use is light because of high temperatures and humidity. Users are families from outside the region on traditional summer family vacations visiting several attractions in a two- or three- week period. Limited local visitation continues with fishing and boating activities. Fall visitor use is moderate to high consisting of late seasonal travelers and school groups. Depending on weather conditions, regional visitor use can be high as people are enjoying outdoor recreation during the cooler temperatures and lower humidity of fall. Winter use is light, with seasonal travelers consisting of retirees and some regional visitors. During hunting season, from October through early January, up to 2,300 permits are issued for hunting in select units. Hunting limits other visitor uses, such as hiking, horseback riding, and off- road bicycling, due to safety issues and concerns (NPS 2006a).

Visitor Activities

Common visitor uses at the Preserve include hiking, canoeing, birding, and hunting and trapping. Only the Neches Bottom/Jack Gore Baygall and Beaumont Units of the project area provide day use areas, which consist of picnic areas and parking, river access to the Neches River, and public boat launches.

The Neches River and Little Pine Island Bayou are popular canoe routes within the project area. Some sections of these waterways, such as the 40- mile stretch of the Neches River through the


55

Neches Bottom/Jack Gore Baygall Unit, are nationally publicized for their wild character. Little Pine Island Bayou through the Lance Rosier Unit is normally not navigable, but after intense rainfall, it floods the surrounding forest and becomes canoeable. For the most intrepid canoeists, the Little Pine Island Bayou offers a challenging two- day journey through one of the least- traveled sections of the Preserve. The loop from Cook’s Lake to Scatterman Lake follows a slough in the Beaumont Unit, and is one of the few loops in the Preserve. Many other canoeing and boating possibilities exist in secondary channels, sloughs, and oxbow lakes throughout the Preserve.

Bird migrations through the Preserve peak between late March and early May, and again in October and November. The more sought- after birds for bird watchers are the red- cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), the brown- headed nuthatch (Sitta pusilla), and the Bachman’s Sparrow. Dense vegetation can make birding for migratory songbirds difficult in much of the Preserve. Birding hot-spots located within the project area are Teel House Road, which runs through Lower Slope Hardwood Pine Forest in the Lance Rosier Unit, and Cook’s Lake, which is a backwater area off Pine Island Bayou, not far from its confluence with the Neches River.

Hunting and trapping in the Preserve is allowed by permit that can be obtained throughout the season at the visitor center, on a first- come, first- served. Permitted hunters may hunt in only one of the following open units: Big Sandy Unit, Beech Creek Unit, Lance Rosier Unit, Beaumont Unit, and areas in the Neches Bottom/Jack Gore Baygall Unit. A total of 47,400 acres in these units are open to hunting. Hunting season generally begins October 1 and continues through January 15 each year. Texas State seasons and bag limits are followed during this period. While applying general Texas hunting regulations, the superintendent applies additional restrictions to hunters in order to protect Preserve resources and provide for additional hunter and visitor safety. Hunting areas are not generally closed to public use during hunting season, but backcountry camping is not permitted in areas open to hunting during hunting season. During the 1997–1998 season (October 1, 1997, to January 15, 1998), 9,896 trips were made by hunters into hunting areas. Hunters harvested 282 deer, 13,851 squirrels, 247 hogs, 285 rabbits, and 291 waterfowl.

Trapping is permitted in the Lance Rosier Unit, the Beaumont Unit, and in areas of the Neches Bottom/Jack Gore Baygall Unit, a total of 35,000 acres. As with hunting, Texas State trapping regulations apply and the superintendent has implemented additional restrictions to protect Preserve resources and provide for visitor safety. During the 1997–1998 season (December 1, 1998, to January 31, 1999), 126 trips were made into open units with 352 raccoon, 18 opossum, 2 nutria, 5 mink, 2 otter, and 1 bobcat harvested.

Since 1979, approximately 2,000 permits have been issued annually for hunting, and approximately 12 permits for trapping have been issued annually within the Preserve.

Soundscapes

The soundscapes associated with the Preserve’s natural resources, often referred to as “natural sounds” or “natural quiet,” also constitutes a resource. Natural quiet generally includes the naturally occurring sounds of winds aloft in the trees, calling birds, as well as the quiet associated with still nights. As with all Preserve resources, natural quiet is part of the visitor experience. The natural sounds of the Preserve contribute to a positive visitor experience, and constitute a component of why many people visit the Preserve. Therefore, noise was evaluated as a component of visitor experience.

“Noise” can be defined as unwanted sound, and noise levels are most commonly expressed in decibels (dB). Unless otherwise stated, most noise levels, especially for environmental noise


56

measurements, are rated using the A- weighting network (dBA). The A- scale provides meter readings that correlate with human sensitivity to noise at sound pressure levels below 70 dB (Cowan 1993). Sources of noise within the Preserve and surrounding areas include automobiles, boat motors, motorcycles, all- terrain vehicles, various types of equipment (e.g., tractors, log skidders, chainsaws, lawn mowers, etc.), power lines and transformers, and firearms. Single automobiles produce noise levels in the range of 70 dBA near the vehicle, while moderately heavy traffic may produce noise levels in the range of 85–90 dBA near the roadway. Boat traffic along the Neches River is another primary source of noise within the Preserve (NPS 2006a).

