Joint Appendix — Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, et al., Petitioners v. Eagle County, Colorado, et al.
Supreme Court briefAug 28, 2024
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
No. 23-975
In the
Supreme Court of the United States
________________
SEVEN COUNTY INFRASTRUCTURE COALITION
and UINTA BASIN RAILWAY, LLC,
Petitioners,
v.
EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO et al.,
Respondents.
________________
On Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit
________________
JOINT APPENDIX
Volume II of II
________________
NATHANIEL H. HUNT
PAUL D. CLEMENT
KAPLAN KIRSCH
MATTHEW D. ROWEN
KEVIN WYNOSKY*
& ROCKWELL LLP
CLEMENT & MURPHY, PLLC
1675 Broadway
706 Duke Street
Suite 2300
Alexandria, VA 22314
Denver, CO 80202
(202) 742-8900
(303) 825-7000
nhunt@kaplankirsch.com paul.clement@clementmurphy.com
* Supervised by principals of the firm
who are members of the Virginia bar
Counsel for Eagle County Counsel for Petitioners
(Additional Counsel Listed on Inside Cover)
August 28, 2024
Petition for Writ of Certiorari Filed Mar. 4, 2024
Petition for Writ of Certiorari Granted June 24, 2024
WENDY PARK
CENTER FOR
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
1212 Broadway
Suite 800
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 844-7138
wpark@biologicaldiversity.org
Counsel for Center for
Biological Diversity, et al.
JAY C. JOHNSON
FRED R. WAGNER
VENABLE LLP
600 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20001
JONATHAN A. STEARMER
625 South 400 West
Vernal, UT 84078
Counsel for Petitioners
ELIZABETH B. PRELOGAR
Solicitor General
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 514-2217
supremectbriefs@usdoj.gov
Counsel for United States
JA i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Volume I
Excerpts from Seven County Infrastructure
Coalition’s Response to OEA Request for
Information (Apr. 19, 2019) .......................... JA-1
J. Putnam Letter to J. Wayland, Colorado
Department
of
Public
Health
and
Environment
Preliminary
Comments
(May 9, 2019) ................................................. JA-7
E. Gaddis Letter to J. Wayland, Utah Department
of Environmental Quality Preliminary
Comments (June 14, 2019).......................... JA-13
S. Hackett Letter to J. Wayland, Colorado
Department of Public Health & Environment
Scoping Comments (Aug. 5, 2019) .............. JA-22
Excerpts from SCIC Response to OEA’s Second
Request for Information (Oct. 10, 2019) ..... JA-28
Excerpts from SCIC Uinta Basin Oil Pipeline
Study: Final Report (Sept. 2017) ................ JA-33
Excerpts from R.L. Banks & Associates to SCIC,
Pre-Feasibility Study of a Prospective
Railroad Connecting the Uinta Basin to the
National Rail Network (Aug. 9, 2018) ........ JA-35
Eagle County Comments on Draft Environmental
Impact Statement Before the Surface
Transportation Board (Feb. 12, 2021) ........ JA-41
EPA
Map
of
Counties
Designated
“Nonattainment” for Clean Air Act’s National
Ambient Air Qualty Standards (NAAQS)
(Feb. 12, 2021) ............................................. JA-93
JA ii
Table of Contents Excerpts, Unita Basin Railway,
Final Environmental Impact Statement, STB
Docket No. FD 36284 (Aug. 2021)............... JA-94
Summary Excerpts, Unita Basin Railway, Final
Environmental Impact Statement, STB
Docket No. FD 36284 (Aug. 2021)............. JA-106
Section 2 Excerpts, Unita Basin Railway, Final
Environmental Impact Statement, STB
Docket No. FD 36284 (Aug. 2021)............. JA-138
Section 3.2 Excerpts, Unita Basin Railway, Final
Environmental Impact Statement, STB
Docket No. FD 36284 (Aug. 2021)............. JA-194
Section 3.3 Excerpts, Unita Basin Railway, Final
Environmental Impact Statement, STB
Docket No. FD 36284 (Aug. 2021)............. JA-206
Section 3.4 Excerpts, Unita Basin Railway, Final
Environmental Impact Statement, STB
Docket No. FD 36284 (Aug. 2021)............. JA-243
Section 3.6 Excerpts, Unita Basin Railway, Final
Environmental Impact Statement, STB
Docket No. FD 36284 (Aug. 2021)............. JA-303
Section 3.7 Excerpts, Unita Basin Railway, Final
Environmental Impact Statement, STB
Docket No. FD 36284 (Aug. 2021)............. JA-309
Section 3.13 Excerpts, Unita Basin Railway,
Final Environmental Impact Statement, STB
Docket No. FD 36284 (Aug. 2021)............. JA-326
Volume II
Section 3.15, Unita Basin Railway, Final
Environmental Impact Statement, STB
Docket No. FD 36284 (Aug. 2021)............. JA-348
JA iii
Appendix C, Unita Basin Railway, Final
Environmental Impact Statement, STB
Docket No. FD 36284 (Aug. 2021)............. JA-475
Appendix E, Unita Basin Railway, Final
Environmental Impact Statement, STB
Docket No. FD 36284 (Aug. 2021)............. JA-487
Appendix L Excerpts, Unita Basin Railway, Final
Environmental Impact Statement, STB
Docket No. FD 36284 (Aug. 2021)............. JA-497
Appendix S Excerpts, Unita Basin Railway, Final
Environmental Impact Statement, STB
Docket No. FD 36284 (Aug. 2021)............. JA-506
Appendix T Excerpts, Unita Basin Railway, Final
Environmental Impact Statement, STB
Docket No. FD 36284 (Aug. 2021)............. JA-511
Table
3
Excerpts,
Energy
Information
Administration, Capacity of Operable
Petroleum Refineries by State as of January 1,
2022 (2022) ................................................ JA-544
Ute
Indian
Tribe
of
Uintah
and
Ouray Reservation Support Statement
(Sept. 22, 2021)) ......................................... JA-546
Excerpts from Center for Biological Diversity’s
Supplemental Comments (Oct. 18, 2021) . JA-548
SCIC, Industry Support Letters for Rail, 2018,
cited in Center for Biological Diversity’s
Supplemental Comments (Oct. 18, 2021) . JA-572
JA iv
The following opinions, decisions, judgments, and
orders have been omitted in printing this joint
appendix because they appear on the following page in
the appendix to the Petition for Certiorari:
Appendix A
Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for
the D.C. Circuit (Aug. 18, 2023).......... Pet.App.1a
Appendix B
Order Denying Petition for Rehearing En Banc
(Dec. 4, 2023) ..................................... Pet.App.72a
Appendix C
Surface Transportation Board Final Decision
(Dec. 15, 2021) ................................... Pet.App.74a
Appendix D
Surface Transportation Board Decision (Jan. 4,
2021)................................................. Pet.App.190a
JA 348
Section 3.15, Unita Basin Railway, Final
Environmental Impact Statement, STB Docket
No. FD 36284 (Aug. 2021)
3.15 Cumulative Impacts
This section describes the cumulative impacts
that could result from the addition of impacts from the
proposed rail line to impacts of other past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable future projects and
actions. The subsections that follow describe the
cumulative impacts study area; the methods used to
analyze cumulative impacts; past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions that could
contribute to cumulative effects; and cumulative
impacts by resource topic.
3.15.1 Analysis Methods
OEA followed the guidelines outlined in the CEQ
handbook titled Considering Cumulative Effects under
the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 1997) to
evaluate whether cumulative impacts could result
from adding impacts of constructing and operating the
proposed rail line to impacts of past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future projects. Based on the
CEQ guidance, OEA undertook the following steps to
evaluate the cumulative impacts from construction
and operation of the proposed rail line.
•
OEA defined the geographic and temporal scope
of the analysis.
•
OEA relied on information from other agencies
and organizations about reasonably foreseeable
projects and actions that are beyond the scope of
the Board’s authority.
JA 349
•
OEA considered impacts of other past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable future actions that
relate to the geographic and temporal scope of the
proposed rail line.
•
OEA reached conclusions based on the best
available data at the time of the analysis.
3.15.2 Cumulative Impacts Study Area
The cumulative impacts study area includes the
areas identified for oil and gas development as shown
on Figure 3.15-1. Consistent with past OEA practice,
OEA used a 20-year time period for the analysis,
extending from 2020 to 2040. OEA defined the
cumulative impacts study area for each resource that
would be affected by construction and operation of the
proposed rail line, as described in Section 3.15.5,
Cumulative Impacts by Resource. Some cumulative
impacts study areas are identical to the resource study
areas described for the analysis of direct and indirect
effects in Section 3.1, Vehicle Safety Delay, through
Section 3.13, Socioeconomics, of this Draft EIS. Other
resources have a larger cumulative impacts study
area.
3.15.3 Affected Environment
The exact location of the proposed rail line would
depend on which Action Alternative, if any, the Board
authorizes. Any of the Action Alternatives would have
the same two terminus points in the Basin near Myton
and Leland Bench, Utah, and the same connection
with the existing UP rail line near Kyune, Utah.
Figure 3.15-1 shows the Action Alternatives along
with the other relevant projects included in this
cumulative impacts analysis. The overall geographic
region is primarily rural and sparsely populated.
JA 350
Predominant land uses include oil and gas production,
ranching and farming, and rural residential
development on subdivided ranch land.
Figure 3.15-1. Past, Present, and Reasonably
Foreseeable Future Actions
(See foldout next page)
JA350-a
ϯ͘ϭϱƵŵƵůĂƚŝǀĞ/ŵƉĂĐƚƐ
USCA Case #22-1019
^ƵƌĨĂĐĞdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĂƌĚ͕KĨĨŝĐĞŽĨ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůŶĂůLJƐŝƐ
&ŝŐƵƌĞϯ͘ϭϱͲϭ͘WĂƐƚ͕WƌĞƐĞŶƚ͕ĂŶĚZĞĂƐŽŶĂďůLJ&ŽƌĞƐĞĞĂďůĞ&ƵƚƵƌĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ
COtlCIMOOO
J"'i!"
Duchesne
Cou~
,(1-•
~
3-...
