Stellar 2D Seismic Acquisition Project Decision Memoa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...project complies with the directive, with subsequent waivers, and with the 2001

Stellar 2D Seismic Acquisition Project Decision Memo Appendix A: Forest Service Response to Comments

February 2013 – Page 1

Stellar 2D Seismic Acquisition Project Decision Memo

Appendix A: Forest Service Response to Comments February 2013

The 30-day comment period for the Stellar 2D Seismic Acquisition Project began with the publication of the legal notice in the Salt Lake Tribune on August 26, 2012. One letter was received during the 30-comment period. Comments contained in the letter, as well as Forest Service responses addressing each comment, are found below.

*** Comment 1: Some of the lands in question are leased, and others are not leased. Further, some of the lands in question are not legally open for leasing and development of oil and gas fields due to Acts of Congress as well as administrative designations made by the Executive branch of the Federal government. A huge proportion of the portion of the project that is outside of the designated Wilderness is, also, inside IRA as well as UEC-proposed Wilderness extensions to the High Uintas Wilderness. It would be very hard to find more sensitive lands, or an area where oil and gas exploration activities would raise as much controversy and disgust with the public that knows and loves the area. Forest Service Response 1: The proposed action does not involve any leasing or development of oil and gas fields that are not currently leased or developed. Rather, the proposal involves a two-dimensional seismic acquisition project that would refine the level of knowledge about subsurface structural geology. Any potential proposal to develop oil and gas fields in the vicinity, or elsewhere, would undergo future environmental analyses, including scoping and comment periods during which public input would be requested. Activities in the proposal that would occur within the inventoried roadless area were reviewed by the USDA-Forest Service regional office for consistency with the Secretary of Agriculture Directive and the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Regional Forester Harv Forsgren concurred that the proposed project complies with the directive, with subsequent waivers, and with the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (see Appendix C of this decision memo). An evaluation of the effects of project activities on roadless area characteristics for the inventoried roadless area for the project concluded that the project would have no effect to the following roadless characteristics:

1. Soil, water, and air resources; 2. Sources of public drinking water; 3. Habitat for threatened, endangered, or sensitive species and species dependent on large

undisturbed areas of land; 4. Reference landscapes for research study or interpretation; 5. Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites; and 6. Other locally unique characteristics.

The evaluation also concluded that the project would have the potential for minor, temporary, short-term effects to the following roadless characteristics:



1. Diversity of plant and animal communities; 2. Primitive and semi-primitive classes of recreation; and 3. Landscape character and integrity.

An evaluation of the effects of project activities on wilderness attributes of the inventoried roadless area for the project concluded that the project would have no effect to the following wilderness attributes:

1. Special features (ecological, geologic, scientific, educational, scenic, or historic values); and 2. Manageability (as wilderness).

An evaluation of the effects of project activities on wilderness attributes of the inventoried roadless area for the project concluded that the project would have the potential for minor, temporary, short term effects on the following wilderness attributes:

1. Untrammeled; 2. Natural; 3. Undeveloped; and 4. Outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.

The evaluations concluded that the project would not affect the area’s suitability for wilderness designation, and that any effects from project-related activities would be minor, temporary, and short-term and would not persist after completion of the project.

*** Comment 2: There are also populations and habitats for TES as well as Candidate and Proposed species across the proposed project activity area. One couldn’t point to an area of the Forest with more abundant sensitive TES species concerns. Forest Service Response 2: Potential effects to threatened and endangered species are discussed in the biological assessment and potential effects to sensitive species are discussed in the biological evaluation. Both documents are found in the project record. These potential effects are summarized in section 4 (“Decision and Rationale”) of the decision memo for this project. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed the biological assessment and in a response dated January 24, 2013 concurred with the Forest Service call that the project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the Canada lynx or identified critical habitat for the species (see Appendix D of this decision memo).

*** Comment 3: This is a bad idea. The proposed action should be dropped, shelved, or just rejected due to legal and ethical conflicts, not to mention that the public does not want oil and gas exploration and development in the popular and much beloved western Uinta Mountains. At the very least, you will find that additional oil and gas exploration (proposed) has no ethical or legal merit for the lands south of the North Slope Road, almost all of which are designated Wilderness, Agency and citizen proposed additions to such Wilderness, IRA, and other related lands with the most restrictive administrative protections, management prescriptions, standards, and guidelines available.



Forest Service Response 3: The potential effects of the project on the inventoried roadless area and the wilderness area were evaluated in the project record and summarized in section 4 (“Decision and Rationale”) of the decision memo, as well as in Forest Service Response 1 above. As described in Forest Service Response 4 below, the project is consistent with the Forest Plan.

*** Comment 4: Justification and the purpose and need in the purpose and need section of the notice of proposed action document circulated (in addition to the legal notice) is not adequate, or at the very least is presently not sufficiently developed. The only reason mentioned in that section of the document circulated is one Forest wide Forest Plan subgoal, which is said to state, “mineral and energy exploration and development to help meet the nation’s needs for these resources, while contributing to local economies through royalties and employment consistent with management direction.” There is no other basis provided. Given concerns such as the fact that the oil and gas field development exploration proposed is inconsistent with the LRMP management area prescriptions, standards and guidelines (all of which carry the weight of law) … the purpose and need and underlying justification of the project is arbitrary and capricious because it is framed upon an explicitly aspirational and not site-specific land management plan subgoal. (Aspirational plan components such as Forest wide subgoals are said to not carry the weight of law, nor may they compel agency action. See e.g. Norton V. SUWA.). This project is not a valid proposal. Forest Service Response 4: The purpose and need for the project is captured adequately in Forestwide Subgoal 10d (Forest Plan, page 4-24). Activities associated with the proposed action will occur in management prescriptions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, 2.5, 2.6, 3.1a, 3.2d, 3.2u, 4.1, 4.4, and 5.1, as described in the Forest Plan (pages 4-57 through 4-78). The proposed action is consistent with the themes and emphases for each of these management prescriptions. The proposed action is consistent with management direction for the High Uintas Wilderness, as described in Appendix VI of the Forest Plan (pages VI-1 to VI-8). The proposed action is consistent with forestwide desired future conditions (Forest Plan, page 4-5 et seq.) as well as the desired future condition for the Western Uintas Management Area (Forest Plan, page 4-176 et seq.) and for the Eastern Uintas Management Area (Forest Plan, page 4-192 et seq.). In addition, Executive Order 13212, “Actions to Expedite Energy-Related Projects,” requires federal agencies to expedite their review of permits or take other actions as necessary to accelerate the completion of energy-related projects, while maintaining safety, public health, and environmental protections.

*** Comment 5: The first paragraph of the description of the proposed action circulated states in part, “The project is proposed to begin in June 2013, weather permitting.” This timeline is not supported and is arbitrary. It strongly suggests as well that this is a case of the cart pushing the horse, at the very least. Forest Service Response 5: The June 2013 date was not chosen arbitrarily. The date was proposed by the proponent as the optimal date to begin project-related activities based on the timeframe for completing the project within one year, given administrative and potential weather-related constraints.

***



Comment 6: Paragraph one of the description of the proposed action continues, “Data gathered from the project would help to refine the subsurface structural geology below the High Uintas Wilderness Area and would extend knowledge acquired from previous seismic studies. Earlier 2D seismic projects in the area generated reasonable geologic information, but the offsets to the south” [E.g. designated Wilderness] “were insufficient and did not provide definitive information about the geologic structural control in the southern reaches of the project area.” This makes clear that mapping the structure of oil and gas reserves underneath designated Wilderness, which is only done by oil companies when there is interest in extraction for company profit, is the unspoken reason for this project; its unspoken purpose and need. This has no merit; it is illegal and it is not ethical. It is informative, however, to note that this was excluded from the purpose and need statement, as well as its justification. The southern reaches of the project area were, are, and will continue to be lands inside the High Uintas Wilderness area. These lands are not leased, nor are they available for oil and gas leasing. This is due to a matrix of administrative designations and policies, as well as Acts of Congress. It is also worth noting that the lands adjacent to the southern portion of the project area, while not Congressionally designated Wilderness, are LRMP recommended Wilderness, UEC recommended Wilderness. The smaller central project area portions that are already leased were explicitly given administrative equivalents to protection provided by LRMP recommended Wilderness during the LRMP revision 9 years ago. Forest Service Response 6: No additional leasing of lands for the purposes of oil and gas extraction is proposed as part of this project. Lands do not have to be leased in order for seismic surveys to be completed for oil and gas reserves. The proposed Stellar-2D proposal is designed to gather data on subsurface oil and gas reserves. Any future proposal to extract oil and gas resources would be examined in a separate environmental analysis. No oil and gas fields legally could be developed beneath the High Uintas Wilderness.