During 1998, ambient sounds were monitored and recorded at 11 locations in the Preserve to provide a rationale for protecting natural sounds and natural quiet (table 10). Background sound levels in most of the Preserve are due to wind aloft in the trees (Foch 1999).

Table 10. Ambient L90 Sound Levels at Various Locations within Big Thicket National Preserve

Location dBA

Turkey Creek Unit – Near Sandhill Loop on the Turkey Creek Trail within Sandhill Pine Forest 37

Jack Gore Baygall Unit – within Upper Slope Pine Oak Forest 41

Lance Rosier Unit – At the end of Church House Road within Lower Slope Hardwood Pine Forest

39

Beech Creek Unit – Along Beech Woods Trail 0.8 miles from the parking/picnic area within Lower Slope Hardwood Pine Forest

35

Big Sandy Creek Unit – Along the Big Sandy Horse Trail within Lower Slope Hardwood Pine Forest, 2.9 miles from parking area

41

Turkey Creek Unit – NPS Ranch House within Upper Slope Pine Oak Forest/Wetland Baygall Shrub Thicket

36

Source: NPS 2006a

Visitor Safety

The NPS policy regarding public health and safety is that the saving of human life will take precedence over all other management actions. The NPS and its concessionaires, contractors, and cooperators will seek to provide a safe and healthful environment for visitors and employees. The NPS works cooperatively with other federal, state, and local agencies, organizations, and individuals to carry out this responsibility. However, Preserve visitors assume a certain degree of risk and responsibility for their own safety when visiting areas that are managed and maintained as natural, cultural, or recreational environments (NPS 2006a). Proper siting of nonfederal oil and gas operations and the application of current legal and policy requirements will guide the NPS and nonfederal oil and gas operators to avoid visitor use conflicts, protect the health and safety of visitors, and to protect visitor use and enjoyment of Preserve resources.

Currently, visitors to the Preserve can come in contact with abandoned oil and gas wells during common visitor activities. Sites can be easily accessed during normal hunting activities at the Lance Rosier, Beaumont, and Neches Bottom/Jack Gore Baygall Units. Wells located in the river are accessible by boaters in the Beaumont Unit, and in areas of the Neches Bottom/Jack Gore Baygall Unit. There have been reported incidents of vandalism at sites on the river in which security beacons have been stolen.


57




Negligible: Changes in visitor use and the visitor experience would not occur. There is no expectation for endangering visitor health and safety.

Minor: Changes in visitor use and/or experience would be detectable, although the changes would be small. Few visitors would be affected. There is little expectation for endangering visitor health and safety with the application of mitigating measures.

Moderate: Changes in visitor use and/or experience would be readily apparent. Many visitors would be affected and would likely express an opinion about the effects. Extensive mitigation is necessary to reduce risk of endangering visitor health and safety.

Major: Changes in visitor use and/or experience would be readily apparent and have important consequences. Most visitors would be affected and would likely express a strong opinion about the effects. Extensive mitigating measures could not reduce risk of endangering visitor health and safety.

Impacts on Visitor Use and Experience under No Action

Under the no action alternative, abandoned oil and gas wells within the project area would remain in their present condition, subject to natural forces. Visitors to these areas would continue to visit and come in contact with abandoned oil and gas wells. No plugging activities would occur, and although park staff would continue to periodically monitor sites for human use, existing hazards to public safety would continue to exist.

Currently, visitors to the project area can come in contact with abandoned oil and gas wells during activities. Specifically, visitors hunting and hiking off trail could come in contact with wells sites 0109, 0956, and 0963 in the Lance Rosier Unit. It is unknown whether these wells are properly plugged, and they therefore pose potential human health and safety and environmental hazards resulting in minor adverse effects.

The three water- based sites (3194, 3195, and 3196) in the Neches River of the Neches Bottom/Jack Gore Baygall Unit and one well (0044) in the Beaumont Unit can be easily accessed by boaters and pose a navigational hazard to park visitors and other boat traffic from exposed casings in the river channel. There is potential for collisions to occur which could result in severe injury and even death; however, the probability of a collision is low given that the two wells located within the center of the Neches River already contain navigation beacons and the other water- based wells are located near the bank. Well 0031 is even less of a navigational hazard when compared to the others due to its position in an old logging slip off the main channel of a canal of the Neches River; however, it still poses a hazard to park visitors who access the area. Over time, well casings could rust out and break off, which could potentially result in hydrocarbon gases and fluids escaping into the river and surrounding environment, depending on the location of breakage and whether wells have been properly plugged. Potential effects from water- based wells would be moderate due to potential


58

closure of the river from contaminants or the possibility of collisions with exposed casings in the river.

Overall, potential effects from abandoned oil and gas wells could result in minor to moderate adverse effects to visitor use and public health and safety for users in the Preserve. The selection of the no action alternative would affect visitor use and safety by allowing hazardous conditions, albeit mitigated somewhat by ongoing management activities, to continue. Over time, unauthorized visitor access to the wells could result in injury. As a result, the impacts to visitor use and experience, including health and safety, would be localized long- term minor to moderate and adverse.

Cumulative Impacts

Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions within the vicinity of the abandoned oil and gas wells have affected or could affect visitor use and experience. Any resource management project that occurs within or near the wells has the potential to impact visitor use and safety within the project areas due to activities that may temporarily close recreational areas.