3-
:.-=
Document #1989949
Ii
Ii
♦
6 - Stele Streel,
Roo-Road _ , i l g
♦ 7 - Myu, Main Street
♦
♦
♦
♦
5 • 1500 Ea&l lmpnwementa
in Ballard
A
• ,
N
o_!!!!!!!ls_
=
12 • Rellabililalion of road
damage at SR-157;
Kenl"-111 Rd & SR-139;
Spring Glen Rd
♦ ~
~=::i::~C:.:"·
♦
14 - Ridge Road Reconalruction
♦
15 • US-8, MP 200 Bridge Ride Fe<
Faclltlyiotllar lnhaatructura 1rr4>...,_nt
a expaneiml
,e--uport
end improvements
[) 17 - "-1ess Port of Enby
a ,s. Roos- library
El 19-MS4 stormwalE<
infraslruclunt improvements
USFIActlon
!I 20 - Badlands Lop and
g
S-Projecl
21-Badlands Trail
Projecl Pan 2
22 - Removal of Indian
Canyon Guard Station
23 • Grazing Allotments
l'r11nsmlaslon Lf,24 • Gateway So<,O,
Transmission Lile
25 - Tranowesl E.lpn,ss
Tranlffllulon Line
Cultural Resources
28- NHPA Progranmalc
~ AQreement for lmgallon
Indian canyon Allema!Ne
- - Wells Dn,w AllematlVe
- - W1ilmorePar1<AltemalYe
011 & Gu Production
Oil Field
Gas Field
E3
Page 516 of 606
Roadlrnpn>vemonl
♦ 4 - v.t>ods Road Reconslruction
♦
8 • Us-40; Pleasant Valley lo Myton
9-SR-87; MP 10.86-19.95,
Roadside lmprayements
10 - Road p,-,1ative damage
b'eatmenl at 1900 East and
600 Nonh lo 800 Nortll
11-US-8: 100Na1h
lnteraw,ge lmpn)Wlments
♦
Filed: 03/13/2023
Wde,.hld lmprovamont
1 -Ashley Vlllley Wlterallecl
Project
2 - Pelican Lake Sediment
Conllol COllllruc:tian
3 - Ducheone County
\l\llten;hed Plan Project
lnlraslructure
Cnlda OIi Proc-lng Facility
27 - Uintah Advantage
Energy Associales Crude
Oil Proce&&ing Facilily
__,10
I Miles
hŝŶƚĂĂƐŝŶZĂŝůǁĂLJ
&ŝŶĂů ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů/ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚ
ϯ͘ϭϱͲϮ
ƵŐƵƐƚϮϬϮϭ
JA 351
The proposed rail line is located primarily within
the Colorado Plateau ecoregion, composed of Semiarid
Benchlands and Canyonlands, Escarpments, and the
Uinta Basin Floor subregions. The region provides
habitat for special-status species and big game wildlife
species such as elk (Cervus canadensis), mule deer
(Odocoileus
hemionus),
pronghorn
antelope
(Antilocapra Americana), Western moose (Alces
andersoni), and bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis).
Cultural resources include homestead cabins and
nationally significant Fremont, Ute, and Archaic rock
art and structures. The study area includes land
managed by the Forest Service, BLM, state of Utah,
and Ute Indian Tribe. Several BLM special
designations are also located in this region, including
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs),
Lands with Wilderness Characteristics, and Special
Recreation Management Areas. Forest Service lands
include Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). Public
lands in the study area support a variety of
recreational activities including hunting, fishing,
hiking, picnicking, bicycling, camping, horseback
riding, nature viewing, OHV riding, scenic driving,
and winter sports.
3.15.4 Other Past, Present, and Reasonably
Foreseeable Future Actions
3.15.4.1 Oil and Gas Development
Oil and Gas Production
Oil and gas refer generally to fluid petroleum
products that are derived from organic material
deposited millions of years ago and now lie
underground. Over time, heat and pressure
transformed those raw materials into energy-rich
JA 352
hydrocarbon liquids and gases. Oil and gas are
produced by drilling wells into the formations that
contain oil and gas resources. After well sites are
selected, they are prepared for drilling by construction
of a well pad and supporting infrastructure. Drilling
involves a drill rig, associated equipment such as
pumps, and truck trips. After the wells are drilled,
they are completed using a variety of techniques
depending on the characteristics of the formation,
such as hydraulic fracturing to create fractures in the
rock. Hydraulic fracturing allows fluids to more freely
flow from the formation into the well, where the fluids
flow up the well to the surface. Oil, gas, and/or water
produced by a well are separated at the well site or are
transported to nearby facilities for separation. OEA
anticipates that, if the Coalition were to construct and
operate the proposed rail line, some of the crude oil
produced in the Basin would be trucked from wells to
rail terminals near Myton and Leland Bench for
loading into trains.
The Coalition estimates that rail traffic on the
proposed rail line would range from 3.68 trains per
day (low rail traffic scenario) and 10.52 trains per day
(high rail traffic scenario), on average, depending on
future market conditions. The trains would primarily
transport crude oil and would have the capacity to ship
between approximately 130,000 and 350,000 barrels
of oil each day, on average, out of the Basin. The actual
volume of oil transported on the proposed rail line and
the number of trains would depend on various
independent variables and factors including general
domestic and global economic conditions, commodity
pricing, and the strategic and capital investment
JA 353
decisions of oil producers and their customers
(Coalition Response to IR#2).
For the analysis of potential cumulative impacts,
OEA developed two potential scenarios for future oil
and gas development in the Basin that correspond to
the Coalition’s estimated range of rail traffic. Under
the low oil production scenario, total oil production in
the Basin would increase by an average of 130,000
barrels per day compared to historical production
levels. Under the high oil production scenario, total oil
production in the Basin would increase by an average
of 350,000 barrels per day. Historical production has
varied substantially from year to year. Where the
analysis required quantification of historical
production, OEA used 90,000 barrels per day as a
conservative baseline level of production, which is
slightly lower than the maximum historical
production from the Basin of 94,000 barrels per day.
Although OEA expects that the proposed rail line
would divert some oil that in the past has been trucked
to terminals outside the Basin to rail transportation,
OEA assumed, for the purposes of the cumulative
impacts analysis, that all oil transported on the
proposed rail line would come from new production.
This is a conservative assumption because it may
overstate total future oil production in the Basin and,
therefore, potential cumulative impacts.
OEA assumed that future oil and gas
development, including well drilling and operation
along with construction and operation of related
facilities, such as pipelines, would occur throughout
the Basin in the fields shown in Figure 3.15-1. The
exact locations of new oil and gas development would
JA 354
depend on many factors, including domestic and global
demand, as well as future decisions by private, state,
tribal, and federal owners of mineral rights in the
Basin. The Monument Butte Oil and Gas
Development Project, which proposes to develop up to
5,750 oil and gas wells in an area located about 6 miles
south of Myton, Utah, is an example of a proposed oil
and gas development project in the region (BLM 2016).
Crude oil produced by the Monument Butte project
wells potentially could be transported on the proposed
rail line.
Well Development
To assess the impacts of increased oil and gas
development as part of the cumulative analysis, OEA
estimated the number of oil wells that would need to
be constructed and operated to satisfy the expected
increased oil production volume scenarios of 130,000
or 350,000 barrels per day, respectively. Based on
consultation with UGS regarding current drilling
technologies and methods in the Basin, OEA
estimated that new horizontal wells would produce an
average 366 barrels of crude oil per day during the
first year of production (Vanden Berg pers. comm.).
OEA reviewed data about vertical wells drilled
between 2014 and 2018 from the Utah Division of Oil,
Gas, and Mineral (UDOGM) to estimate an average
initial production rate of 66 barrels of crude oil per day
for new vertical wells. OEA used historical well data
from UDOGM’s completion and production databases
to create a 15-year oil production decline curve for
horizontal and vertical wells.1 Based on consultation
A duration of 15 years was selected to balance the two
competing analysis interests: (1) a robust decline curve and (2)
1
JA 355
with UGS, OEA assumed that 20 percent of the new
wells drilled each year would be vertical wells and 80
percent would be horizontal wells (Vanden Berg pers.
comm.; UGS 2019).
OEA used the initial production rates, decline
curves, and estimated ratio of horizontal wells to
vertical wells to calculate the annual production rate
of an average well in each year of its lifetime and the
number of wells that would need to be constructed
each year to meet the oil production volume expected
in the respective scenarios. For simplicity, OEA
assumed it would take one year to construct all the
wells before they would start producing oil at their
expected annual rate. In the second year of the project
(i.e., the first year of production), the wells constructed
in the first year would be operating at the production
volume needed to satisfy each of the two oil production
scenarios (i.e., 130,000 or 350,000 barrels per day).
By the third year of the project (i.e., the second
year of production) the wells constructed in the first
year would not produce enough to satisfy the
production scenarios because the average well
production volume decreases over a well’s lifetime.
an accurate estimate of well production volumes. A longer
duration captures a more complete decline curve, including the
later period when a well’s annual production begins to plateau
from year to year. On the other hand, a shorter duration captures
the production volumes of wells that were more recently drilled
in the Basin. Compared to wells drilled in earlier years, these
wells are more likely to use the same technologies and drilling
processes of future wells analyzed under the cumulative analysis
and are therefore more representative. Balancing the tradeoffs of
optimizing interests (1) and (2), OEA selected a 15-year period of
well volume data (i.e., 2004 to 2019).
JA 356
Therefore, additional wells would need to be
constructed in the second year of the project to
supplement the reduced production from the wells
constructed in the first year. In the third year, the old
(first year) and new (second year) wells combined
would produce the volume needed to satisfy the
production scenarios, and so forth. As the decline
curve starts to plateau in later years, fewer and fewer
wells would need to be constructed each year. OEA
chose year 15 of the analysis to represent steady state
development, as this was the analysis year when the
number of wells constructed per year was closest to
the number of new producing wells in that year (i.e.,
wells that were constructed in the 14th year).
Production from an oil well will steadily decline. By
year 15, OEA estimated that an average horizontal
well could produce approximately 40 barrels per day
and an average vertical well could produce
approximately 7 barrels per day.
Based on this approach, steady state annual
development under the low oil production scenario
requires construction of approximately 80 wells, plus
production from 83 wells for each year of production
(i.e., under the steady state assumption there are 83
wells of each “vintage” steady state year). Therefore,
the steady state total number of wells in the field in
any year is 83 wells times 15 years, or 1,245 wells.
Under the high oil production scenario, there would be
217 wells constructed and 222 wells operating for each
steady state year of production. Therefore, the steady
state total number of wells in the field in any year is
222 wells times 15 years, or 3,330 wells. As an
example, Table 3.15-1 and Table 3.15-2 display the
estimated annual well development for the low oil
JA 357
production scenario and high oil production scenario,
respectively.