*** Comment 7: Is this action consistent with the Forest Plan and the 1982 NFMA regulations it is developed and implemented pursuant to? We do not believe that it is. With the planning, analysis, and implementation of the proposed action, is the Forest relying upon the current Forest Plan and the 1982 NFMA regulations it is based entirely upon? Recall that 10th Circuit case law established that the 1982 NFMA regulations will continue to control on the Uinta and Wasatch-Cache Forest Plans because they were revised during transition period but chose to stick with and apply the 1982 NFMA regulations. Please let us know in writing as soon as possible, as we will have additional substantive comments if the proposed action is being analyzed and/or implemented pursuant to the 2005 NFMA regulations instead of the Forest Plan/1982 regulations. Among the significant reasons this matters is that the new NFMA regulations become legally inadequate to direct the public and the agency to FSM/FSH NFMA rules that are assumed to be promulgated in lieu of the actual regulatory standards and guidelines that the NFMA required the Secretary promulgate as the instrument to implement the NFMA. Complicating matters is the disturbing fact that the FSM/FSH direction implementing NFMA that the Agency says is in effect as of today is that based explicitly upon the illegal and enjoined 2005 and/or 2008 NFMA regulations. Use of NFMA implementing rules found today in the FSM/FSH (via 2012 regs) in lieu of or instead of the 1982 NFMA regulations (that the 10th Circuit stated it must apply during transition period due to their application in the revised LRMP) would force application of the illegal and enjoined 2005 and/or 2008 NFMA rules. Stick with 10th Circuit case law on the matter. Apply the 1982 rule. We remind you this is



not a ‘gotcha’ issue, as the proposed action involves multiple clear violations of the 2003 revised LRMP and the NFMA. Forest Service Response 7: Please see Forest Service Response 4 above for a description of how the proposed project is consistent with management prescriptions, etc., found in the Forest Plan.

*** Comment 8: UEC believes that the proposed action looks like it may involve real or defacto temporary road construction by designation of use of equipment on a temporary basis on routes or roads that are believed to exist on the ground but that are not unambiguously “authorized” on the motorized travel plan that is required by the “2005 OHV Rule.” Outside of the designated Wilderness, much or most of the activity area is inside IRA. Permitting use of these (not) authorized routes on even a temporary basis constitutes a type of temporary road construction, particularly when inside IRA. Much of most of the portion of the project outside Wilderness is IRA. This is in excess of the 1.5 mile cap in the CE category invoked. UEC believes or suspects proposed action is outside the scope intended for the CE invoked. Forest Service Response 8: No road construction or temporary road construction will be involved with this project. Vibroseis equipment will use existing open roads for access and recording operations. Access to dynamite shot hole points would be via foot or helicopter. Drilling will occur using heliportable drill rigs.

*** Comment 9: CE category 8 that is contemplated for use states that it is for “Short-term (one year or less) mineral, energy, or geophysical investigations and their incidental support activities that may require travel by vehicles and equipment, construction of less than one mile of low standard road (Service Level D, FSH 7709.56), or use and minor repair of existing roads.” As briefly summarized above, the proposed action looks like it includes at least 1.5 miles of (at least administrative) new road construction. The duration of the proposed action would, additionally, very easily span for greater than “one year or less” given extreme high elevation (sub)alpine elevations on the north slope of a huge mountain range notorious for an exceptionally short snow-free field season punctuated in the middle by wet and muddy stormy August precipitation. Therefore the proposed action does not fit the CE that is contemplated for use because it includes real or defacto road construction in excess of 1 mile (due to potential permitting of vehicle use on routes or roads not MPT Authorized, and will very likely exceed the 1-year or less short-term duration specified. It’s clear that preparation of an EA/EIS is indicated because the proposed action does not fit the CE category, in addition to other reasons. Forest Service Response 9: The proposal does not involve any new road construction (see Forest Service Response 8). The proposal is designed to be completed with one year (see Forest Service Response 5).

*** Comment 10: FSH 1909.15 Ch. 30.3 (Policy) lists resource conditions that, if potentially affected, result in existence of extraordinary circumstances, meaning CE cannot be used. FSH 1909 Ch. 30.4 indicates that extraordinary circumstances precluding use of CE exist if the Responsible Official cannot demonstrate in the Decision Document that the potential effects to any and all of the listed resource conditions will be “minor or nonexistent.” That cannot be done in the case at hand.



Forest Service Response 10: As described in the Code of Federal Regulations, the mere presence of one or more of the listed resource conditions does not preclude the use of a categorical exclusion. The existence of a cause-effect relationship between a proposed action and the potential effect on these resource conditions, and if such a relationship exists, the degree of the potential effect of a proposed action on these resource conditions is what determines whether extraordinary circumstances exist (see 36 CFR 220.6(b)(2)). The decision memo for this project and the associated project record document that potential effects to the listed resource conditions involve no extraordinary circumstance (see 36 CFR 220.6(a)). In particular, potential effects for each of the seven resource conditions are discussed in section 4 (“Decision and Rationale”) in the decision memo for the project.

*** Comment 11: Listed resource conditions that will be affected by the proposed action include TES species/habitat (E.g. Lynx, Wolverine, Goshawk), wetlands/aquatic/riparian habitats and areas, critical big game habitat, and archaeological/historic sites in the area. Not only will these listed resource conditions be effected directly and indirectly by noise and wind from airborne and terrestrial heavy equipment and explosives among others requiring an EA, the cumulative effects of this action combined with other action such as logging, grazing, (Chevron) oil and gas field development past and ongoing, and summer/winter motorized recreation that will continue the aftermath of the plantation wildfire, chaining, road use/construction, and increased recreation (motorized and non-motorized) may involve cumulatively significant impacts to resource conditions that require an EIS as a result of this project. An EA/EIS must be prepared due to known actual impacts on listed resource conditions (FSH1909.15 Ch. 30) that may easily be significant, let alone more than being merely cumulatively “nonexistent or minor.” Forest Service Response 11: Potential effects to resources are described in the project record—including the biological assessment and the biological evaluation—and are summarized in section 4 (“Decision and Rationale”) in the decision memo. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed the biological assessment and in a response dated January 24, 2013 concurred with the Forest Service call that the project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the Canada lynx or identified critical habitat for the species (see Appendix D of this decision memo). Effects to streams/floodplains, wetlands, municipal watersheds, and water quality were evaluated by a Forest Service hydrologist, who determined that the plan of action for the project contained mitigation that minimizes impacts to the resources in question, and that few adverse effects are expected. Effects to big game species are discussed in chapter 3.0 of the wildlife technical report. Due to the nature of the proposed action, and the fact that all archaeological/historic sites will be avoided during project implementation, the Forest Service made the determination of no adverse effect to historic properties as per 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1) and recommended that the project proceed as planned. In its November 20, 2012 response letter, the Utah State Historic Preservation Office concurred with the Forest Service determination of eligibility and effect for the proposed action (see Appendix E of the decision memo).

***



Comment 12: The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) makes it unlawful to take, kill, or possess migratory bird resources, which includes individuals, their young, their parts, nests, or eggs. Executive Order 13186 issued in January of 2001 re-instituted the responsibilities of Federal agencies to comply with the MBTA. “Take” is defined at 50 CFR 10.12, and includes both “intentional” and “unintentional” take. “Unintentional take” means take that results from, but is not the purpose or, the activity in question. The Forest Service is directed “to support the conservation intent of the migratory bird conventions by integrating bird conservation principles, measures, and practices into agency activities and by avoiding or minimizing, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts on migratory bird resources when conducting agency actions”. (E.O. 13186 §3(e)) It has been documented that migratory bird species are currently declining across the intermountain west, and it is also clear that the proposed action will result in some additional detrimental impacts and taking of migratory bird resources. This issue needs to be addressed in the development of the proposed action, alternative actions, and the cumulative impacts of this action combined with others needs to be clearly presented in the environmental analysis and or environmental document. We recommend the Forest conduct a rigorous evaluation using the newest data and research to minimize impacts to migratory birds (and their habitat), including a focus on species on the 2002 List of Birds of Conservation Concern and species that are listed among the Partner's in Flight Priority Species. To help meet responsibilities under Executive Order 13186 (Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds), the UEC recommends that you conduct activities outside critical breeding seasons for migratory birds, minimize temporary and long-term habitat losses, and mitigate all unavoidable habitat losses. If your activities occur in the spring or summer, we recommend you conduct surveys for migratory bird resources to assist you in your efforts to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712) and E.O. 13186. If some portion of your mitigation includes off-site habitat enhancement, it should be in-kind and either within the watershed of the impacted habitat or within the foraging range of the habitat-dependent species. To be in compliance with the language and intent of the MBTA and EO 13186, and NEPA’s mandate for rigorous analysis, the environmental assessment must disclose and rigorously analyze how the proposed activities would or would not be in compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186. The Forest has been instructed to “develop and implement, within 2 years, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) that shall promote the conservation of migratory bird populations.” (EO 13186 § 3) We are not aware of any current MOUs. Please demonstrate within the environmental analysis for this project that such an MOU has been developed and entered into with the USFWS. Because this is an important issue that should inform the public and the decision maker, we request a copy be provided within or as an appendix to the final document, and not simply included in the project file. Writing off this obligation as a vague requirement specific only to the WO is not acceptable, as it is the individual Units of the National Forest System that implement projects that impact migratory bird resources that are protected under this EO and Act. Forest Service Response 12: The wildlife technical report for the project includes seasonal and spatial avoidance stipulations for nesting avian species (see Wildlife Technical Report, page 20, Table 1.2). Source points and shot holes would be offset to avoid biological resources of concern, including active nests of migratory birds. As prescribed by the USDA-Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, no seismic activities would occur in time periods adjacent to nests without spatial buffers being applied as indicated in Table 1.2 or adjusted in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Surveys for active nests of northern goshawks, three-toed woodpeckers, golden and bald eagles, peregrine falcons, and migratory birds would be conducted prior to implementation of seismic activity within the identified timeframes. Surveys for ground-, tree-, and shrub-nesting passerines would be implemented and repeated as necessary during the project such that areas with a period inactivity of more than three-to-five days in June or five-to-seven days in July would be resurveyed to ensure that no active nests would



be affected (see Wildlife Technical Report, page 19, item 44).