Future park maintenance activities, including other related well closures that would occur as funding is made available, and revisions to the GMP would impact visitor use and safety. Any adverse impacts from maintenance activities would be short- term and minor, while the closure would result in long-term beneficial impacts to visitor use and safety. Revisions to the GMP would provide long- term beneficial effects to visitor use and safety through focused management of uses in designated areas of the Preserve. Effects to visitor use and safety also occur from past closure of wells. These past actions have also resulted in a long- term beneficial impact to visitor use and safety.

While the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on visitor experience and safety would still occur, the cumulative effects of these actions are estimated to benefit visitor experience overall. The overall combined effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions under the no action alternative on visitor experience are therefore estimated to be long- term, negligible and adverse.

Conclusion

The no action alternative would result in minor to moderate, long- term, adverse impacts on visitor use and safety. Open features would continue to present a safety hazard to visitors. Cumulative impacts from the no action alternative would be long- term, negligible and adverse.

Implementation of this alternative would not result in unacceptable impacts and is consistent with NPS Management Policies 2006.

Impacts on Visitor Use and Experience under the Proposed Action

Water- Based Wells

During the plugging/replugging activities under the proposed action, the natural characteristics of the overall visitor experience would be interrupted by noise from workers and equipment and by visible emissions from equipment used for plugging activities. Use of the boat ramp on the north side of the Salt Water Barrier and at the Collier's Ferry Recreation Area & Natural Preserve could be disrupted for a period of approximately four days by mobilization/demobilization activities. During this time, adverse impacts to visitor use and experience, including health and safety, would be short-term minor to moderate.


59

Land- Based Wells

Helicopter support would be employed for equipment access to land- based well sites. Equipment would be sling- loaded in bags or other containers and lowered via cable to target areas at well site locations. Crews would arrive at well sites by vehicle at the nearest access point and hike in.

Helicopters flying over the Preserve would affect the natural soundscape not only at the location of well sites but also along their flight paths. Noise levels would be minimized by limiting helicopter flight times and by maintaining a minimum distance above the ground. While helicopter overflights would be employed in situations that necessitated their use, noise disturbances from overflights would be temporary and localized. Similarly, noise from well closure activities on the ground would be localized and of relatively short duration. The noise associated with such operations would be noticeable to visitors in the vicinity of the activities, and the disturbances would alter important characteristics of the overall visitor experience, particularly in more remote areas of the Preserve. During this time, adverse impacts to visitor use and experience, including health and safety, would be short- term minor to moderate.

For wells which have been determined to be properly plugged according to accepted plugging methodology at the time the well was plugged, exposed well casings would be cut below the surface and buried. During these activities, the physical appearance of the site would be temporarily changed by the activities. In the case of wells where casing are removed and buried, visitors could be aware of the visual changes; however, these changes would not alter important characteristics of the overall visitor experience or visitor satisfaction due to the remote location of well sites. Visitors would still have the ability to participate in normal visitor activities. Over time, soil and vegetation would mask the evidence of reclamation activity, and there would be no remaining adverse visual effects on visitor experience. Thus, adverse impacts to visitor use and experience for these sites are expected to be short- term and negligible.

Few visitors engaged in normal recreation activities are expected to be affected during well closure activities, and there is little to no potential for endangering visitor health and safety during these activities. The closure activities are anticipated to have negligible adverse impacts, while the use of helicopters is expected to have short- term minor adverse effects on visitor use due to intermittent noise disturbances. Overall, closure of the abandoned wells would mitigate an existing safety hazard to visitor health and safety in the Preserve. As a result, overall beneficial impacts to visitor use and experience, including health and safety, would be localized long- term and moderate. Adverse impacts to visitor use and experience, including health and safety, under the proposed action would be localized short- term minor to moderate.

Cumulative Impacts

The same actions identified as contributing to cumulative effects under the no action alternative would apply to the proposed action. The proposed action would contribute localized short- term minor adverse effects during project activities to visitor use and experience. Overall, when combined, these actions would have short- and long- term negligible adverse cumulative impacts on visitor use and experience, and long- term beneficial effects on health and safety.

Conclusion

The proposed action would result in overall beneficial impacts to visitor use and experience, including health and safety. Adverse impacts to visitor use and experience, including health and safety, under the proposed action would be localized short- term minor to moderate. Considering


60

the contribution of past, present and future actions in the Preserve, the proposed action would have short- and long- term negligible adverse cumulative impacts on visitor use and experience, and long- term benefits to health and safety. Overall, long- term beneficial effects would accrue from the closure of abandoned wells in the Preserve.

Implementation of this alternative would not result in unacceptable impacts and is consistent with NPS Management Policies 2006.


61

SECTION 4: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

This EA will be released for a 30- day public review and comment period. To inform the public of the availability of the EA, the NPS will publish a press release and post it to the Planning, Environment, and Public Comment (PEPC) website, in the Visitor Center, and in the local newspaper. The NPS will distribute a notification letter or hard copy of the EA to agencies, tribes, and members of the public on the park’s mailing list. Interested individuals may also request a hard copy of the EA. The document will be available for review on the PEPC website at: http://parkplanning.nps.gov.