Table 3.15-1. Estimated Well Development for
the Low Oil Production Scenario
Table 3.15-2. Estimated Well Development for
the High Oil Production Scenario
OEA’s estimate of oil well development exceeds
the estimates provided by the Coalition. In response to
an Information Request from OEA, the Coalition
estimated that, on average, under the low oil
production scenario there would be 130 wells
operating and 29 under construction and under the
high oil production scenario there would be 350 wells
operating and 70 under construction. OEA’s
independent analysis as described in this section
JA 358
determined that the number of producing wells would
likely need to be much greater than the Coalition’s
estimates to produce the low and high oil production
scenario volumes.
OEA’s estimates of future oil production represent
a reasonably foreseeable development scenario based
on historical data about the Basin and consultation
with UGS. Oil and gas development technology is
continually evolving. Changes in technology could
affect the number of wells, the typical well mix (i.e.,
vertical/directional versus horizontal), and the volume
of oil produced per well that would be carried on the
proposed rail line in the future.
Support Facilities and Truck Trips
Ancillary facilities that support oil field
development are expected to include access roads,
electric power distribution lines, well pads, surface or
subsurface pipelines, and storage tanks. Construction
activities would involve vegetation clearing and
surface disturbance for the construction of new wells
and ancillary facilities. The extent of surface
disturbance for construction of new wells and
ancillary facilities would depend, in part, on whether
the new wells represent infill development within an
existing field, including additional well drilling from
an existing well pad, or new development within a
previously undeveloped area of the field.
OEA assumed that increased production for oil
transported on the proposed rail line would originate
from oil fields in the Basin, as shown in Figure 3.15-1.
OEA estimated that 622 truck trips per day would
transport oil from oil fields to the terminals under the
low oil production scenario and 1,675 truck trips per
JA 359
day would transport oil from oil fields to the terminals
under the high oil production scenario (Appendix M,
Air Quality Emissions and Modeling Data).
Rail Terminals
If the Coalition were to construct and operate the
proposed rail line, OEA anticipates that new rail
terminals would be constructed at the terminus points
near Myton and Leland Bench to transfer commodities
between trucks and rail cars. The Coalition is not
seeking Board authority to construct new rail
terminals as part of the proposed rail line. The
Coalition anticipates that third parties, such as firms
that specialize in oil field or freight logistics, would
construct and operate the new rail terminals if the
proposed rail line is authorized. This has been a
common practice for development of truck-to-rail
crude oil terminal facilities, for example in North
Dakota, as the movement of crude oil in the United
States by rail has increased with increasing oil
production (Opendatasoft 2019).
Because new rail terminals are not part of the
Coalition’s proposal or the Board’s decision-making in
this proceeding, OEA has only general information
regarding the potential design of those facilities based
on similar projects elsewhere in the country.
Truck-to-rail terminal facilities providing for tank
car loading and storage can have several layouts,
including the following.
•
Multiple relatively short (i.e., 20- to 40-car) tracks
•
One or more long (i.e., 10,000-foot) tracks
•
One or more loop tracks
JA 360
If adequate and suitable land is available, loop
tracks are often used for handling bulk commodity
trains, such as crude oil, coal, or grain because loop
tracks minimize the train movements required, which
creates efficiencies. OEA reviewed publicly available
information about terminals in North Dakota and
Colorado and found that terminals with the capacity
to load between a few trains per week up to multiple
trains simultaneously range in size from a few
hundred to more than 500 acres, and that size is not
correlated with train-loading capacity. The review of
topography and current land development indicate
that the Myton and Leland Bench areas could be
suitable for loop track facilities plus sidings to
accommodate rail-car storage and handling of other
commodities. Based on OEA’s review of information on
existing terminals in other areas of the country, OEA
assumed that terminals at Myton and Leland Bench
would be 400 acres each and would have two doubletracked loops with 10,000 feet of additional car storage
track for both the low oil production scenario and high
oil production scenario.
The rail terminal developers would determine the
design and features of any terminals, where storage
and transfer of crude oil between trucks, tanks, and
rail cars would be subject to the Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasure regulations per 40
C.F.R. Part 112. Based on existing terminals
developed elsewhere, the basic features for such
terminals, in addition to the required rail track, would
include facilities for offloading crude oil from tanker
trucks, heated crude oil storage tanks and associated
piping and pumping, multiple rail tank car loading,
facilities
for
handling
nonoil
commodities,
JA 361
administration and utility buildings, and access roads.
A mobile crane would be used for loading/offloading
non-oil commodities, and open (lay down) areas would
be provided for temporary storage of such
commodities. These features are illustrated in Figure
3.15-2.
Figure 3.15-2. Example Crude Oil Rail Loading
Terminal
As shown, multiple tanks would be anticipated as
part of each terminal facility. Air emissions from
tanks and unloading/loading would be controlled by
flaring and/or vapor combustion units based on each
terminal’s permit issued by the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality. To account for congestion,
weather, or other considerations and potential sources
of schedule delay, OEA anticipates that terminals
would have approximately 5 days of oil-storage
capacity.
JA 362
For the low oil production scenario, OEA assumed
that each terminal would have four heated tanks with
an approximate 350,000-barrel total storage capacity.
Each terminal would have the capacity to load, on
average, one train (approximately 70,000 barrels) per
day. OEA assumed that the facility would be able to
unload at least six trucks simultaneously, load crude
oil into at least 12 rail cars simultaneously, and load a
unit train in approximately 12 hours. OEA further
assumed, again based on readily available information
on North Dakota and Colorado terminals, that each
facility would employ approximately 50 personnel,
and peak construction employment would be 300
personnel for each facility.
For the high oil production scenario, OEA
assumed each terminal would have eight heated tanks
with an approximate 900,000-barrel total storage
capacity and would have the capacity to load three
trains per day. OEA assumed the facility would be
able to unload at least 12 trucks simultaneously, load
crude oil into at least 24 rail cars and two trains
simultaneously, and load a unit train in
approximately 12 hours. OEA further assumed that
each facility would employ approximately 125
personnel, and that peak construction employment
would be 300 personnel.
3.15.4.2 Other Projects and Actions
OEA identified other projects and actions in the
cumulative impacts study area with the potential to
contribute to cumulative effects (Figure 3.15-1). The
other projects and actions considered include
infrastructure improvements (i.e., airport expansion,
facility improvements, stormwater infrastructure),
JA 363
watershed improvement projects, road improvements
projects, Forest Service actions, interstate electric
power transmission lines, and cultural resources
preservation. These projects are briefly described
below; details of specific projects are included in
Appendix R, Other Projects and Actions Considered in
the Cumulative Impacts Analysis.
•
Facility
and
other
infrastructure
improvements.
These
projects
include
improvements to the Roosevelt Airport runway
and taxiway, new construction or improvements
to Peerless Port of Entry facilities, construction of
a new library, and stormwater infrastructure
improvements.
•
Watershed improvement projects. Watershed
improvement projects address flood protection,
sedimentation,
water
quality,
watershed
protection,
water supply
and irrigation
infrastructure, agricultural water management,
and public recreation development.
•
Road
improvement
projects.
Road
improvement
projects
include
road
reconstruction, road widening, rehabilitation of
roadway surfaces, drainage improvements,
addition of guardrails and shoulder widening, and
landscaping.
•
Forest Service actions. Forest Service actions
include forestry management and restoration
projects, OHV trail construction, removing a
historical guard station, and managing grazing
allotments on Forest Service-managed land.
JA 364
•
BLM actions. BLM actions include fluid mineral
leasing, surface leasing for grazing, issuance and
maintenance of right-of-way grants, and
management actions to implement the BLM’s
Resource Management Plans including managing
BLM-administered land for recreation, hunting,
fishing, wildlife habitat, and special designations.
•
Interstate electric power transmission. Two
planned interstate electric power transmission
projects cross the cumulative impacts study area:
the Gateway South Transmission Line and the
TransWest Express Transmission Line. Following
the release of the Draft EIS, BLM notified OEA
that a segment of the proposed route for the
planned Gateway South Transmission Line in the
Emma Park area had been moved south to be
closer to the proposed rail line, as shown in Figure
3.15-1. The cumulative impact analysis reflects
the new location of this planned transmission
line.
•
Cultural resources preservation. The U.S.
Department of the Interior Bureau of
Reclamation (Bureau of Reclamation) entered
into a Programmatic Agreement with the Utah
State Historic Preservation Officer that will
govern the mitigation for adverse effects on
irrigation infrastructure for projects for which the
Bureau of Reclamation is consulting under
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act. The Programmatic Agreement applies to
projects where the Bureau of Reclamation is the
lead federal agency (regardless of land status) and
applies to projects that have a determination of
JA 365
adverse effect on historic properties, which
include irrigation infrastructure. The duration of
the Programmatic Agreement is 10 years from the
date it was fully executed (February 6, 2020).
•
Crude oil processing facility. Uintah
Advantage Energy Associates is proposing to
develop a crude oil processing facility in the Basin.
3.15.5 Cumulative Impacts by Resource
3.15.5.1 Vehicle Safety and Delay
Cumulative Impacts Study Area
The vehicle safety and delay cumulative impacts
study area includes the public roadways in the Basin
that could have increased vehicle traffic as a result of
construction and operation of the proposed rail line.
The cumulative impacts study area for vehicle safety
and delay is the same as the project study area for the
analysis of direct and indirect effects.
Cumulative Impacts
Oil and Gas Development
Construction and operation of any of the Action
Alternatives would, along with oil and gas
development activities in the Basin, contribute to
increased vehicle trips in the cumulative impacts
study area that could increase the potential for vehicle
safety and delay impacts. OEA anticipates that
construction of the proposed rail line would occur
during the same time period as terminal construction
and that both activities would contribute additional
vehicle trips on study area roads. To be conservative,
OEA based the cumulative impacts analysis for the
construction period on the Whitmore Park Alternative
because the Whitmore Park Alternative would have
JA 366
the greatest number of vehicle trips, and therefore the
most vehicle safety and delay impacts, in any single
year (Section 3.1, Vehicle Safety and Delay, Table 3.17). Table 3.15-32 displays the estimated annual
vehicle traffic, average annual daily vehicle trips, and
one-way design hour volume (i.e., a measure of traffic
at the daily 1-hour peak volume) that would be
associated with construction of the terminals and the
proposed rail line, which is the year that OEA expects
that construction-related traffic would be the highest.