*** Comment 13: Rigorous and detailed analysis that constitutes the mandated ‘hard look’ at the (cumulative) effects to threatened, endangered, proposed, and FS sensitive species from the Proposed Action and alternatives needs to be included in the environmental document and environmental analysis. This should be informed by accurate quantitative population trend data for all TEPS species. Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should be conducted for Lynx since this area may contains LAU (the designation in lieu of C.H). Population and habitat surveying for Goshawk MIS and Sensitve species such as Flammulated Owl must be done and full protections provided. There is a very high probability that the massive heavy lift (Chinook-type?) helicopters that would be schlepping drill rigs back and forth, zig-zagging from location to location and back to any of the 50+ temporary helicopter pads required will involve direct, indirect and cumulatively detrimental impacts to goshawks anywhere in watersheds involved in the project. Such impact in itself is not just an extraordinary circumstance (as the potential impacts would be in excess of “minor.” However this kind of impact conflicts with the best available science as well as the revised LRMP direction for preservation of the USFS Sensitve Goshawk MIS. Impacts to all MIS with populations, individuals or habitats in the watersheds involved must be central issues with the proposed action development, and its effects analysis. Per commitments made in the 2003 revised LRMP, the Forest Service must comply with applicable law and regulations and conduct a quantitative analysis of population trends of these MIS prior to project approval. (See 36 C.F.R. §§219.19 and 219.26 and the Forest Plan that is constructed pursuant to these NFMA regulations.) The Forest Service needs to present population trend data for MIS, and must use this data to determine relationships between the habitat impacts and population changes in the EA/EIS/environmental analysis that is prepared for the project. This is a management short cut that is fundamental in meeting your regulatory mandate to maintain the minimum viable populations and diversity of all native and desirable non-native flora and fauna. Compliance with the direction, standards, guidelines and other requirements set forth in the WCNF Revised Forest Plan is also required and must be demonstrated in the EA/EIS and Decision Documents. Impacts to wetlands/aquatic/riparian habitats from the proposed action may have direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to clean water, and compliance with the Clean Water Act must be analyzed and demonstrated. Forest Service Response 13: For a discussion of threatened, endangered, Forest Service sensitive, etc., species, please see Forest Service Response 11 above. For a discussion of management indicator species, please see chapter 4.0 of the wildlife technical report. For a discussion of standards, guidelines, etc., in the Forest Plan, please see Forest Service Response 4 above. For a discussion of impacts to wetlands, etc., please see Forest Service Response 11 above.

*** Comment 14: We request the opportunity (that is mandated by NEPA) to review and comment on the analysis of the effects that the range of alternatives and/or proposed action may and will have on the environment. Forest Service Handbook, chapter 20, section 23.2 states that the purpose and intent of alternatives are to "ensure that the, range of alternatives does not foreclose prematurely any option that



might protect, restore and enhance the environment." NEPA regulations require that agencies should “(r)igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives ..." This regulatory mandate is NOT limited only to environmental impact statements and includes environmental assessments. Case law has also established that consideration of alternatives that lead to similar results is not sufficient to meet the intent of NEPA. Forest Service Response 14: Chapter 20 of Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 contains instructions and guidelines to be used by the Forest Service when undertaking an environmental impact statement. The Stellar 2D seismic project is being proposed under a categorical exclusion, in this case, Category 8 found in Section 32.2 of Chapter 30 of Forest Service Handbook 1909.15. Category 8 reads: Short-term (1 year or less) mineral, energy, or geophysical investigations and their incidental support activities that may require cross-country travel by vehicles and equipment, construction of less than 1 mile of low standard road, or use and minor repair of existing roads. Examples include but are not limited to: … (ii) Gathering geophysical data using shot hole, vibroseis, or surface charge methods. Use of this categorical exclusion does not allow the Forest Service to undertake the proposed action without suitable environmental analysis, but it does allow the Forest Service to exclude a proposed action from further analysis and documentation in an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment if there are no extraordinary circumstances related to the proposal (36 CFR 220.6(a)).

*** Comment 15: Site-specific surveys for historic and Native American resources across the project area must be completed early enough to inform the effects analysis and development of action alternatives including the proposed action development. Disclosure consideration and avoidance of sites found in the results are more important than ‘that’ such survey work is being done. Consultation with relevant tribal bodies must also be completed. National Historic Preservation Act compliance is also a key issue that must be addressed and analyzed in the environmental analysis for these obvious reasons. Failure to identify historic/cultural properties, failure to delineate the area of potential impacts to these resources and values would be inconsistent with the NHPA, NEPA, NFMA and the Forest Plan. Under NHPA an adverse affect is defined as “may effect.” Seismic work such as that identified in the proposed action can definitely knock down any structure, cause slope or cliff instability/collapse above historic/archeological site(s), and many aspects of the proposed action may or will likely impact cultural resources protected by the NHPA, NFMA, and the Forest Plan. We urge the Forest to not approve any action that has any probability of affecting these cultural resources. Forest Service Response 15: Due to the nature of the proposed action, and the fact that all known sites will be avoided during project implementation, the Forest Service made the determination of no adverse effect to historic properties as per 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1) and recommended that the project proceed as planned. In its November 20, 2012 response letter, the Utah State Historic Preservation Office concurred with the Forest Service determination of eligibility and effect for the proposed action. (see Appendix E of the decision memo).



*** Comment 16: Please keep the UEC on the mailing list for this project and all projects on the Forest. We also request an opportunity to provide comments on the environmental assessment/environmental impact statement, or the environmental analysis of the effects if no Environmental Document is prepared. If the Forest decides to deny this request, we respectfully ask that a written rational be provided for that decision to not provide interested parties the opportunity to review and comment on the environmental analysis of the impacts of the alternatives including the proposed action. We also respectfully ask the Forest to explain how that decision would not constitute a barrier to the public involvement mandated by NEPA. UEC thanks you for your time and energy dedicated to this environmental analysis, and we look forward to learning how this proposal progresses from this point. Forest Service Response 16: Thanks for your interest in project on the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest. We will keep the UEC on the mailing list for this and all projects on the national forest. As a result of the March 19, 2012 federal district court ruling in Sequoia ForestKeeper v. Tidwell, the Forest Service has been instructed to provide a 30-day comment period and appeal rights (as per 36 CFR 215) for all projects proposed as categorical exclusions from environmental assessments or environmental impact statements, as described in Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Chapter 30, section 32.2. The 30-day comment period for this project began with the publication of a legal notice in the Salt Lake Tribune on August 26, 2012. Persons and organizations who provided timely comments on the proposal will be notified of the decision and are eligible to appeal the decision. The 45-day appeal period for the project will begin when a legal notice of decision is published in the Salt Lake Tribune.


Appendix B: Final Plan of Action as revised by Forest Service resource specialists February 2013

1

GEOPHYSICAL COMPANY 6855 S. Havana St. Suite 560 Centennial , CO 80112 Telephone 303-723-0435 Facsimile 303-723-0439

2013 2D Seismic Acquisition

FINAL PLAN OF ACTION

June 2012

Revised in February 2013 based on Forest Service resource specialist input

Wasatch-Cache National Forest

INTRODUCTION

Dawson Geophysical proposes to conduct a two-dimensional (2D) geophysical seismic program in the Stellar 2D project area. The proposed project area is approximately 103.9 linear miles and occupies portions of Township 1 North, Ranges 9, 10, and 11 East; Township 2 North, Ranges 10, 11, and 12 East; Township 1 South, Ranges 9, 10, and 11 East; and Township 4 North, Range 9 West in Summit and Duchesne Counties, Utah. The proposed 2D seismic data acquisition is currently scheduled to commence in June 2013, weather permitting.

The justification for the proposed 2D seismic survey is based on the need to refine the subsurface structural geology into the Wilderness Area and extend the knowledge regarding previously acquired seismic data. Previous 2D seismic programs in this area generated reasonable geologic information, but the offsets to the south were insufficient and did not give definitive information of the geologic structural control in the southern reaches of the project area. The 2013 Stellar 2D program is designed to place geophone receivers further into the Wilderness Area than they were deployed in the past, which will allow enough offset and recorded data at the depth of interest. This will, in turn, allow geoscientists to confidently interpret the subsurface geology in the project area. The 2D seismic data acquisition will involve the generation of acoustic energy imparted into the ground by the use of vibroseis units and downhole dynamite explosives. However, there will be no vibroseis or downhole explosives used in the Wilderness Area. The recording equipment will

2

entail a series of geophones, which are a basic transducer or magnet with a copper coil surrounding the magnet. When the coil is moved through the magnetic field by the acoustic energy, an electrical current is produced and recorded. Each set of geophones will be connected to a recording box and battery. The recording boxes will be programmed to record continuously throughout the daylight hours. Geophones will be placed in the Wilderness Area as casual use, with no motorized support. PLANNING SURVEYS

To accurately define the extent and locations of project activities, a land survey crew will locate and place temporary pin flags at receiver and source points using a high-accuracy global positioning system (GPS). Several four to five-person crews will establish and flag the receiver and source point locations. This work will be completed using existing access roads, trails, and drill pads, as much as possible, and support by a helicopter. Where necessary, survey crews will use machetes or brush axes to trim limbs and small brush to obtain access to the lines for survey and single file passage along both receiver and source lines consistent with requirements of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and to ensure safe deployment of the heliportable drill to drill hole locations. Only brush that is necessary will be cut, and every effort will be made to cut brush and trees less than three (3) inches diameter at breast height (dbh). Where allowed, the use of motorized cutting equipment may be required. Control baseline information will be established using GPS equipment and procedures. Inertial survey techniques also may be used in areas where heavy tree canopy restricts GPS signal reception. Vehicles bringing surveyors to and from the project area will remain on existing roads and trails. The survey crew will be responsible for positioning receiver and source point stations such that they avoid all known and apparent cultural, biological, and natural land use features of importance. Clearing of vegetation in Inventoried Roadless Areas will be restricted to the amount that is absolutely necessary to achieve practicable lines of sight for reasonable distances and to allow safe deployment of heliportable drill rigs at drill hole locations.