Following the 30- day public review and comment period, the NPS will review and analyze all public comments received prior to the release of a decision document. Copies of the decision document will be sent to those who commented during the public scoping period, those who commented on the EA during the public review period, or those who requested a copy of the document.

Individuals and Agencies Consulted

Alabama- Coushatta Tribe of Texas

National Park Service, Big Thicket National Preserve

National Park Service, Intermountain Regional Office

Linda Dansby, Regional Minerals Coordinator, Santa Fe, NM

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston District Office

U.S. Coast Guard, Marine Safety Unit

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Clear Lake Ecological Services Field Office

Texas Historical Commission

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Texas State Historic Preservation Office

Texas General Land Office

List of Document Recipients

The NPS will send a notification letter or hard copy of this EA to the agencies, organizations, and businesses listed below.

Congressional Delegation

United States Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison

United States Representative Ted Poe – 2nd District

United States Representative Kevin Brady – 8th District

Tribal Government

Alabama- Coushatta Tribe of Texas

Section 4: Consultation and Coordination

62

Federal Government

Department of the Army

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston District

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Natural Resources Conservation Service

USDA Jasper Field Office

USDA Liberty Field Office

USDA Livingston Field Office

USDA Polk County Office

USDA Beaumont Field Office

USDA Lower Neches Soil and Water Conservation District

U.S. Forest Service

Southern Research Station

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge

Clear Lake Ecological Services Field Office

McFaddin National Wildlife Refuge

Texas Point National Wildlife Refuge

Trinity River National Wildlife Refuge

U.S. Geological Survey

National Wetlands Research Center, Lafayette, LA

Water Resources Division, Texas District

National Park Service

Intermountain Regional Office—Denver

Intermountain Regional Office—Santa Fe

State Government

Office of Rural Community Affairs

Texas State Governor Rick Perry

Texas State Congressman Joe Deshotel

Texas State Congressman Chuck Hopson


63

Texas State Congressman Lois Kolkhorst

Texas State Congressman Robert Nichols

Texas State Congressman Allan Ritter

Texas Department of Public Safety

Texas Department of Transportation

Texas Forest Service

Texas Historical Commission

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Texas Railroad Commission

Texas Travel Information Center

Texas Water Development Board

Village Creek State Park

Regional Agencies

Angelina and Neches River Authority

Deep East Texas Council of Governments

Houston – Galveston Regional Councils of Governments

Lower Neches Valley Authority

Sabine River Authority

South East Texas Resource Conservation and Development Project

South East Texas Regional Planning Commission

Upper Neches River Municipal Water Authority

City and County Government

Chamber of Commerce, Beaumont

Chamber of Commerce, Cleveland

Chamber of Commerce, Jasper

Chamber of Commerce, Kirbyville

Chamber of Commerce, Kountze

Chamber of Commerce, Liberty- Dayton

Chamber of Commerce, Lumberton

Chamber of Commerce, Newton

Chamber of Commerce, Orange County

Chamber of Commerce, Polk

Chamber of Commerce, Port Arthur


64

Chamber of Commerce, Silsbee

Chamber of Commerce, Sour Lake

Chamber of Commerce, Tyler County

Chamber of Commerce, Vidor

City of Beaumont

City of Beaumont, Convention and Visitor Bureau – Dean Conwell

City of Kountze

City of Lumberton

City of Orange

City of Silsbee

City of Sour Lake

City of Vidor

City of West Orange

City of Woodville

Hardin County Judge

Hardin County Commissioner, Precinct 1




Hardin County Emergency Management Coordinator

Hardin County Floodplain Coordinator

Jasper County Judge

Jasper County Sheriff

Jefferson County Judge

Jefferson County Sheriff

Kountze Independent School District, Superintendent Diane Daniels

Kountze Mayor Pro- Tem – Elaine Allums

Liberty County Judge

Liberty County Sheriff

Orange County Judge

Orange County Sheriff

Polk County Judge

Polk County Sheriff

Tyler County Judge


65

Tyler County Sheriff

Organizations and Businesses

Art Museum of Southeast Texas

Beaumont Enterprise

Ben J. Rogers Regional Visitors’ Center

Big Thicket Association

Big Thicket Natural Heritage Trust

Cleveco

Conservation Fund

Custom Flooring

Entergy Corporation

French Museum

Golden Triangle Audubon

Hancock Forest Management

Hardin County Historical Society

Heritage Museum

Houston Advanced Research Center

Houston Audubon Society

Houston Wilderness Society

League of Women Voters of Texas

McFaddin - Ward House

National Parks and Conservation Association

National Trust for Historic Preservation

Nature Conservancy of Texas

Nature Conservancy, South East Region

Nature Heritage Society

Partnership of Southeast Texas

SEC Planning

Shine and Associates

Sierra Club – Golden Triangle Chapter

Sierra Club – Houston Chapter

Sierra Club - Lone Star Chapter

Texas Conservation Alliance

Texas Entergy Museum


66

Texas Folklore Society

Texas Travel Industry Association

The Conservation Fund, East Texas Field Office

City of Wildwood, Texas, Board of Directors

Willie Mae Community Church

Universities and Colleges

Lamar University at Beaumont

Northwestern University

Rice University

Texas A&M University

Newspapers

Beaumont Enterprise

Hearst Paper, Texas Group

List of Preparers

This EA was prepared by the NPS and its contractor, the Louis Berger Group, Inc. The contributions and title/affiliation of each preparer and contributor are listed below. Individuals who participated in the field investigations, as well as data analysis and report preparation are also listed.