Table 3.15-3. Estimated Traffic for Terminal
Construction
and
Proposed
Rail
Line
Construction
Vehicle trips during construction of the proposed
rail line, combined with terminal construction, would
generate an estimated 402 vehicle trips per hour
during peak hour traffic flow. These trips would be
distributed over multiple roadways within the Basin.
As described in Section 3.1, Vehicle Safety and Delay,
the major roadways in the study area all have
substantial additional capacity. For purposes of
comparison, OEA assumed vehicle traffic would be
distributed evenly among the major roadways in the
study area. Table 3.15-43 displays the used roadway
capacity for the five major roadways in the study area
under baseline conditions during the construction
period, which is assumed to be the first year of
construction in 2022, and the increase in capacity used
during construction of the proposed rail line and
JA 367
terminals. Used roadway capacity would increase by a
maximum of 5 percent on the major roadways, leaving
substantial remaining capacity.
Table 3.15-4. Percentage of Used Roadway
Capacity during Terminal Construction and
Proposed Rail Line Construction
In addition to the major roadways, vehicles used
for terminal construction would also use a network of
local roads, anticipated to include Leland Bench Road,
7500 E, /AR-88, and Sandwash Road/6000
W/58885880 W. Traffic on these roads would increase
during construction of the terminals and could result
in delays and localized road damage from construction
vehicles and heavy equipment. Traffic data are not
available for these and other local roads, but in
general traffic would be lower than the major roads as
they are rural and primarily carry local traffic. The
anticipated increase in vehicle use on these local roads
could result in vehicle delays, although the impacts
would be temporary during the construction period.
Damage to local roads as a result of construction
equipment could be addressed through road use or
easement agreements between the rail terminal
developers and local government agencies and
landowners. Because of the ample roadway capacity in
the study area and temporary nature of the impact,
JA 368
traffic from construction of the proposed rail line,
when combined with traffic from terminal
construction would not result in significant
cumulative impacts on vehicle delay.
Once the proposed rail line and the terminals are
constructed, oil and gas construction and operations
and terminal operations would increase until the
steady state production volumes described above are
achieved. These activities would generate vehicle trips
as production wells are explored and placed into
production and as the rail terminals and proposed rail
line operate. OEA has based the cumulative impacts
analysis for the steady state operational period on the
Wells Draw Alternative because the Wells Draw
Alternative would have the greatest number of vehicle
trips during rail operations (Section 3.1, Vehicle Safety
and Delay, Table 3.1-10). Table 3.15-54 displays the
estimated annual vehicle traffic, annual average daily
vehicle trips, and design hour volumes that would be
associated with steady state oil well construction and
operation, terminal operations, and operations of the
proposed rail line.
JA 369
Table 3.15-5. Estimated Annual Traffic for
Steady State Oil and Gas Development and
Operation of Proposed Rail Line
Under the high oil production scenario, 471 trips
during one-hour peak traffic volume would be
produced from oil and gas development activity.
Operation of the proposed rail line would also generate
additional vehicle trips, primarily associated with
employee commuting, but the number of vehicle trips
would be relatively low at about 11 vehicle trips per
hour. Similar to what would occur during rail
construction, these vehicular trips would be
distributed over multiple roadways within the Basin.
Table 3.15-65 displays the used roadway capacity for
the five major roadways in the study area under
baseline conditions (i.e., assumed to be the first year
of railway operations in 2026) and the increase in used
capacity used during steady state oil and gas
development and operation of the proposed rail line.
As the distribution of traffic on area roadways is
unknown, OEA assumed that these five major
JA 370
roadways would carry an approximately even volume
of traffic. Traffic would also be disbursed along other
local public and private roadways throughout the
cumulative impacts study area. Near the rail
terminals, these roads include Leland Bench Road,
7500 E, /AR-88, and Sandwash Road/6000
W/58885880 W. Based on consultation with the Ute
Indian Tribe, these and other local roads near the rail
terminals are used to access communities with tribal
populations, such as Randlett and Fort Duchesne.
OEA understands that tribal members are concerned
about the potential for traffic and road damage on
these roads associated with the increased vehicle trips
from terminal construction and operations. Increases
in traffic to support terminal operations on these roads
could be substantial, and without road improvements
such as additional turning lanes, would result in
vehicle delays. Improvements to public roadways
needed to address increased traffic and wear and tear
associated with the proposed rail line, as well as other
reasonably foreseeable future actions would be paid
for by federal, state, and local taxes.
Table 3.15-6. Used Roadway Capacity during
Steady-State Oil and Gas Development and
Operation of Proposed Rail Line
JA 371
Under the high oil production scenario, used
roadway capacity would increase by a maximum of 6
percent on the major roadways, leaving substantial
remaining capacity. The increased vehicle traffic from
oil and gas development would, therefore, have limited
impacts on vehicle delay on major roadways. OEA
concludes that because of ample roadway capacity and
the dispersion of the increased traffic from oil and gas
development, impacts on major roadways from the
proposed rail line, when combined with traffic from oil
and gas development would result in negligible
cumulative impacts on vehicle delay. Local roads,
however, have smaller roadway capacity, and OEA
concludes that the increase in traffic on local roads
used to serve the terminals could result in significant
cumulative impacts on vehicle delay in the absence of
road improvements or other mitigation.
For the analysis of vehicle safety, OEA evaluated
the increase in annual VMT because a higher VMT
would correspond to a higher potential for vehicle
accidents. Table 3.15-76 displays the annual VMT
that would be associated with construction of the
terminals and the proposed rail line. For comparison,
the table also shows the county-wide VMT for
Duchesne and Uintah Counties, the two counties in
which the major portion of the proposed rail line would
be constructed, and the two counties in which the
terminals would be constructed. Total VMT per year
would be approximately 15 percent of the VMT per
year in Duchesne and Uintah Counties. The increase
in VMT from construction of the terminals and
proposed rail line would be primarily from commercial
vehicles operated by professional, licensed and trained
operators, who would be required to adhere to federal
JA 372
and state safety standards. Again, OEA based the
cumulative impacts analysis for the construction
period on the Whitmore Park Alternative because the
Whitmore Park Alternative would have the greatest
number of vehicle trips in a single year (Section 3.1,
Vehicle Safety and Delay, Table 3.1-7). Vehicle miles
traveled from any of the Action Alternatives, when
combined with VMT from terminal construction would
not result in significant cumulative impacts on vehicle
safety because of the commercial vehicle operator
safety standards that would apply and the available
roadway capacity on major roadways in the Basin.
Table 3.15-7. Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled for
Terminal Construction and Proposed Rail Line
Construction in 2022
Table 3.15-87 shows the annual VMT associated
with steady state oil well construction and operation,
terminal operations, and operations of the proposed
rail line. Under the high oil production scenario, total
VMT per year would be approximately 6 percent of the
VMT per year in Duchesne and Uintah Counties. OEA
again based the cumulative impacts analysis for the
steady state operational period on the Wells Draw
Alternative because the Wells Draw Alternative
would have the greatest number of vehicle trips
during operations (Section 3.1, Vehicle Safety and
Delay, Table 3.1-10).
JA 373
Table 3.15-8. Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled for
Steady-State Oil and Gas Development and
Operation of Proposed Rail Line
Vehicle safety in the study area is generally good;
crash rates in Uintah and Duchesne Counties, where
most oil and gas activity is occurring, is below the
national average. Because of the commercial vehicle
operator safety standards, the available roadway
capacity in the Basin, and low existing crash rates,
VMT from any of the Action Alternatives, when
combined with VMT from oil and gas development
would not result in significant cumulative impacts on
vehicle safety.
Other Projects and Actions
The proposed rail line would affect vehicle safety
and delay, and would result in cumulative impacts on
vehicle safety and delay when combined with impacts
from other projects. Construction of reasonably
foreseeable projects within the cumulative impacts
JA 374
study area, including the Duchesne County Myton
Main Street Project, US 40 Improvement Project,
removal of the Indian Canyon Guard Station, Uintah
Advantage Energy Associates crude oil processing
facility, and additional road improvement projects
(Figure 3.15-1, Items 4 to 15) could occur during the
same time frame as construction of the proposed rail
line, resulting in an increase in vehicle traffic.
Construction on these area roadways may also alter
traffic patterns temporarily as drivers avoid
construction. Because the study area is largely rural
with limited detour routes, temporary impacts on
vehicle delay could occur for the duration of the rail
construction phase. Operations of the Uintah
Advantage Energy Associates crude oil processing
facility, which would be located near the proposed rail
line terminus and one of the rail terminals at Leland
Bench, would require trucks to transport products to
and from the facility, contributing to increased traffic
on area roadways. When combined with the increased
traffic from operations of proposed rail line and rail
terminals described previously, the effects of vehicle
delay on local roadways, such as Leland Bench Road
and 7500 E/AR-88, could be significant. Relative to
existing road capacity in the cumulative impacts study
area, impacts on major roadways from increased
traffic due to the other projects and the proposed rail
line would be low. Implementation of the mitigation
measures listed in Chapter 4, Mitigation, such as
installation of detour signage during construction,
would also reduce the impacts on safety and delay
resulting from the proposed rail line. Therefore, OEA
concludes that the contribution of impacts from the
proposed rail line to cumulative impacts on major
JA 375
roadways would not be significant. Impacts on local
roads used to serve the crude oil processing facility
and terminal at Leland Bench could result in
significant cumulative impacts on vehicle delay in the
absence of road improvements or other mitigation.
3.15.5.2 Rail Operations Safety
Cumulative Impacts Study Area
OEA defined the rail operations safety cumulative
impacts study area as the track for each of the Action
Alternatives. The cumulative impacts study area for
rail operations safety is the same as the project study
area for the analysis of direct and indirect effects.
Cumulative Impacts
Oil and Gas Development
As noted previously, the two oil production
scenarios would have different levels of associated
equipment at the new rail terminals at Myton and
Leland Bench. Table 3.15-98 summarizes the
equipment OEA assumed for the purposes of the
cumulative impacts analysis for rail operations safety.
Table 3.15-9.
Equipment
Assumed
Terminal
Facility
These terminal operations each have the potential
to have accidents involving injuries to workers;
damage to rail cars, trucks, and equipment onsite; or
possibly oil spills resulting from equipment failures,
human errors, or external events such as vandalism or
extreme weather. The terminal operator’s use of
JA 376
proper procedures, protective equipment, and training
would limit the likelihood of injury or damage.