• One side of a tree may be limbed up to a height of 20 ft, but limbing of trees is preferred to felling of trees.

• Maximum dbh of trees that may be cleared in Roadless Areas is 3 inches consistent

with USFS guidelines. • The maximum width of clearing is 3 to 4 ft. Drill locations will require a space of

approximately 5 ft by 12 ft (60 ft2), but each drill site will be microsited, if necessary and appropriate, to avoid impacts to or cutting of trees.

• Most of the dense “doghair” stands of lodgepole pine in the area have average

diameters of more than 4.0 inches. Therefore, it is expected that there will not be any location where many trees within a 4 ft clearing width will be felled. If an extensive stand with few trees over 5.0 inches dbh is encountered, surveyors will use methods such as bending the survey line.

Clearing of vegetation in roaded areas will be restricted to the amount that is necessary to achieve practicable lines of sight for reasonable distances and to allow safe deployment of heliportable drills at drill hole locations.

3

• Methods planned for the roaded areas are the same as in roadless areas except that trees up to 5 inches dbh may be felled. Surveyors will use the same methods for bending the line or retaining smaller trees in 50-ft increments as described above if that situation should occur. Particular care will be taken adjacent to existing roads to avoid creating a clearing that will encourage off-road motorized use.

Scope of Work

Receiver points will be spaced approximately 110 ft apart along the receiver lines and the source points will be spaced at intervals of 55 ft for the vibrator points and 110 ft for the dynamite points. Please see attached map depicting the position of the geophone receiver lines and source locations. The recording of seismic information will involve vibroseis buggy equipment and shot hole dynamite. The vibroseis sources will utilize existing roads and trails for access and recording operations. The dynamite shot hole points will be accessed and drilled using heliportable drill rigs. Dawson Geophysical and their contractors will operate according to all regulatory guidelines during the acquisition of data. By utilizing the established roads and existing trails, minimal surface disturbance is anticipated. The following sections provide additional details regarding project activities.

Table 1 presents the total miles and number of estimated geophone receiver points and the total miles and number of dynamite source points and vibrator source points by seismic line. Receiver points will be used during recording operations as far south as practical. Table 1 Number of Miles and Point Locations for Receiver and Source Lines, Dawson

Geophysical Stellar 2D Seismic Project, 2013.1

Type Line1

No. Receiver

Points Receiver

Miles2 No. Shot

Hole Points

Shot Hole

Miles2 No. Vibroseis

Points Vibroseis

Miles Receiver 1 837 17.41 n/a n/a n/a n/a Receiver 2 570 11.85 n/a n/a n/a n/a Receiver 3 290 6.07 n/a n/a n/a n/a Receiver 4 641 13.33 n/a n/a n/a n/a Receiver 5 286 5.94 n/a n/a n/a n/a Receiver 6 560 11.64 n/a n/a n/a n/a Receiver 7 473 9.83 n/a n/a n/a n/a Receiver 8 200 4.15 n/a n/a n/a n/a Receiver 9 480 9.97 n/a n/a n/a n/a Receiver 10 660 13.72 n/a n/a n/a n/a Total 4,997 103.91 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Type Line

Total Source Points

Total Source Miles1

No. Shot Hole Points

Shot Hole


Points Vibroseis

Miles Source 1 836 17.27 836 17.27 0 0.00 Source 2 479 6.26 114 2.35 365 3.81 Source 3 541 6.07 38 0.77 503 5.30 Source 4 407 8.45 407 8.45 0 0.00 Source 5 523 5.92 48 0.97 475 4.95

4

Type Line

Total Source Points

Total Source Miles1

No. Shot Hole Points

Shot Hole


Points Vibroseis

Miles Source 6 368 7.64 368 7.64 0 0.00 Source 7 557 7.33 150 3.08 407 4.25 Source 8 373 4.13 26 0.52 347 3.61

Source 9 278 5.76 278 5.76 0 0.00 Source 10 1,268 13.73 53 1.08 1,215 12.65 Total

5,630 82.46 2,318 47.90 3,312 34.57

1 Lines 3 and 5 are alternatives to the northern portion of Line 4, and Line 8 is an alternative to

the northern portion of Line 9. 2 Numbers may not total exactly due to rounding error. Source Generation

Vibroseis

Dawson Geophysical will use four to five buggy vibroseis units weighing ~60,000 pounds to generate the vibrator source or sound wave. The vibroseis units are approximately 34 ft long and 10 ft high, with a width of 8.5 ft. The vibrators will be trucked to the project area and will be restricted to approved roads and highways. No clearing or grading by heavy equipment on approved routes will be conducted. The use of vibrator sources will occur along Christmas Meadows (USFS Road No. 11 / Program Map, Line No. 7); TTU#1 well pad road (Program Map, Line No. 8); Utah State Highway 150 (Program Map, Line No. 10), and several other existing roads/trails (Program Map, Line Nos. 2, 3, and 5).

Reference Picture of Buggy Vibrators.

5

Dynamite The drilled shot hole dynamite source points will be drilled by a low-impact buggy drill or heliportable drill. No shot holes will be drilled in the Wilderness Area. Once the shot hole is drilled and loaded, all flagging and/or markers will be removed and the area will be raked so that these points blend as closely as possible with the pre-existing condition where the shot hole was drilled. Electronic detonators will be used. This type of detonator is much more secure than other types because they are ‘intelligent’ devices and do not allow the charge to be detonated using a low voltage battery. The production impulsive-dynamite source points will be drilled, loaded, and plugged according to the State of Utah, Department of Natural Resources and/or USFS regulations. Due to the drilling complexity, holes will be drilled to a target depth ranging from twenty (20) to seventy (70) ft. Depending on the hole depth, the explosive charge size will vary from 2.2 pounds to 11.0 pounds. Data Acquisition Existing roads and rights-of-way (ROWs) will be used to shuttle equipment into and out of the work areas, and a helicopter will deploy equipment at the predetermined locations indicated on the accompanying map. Recording equipment will be transported to staging areas by truck using existing roads. Sufficient equipment to lay out 6 receiver locations, appropriate battery, and field recording boxes will be deployed from heliportable equipment bags, by truck transport along existing access roads, or by pack horses or mules to the predetermined flagged locations or stations along each receiver line. Ground crew members will walk to each receiver location and manually connect the recording box, battery, and geophones. Geophones will be hand-placed around each station in a predetermined pattern and will be mounted on a 4-inch spike that will be placed into the soil using foot pressure. Geophones will be laid out in this manner at each station throughout the project area. After recording in an “active” area of receiver lines, geophones, cable, and each station’s equipment will be retrieved using the reverse procedure of placement, and equipment will be moved to a new receiver location, if needed. Geophones will be attached to special sensor boxes which are autonomously connected to the recording system. Receiver stations will be placed every one hundred and ten (110) ft, the geophone array will be spaced near the surveyed receiver stake. Dedicated seismic personnel equipped with special encoded safety approved shooting boxes will be used to detonate seismic sources one at a time along the source lines. Off-road access will be on foot, supported by a helicopter or pack horses. An electronic log will be kept for each shot point that is detonated. A copy will be supplied to the USFS upon request. Approximately 40 to 50 crew members will conduct daily data recording operations for 12 to 14 hours per day as dictated by safety precautions. Crew members will be organized into field groups of 4 to 6 individuals. Crews of 2 to 4 people (troubleshooters) will repair receiver line problems during project operations. Troubleshooting operations will be done using vehicles on existing roads or by walking on trails. Crews of 3 to 4 people also will be organized and will work from shot point to shot point detonating the explosives along each prepared 2D line. Crew members will carpool daily to the project area in the morning and return to surrounding cities/towns in the evening. The recording control truck containing the data collection equipment and crew journey management will be located on an existing road, trail, or pad site location.

6

The picture below shows the single receiver point complement of a geophone string (6 geophones), a battery, and the GSR recording box.