Table 11. Preparer’s Names, Roles and Affiliations

Name Contribution Title/Affiliation

Victoria Barela Technical Review of EA Program Assistant, Office of Minerals/Oil and Gas Support, Santa Fe, NM

Todd Brindle Technical Review of EA Superintendent, Big Thicket National Preserve

Stephanie Burgess Technical Review of EA Oil and Gas Program Manager, Big Thicket National Preserve

Linda Dansby Technical Review of EA Regional Minerals Coordinator, Santa Fe, NM

Lee LeJeune Technical Review of EA Administrative Officer, Big Thicket National Preserve

Brian Lockwood Technical Review of EA Natural Resource Specialist, Big Thicket National Preserve

David Roemer Technical Review of EA Chief, Resources Management, Big Thicket National Preserve

Chris Turk Technical Review of EA NPS Regional Environmental Coordinator, Lakewood, CO


67

Name Contribution Title/Affiliation

Chanteil Walter Public Scoping Summary Section; Consultation and Coordination Technical Review of EA

ARRA NEPA/ 106 Specialist, NPS- Intermountain Regional Office

Kasey Nispel Primary and Secondary Author of All Sections

Senior Environmental Scientist, The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Lakewood, CO

Dana Otto QA/QC Vice President, The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Fort Pierce, FL

Nancy Van Dyke QA/QC Senior Scientist, The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Lewes, DE

Jeff Gutierrez Affected Environment Sections; Consultation and Coordination.

Environmental Planner, The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Lakewood, CO

Josh Schnabel Affected Environment Sections; Consultation and Coordination.

Environmental Planner, The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Lakewood, CO

Stephen Parker Field investigations, wetland delineation

Senior Scientist, The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Kansas City, MO

Chris Flannagan Wetland delineation Soil Scientist, The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Washington, D.C.

Branon Domangue Field investigations Well Services Supervisor, Chet Morrison Well Services, L.L.C., Houma, LA

Charles Neel Cultural Resource Field Investigations

Senior Project Archeologist, URS Corporation, Dallas, TX


68


69

SECTION 5: REFERENCES

Abbott, J. C., K. W. Stewart, S. R. Moulton, II

1997 Aquatic Insects of the Big Thicket Region of East Texas. Texas Journal of Science 49(3):35- 50. Cited in NPS 2006a.

Bordelon, Charles Jr. and Ed Knudson

1999 Checklist of the Lepidoptera of the Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas. Texas Lepidoptera Survey Publication No. 2, Houston, TX. Cited in NPS 2006a.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)

1978 Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act.” Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Parts 1500- 1508.

1997 Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act. Council on Environmental Quality.

Cowan, James P.

1993 Handbook of Environmental Acoustics. Published by Wiley- Interscience. Cited in NPS 2009.

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe

1979 Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D. C.

Dodson, Felicity

2009 Personal communication between Felicity Dodson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston District Office and Linda Dansby, Regional Minerals Coordinator, National Park Service Intermountain Region.

Feierabend, J. S.

1992 Endangered Species – Endangered Wetlands: Life on the Edge. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D. C. Cited in NPS 2006a.

Foch, James D.

1999 Ambient Sound Levels at Big Thicket National Preserve during March- June 1998. Prepared for the National Park Service, Big Thicket National Preserve. Cited in NPS 2006a.

Harcombe, Paul A., Elizabeth N. Hane, Jonathan P. Evans, Rosine W. Hall, Kathy A. Bruce, Keith C. Hoffman, Patrick D. Conant

1996 Characterization of the Biological Resources of the Water Corridor Units of the Big Thicket National Preserve. Prepared for the National Park Service, Big Thicket National Preserve. Cited in NPS 2006a

Section 5: References

70

Howells, R. G.

1996 Freshwater Mussels of B. A. Steinhagen Reservoir and the Adjacent Neches River Drainage. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Inland Fisheries Division, Heart of the Hills Research Station, Ingram, TX. Cited in NPs 2006a.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

2007 Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. Cited in NPS 2009.

Louis Berger Group, Inc.

2010 Wetland Delineation Report. Big Thick National Preserve. Prepared for National Park Service in Support of a Project to Plug/Replug Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells #0963, #3195, and #0109. January 2010.

Michael Baker Jr., Inc.

2009 Environmental and Energy Audits at Abandoned Oil &Gas Sites in Big Thicket National Preserve. Prepared for the National Park Service, Intermountain Support Office. September 2009.

National Academy of Sciences

2006 Understanding and Responding to Climate Change: Highlights of National Academies Reports. Division on Earth and Life Studies. National Academy of Sciences. Washington, D.C. Cited in NPS 2009.

National Park Service (NPS)

1980 Big Thicket National Preserve General Management Plan (1980).

1996 Big Thicket National Preserve Resource Management Plan.

1998 Director’s Order 28B: Archeology, and NPS- 28: Cultural Resource Management Guidelines. Washington, DC. Available at <http://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/DOrder28.html>.