Potential releases would most likely be small leaks
from hoses, pipes, valves, or fittings. Larger releases
would be much less likely and might be from major
pipe breaks, storage tank leaks, or damage to rail cars.
Since terminal operations would all take place in a
fixed location and the terminals would be constructed
in compliance with applicable local, state, and
national standards and guidelines (such as 40 C.F.R.
Part 1122), OEA expects that the terminal facilities
would implement and acquire appropriate worker
protection, train and truck movement controls, overfill
control systems, excess flow valves, emergency
response systems and procedures, spill-containment
features, and fire protection equipment. This would
minimize both the potential for accidents of any kind
and the potential consequences of accidents. These
anticipated terminal operations are the only identified
projects that could contribute to cumulative impacts
related to rail operations safety.
Other Projects and Actions
Aside from the potential rail terminals, other
planned or proposed projects and actions would not
have direct impacts on rail operations safety (or vice
versa) since they do not have any rail operations
proposed. Therefore, no additional cumulative impacts
analysis is warranted.
2 40 C.F.R. Part 112 addresses oil pollution prevention including
spill prevention, control, and countermeasures.
JA 377
3.15.5.3 Water Resources
Cumulative Impacts Study Area
OEA defined the water resources cumulative
impacts study area for surface waters, floodplains, and
wetlands as the hydraulic unit code (HUC) 10
watersheds that would be crossed by the proposed rail
line (Figure 3.3-1). OEA did not assess cumulative
groundwater impacts specifically because, as
described in Section 3.3, Water Resources, OEA
expects that, because impacts would generally be
limited to the rail line footprint, or are not anticipated,
the proposed rail line would not have adverse impacts
on groundwater use (i.e., supply/drawdown),
groundwater recharge, or groundwater quality., or
shallow groundwater flow.
Cumulative Impacts
Oil and Gas Development
Oil and gas development could affect water
resources. Past and ongoing oil and gas well
construction and operation projects have resulted in
ground clearing, soil erosion, placement of fill
material, installation of culverts in access roads, use
of equipment, and maintenance (e.g., vegetation
management) that have affected water resources
throughout the study area. Similar activities from
foreseeable future oil and gas development would
similarly affect water resources; the impacts that
would affect surface water, floodplains, and wetlands
resources from oil and gas development are similar to
those that would occur from the proposed rail line
(Section 3.3.3.1, Impacts Common to All Action
Alternatives). Oil and gas development could also
result in accidental releases of crude oil into surface
JA 378
waters at production sites or from tanker trucks.
However, the properties of the waxy crude oils
produced in the Basin would help reduce the potential
impact and make cleanup easier than it would be for
most crude oils, thereby helping to avoid or minimize
the long-term chronic effects. In addition, oil and gas
development could affect groundwater resources,
depending on the methods of drilling used and the
location of the development activities. Those
groundwater impacts could include drawdown of
aquifers as a result of water withdrawals for hydraulic
fracturing or the discharge of fracturing fluids or
wastewater into groundwater. However, as previously
discussed, construction and operation of the proposed
rail line are not anticipated to contribute to
cumulative impacts on groundwater.
The extent of the cumulative impacts would
depend on the location of an oil or gas well relative to
the Action Alternatives, with a greater potential for a
cumulative impact if oil and gas development is near
an Action Alternative (i.e., same subwatershed). The
distance of each Action Alternative to oil and gas
development areas is about the same; therefore, the
potential for cumulative impacts would be generally
the same: 36.2 miles of both the Indian Canyon
Alternative and Whitmore Park Alternative are
within oil and gas development areas, and 36.6 miles
of the Wells Draw Alternative are within oil and gas
development areas. Because future oil and gas
projects would be subject to applicable federal, state,
and local permitting, cumulative impacts on water
resources would be avoided or minimized through
compliance with state and federal laws and
regulations that protect water resources, including,
JA 379
but not limited to, Clean Water Act (CWA) Sections
401, 402, 404, and National Flood Insurance Program
and local floodplain management regulations.
Oil and gas well operations also produce a waste
stream, including produced water, which is the largest
waste stream component generated during oil and gas
production. Produced water is natural groundwater
that is extracted along with oil and gas; it is commonly
saline and mixed with oil residues, so it must be either
disposed of or treated and reused. Produced water
disposal could result in cumulative surface water
quality impacts depending on the disposal method.
Current produced water disposal in the Basin consists
of injection into deep wells, storage and evaporation in
lined disposal ponds, and supplying water for flooding
in enhanced oil recovering programs (UGS 2017). Of
the current disposal methods, about 60 percent of the
produced water is injected back into the ground via
deep wells at sufficient depths, so as not to
contaminate shallow aquifers, and where it can no
longer be accessed or used; this is the most common
method of produced water disposal in the United
States (UGS 2018; USEPA 2020). USEPA regulates
these injection wells through the Safe Drinking Water
Act, which established the requirements and
provisions for the Underground Injection Control
Program.
Potential uses for future produced water from
producing formations in the Basin include
waterflooding for secondary recovery, drilling mud
formulation, hydraulic fracturing fluid for well
completion, and use for possible oil shale production
(UGS 2017). None of the current disposal methods or
JA 380
potential future produced water use involve
discharging produced water to surface waters. While
discharge of produced water is an option for oil and gas
producers west of the 98th meridian, which includes
Utah, it is a disposal option rarely used due to the cost
associated with treating produced waters to a level
suitable to discharge to surface waters, as well as the
availability of other wastewater management options
that are lower cost (USEPA 2020). If in the future
treatment of produced waters becomes more costeffective, discharges to surface waters could occur in
the Basin. USEPA regulates produced water
discharge under 40 C.F.R. Part 435 and the CWA
Section 402 NPDES permit program to ensure there
are no exceedances of water quality standards.
Therefore, should produced water be discharged to
surface waters in the future, OEA believes it would be
unlikely to have adverse effects on water quality.
As discussed in Section 3.3, Water Resources,
OEA concludes that the proposed rail line would result
in significant impacts on surface waters and wetlands,
including, in particular, the loss of wetland habitat
and permanent changes to surface water hydrology
from crossing structures and stream realignments.
Future oil and gas projects could worsen these impacts
if the projects were to take place near the Action
Alternatives and affect the same surface waters or
wetlands as the proposed rail line. If the mitigation set
forth in this Draft EIS were implemented, the
Coalition would need to take steps to avoid, minimize,
or mitigate impacts on water resources in compliance
with state and federal regulations that protect water
resources, including CWA Sections 401, 402, and 404.
Future oil and gas projects would also need to comply
JA 381
with these and other regulations, which would lessen
cumulative impacts on water resources.
The Action Alternatives would connect with new
rail terminals at Myton and Leland Bench. The
terminal area at Myton contains several ponds and
emergent wetlands, as well as the Upper Pleasant
Valley Canal and associated intermittent streams and
canals. The terminal area at Leland Bench contains
one intermittent stream and no wetlands. No
floodplains, flood-prone soils, groundwater wells, or
springs exist in either terminal area; therefore, there
would be no cumulative impacts on these resources.
Construction and operation of the terminals would
disturb ground, remove vegetation, and add new
impervious surfaces, which can all affect surface
waters and wetlands within or adjacent to
construction activities, including water quality and
hydrology. Section 3.3, Water Resources, describes in
detail how construction activities related to the
proposed rail line would affect surface waters and
wetlands. Impacts from terminal construction on
surface water and wetlands would be similar to those
from construction of the proposed rail line but would
be smaller in extent because the terminals would have
smaller footprints than the proposed rail line. The
extent of potential impacts would depend on the exact
location and layout of the terminals and if surface
waters and wetlands could be avoided. OEA expects
that impacts on surface waters and wetlands would be
avoided, minimized, or mitigated through compliance
with state and federal laws and regulations that
protect these resources, including, but not limited to,
CWA Sections 401, 402, and 404. If impacts from the
terminals on surface waters and wetlands cannot be
JA 382
avoided, construction of the proposed rail line and the
new terminals would result in cumulative impacts on
water resources in the area of the new terminals.
Other Projects and Actions
In addition to potential future oil and gas
development, other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects and actions could affect
water resources. OEA identified 232 cumulative
projects and actions in the study area, most of which
are currently under construction or implementation or
will be constructed or implemented in the foreseeable
future (Figure 3.15-1 and Appendix R, Other Projects
and Actions Considered in the Cumulative Impacts
Analysis). Many of the cumulative projects and
activities would disturb ground, remove vegetation,
use construction equipment, and/or add new
impervious surfaces, which can all affect water
resources within or adjacent to project activities,
including water quality and hydrology. The impact
mechanisms that would affect water resources from
these cumulative projects and activities would be
similar to those that would occur from the proposed
rail line (Section 3.3.3.1, Impacts Common to All
Action Alternatives).
The extent of potential cumulative impacts would
depend on the location of the cumulative project
relative to the proposed rail line, with a greater
potential for a cumulative impact if the activity is near
the proposed rail line (i.e., same subwatershed). For
example, two of the 232 cumulative projects overlap
with the water resources study areas for the Action
Alternatives (Section 3.3.1.1, Study Areas), including
the Ashley National Forest grazing allotments and the
JA 383
Gateway South Transmission Line. Therefore, these
two projects would have the greatest likelihood of
resulting in cumulative impacts on water resources
due to this geographic overlap.
The significant impacts on water resources from
construction and operation of the proposed rail line
would include the loss of wetland habitat and
permanent changes to surface water hydrology from
crossing structures and stream realignments. Future
projects in the cumulative impacts study area, such as
the Ashley National Forest grazing allotments and the
Gateway South Transmission Line, could worsen
these significant impacts if those projects were to
affect the same surface waters or wetlands as the
proposed rail line. If the mitigation set forth in this
Draft EIS were implemented, the Coalition would
need to take steps to avoid, minimize, or mitigate
impacts on water resources in compliance with state
and federal regulations that project water resources,
including CWA Sections 401, 402, and 404. Future
projects in the cumulative impacts study area would
also need to comply with these and other regulations,
which would lessen cumulative impacts on water
resources.
3.15.5.4 Biological Resources
Cumulative Impacts Study Area
The biological resources cumulative impacts
study area is the same as the study areas defined for
biological resources in Section 3.4.1.1, Study Areas.
While most impacts on biological resources would
occur in or around this study area, some species, such
as big game, could be affected beyond this area due to
their migratory nature.