OPERATING PROCEDURES

The Operator will conduct the program described herein and according to all applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Dawson Geophysical intends to conduct this work using full-time, trained personnel who are experienced in the performance of these tasks in a safe and professional manner. A qualified supervisor, along with a field permit agent, will be on hand to supervise the work at all times. The following is a detailed description of the procedures to be followed in the field. Mitigation and Avoidance Measures to be implemented during the project are provided following the discussion of Operating Procedures and will be adhered to by Dawson and their contractors. On the receiver lines, the survey crews will create a path wide enough for a single file passage (approximately 3 ft wide) to facilitate establishing the receiver lines and cables. Workers will place stakes or pin flags at every receiver and source point. If vegetation clearing is necessary, it will be conducted by hand using machetes and chain saws. All clearing will be done at ground level, and no clearing will be done below ground level. Receiver lines will be deployed into the Wilderness Area, but there will be no impact in setting the receivers and no mechanized equipment will be allowed in the Wilderness Area. There will be no shot hole drilling in the Wilderness Area. Different types of energy sources will be utilized depending on the type of terrain encountered. Vibrator units will be used on existing roads to minimize impacts to the forest. The vibrators will have to make multiple trips down the roads but will not reoccupy the same points on the roads during data acquisition. Small buggy-mounted drills or heliportable drills will be used where there is no road access. Source points or shot holes will be spaced 110 ft apart along the line. Source points will be offset to avoid culturally and environmentally sensitive areas, including timbered areas, where practical. Make-up holes may need to be drilled, depending on the number of original holes missed due to terrain, water resources, or access problems. These will

7

be kept to a minimum. Offset holes will be moved normally at a distance of no more than fifty (50) ft from the original location of the approved line location so that they remain within the 100-ft ROW surveyed for cultural resources and sensitive plants during 2011 project-specific surveys. After the holes are drilled, an explosive charge will be placed at their base with electronic detonators that are ‘intelligent’ devices and do not allow the charge to be detonated using a low voltage battery. The holes will then be plugged according to State of Utah R649-3-26 regulations. Due to the increased risk potential of deadfall causing injury, all work areas assessed as having high potential risk will be avoided or vegetation will be cleared as needed to minimize the potential deadfall hazard. Any areas that have increased risk due to helicopter backwash or natural deadfall will be avoided or physically cleared prior to any helicopter-supported operations. Prior to drilling or recording operations, if hanging or “widow maker” snags are located within the operating corridor, measures will be taken to avoid the areas or to remove the hazardous tree(s). Pre-GPS surveying and geophone receiver deployment in the Wilderness Area may require some hand clearing of trees (<3 inches dbh) along existing trails and seismic lines. North Slope Outfitters will be contracted for equipment deployment, logistics, and operational support in areas not accessible by helicopter transport (i.e., Wilderness Area). Open meadows in the Wilderness Area along the Stillwater Fork and trail, which can support four to five horses and 12 to 14 pack mules and a temporary fly camp will be utilized for Lines 2, 4, 7, and 9. For Line 6, open meadows along the Right Hand Fork and trail will be needed for temporary support operations. Use of overnight remote camps for crew personnel also will be provided by North Slope Outfitters in the southern portions of the seismic program. It is anticipated that overnight camp activities will entail approximately six periods, each consisting of a 6- to 10-day timeframe. Fly camp activity may be necessary to support: 1) GPS surveying and line clearing, 2) geophone receiver deployment and retrieval, and 3) crew safety and appropriate medical response and access in the Wilderness Area. Stream runoff mitigation during the survey, drilling, and, possibly, the recording phases of the seismic program may be necessary. Developing procedures and possible construction of temporary stream crossings may be required for safe passage of personnel and to protect water quality. Setbacks established by the USFS for wetlands or live water will be met. These measures for wetlands are discussed further in the Mitigation and Avoidance Measures of this document. Mobilization and Demobilization

All equipment, including the drills and vibroseis units will be brought to and transported from the project area by transport trucks/tractor trailers as part of project mobilization and demobilization. Operation of support vehicles, including pickups, will be limited to existing roads and trails. Demobilization will proceed concurrently with data acquisition. All pin flags, flagging, and other operation debris will be gathered daily as the field groups and crew members complete data acquisition portions of the project. The operational debris will be collected at points on roads or trails and transported by vehicle to staging areas where personnel will organize materials, handle equipment, and dispose of used/unusable materials.

8

Project Activities and Schedule The following schedule is tentative and based on an unknown opening date of Utah State Highway 150 and snow pack runoff. In addition, based on the uncertainty of drilling conditions and extent of time required to complete the proposed 2D seismic program, Dawson requests an extension to the anticipated program completion date through the hunting season.

1) June 1, 2013 - Initiate GPS survey of source and receiver locations per attached preliminary map. Survey hazards, trails, and roads. Estimated duration of surveying is 5 to 6 weeks.

2) June 15, 2013 - Begin drilling the dynamite source points. Estimated duration of this task is 4 to 6 weeks.

3) July 15, 2013 - Mobilize recording crew to program area and begin deployment of geophone receiver line(s).

4) September 15, 2013 - Recover geophones and recording equipment. Clean up all areas of activity to leave no evidence of crew operations. File necessary completion reports.

Mitigation and Avoidance Measures

The following mitigation and avoidance measures include standard operating procedures, as well as project- and area-specific measures designed to minimize project impacts to existing resources. These measures address general operating procedures; protection of existing facilities and ROWs; public and crew safety; protection of water resources and wetland/riparian areas, vegetation and soil resources, wildlife resources, and cultural resources; fire avoidance and emergency procedures, hazardous and solid waste disposal, and demobilization. General Operating Procedures

1. The contractor would comply with all federal, state, and local environmental laws, orders, and regulations. Prior to geophysical operations, all supervisory geophysical operations personnel would be instructed on the protection of cultural and ecological resources. To assist in this effort, the geophysical operations contract would address a) federal and state laws regarding antiquities, plants, and wildlife, including collection and removal and b) the importance of these resources and the purpose and necessity of protecting them.

2. Work would be conducted by full-time trained personnel who are experienced in

the performance of the tasks in a safe and professional manner. A qualified supervisor and a field permit agent would be on hand to supervise the work at all times.

3. The contractor would coordinate with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Authorized

Officer (AO) throughout project-related activities. 4. The contractor would limit the movement of crews and ground-based equipment

to areas within the approved ROW, including access routes. The contractor would limit the level and duration of activity within the ROW to minimize damage

9

to the vegetation and disturbance to wildlife and recreational users of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest (WCNF) as instructed by the USFS.

5. The contractor would utilize such practicable methods and devices as are

reasonably available to control, prevent, and otherwise minimize atmospheric emissions or discharges of air contaminants (e.g., keeping equipment and vehicles in good working condition and with working mufflers and exhaust systems). Equipment and vehicles that show excessive emissions of exhaust gases due to poor engine adjustments or other inefficient operating conditions would not be operated until corrective repairs or adjustments are made.

6. All equipment, including the drills and vibroseis units, would be brought to the

project area initially by transport trucks or tractor trailers during project mobilization. Operation of support vehicles (including pickup trucks) would be limited to existing roads and trails.

7. No explosives or seismic helicopter activity would be allowed 1 week prior to and

during the general bull elk (October 6-18) and buck deer rifle (October 20-28) hunting seasons per Forest Plan Standard S27 for Minerals and Energy.

8. Oil and gas exploration and development activities would be consistent with

standard lease terms and supplemental stipulations listed in Appendix IX of the Forest Plan per Standard S28 for Minerals and Energy.

9. Helicopter flight paths would be routed to reduce conflicts with other resources

(including recreation) that are sensitive to that activity per Forest Service Plan Guideline G77 for Minerals and Energy.

Protection of Existing Facilities and the ROW

10. Safe operating distances (based on accepted industry standards) would be maintained between source points and existing facilities, springs, wells, and electrical utility lines.

Safety of the Public and Seismic Crews

11. Following drilling of shot holes, an explosive charge with an “intelligent” electronic detonator would be placed at the base of the hole. These devices would be activated electronically and would not allow the charge to be detonated using a low-voltage battery. Holes would be plugged according to State of Utah R649-3-26 regulations.

12. The contractor would make all necessary provisions in conformance with safety

requirements for maintaining the flow of public traffic and would conduct the seismic operations so as to offer the least possible obstruction and inconvenience to public traffic and safety.

13. Vehicular traffic would be limited to existing roads and trails. Posted speed limits

would be obeyed, and vehicles would be driven at speeds appropriate for conditions on the more remote two-track roads and trails.

10

14. Survey crews and staff would keep the public at a safe distance from all seismic operations activity with the appropriate use of standard-issue “Men at Work” safety signs on either end of the activity during daily operations.

15. All workers would be required to wear high-visibility safety vests, hard hats or

climbing helmets, protective boots appropriate for the job (e.g., steel-toed boots, high-ankle hiking boots, cowboy boots) and safety glasses or goggles, and they would be equipped with additional safety and/or communication gear as appropriate.

16. Warning systems would be utilized to ensure public safety when explosives are

being used, per Forest Plan Guideline G76 for Minerals and Energy. 17. Disruptive or surface-disturbing activities would be minimized/restricted during

periods of concentrated public use per Forest Plan Guideline G78 for Minerals and Energy.

18. Campgrounds, recreation residences, roads, and other heavy use areas would

not be utilized for helicopter landing and refueling sites or for parking areas per Forest Plan Guideline G79 for Minerals and Energy.

Water Resources/Wetland and Riparian Protection

19. Shot holes would be offset from perennial or ephemeral wetlands and riparian areas by a minimum of 100 ft. During the predrilling micrositing, there would be an attempt to avoid, to the extent possible, any wetlands or wet areas to minimize the potential from impacts. In a wetland, material left after back filling a hole will be removed from the wetland and placed in an upland area and raked into the surrounding area. Holes will not be drilled within 25 feet of the ordinary high water mark along stream channels having live water. U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps would be utilized to determine the location of ephemeral and perennial streams; however, additional channels with flowing water also would be avoided regardless of whether or not they are depicted as ephemeral or perennial streams on the topographic maps.