2001 Director’s Order #12: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision- making, and Handbook for Environmental Impact Analysis. Washington, DC. Available at <http://www.nps.gov/policy/ DOrders/DOrder12.html> and <http://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/RM12.pdf>.

2002 Director’s Order #77- 1: Wetland Protection, and accompanying procedural manual. Washington, DC. Available at <http://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/DO77- 1-Reissue.htm>.

2003 NRPC. Interim Final Guidance on Assessing Impacts and Impairment to Natural Resources.

2006a Big Thicket National Preserve Oil and Gas Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement.


71

2006b NPS Management Policies 2006. National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

2009 Proposal to Replace the Trunkline Gas Company 100- 1 Natural Gas Pipeline Across the Lower Neches Corridor Unit. Kountze, Texas.

Noon, Kevin

2009 Personal communication between Kevin Noon, Natural Resource Specialist, National Park Service Intermountain Region and Linda Dansby, Regional Minerals Coordinator, National Park Service Intermountain Region.

Radian Corporation

1984 Location and Characterization of Active and Abandoned Oil and Gas Activity in Big Thicket National Preserve. NPS Contract No. CX- 0001- 4- 0068. Prepared for the National Park Service, Energy, Mining, and Minerals Division. Cited in NPS 2006a.

Ryder, P. D.

1988 Hydrogeology and Predevelopment Flow in the Texas Gulf Coast Aquifer Systems. USGS WRIR 87- 4248. Cited in NPS 2006a.

Sobczak, R., G., Eckert, J. Woods, and D. Vana- Miller

2010 Natural Resources Foundation Report, Big Thicket National Preserve. Natural Resource Report. National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center, Fort Collins, CO.

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)

2006 Texas Water Quality Inventory and 303(d) List. Cited in NPS 2009.

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

2008 “NESCO’s Man and the Biosphere Programme” website. <http://www.unesco.org/mab/mabProg.shtml>. Cited in NPS 2009.

URS Corporation

2009 Big Thicket National Preserve Cultural Resources Field Visit Summary. URS Corporation, Dallas, TX.

U. S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Galveston District (USACE)

1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual.

Section 5: References

72


73

APPENDIX A MINOR IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY

Appendix A

74

Well Number (NPS

Database)

Preserve Unit Well Site Conditions Proposed Action on Well Site

0785 Lance Rosier Open well with tag at depth of 6 inches. Fill with cement to surface; monitor.

0930 Lance Rosier Surface casing with valve; unable to tag. Existence of one adjacent pits.

Monitor

0934 Lance Rosier Open well with tag at depth of 6 feet. Existence of four pits surrounding well.

Fill with cement to surface; monitor.

0940 Lance Rosier Outer and inner casings. Outer contains cement at 10 feet; inner cement at surface. Existence of small depression surrounding well.

Fill with concrete between outer and inner casings; fill in depression around well to grade; monitor

0941 Lance Rosier Well with surface casing, tagged cement at 24 inches. Existence of small depression surrounding well and five adjacent pits with water.

Fill in depression around well to grade; monitor

0948 Lance Rosier Well casing with metal plate on surface. Existence of small depression surrounding well and two adjacent pits with water.

Fill in depression around well to grade; monitor

0958 Lance Rosier Well with surface casing and nipple, tagged cement at 16 inches.

Monitor

0971 Lance Rosier Surface casing with some bubbling in valve; unable to tag. Existence of small depression surrounding well and three adjacent empty pits.

Monitor

0973 Lance Rosier Surface casing with valve; unable to tag. Existence of small depression surrounding well and 2 adjacent pits with water.

Monitor

0974 Lance Rosier Rusted out surface casing; cement tag at ground level. Existence of small depression surrounding well and one adjacent empty pit.

Haul away surface casing and file down remaining well casing; fill in depression around well to grade; monitor.


Surface casing with valve; unable to tag. Monitor


No surface casing; tagged cement at 10 inches; assume plugged.

Cap to surface and restore depression around well to grade; monitor

0006 Big Sandy Creek

Capped well to surface. Monitor


75

APPENDIX B SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN

Appendix B

76

Federal and State Threatened (T) and Endangered (E) Species

Common Name

Scientific Name Type Federal Status

State Status

Hardin/ Jefferson County

Jasper County

Orange County

Habitat Description Assessment Result

Impact of the

Proposed Action

Bachman’s Sparrow

Aimophila aestivalis

Bird - T X X -

Inhabits open pine woods with scattered bushes or understory, brushy or overgrown hillsides, overgrown fields with thickets and brambles, grassy orchards. Nests on the ground against grass tuft or under low shrubs.

Suitable habitat for this species may be located within the project area. However, this species is highly mobile and would temporarily avoid the area during project activities.

Short-term to long-term

minor adverse effect

Bald Eagle Halitaeetus leaucocephalus

Bird - T X X X

Found primarily near rivers and large lakes. Nests in tall trees or on cliffs near water in communal roosts, especially in winter. Hunts live prey, scavenges, and pirates food from other birds.

Since the Neches River is located within the proposed project area, suitable habitat for this species may exist. However, based upon current knowledge and surveys, no nests are located within a 1-mile radius of the project area.