JA 384
Cumulative Impacts
Oil and Gas Development
Wildlife
Potential future oil and gas development would
affect wildlife species and their habitats. The types
and severity of impacts from oil and gas development
on wildlife would be similar to many of those that
would occur from construction and operation of the
proposed rail line (Section 3.4.3.1, Impacts Common to
All Action Alternatives). Species displacement due to
noise would occur during construction and drilling
activities and from continuous mechanical well
operations. Mortality rates may increase in
conjunction with oil and gas development, especially
for smaller species that have more difficulty escaping
the vegetation-clearing activities. Impacts on habitat
would result from vegetation removal for development
of the well pad and associated features (e.g., road
construction) road construction, pad installation, and
ditch digging. Specific disturbance areas would vary
depending on type of development, type of well used,
and the necessary infrastructure for development and
production. The lifespan of a project would also vary
and would depend on many factors (e.g., economic
conditions, pumping life of well). OEA assumes that
all oil and gas projects would be subject to proper
reclamation procedures in compliance with Utah law
when the wells are abandoned (per Utah Rule 649-3,
Drilling and Operating Practices). Oil and gas wells on
BLM-administered lands would be abandoned and
reclaimed in compliance with BLM requirements.
Any of the Action Alternatives would be
constructed and would operate in landscapes affected
JA 385
by oil and gas development and would contribute to
cumulative impacts on wildlife by causing habitat loss,
degradation, and alteration, as well as potentially
causing injury or mortality of wildlife and changes to
species distribution and composition. The extent of
potential cumulative impacts would depend on the
location of the oil and gas development relative to the
proposed rail line, with a greater potential for a
cumulative impact if the activity is closer to the
proposed rail line. The proposed rail line impact area
and oil and gas development impact area must overlap
for there to be a cumulative impact. However, there is
limited area in which this could occur because oil and
gas development would need to occur within several
hundred feet of the rail line, which is unlikely. There
could be some small areas of wildlife habitat removal
from oil and gas development aroundin the proposed
rail line cumulative impacts study area related to oil
and gas access roads or other ancillary features.
However, any impact on habitat would likely be small
compared to habitat surrounding the area of impact.
In addition, reclamation is required for all oil and gas
development once pumping stops, including on all
federal lands, which would restore the area’s more
natural conditions, where most of the oil and gas
development will likely occur. Noise and the presence
of the rail line could affect wildlife movement and
behavior, but again, this would need to occur near the
proposed rail line where there is overlap with the
impacts generated by both the proposed rail line and
oil and gas development, and the distance at which
noise generated by the proposed rail line would no
longer rise to the level of a significant disturbance to
wildlife is approximately 460 feet from the rail line
JA 386
(Section 3.4.1.3, Analysis Methods). Further, the
direct and indirect impacts of the proposed rail line
would be reduced by the implementation of the
mitigation measures listed in Chapter 4, Mitigation.
For these reasons, OEA anticipates that cumulative
impacts on wildlife from the proposed rail line and oil
and gas development would not be significant.
Due to their migratory nature and large ranges,
big game populations could experience impacts beyond
the vicinity of the proposed rail line and throughout
the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR)
management units. While all of the Action
Alternatives would remove less than 1 percent of
available crucial big game habitat in the UDWR
management units (Table 3.4-15), oil and gas
development in these management units could remove
additional big game crucial habitat. The extent of
potential impacts would depend on the exact location
and layout of the well pads and if big game habitat
could be avoided. A geographic information system
(GIS) analysis of the area of big game crucial habitat
within oil and gas fields compared to all available
crucial habitat in each species’ UDWR management
unit indicates that the percent of crucial habitat for
each species in oil and gas fields is generally small,
with the exception of pronghorn (Table 3.15-10).
Further, because oil and gas development projects
would not disturb the entire area of the oil and gas
fields in which they take place, the numbers presented
in Table 3.15-10 tend to overstate the percentage of
available crucial habitat in UDWR management units
that would be disturbed by oil and gas development.
Oil and gas development throughout oil and gas fields
can affect big game migration similar to the migration
JA 387
impacts described for the proposed rail line. Most of
the big game movement corridors mapped by UDWR
(see Appendix G, Biological Resources Figures, for the
movement corridors for each big game species) occur
on oil and gas fields. Sawyer et al. (2020) studied the
impact of natural gas development in Wyoming on
mule deer migration and found that migratory use by
mule deer generally decreased as natural gas
development and surface disturbance increased.
Declines in migratory use related to surface
disturbance were nonlinear, where migratory use
sharply declined when surface disturbance from
development exceeded 3 percent (Sawyer et al. 2020).
Disturbance thresholds may vary across regions,
species, or migratory habitats (Sawyer et al. 2020). To
offset the proposed rail line’s impacts on big game
migration, OEA is recommending mitigation measure
BIO-MM-18, which would require the Coalition to
develop a big game movement corridor crossing plan.
Oil and gas development that occurs on federal lands
(e.g., BLM) would need to comply with the land
agency’s land use management plan and any
requirements to avoid or mitigate impacts on big game
and big game migration. Similarly, oil and gas
development on state lands, tribal lands, or private
lands would need to address big game migration
impacts in accordance with applicable state or tribal
requirements for oil and gas development. With OEA’s
recommended big game movement corridor crossing
plan for the proposed rail line, along with the
requirements and guidance of federal, tribal, and state
agencies that address big game impacts from oil and
gas development, OEA expects that cumulative
JA 388
impacts on big game and big game migration would be
minimized.
Table 3.15-10. Percent of All Big Game Crucial
Habitats in Oil and Gas Fields Compared to All
Crucial Habitat throughout Each UDWR
Management Unit
The Action Alternatives would connect with
terminals at Myton and Leland Bench. The Myton
terminal would be within mule deer habitat and both
terminals would be within pronghorn antelope habitat
(see Appendix G, Biological Resources Figures, for big
game species habitats). Both terminals would be
outside of bighorn sheep, elk, and moose habitat, and
the Leland Bench terminal would be outside of mule
deer habitat; therefore, there would be no cumulative
impacts on those species. There is no mule deer crucial
JA 389
habitat at the Myton terminal (just substantial
habitat), and pronghorn crucial habitat is present at
the Leland Bench terminal and in part of the Myton
terminal location. Similar to the Action Alternatives’
impact on pronghorn crucial habitat (Table 3.4-15),
impacts on pronghorn crucial habitat would be small
compared to the available crucial habitat in the
UDWR pronghorn management unit. No mule deer
movement corridors were identified by UDWR around
the Myton terminal, and several pronghorn high
importance movement corridors were identified by
UDWR around the Myton terminal (none at the
Leland Bench terminal) (see Appendix G, Biological
Resources Figures, for big game movement corridors).
Construction and operation of the terminals would
cause habitat loss for various wildlife species, increase
potential for wildlife injury and mortality, and result
in wildlife avoidance from increased human activity in
and around the terminals. The proposed rail line
would contribute to these impacts, the extent of which
would depend on the exact location and layout of the
terminals, and the species affected. For most wildlife
species, impacts would likely be localized and habitat
impacts small compared to available habitat
surrounding the area of impact. For other species,
particularly migrating pronghorn, the impacts may
extend beyond the immediate vicinity of the proposed
rail line and terminals and affect pronghorn
populations in the UDWR management unit.However,
similar to the discussion for oil and gas development,
the proposed rail line’s contributing impacts on
wildlife are not anticipated to be extensive due to the
limited overlap of the of the proposed rail line
cumulative impacts study area; any impact that would
JA 390
occur in terms of both ground disturbance to habitat
and nNoise that would be generated by trains would
be limited to within several hundred feet of the
proposed rail line, which would not extend far into the
terminal footprints. Therefore, OEA anticipates that
the impacts from the proposed rail line, when
combined with construction and operation of the
terminals, would not result in significant cumulative
impacts on most wildlife species. Impacts on
pronghorn movement corridors could be adversely
affected by both the proposed rail line and Myton
terminal. However, none of the pronghorn movement
corridors go through the Myton terminal location, and
with OEA’s recommended big game movement
corridor crossing plan for the proposed rail line (BIOMM-18), OEA expects that cumulative impacts on
pronghorn movement corridors in the area of the
Myton Terminal would be minimized.
Fish
As discussed in detail in Section 3.4, Biological
Resources, construction of the proposed rail line could
affect fish by affecting water quality in nearby streams
or altering fish habitat. Oil and gas development could
also affect fish if construction or operations activities
were to degrade water quality of nearby streams or
alter fish habitat. The types and severity of impacts
from oil and gas development on fish would be similar
to many of those that would occur from the proposed
rail line (Section 3.4.3.1, Impacts Common to All
Action Alternatives). OEA assumes that oil and gas
developers would minimize surface water impacts by
implementing avoidance and minimization measures,
JA 391
such as sediment barriers, in compliance with
appropriate federal, state, and local requirements.
Any Action Alternative would add to fish impacts
from oil and gas development, including water quality
degradation and habitat alteration. The extent of
potential cumulative impacts would depend on the
location of the oil and gas development relative to the
proposed rail line, with a greater potential for a
cumulative impact if the activity is closer to the
proposed rail line. Fish habitat (i.e., surface waters) is
protected through federal and state surface water and
water
quality
regulations
and
permitting
requirements. Because future oil and gas projects and
the proposed rail line would be subject to the same
applicable federal and state permitting requirements,
cumulative impacts on water resources that support
fish would be avoided or minimized through
compliance with state and federal laws and
regulations that protect water resources, including
CWA Sections 401, 402, and 404. Any cumulative
impacts that could occur would be localized and
minimized through implementation of mitigation
measures (e.g., sediment barriers) required by
applicable permits. Therefore, OEA anticipates that
the impacts from the proposed rail line, when
combined with impacts from oil and gas development,
would not result in significant cumulative impacts on
fish.
The terminal areas at Myton and Leland Bench
contain no perennial streams that support fish
populations. Several ponds, the Upper Pleasant Valley
Canal, and associated intermittent streams and
canals are located within the terminal areas that could
JA 392
provide habitat for fish. Construction of the rail
terminals would add impervious cover and increase
surface water runoff that could affect fish habitat. The
proposed rail line would contribute to these impacts,
the extent of which would depend on the exact location
and layout of the terminals and if surface waters
containing fish habitat could be avoided. However, as
described for oil and gas development, fish habitat
(i.e., surface waters) is protected through federal and
state surface water and water quality regulations and
permitting requirements, which would apply to both
the proposed rail line and terminals. As such,
cumulative impacts on water resources that support
fish would be avoided or minimized through
compliance with state and federal laws and
regulations that protect water resources, including
CWA Sections 401, 402, and 404. Therefore, OEA
anticipates that the impacts from the proposed rail
line, when combined with construction and operation
of the terminals, would not result in significant
cumulative impacts on fish.