20. Should saturated conditions or water in a drilled shot hole be encountered, native

bentonite would be packed into the hole to above the water level to seal the saturated zone.

21. No waste water from seismic operations would be allowed to enter streams,

water courses, or other surface waters. 22. The primary source of water would be the water well located at TTU#1 (SW¼ of

Section 16, T1N, R10E). In the event additional water sources are needed, water would be brought onto the project area from off-site adjudicated commercial sources, and no filling or discharge into wetlands or riparian areas would occur.

23. Equipment and vehicles would not cross riparian areas along the ROW during

seismic activities except at approved road crossings. A buffer zone of 500 300 ft from live waters and wetlands and 100 ft from ephemeral channels would be established in areas where staging, stockpiling, and refueling occur unless accepted on a site-by-site basis by the USFS as deemed necessary and appropriate.

11

24. Procedures for safe crossing (by foot) of streams and riparian areas (particularly

those which pose a danger to personnel as a result of depth and/or velocity of the stream) would be required to provide safe passage of personnel and to avoid degradation of water quality and the stream banks from foot travel. The construction of temporary stream crossings may entail a rope and/or timber footbridge crossing that provides safety and support while imposing minimal change to the existing condition. The structures would be removed upon completion of the project.

25. No motorized vehicles or motorized equipment of any kind would be used in the

Wilderness. 26. Heavy trucks (e.g., vibroseis) and other equipment would not be used on

unpaved access roads when road conditions are such (e.g., wet) that ruts of 4 inches (or as directed by the USFS AO) would degrade the road and/or provide the potential for siltation of nearby waterways. If damage to unimproved access roads occurs as a result of project-related vehicular traffic, Dawson would consult with the USFS AO to determine the course of action to mitigate the damage.

27. Excavated material from drilled shot holes would be minimal and would be

spread over the soil surface adjacent to the hole such that it would not enter streams, lakes, or other water courses where it might in any way impact the surface waters.

28. No wetland or riparian vegetation would be removed during the placement of

geophones. 29. No operations other than geophone placement would be performed within 200 ft

of a known spring as identified on USGS topographic maps. Protection of Vegetation and Soil Resources

30. The contractor would exercise care to preserve the natural landscape and would conduct the geophysical operations so as to prevent any unnecessary destruction, scarring, or defacing of the natural surroundings in the vicinity of the work. Except where clearing is required for project activities (shot hole drill pads, minimal clearing of lines for laying cable), vegetation would be preserved and would be protected from damage by the contractor’s geophysical operations and equipment. Any such clearing would be conducted using hand tools within the Wilderness and hand tools and chainsaws in the remainder of the project area. No clearing would occur below ground level.

31. Relocation of shot holes would be considered for source points where

non-timbered or lightly timbered areas occur within 50 ft of the original source point and are feasible for drilling. Aerial photographs, USFS vegetation and other relevant GIS shapefiles, and Lidar data on vegetation/tree height would be used to preview source points where relocation would avoid or minimize tree-clearing. A qualified forester and/or a qualified biologist would verify and oversee the relocations as needed. Relocation would not occur outside of the previously identified 100-ft ROW without approval from the USFS and prior clearance surveys (e.g., cultural, biological) for those relocation sites. Some shot holes may be dropped from the seismic plan if relocation of the point is not feasible.

12

32. Neither Ute ladies’-tresses nor any other federally listed threatened or

endangered (T&E) species is known to occur in the project area (the area is well outside of the elevational range for Ute ladies’-tresses and Graham’s beardtongue), and during the late summer of 2011, TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) surveyed all seismic line ROWs for all USFS Region 4 sensitive species that might occur within a 100-ft ROW along the five proposed seismic lines as required by Mike Duncan, USFS Botanist, Salt Lake City, Utah). No USFS sensitive plant species were found during the 2011 surveys (TRC 2011a). During 2012 or prior to implementation of project activities on proposed helicopter landing zones and staging areas, sensitive plant species surveys would be conducted to ascertain whether those species occur within the proposed areas of disturbance, unless excepted by the USFS on a case-by-case basis (e.g., on the TTU#1 well pad site, where existing surface disturbance precludes the potential for the presence of sensitive species at the site). During operations, traffic would be restricted to existing roads (except for placement of heliportable drill rigs and helicopter landing zones). No motorized vehicles of any kind (including helicopters) would be utilized in the Wilderness.

33. Dawson would minimize the introduction and/or spread of weeds by washing all

drilling or other equipment and vehicles at a commercial facility prior to the initiation of seismic activity, by avoiding off-road/trail vehicle traffic, and by rewashing equipment if weeds are encountered.

34. If any federally listed T&E or USFS sensitive plant species are found during

implementation of the proposed seismic project, project-specific surface disturbance would be halted in the immediate area and the USFS would be notified immediately. Section 7 consultation between the USFS and USFWS would be reinitiated prior to restarting geophysical operations activities in the specific area.

35. Only those trees, tree tops, and limbs that are deemed to pose a safety hazard or

an impediment to completion of the seismic activity would be removed. Where possible, shot holes in timbered areas would be relocated to adjacent areas (within 50 ft of the ROW centerline) to minimize or avoid felling of trees. Dawson and their contractors would minimize tree clearing, topping, and limb clearing to trees no larger than 3 inches dbh within the Roadless areas and no more than 5 inches dbh in other portions of the ROW. Tree-felling and limbing activities would be limited to areas within the authorized ROW. Dawson and their contractors would minimize tree clearing, topping, and limb clearing to trees no more than 5 inches dbh in portions of the ROW outside of the roadless area. No trees will be cleared in the roadless area. Tree-felling and limbing activities would be limited to areas within the authorized ROW. In the roadless area, trees may be limbed on one side sufficiently to improve sight lines. No vegetation cutting will be allowed in the High Uintas Wilderness Area.

36. Certified weed-free feed would be used for horses and pack mules used

throughout the project. 37. Surface-disturbed areas such as helicopter staging areas would be seeded with a

native seed mix as specified by the USFS, if deemed necessary.

13

38. Staging and seismic activity areas (including helicopter landing zones) would be located and arranged in a manner to preserve trees and vegetation to the maximum practicable extent.

39. No off-road/trail vehicular travel would be allowed. No motorized vehicles

(including helicopters) or equipment (including chainsaws) of any kind would be utilized in the Wilderness.

40. North Slope Outfitters would be contracted for equipment deployment, logistics,

and operational support in the areas not accessible by vehicle or helicopter transport (i.e., the Wilderness). Open meadows in the Wilderness along Stillwater Fork and adjacent trail would be used as a temporary remote camp for Lines 2, 4, 7, and 9. This area is capable of supporting 4-5 horses and 12-14 pack mules. For Line 6, open meadows along the Right Hand Fork and trail would be used for temporary support operations.

41. Any damage to existing roads as a result of project activities would be repaired

as conditions warrant, but no later than prior to demobilization. Protection of Wildlife Resources

42. Dawson and their contractors would comply with appropriate wildlife protection measures as prescribed and required by the USFS, and project activities would be conducted in compliance with applicable requirements of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.

43. All project personnel would be instructed regarding and subject to the following

requirements: no harassing or shooting of wildlife, no dogs may be brought to the project site, no firearms are permitted to be brought to the project area, and employees must not litter. In addition, personnel would be instructed on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) definition of a “take” of a migratory bird or its nest, the importance of avoiding a take situation, and the potential repercussions for effecting a “take” situation. Any accidental “take would be promptly reported to USFS.

44. Source point shot holes would be offset to avoid biological resources of concern

(e.g., active nests of migratory birds including USFS sensitive and federally designated T&E species) (Table 1). Surveys for active nests of northern goshawks, three-toed woodpeckers, golden or bald eagles, peregrine falcons, or other migratory birds would be conducted prior to implementation of the seismic activity. Surveys for ground-, tree-, or shrub-nesting passerines would be repeated as necessary during the project such that any time period of more than 3-5 days (in June) or 5-7 days (in July) of project inactivity in a cleared area would be resurveyed to ensure that no nests have been initiated in the area in the interim active nests would be impacted by the project activities.

Table 1 Avoidance Seasons and Distances and Survey Buffers.