No effect

Swallow-Tailed Kite

Elanoides forficatus

Bird - T X X X

Inhabits lowland forested regions, especially swampy areas, ranging from open woodlands to marshes, along rivers, lakes, and ponds. Nests high in tall trees in clearings or along forest woodland edges, usually in pine, cypress, or various deciduous trees.

Suitable habitat for this species may be located within the project area. Temporary impacts to suitable habitat for this species would be minimal. Permanent impacts to nesting habitat are not anticipated within the project area.

Short-term minor

adverse effect


77


Common Name


State Status


Jasper County

Orange County


Impact of the

Proposed Action

White-Faced Ibis Plegadis chihi Bird - T X X X

Prefers freshwater marshes, sloughs, and irrigated rice fields, but can occur in brackish and saltwater habitats. Nests in marshes, in low trees, on the ground in bulrushes or reeds, or on floating mats.

The location and temporary nature of activities would result in no impacts to the breeding or feeding patterns of this species, should it be present within the project area.

No effect

Wood Stork Mycteria americana

Bird - T X X X

Forages in prairie ponds, flooded pastures or fields, ditches, and other shallow standing water, including salt water. Usually roosts communally in tall snags, sometimes in association with other wading birds (i.e. active heronries). Breeds in Mexico and migrates to states along the Gulf Coast in search of mud flats and herbaceous and forested wetlands. Formerly nested in Texas, but no breeding has been recorded since 1960.

The location and temporary nature of activities would result in no impacts to the breeding or feeding patterns of this species, should it be present within the project area.

No effect

Appendix B

78


Common Name


State Status


Jasper County

Orange County


Impact of the

Proposed Action

Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus

Fish - T X X -

Prefers larger portions of major rivers in Texas; usually found in channels and flowing pools with a moderate current and exposed bedrock, in combination with hard clay, sand, and gravel. Adults winter in deep pools and migrate upstream in spring to spawn on riffles.

Due to the location, the sensitivity of this species to turbidity, and minor activities proposed within the Neches River, impacts to this species are not anticipated. If present, this species is highly mobile and would temporarily avoid the area during project activities.

Short-term minor

adverse effect

Creek Chubsucker

Erimyzon oblongus

Fish - T X X -

Inhabits tributaries of the Red, Sabine, Neches, Trinity, and San Jacinto rivers as well as small rivers and creeks of various types. Prefers headwaters, and seldom occurs in springs. Young are typically found in headwater rivulets or marshes. Spawns in river mouths or pools, riffles, lake outlets, and upstream creeks.

Due to the location, the sensitivity of this species to turbidity, and minor activities proposed within the Neches River, impacts to this species are not anticipated. If present, this species is highly mobile and would temporarily avoid the area during project activities.

Short-term minor

adverse effect


79


Common Name


State Status


Jasper County

Orange County


Impact of the

Proposed Action

Paddlefish Polyodon spathula

Fish - T X X -

Prefers large, free-flowing rivers, but will frequent impoundments with access to spawning sites. Spawns in fast, shallow water over gravel bars; fry may drift from reservoir to reservoir.

Due to the minor activities proposed within the Neches River, impacts to this species are not anticipated. This species is highly mobile and would temporarily avoid the area during project activities.

Short-term minor

adverse effect

Black Bear Ursus americanus Mammal - T X X X Transient of large river basins and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas.

Suitable habitat for this species may be located within the project area; however, no occurrences have been recorded. This species is highly mobile and would temporarily avoid the area during project activities.

Short-term minor

adverse effect

Louisiana Black Bear

Ursus americanus luteolus

Mammal T T X X X Transient of large river basins and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas.


Not likely to adversely

affect

Appendix B

80


Common Name


State Status


Jasper County

Orange County


Impact of the

Proposed Action

Rafineque’s Big-Eared Bat

Corynorhinus rafinesqyuii

Mammal - T X X X

Roosts in cavity trees of bottomland hardwoods, concrete culverts, and abandoned man-made structures.




Alligator Snapping

Turtle

Macrochelys temminckii

Reptile - T X X X

Inhabits perennial waterbodies; deep waters of rivers, canals, lakes, and oxbows. Also occurs in swamps, bayous, and ponds near deep running water, and sometimes enters brackish coastal waters. Usually found in water with mud bottom and abundant aquatic vegetation. May migrate several miles along rivers from March to October. Typically breeds from April to October.

Due to the location and minor activities proposed within the Neches River, temporary impacts to this species' habitat are anticipated to be minimal. If the species is present within the area, it would likely temporarily relocate.

Short-term minor

adverse effect


81


Common Name


State Status


Jasper County

Orange County


Impact of the

Proposed Action

Timber/ Canebrake Rattlesnake

Crotalus horridus Reptile - T X X X

Inhabits swamps, floodplains, upland pine and deciduous woodlands, riparian zones, abandoned farmland, and limestone bluffs. Prefers sandy soil or black clay and dense ground cover (e.g., grapevines or palmetto).

Suitable habitat for this species may be located within the project area. However, this species is highly mobile and would temporarily avoid the area during project activities.



Species of Concern

Common Name

Scientific Name

Type Hardin County

Jasper County

Orange County Habitat Description Assessment Result

Impact of the Proposed

Action

Arctic Peregrine

Falcon

Falco peregrinus tundrius

Bird X X X Migrates through most of the state and winters along the Gulf Coast.

The proposed project would likely take place during summer months when this species is not present within the region.