Vegetation
Oil and gas development would affect vegetation
during construction of roads, pads, and other related
infrastructure. The types and severity of impacts from
oil and gas development on vegetation would be
similar to many of those that would occur from the
proposed rail line (Section 3.4.3.1, Impacts Common to
All Action Alternatives). Specific disturbance areas
would vary depending on type of development, type of
well used, and the necessary infrastructure for
development and production. OEA assumes that all oil
and gas projects would be subject to proper
JA 393
reclamation procedures in compliance with Utah law
when the wells are abandoned (per Utah Rule 649-3,
Drilling and Operating Practices). Oil and gas wells on
BLM lands would be abandoned and reclaimed in
compliance with BLM requirements.
Any Action Alternative would add to vegetation
impacts from oil and gas development, such as
permanent vegetation loss, constraints to plant
germination and growth, the spread of noxious weeds,
effects on plant growth, increased risk of wildfires,
altered riparian vegetation, and altered vegetation
communities. The extent of potential cumulative
impacts would depend on the location of the oil and
gas development relative to the proposed rail line,
with a greater potential for a cumulative impact if the
activity is closer to the proposed rail line. The
proposed rail line impact area and oil and gas
development impact area must overlap for there to be
a cumulative impact. However, there is limited area in
which this could occur because oil and gas
development would need to occur within several
hundred feet of the rail line, which is unlikely. There
could be some small areas of vegetation removal from
oil and gas development in the proposed rail line
cumulative impacts study area related to oil and gas
access roads or other ancillary features. However, any
impact on vegetation would likely be small compared
to the area of vegetation surrounding the impact area.
In addition, reclamation is required for all oil and gas
development once pumping stops, including on all
federal lands, where most of the oil and gas
development will likely occur. Further, the direct and
indirect impacts of the proposed rail line would be
reduced by the implementation of the mitigation
JA 394
measures listed in Chapter 4, Mitigation. For these
reasons, OEA anticipates that cumulative impacts on
vegetation from the proposed rail line and oil and gas
development would not be significant.
The Action Alternatives would connect with
terminals at Myton and Leland Bench. Land cover at
both terminals is primarily Inter-Mountain Basins
Mat Saltbush Shrubland. Construction of the
terminals would disturb ground, remove vegetation,
and add new impervious surfaces, which can all affect
vegetation within or adjacent to construction
activities. The proposed rail line would contribute to
these impacts, the extent of which would depend on
the exact location and layout of the terminals.
However, OEA expects that the proposed rail line’s
contributing impacts on vegetation would not be
significant due to the limited overlap of the proposed
rail line cumulative impacts study area; any ground
disturbance and vegetation impact would be limited to
within several hundred feet of the proposed rail line,
which would not extend far into the terminal
footprints. The proposed rail line would terminate in
areas with little vegetation cover and low to very low
Wildfire Hazard Potential (Forest Service 2020a).
Therefore, the risk that operations at new rail
terminals could trigger a wildfire would be low and
OEA does not anticipate any cumulative wildfire
impacts as a result of the proposed rail line and new
rail terminals.
Special Status Species
As discussed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources,
OEA concludes that impacts from construction and
operation of the proposed rail line on biological
JA 395
resources would be significant in part because of the
number of special-status species that could be
affected, including species listed as threatened or
endangered under the ESA. The proposed rail line
would affect special-status species by displacing,
degrading, or altering habitat, introducing a new
source of noise that could disturb wildlife, and
potentially causing injury or mortality of the species
status species and changes to species distribution and
composition. New oil and gas development projects
could worsen impacts on special-status species if the
projects were to take place in the same area as the
proposed rail line and affect the same special-status
species habitat as the proposed rail line.
Oil and gas development could affect specialstatus species in the same way that it could affect
common plant and animal species. The types and
severity of impacts from oil and gas development on
special-status species would be similar to many of
those that would occur from the proposed rail line
(Section 3.4.3.1, Impacts Common to All Action
Alternatives). The extent of potential cumulative
impacts would depend on the location of the oil and
gas development relative to the proposed rail line,
with a greater potential for a cumulative impact if the
activity is closer to the proposed rail line. However,
similar to the discussions for wildlife and vegetation,
the proposed rail line’s contributing impacts on
wildlife and vegetation are not anticipated to be
extensive; any impact that would occur in terms of
both ground disturbance to habitat and wayside noise
from trains would generally be limited to within
several hundred feet of the proposed rail line.
JA 396
Implementation of the mitigation measures
described in this Draft EIS would avoid, minimize, or
mitigate impacts on special-status species from
construction and operation of the proposed rail line.
OEA is consulting with USFWS under ESA Section 7
to develop measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate
impacts on ESA-listed species, including Pariette
cactus (Sclerocactus brevispinus), Uinta Basin
hookless cactus (Sclerocactus wetlandicus), Barneby
ridge-cress (Lepidium barnebyanum), Ute ladies’tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis), Colorado pikeminnow
(Ptychocheilus Lucius), humpback chub (Gila cypha),
bonytail (Gila elegans), and razorback sucker
(Xyrauchen texanus) (Appendix I, Draft Biological
Assessment). New oil and gas development projects
would follow either the ESA Section 7 process (for
projects with a federal nexus) or ESA Section 10
process (for projects with no federal nexus), which
would develop measures to avoid, minimize, or
mitigate impacts on ESA-listed species. Under ESA
Section 7, federal action agencies must ensure that
their proposed action does not jeopardize the
continued existence of ESA-listed species or adversely
modify designated critical habitat. As part of the ESA
Section 10 process, USFWS must also ensure that
their action of issuing an Incidental Take Permit to a
non-federal entity does not jeopardize the continued
existence of ESA-listed species or adversely modify
designated critical habitat. These requirements would
lessen the cumulative impacts of oil and gas
development projects and the proposed rail line on
ESA-listed species.
Any of the Action Alternatives would cross habitat
for greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus),
JA 397
a special-status species that is managed by BLM and
the State of Utah, in the Emma Park area near the
southern ends of the Action Alternatives. As stated in
Section 3.4.1.3, Analysis Methods, OEA convened a
greater sage-grouse interagency working group to
address potential construction and operation impacts
of the proposed rail line on the species and their
habitats. The working group included state and
federal staff with expertise on the species and their
habitats,
assessing
potential
impacts,
and
implementation of the current state and BLM greater
sage-grouse management plans. The interagency
group focused on sage-grouse management areas
(SGMAs), which are the areas identified as containing
the necessary habitat for over 94 percent of the greater
sage-grouse in Utah (UDWR 2021). As stated in the
Utah Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse
(State Plan) (State of Utah 2019), areas outside of
SGMAs are not required for long-term conservation of
the species because much of this habitat has already
been disturbed by human and natural causes, and it
not suitable for enhancement or improvement.
Populations outside of SGMAs are not considered
essential to perpetuate the species in Utah, and no
specific management actions for this habitat are
recommended (State of Utah 2019). Therefore, the
interagency working group and impact analysis—
including those impacts from cumulative projects—
focused on the only SGMA that the Action
Alternatives cross, the Carbon SGMA (Section 3.4.2.5,
Greater Sage-Grouse).
Threats to the Carbon SGMA include isolated
small-sized, fire, weeds/annual grasses, energy
development, mining, infrastructure, and recreation
JA 398
(BLM 2015). The Action Alternatives could contribute
to fire, spread of weeds/grass, and infrastructure (i.e.,
habitat removal and noise-related effects) (Section
3.4.3.1, Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives,
and Section 3.4.3.2, Impact Comparison between
Action Alternatives). Of all cumulative projects
identified and shown in Figure 3.15.1, there are only
two cumulative projects that overlap both the Action
Alternatives and the Carbon SGMA, the Castlegate
gas field (i.e., energy development threat) and the
Gateway South Transmission line (see Other Projects
and Actions below). No other identified cumulative
projects are located in the Carbon SGMA. Oil and gas
development would contribute to many of the same
threats as the proposed rail line, including fire, spread
of weeds/grass, and development of the facility (i.e.,
removal of habitat and operations related impacts,
such as noise). Several additional oil and gas fields are
also within the Carbon SGMA but outside of the
Action Alternatives.
Oil and gas well development (within or outside of
a designated field) in the Carbon SGMA would be
subject to the same federal and state management
plans for protection of greater sage-grouse as the
proposed rail line. Under the Utah Greater SageGrouse Approved Resource Management Plan
Amendment (ARMPA) (BLM 2015), any action that
would exceed the established 3 percent disturbance
cap is not allowed until the disturbance has been
reduced to less than the cap. Any future cumulative
action that would exceed the BLM disturbance cap
(regardless of land ownership) in the Carbon SGMA
would not be allowed to proceed. The disturbance cap
is a protective measure that limits habitat loss and
JA 399
habitat fragmentation. Additional non-habitat-related
measures in SGMAs would also need to be addressed
under the ARMPA for cumulative projects to help
conserve the species, including noise levels near leks
and lek populations within 3.1 miles of a proposed
action. If the Board were to approve an Action
Alternative that crossed BLM land, the Coalition
would need to ensure that construction and operation
of the proposed rail line would be in compliance with
the ARMPA, which could include working with BLM
to minimize impacts on greater sage-grouse (Chapter
4, Mitigation, BIO-MM-13). New oil and gas
development projects, if on BLM land, would also need
to comply with the ARMPA to avoid and minimize
impacts on greater sagegrouse. The State Plan has
similar protective measures as the ARMPA, but they
are suggested measures rather than requirements.
However, to offset the proposed rail line’s impacts on
greater sage-grouse, the Coalition has committed to
executing a Mitigation Agreement with UDWR to
address impacts on the Carbon SGMA (Chapter 4,
Mitigation,
VM-35).
In
addition,
OEA
is
recommending mitigation requiring the Coalition
avoid construction in the Carbon SGMA during the
nesting and breeding season (BIO-MM-16). With the
offsetting mitigation commitment for the proposed rail
line, along with the requirements and guidance in the
ARMPA and State Plan for any cumulative project
development within the Carbon SGMA, OEA expects
that cumulative impacts on greater sage-grouse would
be significantly reduced.