Avoidance Seasons and Distances

Nest Species Survey Distance

Season (Active Nesting) Distance1

Nesting Deadline Date2

Primary Habitats

Northern 450-m buffer Mar 1-Aug 153 0.5 mi May 31 Timbered

14

goshawk Three-toed woodpecker

450-m buffer May 1-Jul 31 300 100 ft4 May 31 Timbered

Bald eagle Within sight of goshawk survey transects

Jan 1-Aug 31 1.0 mi Mar 31 Timbered

Golden eagle Within sight of goshawk survey transects

Jan 1-Aug 31 1.0 mi Mar 31 Cliffs

Peregrine falcon eyrie

Within sight of goshawk survey transects

Feb 1-Aug 31 0.25 mi May 31 Cliffs

Avoidance Seasons and Distances

Nest Species Survey Distance

Season (Active Nesting) Distance1

Nesting Deadline Date2

Primary Habitats

Red-tailed hawk

Aerial survey of project and 1-mi buffer

Mar 15-Aug 15 0.5 mi May 31 Timbered

Cooper’s hawk Aerial survey of project and 1-mi buffer

Mar 15-Aug 31 0.5 mi Jun 15 Timbered

Sharp-shinned hawk



Swainson’s hawk



Boreal owl Cavities to be searched during goshawk and passerine surveys

Feb 15-Jul 31 0.25 mi May 31 Timbered

Flammulated owl

Cavities to be searched during goshawk and passerine surveys

Apr 1-Sep 30 0.25 mi Jul 15 Timbered

Great horned owl


Mar 15-Aug 15 0.25 mi Jul 15 Timbered

Great gray owl Aerial survey of project and 1-mi buffer

May 1-Aug 31 0.25 mi Jul 15 Timbered

Other migratory birds (non-raptors)

100-ft buffer as directed by USFS

May 1-Jul 31 300 100 ft4 Jul 31 Riparian, ground, shrublandtimbered

1 Stipulations for raptors are taken from Romin and Muck (2002). Great gray owls are not

discussed in Romin and Muck (2002); however, they are on the USFS sensitive species list. Some have been reported in northern Utah (Utah Birds 2012). The dates provided

15

come from review of the material presented in Johnsgard (2002) (personal communication, April 2, 2012, with Paul Cowley, USFS, Salt Lake City, Utah).

2 Nests are assumed to be inactive if not in use by this date. If a nest is inactive, no distance or noise restrictions apply. Nathan Darnell (USFWS, Salt Lake City Field Office, Utah), and Paul Cowley (USFS, Salt Lake City) finalized these dates on March 28, 2012.

3 This date can be adjusted to July 31 given the USFS experience and findings on the North Slope (personal communication, March 27, 2012, with Paul Cowley, USFS, Salt Lake City, Uah).

4 Distances were adjusted in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for three-toed woodpeckers and migratory birds from 300ft to 100ft for this specific project (Personal communication between Paul Cowley and Melissa Burns, January 18, 2013)

45. All geophysical operations personnel would be instructed to immediately stop work, vacate the area, and report to the project biologist or biological monitor and/or USFS if an active bird nest is found during project work. Activity in the area would be halted until the nest is determined inactive (either abandoned, failed, or fledged young) or the line would be rerouted to avoid the potential for a “take” of the nest. Qualified biologists would provide real-time on-site monitoring throughout geophysical activities (e.g., drilling) deemed to have the potential to affect a “take”. Take includes activities that would cause nest failure or abandonment; physical removal or destruction of the nest, eggs, or individuals; or possession of eggs, nests, or birds or their parts (including feathers).

46. To minimize impacts to nesting northern goshawks and three-toed woodpeckers,

Dawson would conduct surveys for those species prior to the initiation of seismic activities. The surveys would be conducted along three transects (the centerline and 250 m on either side of the centerline) along the shot hole lines and proposed helicopter travelways. Thus, a corridor of effectively 900 m would be covered for northern goshawks and three-toed woodpeckers--transects along and within 250 m on either side of the seismic line and an additional 200 m hearing distance from the outer transects. Surveys also would be conducted for areas within 0.5 mi of proposed landing zones.

47. As prescribed by USFS and USFWS, no seismic activities would occur within

time periods and spatial buffers indicated on Table 1.2 below no drilling activities would occur in time periods adjacent to active nests without spatial buffers being applied as indicated in Table 1 or adjusted in coordination with the USFWS (provided by Paul Cowley, USFS, Wildlife Program Manager, Salt Lake City, Utah, April 2, 2012). If a nest is determined to be active, Dawson would immediately notify the project qualified biologist and USFS (as necessary and appropriate) and the nest would be avoided by the appropriate buffer and during the appropriate seasonal stipulation. In addition, as recommended by Nathan Darnall (USFWS, Salt Lake City Field Office), an aerial nest search or other raptor nest search using techniques approved by USFS would be conducted prior to geophysical operations to identify potentially active nests (particularly of raptors, corvids, or other large birds). If a nest is determined to be active, the buffers would apply as identified. Cavity-nesting owls and other birds would be watched for during northern goshawk and three-toed woodpecker calling surveys, as well as during migratory bird surveys for passerines and small birds. Nest surveys for all remaining migratory bird species

16

would be conducted within 100 ft of either side of the shot hole lines and within the proposed helicopter landing zones and a 100-ft buffer or as directed by USFS (see Table 1).

48. Relocation of shot holes would be considered for source points where conflicts

with wildlife (particularly nesting raptors or migratory birds) occur and viable alternate locations occur within 50 ft of the original source point and are feasible for drilling. A qualified biologist would verify and oversee the relocation of the point, as needed. Relocation would not occur outside of the previously identified 100-ft ROW without approval from the USFS and prior clearance surveys (e.g., cultural, biological) for those relocation sites. Some shot holes may be dropped from the seismic plan if relocation of the point is not feasible.

49. If any federally listed T&E or USFS sensitive wildlife species are observed during

project-related wildlife surveys and/or project biological monitoring (where applicable) during the proposed seismic operations, project-related surface disturbance would be halted and the USFS would be notified immediately. Section 7 consultation between the USFS and USFWS would be initiated prior to restarting geophysical operations activities in the specific area if T&E species are recorded.

Protection of Cultural Resources

50. Source point shot holes would be offset to avoid cultural resources, and known sites would be flagged for avoidance. Class I and Class III cultural resource surveys of the proposed seismic lines and a 100-ft ROW (50 ft either side) were conducted during 2011 (TRC 2011b). If seismic lines are relocated, those route changes would be surveyed prior to initiation of seismic work. Landing zones and other staging areas that were not surveyed in 2011 also would be surveyed, as required, before project initiation.

51. Drilling of shot holes within eligible cultural sites would not occur unless that

activity is expressly permitted by the USFS archaeologist on a site-specific basis. If drilling or other surface disturbance is allowed within an eligible cultural site, an archaeological monitor would be present during the drilling to ensure that no adverse effects occur to the site. Drilling of shot holes would be done using heliportable drills so that off-road vehicular traffic to and from the site would not be required.

52. Impacts to eligible cultural sites caused by drilling of shot holes would be avoided

during planning by relocating the shot holes, to the extent possible. In cases where avoidance is not possible, a mitigation plan would be formulated. If seismic activities are planned within 150 feet of a site, an archaeological monitor would be present to ensure that the site is not impacted during project-related activities, if required by the USFS.

53. If unknown cultural resources are found during project operations, all work in the

immediate vicinity of the site would cease and Dawson would notify the USFS immediately. Dawson would implement measures required by the USFS to protect the site until a permitted archaeologist could evaluate it, if necessary. Further work at the site would be discontinued.

17

54. All Dawson employees and their contractors would receive training before commencement of operations to ensure that any disturbance to, defacement of, or removal of archaeological, historical, or sacred material would not be permitted. Briefings would be conducted to inform personnel of critical elements of compliance with the Archaeological Resources Protection Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. Violation of the laws that protect those resources would be treated as law enforcement/administrative issues.

Fire Protection

55. All vehicles would be equipped with fire extinguishers and shovels. Helicopters would have access to fire buckets staged at the main staging area on pad site TTU#1. Prior approval of USFS would be obtained for water dip sites in the event of a fire where existing water supplies were insufficient.

56. Smoking would be allowed only in company vehicles and/or other designated

smoking areas. All cigarette butts would be placed in appropriate containers and would not be thrown on the ground or out the windows of vehicles.

57. All portable generators used for the project would have USFS-approved spark

arrestors.

58. Dawson would coordinate project activities with appropriate fire-fighting personnel in the Evanston, Wyoming, USFS Field Office. The crew contingency plan would include a fire communications protocol for contacting fire-fighting personnel.

Hazardous and Solid Waste Disposal and Demobilization

59. As soon as possible after project completion, all project-related equipment (geophones, cable, flagging, lathe, etc.) would be removed and the land and roads would be restored as nearly as practicable to the original condition.

60. Geophysical operations activities would be performed by methods that prevent

entrance or accidental spillage of solid matter, contaminants, debris, and other objectionable pollutants and wastes into flowing streams or dry water courses, lakes, and underground water sources. A buffer zone of 500 300 ft from live waters and wetlands and 100 ft from ephemeral channels would be established in areas where staging, stockpiling, and refueling occur (including helicopter refueling) unless excepted on a site-by-site basis by the USFS as deemed necessary and appropriate. Such pollutants and wastes include, but are not restricted to, bentonite, polymer gel, explosives, oil and other petroleum products, sanitary waste, and garbage.

61. Burning or burying of solid waste and trash would not be allowed within the

project area. The contractor would remove all waste materials from the project area as soon as possible after project completion. Following operations, the land and roads would be restored as nearly as practicable to the original condition. If early winter conditions preclude a complete cleanup of the area, a contingency plan would be made to revisit and complete cleanup operations in 2014 as soon as conditions allow. North Slope Outfitters would meet or exceed the requirements of the USFS for waste management.

18

62. The use of overnight remote camps for crew personnel would be provided by North Slope Outfitters in the southern portions of the project area (Wilderness). Overnight camps are not anticipated to entail more than three periods of 6-10 days each. All refuse and any sign of the camp would be cleaned up and packed out after each use, and the area would be returned to pre-camp conditions to the extent feasible when use of the camp is no longer necessary.