No effect

Pig Frog Rana grylio Amphibian X X X Prefers permanent bodies of open water with emergent vegetation.


Short-term minor adverse

effect

Appendix B

82

Species of Concern

Common Name

Scientific Name

Type Hardin County

Jasper County



Action

American Eel Anguilla rostrata Fish X X X

Inhabits coastal waterways below reservoirs and most aquatic habitats with access to ocean.

Possible transient species could occur within the Neches River. However, this species is highly mobile and would temporarily avoid the area during project activities.


effect

Mayfly Plauditus gloveri Insect - X -

Distinguished by aquatic larval stage. Adults are generally found along waterbody banks.

Suitable habitat for this species may be located within the project area; however, no occurrences have been recorded. Proposed riverbed and bank disturbances would be temporary and in a small workspace. Thus, temporary minor impacts could occur, if the species is located within the project area.


effect

Plains Spotted Skunk

Spilogale putorius

interrupta Mammal X X X

Uses a variety of habitats, but prefers wooded, brushy areas and tallgrass prairies.


Short-term to long-term minor adverse effect

Southeastern Myotis Bat

Myotis austroriparius

Mammal X X X

Roosts in cavity trees of bottomland hardwoods, concrete culverts, and abandoned man-made structures.


Short-term to long-term minor adverse effect


83

Species of Concern

Common Name

Scientific Name

Type Hardin County

Jasper County



Action

Fawnsfoot Truncilla donaciformis

Mollusk X X X

Inhabits small and large rivers. Known to occur within the Neches, Trinity, and San Jacinto River basins.

Suitable habitat for this species may be located within the Neches River portion of the project; however, no occurrences have been recorded. Furthermore, proposed riverbed disturbances would be temporary and in a relatively small area within the river.

Short-term negligible to potentially moderate

adverse for activities and

long-term negligible

adverse for potential

equipment contamination

Little Spectacle Case Villosa lienosa Mollusk X X X

Inhabits creeks, rivers, and reservoirs, all with sandy substrates and slight to moderate currents. Usually occurs along waterbody banks in slower currents.

Suitable habitat for this species may be located within the Neches River portion of the project; however, no occurrences have been recorded. Proposed riverbed disturbances would be temporary and in a relatively small area within the river.






Louisiana Pigtoe

Pleurobema riddellii

Mollusk X X X

Inhabits streams and moderate-sized rivers with substrates of mud, sand, and gravel and flowing waters.







Appendix B

84

Species of Concern

Common Name

Scientific Name

Type Hardin County

Jasper County



Action

Pistolgrip Tritogonia verrucosa

Mollusk X X

Occurs in stable aquatic substrate including rock, hard mud, silt, and soft bottoms. This species often buries deeply in substrate.







Rock Pocketbook

Arcidens confragous

Mollusk X X X

Prefers mud, sand, and gravel substrates of medium to large rivers with standing or slow-flowing water. May tolerate moderate currents and some reservoirs.







Sandbank Pocketbook Lampsilis satura Mollusk X X X

Inhabits small to large rivers with moderate flows and swift currents. Prefers substrates of gravel, gravel-sand, and sand bottoms.








85

Species of Concern

Common Name

Scientific Name

Type Hardin County

Jasper County



Action

Texas Heelsplitter

Potamilus amphichaenus

Mollusk X X X

Prefers quiet waters with mud or sand. Known to occur within the Neches River basin.







Texas Pigtoe Fusconaia askewi

Mollusk X X X

Inhabits rivers with mixed mud, sand, and fine gravel. Occurs in protected areas associated with fallen trees or other structures.







Triangle Pigtoe Fusconaia lananensis

Mollusk X - -

Prefers mixed mud, sand, and fine gravel substrates. Known to occur within the Neches River basin within the Angelina branch and possibly Village Creek.







Appendix B

86

Species of Concern

Common Name

Scientific Name

Type Hardin County

Jasper County



Action

Wabash Pigtoe Fusconaia flava Mollusk X X X

Inhabits creeks and large rivers with mud, sand, and gravel, except deep shifting sands. Occurs in waters with moderate to swift currents.






equipment contamination t

Wartyback Quadrula nodulata

Mollusk X X X

Prefers mud, gravel and sand-gravel bottoms in medium to large rivers. Known to occur within the Neches River basin.







Neches River Rose-Mallow

Hibiscus dasycalyx

Plant - X - Endemic to wet alluvial soils in swamps or open riparian woodlands.

Suitable habitat for this species may be located within the project area; however, no occurrences have been recorded. Activities would be accessed in the river and would not occur in habitat.

No effect


87

Species of Concern

Common Name

Scientific Name

Type Hardin County

Jasper County



Action

Nodding Yucca Yucca cernua Plant - X - Inhabits hardwood forests with brownish acid clays (Redco-series).

Suitable habitat for this species may be located within the project area. Proposed ground disturbances would be localized around well casings and minor with surveys conducted prior to activities.

Long-term minor adverse

effect

Texas Trillium Trillium texanum Plant - X - Inhabits acid hardwood bottoms with lower slopes.

Suitable habitat for this species may be located within the project area. Proposed ground disturbances would be localized around well casings and minor with surveys conducted prior to activities.

Long-term minor adverse

effect