63. Fuels and lubricants would be temporarily stored in transportable secured

containment trailers at the staging areas approved by the USFS field office to minimize the potential for accidental releases or spills. Explosives would be transported, stored, and utilized in accordance with USFS, State, and Federal laws and regulations. No other hazardous or potentially hazardous materials would be brought into the project area.

64. Any leaks of fuels, lubricants, coolant or other hazardous materials (including

contaminated soil or material) would be placed into an appropriate container and transported to an approved disposal site.

65. All solid waste and trash would be transported for disposal to an approved solid

waste disposal facility. 66. Explosives and shot initiating devices would be stored in or near the project area

in large secure magazines (large locked steel boxes) per Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives requirements. Signage for the magazines would not be placed on the magazines, but rather on adjacent posts or other permanent features.

67. Explosives/detonators would be transported and stored in accordance with

Federal Department of Transportation regulations. Bond Information • As per USFS requirements, Dawson will provide Department of the Interior (DOI)

Nationwide bond information and a Certificate of Insurance for Comprehensive Public Liability ($1MM)

• Dawson Geophysical–Nationwide Oil and Gas Exploration Bond–U.S. Specialty Insurance

Company- Surety ID # B000784 Permitting • A permit application from the State of Utah, Department of Natural Resources/ Division of

Oil, Gas and Mining would be obtained. • A permit application from the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) for access to

Highway 150 would be obtained, and a Traffic Control Plan would be submitted by Dawson and approved by UDOT.

References

19

Johnsgard, P. 2002. North American owls: biology and natural history. Second edition. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. 298 pp.

Romin, L.A., and J.A. Muck. 2002. Utah Field Office guidelines for raptor protection from

human and land use disturbances. Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office, Salt Lake City. January 2002 update. 42 pp.

TRC Environmental Corporation. 2011a. 2011 U.S. Forest Service sensitive plant surveys,

Stellar 2-D seismic project, Summit County, Utah. Prepared for Unita-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Mountain View, Wyoming. 10 pp. + appendices.

______. 2011b. A class III cultural resource inventory of Dawson Geophysical

Company’s proposed Stellar 2-D seismic project, Summit County, Utah, Utah State Project No. U-11-ME-0683F. Prepared for Unita-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Salt Lake City, Utah. 22 pp. + appendices.

Utah Birds. 2012. Utah Bird Profile: Great gray owl.

http://www.utahbirds.org/birdsofutah/ProfilesD-K/GreatGrayOwl.htm. Accessed March 2012.

If you have any additional questions or need clarification about the project, please contact me at 303/723-0435 (office), 720/272-6126 (cell), or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Bret C. Schafer

Regional Manager Dawson Geophysical

http://www.utahbirds.org/birdsofutah/ProfilesD-K/GreatGrayOwl.htm


Appendix C: Regional Forester Roadless Concurrence February 2013

Forest Service

Intermountain Region

324 25th Street Ogden, UT 84401

Caring for the Land, Our Employees, and Those We Serve! Printed on Recycled Paper

File Code: 1900 Date: November 21, 2012 Route To:

Subject: Concurrence on Roadless Area Project

To: Forest Supervisor, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache

The following project in an inventoried road less area has been reviewed for consistency with the Secretary of Agriculture Directive and the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR). We concur the project complies with the directive, subsequent waivers, and the 2001 RACR. You may proceed with final approval for the following project:

Stellar 2 D Seismic Acquisition

Questions about this concurrence should be addressed to Frank Roth, Director of Planning, Appeals, and Financial Resources, at 801-625-5269 or [email protected]. /s/ Laurie A Sonju (for) HARV FORSGREN Regional Forester cc: Reese Pope Pete Gomben Roger Kesterson Rick Schuler Fred Noack

Stellar 2D Seismic Acquisition Project November 7, 2012

Page 1

Forest Service Natural Resources and Environment

Briefing Paper


Topic Proposal to permit the Dawson Geophysical Company’s Stellar 2D seismic acquisition project on the Evanston-Mountain View and Heber-Kamas ranger districts on the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Issue The proposed action is to issue a permit allowing establishment of a series of source and receiver stations for seismic exploration on the north slope of the Uinta Mountains. This would occur on the Evanston-Mountain View and Heber-Kamas ranger districts of the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest. The proposed seismic work is needed to refine knowledge of the subsurface geology for the north slope of the Uinta Mountains, and to extend knowledge from previously acquired seismic data. • The stations would be connected by seismic lines generally laid out in a herringbone pattern (see

attached map). • Shot-hole source and/or receiver stations would be placed at approximately 110-foot intervals along

the lines. o Where accessible by vehicle (along roads), and outside of IRAs and wilderness the shot-hole

source/receiving stations will be replaced. In these line segments truck-mounted vibroseis units will establish stations at 55-foot intervals.

o Each shot-hole location will require a space of about 5’ x 12’. The exact location of each site will be adjusted as necessary to minimize impacts to, or cutting of trees. After each shot hole is completed, all flagging and/or markers would be removed and the site would be raked to return it to its pre-activity condition.

o Shot holes would be drilled using a heli-portable drill. • To provide access (outside wilderness) where the lines do not adjoin roads helicopter landing spots

would be established. • In wilderness, horse/mule pack animals will be used to transport equipment, and there would be no

shot-holes or vibroseis.

Key Points

• Vegetation clearing in the inventoried roadless area would be limited to the amount that is absolutely necessary to achieve practicable lines of site.

• Where necessary, one side of a tree of any size may be limbed to a height of 20 feet for clearance. • Limbing is preferred to felling of trees.


Page 2

• No trees will be cut. • The maximum width of line clearing is three to four feet. • All proposed landing zones have been surveyed for archaeological, and biological resources. • The need for landing zone areas includes having reasonably close access to the recording lines in

the event that a medical evacuation is necessary and having approved areas on which helicopters are permitted to land in the event of mechanical difficulties.

• Proposed landing zone areas near the wilderness boundary would be used to deliver recording equipment to the pack horse and mule operations that would carry the equipment into the wilderness area.

• No live vegetation would be cleared for the proposed landing zones. Prior to activities in 2013, each of the proposed landing zone areas would be examined for obstructions, such as deadfall or unseen boulders. Deadfall may be removed or the landing zone area would not be used.

• Proponent is entitled to conduct operations reasonably incident to exploring for minerals under U.S. mining laws. Regulations at 36 CFR 228A require the Forest Service to respond to proposals to conduct operations under applicable mining laws.

• Impacts to roadless and wilderness characteristics would be short-term in nature, limited in scope and would be completely reclaimed.

Location Mile of Line Number of Stations Number of

Helicopter Landing

Spots

Source/ Receiver

Receiver Only

Shot-hole Source/ Receiver

Receiver Only

General Forest (not in IRA or Wilderness) 45.4 0 2179/21791/ 0 32

IRA – Leased Pre-2001 (pre-RACR) 23.9 0 1146/1146 0 15 IRA – Leased Post-2001 (post-RACR) 4.9 0 233/233 0 2 IRA – Not Leased 10.5 0 503/503 0 9 Subtotal – In IRA 39.2 0 1882/18821/ 0 26 High Uintas Wilderness Area 0 25.4 0 1219 0 Project Total 83.6 25.4 4061/40611/ 1219 58 Project Grand Total 110 4061/52801/ 58

1/ Estimated based on 110-foot intervals. In some locations truck mounted vibroseis units will establish stations replacing the shot-hole stations.

Background Scoping for the Stellar 2D seismic proposal was done via an August 22, 2012, letter sent to a list of interested parties. A legal notice requesting comment on the proposal appeared in the August 26, 2012, issue of the Salt Lake Tribune. Comments opposing the project were received from the Utah Environmental Congress. No other comments were received. The Forest Service will address these comments in the NEPA analysis and require appropriate resource protection measures. Contact Roger Kesterson, Evanston-Mountain View Ranger District, (307) 782-6555.


Appendix D: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Concurrence February 2013


Appendix E: Utah State Historic Preservation Officer Concurrence February 2013

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest Evanston-Mountain View Ranger District

1565 HWY 150 South, Suite A 321 HWY 414 PO Box 1880 PO Box 129 Evanston, WY 82931 Mountain View, WY 82939 307-789-3194 307-782-6555

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper

Dear Ms. Hunsaker,

Please find enclosed a copy of A Class III Cultural Resources Inventory of Dawson Geophysical Company’s Proposed 2012 Stellar 2-D Seismic Project, Summit and Duchesne Counties, Utah. State Project Number U-12-ME-0811F. This inventory and report was done by TRC Environmental Corporation, Laramie, Wyoming.

Seventeen cultural resources were identified as being within the APE for this proposed undertaking on lands managed by the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Twelve of these resources have been determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Four are considered not eligible, and the remaining one cultural resource is unevaluated for listing on the NRHP, therefore, that single resource will be treated as though it is eligible to the NRHP until a formal evaluation is completed.

Due to the nature of this undertaking, and the fact that all sites will be avoided during the project implementation, the Evanston-Mountain View Ranger District of the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest has made the determination of No Adverse Effect to Historic Properties as per 36CFR800.4(d)(1)., and recommends that the project proceed as planned. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Tom Flanigan, Forest Archaeologist, at 801-999-2162, or via email at [email protected] .

Sincerely,

/s/ Rick Schuler RICK SCHULER District Ranger

File Code: 2360 Date: November 5, 2012

Lori Hunsaker Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Utah State Historic Preservation Office 300 S. Rio Grande Salt Lake City, UT 84101