For other BLM sensitive species, Iif the Board
were to approve an Action Alternative that crossed
BLM land, the Coalition would need to ensure that
JA 400
construction and operation of the proposed rail line
would be in compliance with applicable BLM RMPs,
which could include working with BLM to minimize
impacts on BLM special-status species. New oil and
gas development projects, if on BLM land, would also
need to comply with applicable BLM RMPs and other
BLM requirements that would minimize impacts on
BLM special-status species, including greater sagegrouse. If the Board were to approve an Action
Alternative that crosses Forest Service land, the
Coalition would need to abide by any Forest Service
requirements for minimizing impacts on Forest
Service special-status species. Because the Forest
Service Biological Evaluation (Appendix H, Biological
Evaluation) concludes that the proposed rail line
would have little or no impact on Forest Service
Sensitive Species, OEA expects that cumulative
impacts on Forest Service special-status species would
not be significant.
The primary special-status species of concern
near Myton and Leland Bench, where new rail
terminals could be constructed, would be the Ute
Ladies’-tresses, a federally listed threatened plant.
With the exception of Ute Ladies’-tresses, there would
be no cumulative impacts on ESA-listed species
because the rail terminals would be outside of suitable
habitat for those species (Appendix I, Draft Biological
Assessment). The area where the Myton terminal
could be constructed contains some emergent wetland,
which could support Ute Ladies’-tresses. Construction
of the terminals would disturb ground, remove
vegetation, and add new impervious surfaces, which
could all affect Ute Ladies’-tresses within or adjacent
to construction activities, if that species is present in
JA 401
the footprint of the terminal. OEA is consulting with
USFWS under ESA Section 7 to develop measures to
avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts on Ute ladies’tresses. Developers of the new terminals would also
implement measures developed under ESA Section 7
or ESA Section 10 that would minimize impacts on
Ute ladies’-tresses from construction and operation of
the new terminals. Both terminals would be outside of
any UDWR- or BLM-mapped greater sage-grouse
habitat (Figures 3.4-1 and 3.4- 2, respectively);
therefore, there would be no cumulative impacts on
that species.
Other Projects and Actions
In addition to oil and gas development, other
projects and actions could contribute to cumulative
impacts on biological resources, including wildlife,
fish, vegetation, and special-status species. The extent
of potential cumulative impacts would depend on the
location of the cumulative project relative to the
proposed rail line, with a greater potential for a
cumulative impact if the activity crosses the proposed
rail line. Of the projects that OEA identified, the
Forest Service’s management of grazing allotments
and the Gateway South Transmission Line would
intersect the biological resources study area for the
proposed rail line; the Uintah Advantage Energy
Associates crude oil processing facility is within
several hundred feet of the Action Alternative study
areas. The Indian Canyon Alternative and Whitmore
Alternative would intersect approximately 6 miles of
the grazing allotments along US 191 in Ashley
National Forest (Figure 3.15-1). The Indian Canyon
Alternative would intersect the Gateway South
JA 402
Transmission line at one location, the Wells Draw
Alternative would intersect the transmission line at
three locations, and the Whitmore Park Alternative
would intersect the transmission line at five locations
The Indian Canyon Alternative and Whitmore
Alternative would each intersect the proposed
Gateway South Transmission Line at one location,
while the Wells Draw Alternative would intersect the
proposed transmission line at two locations (Figure
3.15-1).
Cattle grazing can adversely affect biological
resources by controlling the vegetation species
composition and structure and removing and/or
trampling vegetation that would otherwise be used for
wildlife food or cover. Defoliation from grazing can
also benefit vegetation by promoting shoot growth;
enhancing light levels, soil moisture, and nutrient
availability; and aiding in seed dispersal and
germination (USFWS 2009).
Electric transmission lines affect biological
resources mainly by clearing vegetation (i.e., habitat
loss), permanently changing forested habitat to
shrubs and/or grasses (via vegetation maintenance in
the right-of-way), and temporarily displacing wildlife
during construction and operations. The Gateway
South Transmission line would cross the greater sagegrouse Carbon SGMA for approximately 18.5 miles
and crosses the Indian Canyon Alternative and Wells
Draw Alternative once, and the Whitmore Park
Alternative twice in the Carbon SGMA. The Gateway
South Transmission line would parallel several leks
within 1 mile in the Carbon SGMA. Power lines have
been shown to affect greater sage-grouse habitat use
JA 403
and demography. Power line infrastructure may
influence population dynamics through effects on
survival, reproduction, and movements of individuals
(Gibson et al. 2018). Direct impacts may occur when
development acts directly as an agent of mortality
(e.g., collision), and indirect impacts may occur as a
by-product of other processes that are altered by
infrastructure presence (e.g., raven predation on leks)
(Gibson et al. 2018). Any of the three Action
Alternatives would contribute to cumulative impacts
on greater sage-grouse in the Carbon SGMA (as
described in Section 3.4.3.1, Impacts Common to All
Action Alternatives, and Section 3.4.3.2, Impact
Comparison between Action Alternatives). If the Board
were to approve an Action Alternative that crossed
BLM land, the Coalition would need to ensure that
construction and operation of the proposed rail line
would be in compliance with the ARMPA, which could
include working with BLM to minimize impacts on
greater sage-grouse (Chapter 4, Mitigation, BIO-MM13). The Gateway South Transmission Line is not on
BLM land in the Carbon SGMA, and, therefore, is not
subject to the ARMPA. The State Plan has similar
protective measures as the ARMPA, but they are
suggested measures rather than requirements. As
discussed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, the
Coalition has committed to executing a Mitigation
Agreement with UDWR to offset the proposed rail
line’s impacts on greater sage-grouse in the Carbon
SGMA (Chapter 4, Mitigation, VM-35). In addition,
OEA is recommending mitigation requiring the
Coalition avoid construction in the Carbon SGMA
during the nesting and breeding season (BIO-MM-16).
With the offsetting mitigation commitment for the
JA 404
proposed rail line, along with the guidance in the State
Plan for any cumulative project development within
the Carbon SGMA, OEA expects that cumulative
impacts of the proposed rail line and the Gateway
South Transmission Line on greater sage-grouse
would be minimized.
Any of the Action Alternatives would add to the
biological resource impacts from cattle grazing and
construction and operation of the Gateway South
Transmission Line. The impacts from cattle grazing
and electrical transmission lines on biological
resources would be similar to many of those that
would occur from the proposed rail line, specifically
vegetation removal and trampling impacts (Section
3.4.3.1, Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives).
However, similar to the discussions for oil and gas
development and rail terminals, the proposed rail
line’s contributing impacts on most biological
resources are not anticipated to be extensive; any
impact that would occur in terms of both in ground
disturbance to habitat and noise that would be
generated by the train would be limited to within
several hundred feet of the proposed rail line. For big
game species, crucial habitat in UDWR big game
management units could be affected by several of the
other projects and actions. However, similar to the
proposed rail line, the area of impact on crucial habitat
for any of the big game species for the other projects
and actions would be small compared to the available
crucial habitat in the UDWR management unit. In
addition, some of the other projects and actions are
projects on existing infrastructure (e.g., road
rehabilitation), which would not be considered big
game habitat even though big game habitat polygons
JA 405
may overlap these areas. Big game movement
corridors could be affected by other projects and
actions, but many of the projects are existing
infrastructure or projects that would unlikely pose a
new barrier to movement (e.g., improvements and
rehabilitation to existing roads) like the proposed rail
line. The Uintah Advantage Energy Associates crude
oil processing facility near the Leland Bench terminal
is within crucial year-long pronghorn habitat, but
similar to the proposed rail line, this area of impact on
crucial habitat would be small compared to the
available crucial habitat in the UDWR management
unit. No big game movement corridors were identified
by UDWR around the Uintah Advantage Energy
Associates crude oil processing facility.
As discussed previously, the proposed rail line
would affect special-status species, including ESAlisted species, by displacing, degrading, or altering
habitat, introducing a new source of noise that could
disturb wildlife, and potentially causing injury or
mortality of special-status species and changes to
species distribution and composition. Future projects
worsen impacts on special-status species if the
projects were to take place in the same area as the
proposed rail line and affect the same special-status
species habitat as the proposed rail line.
Implementation of BLM or Forest Service
requirements on BLM and Forest Service land,
respectively, and of measures developed through ESA
Section 7 or ESA Section 10, as applicable, would
minimize these cumulative impacts.
JA 406
3.15.5.5 Geology, Soils, Seismic Hazards, and
Hazardous Waste Sites
Cumulative Impacts Study Area
OEA defined the cumulative impacts study area
for geology and soils as a 0.5-mile buffer surrounding
the construction footprint3 of each Action Alternative
and a 60-mile buffer surrounding the construction
footprint of each Action Alternative for seismic
hazards. The cumulative impacts study area for
hazardous waste sites includes a 2,000-foot buffer
surrounding the right-of-way for each Action
Alternative. The cumulative impacts study area for
geology and soils, seismic hazards, and hazardous
waste sites are the same as for the analysis of direct
and indirect effects.
Cumulative Impacts
Typically, only projects occurring adjacent to or
very close to the project footprint have the potential to
3 The rail line footprint includes the area of the railbed, as well
as the full width of the area cleared and cut or filled. The rail line
footprint would also include other physical structures installed
as part of the proposed rail line, such as fence lines,
communications towers, siding tracks, relocated roads, and
power distribution lines. The rail line footprint is the area where
rail line operations and maintenance would occur. The area
would be permanently disturbed. The temporary footprint is the
area that would be temporarily disturbed during construction,
including areas for temporary material laydown, staging, and
logistics. The temporary footprint would be reclaimed and
revegetated following construction. The project footprint is the
combined area of the rail line footprint and temporary footprint,
both of which would be disturbed during construction, comprising
where construction and operations of the proposed rail line would
occur.
JA 407
interact with the Action Alternatives to result in
cumulative impacts related to geology and soils. The
proposed rail line would affect geology and soils and
would combine with impacts from the other related
projects to result in cumulative impacts on geology
and soils in the cumulative impacts study area. The
types of impacts from cumulative actions on soils and
geology would be similar to many of those that would
occur from construction and operation of the proposed
rail line (Section 3.4.3.1, Impacts Common to All
Action Alternatives). Impacts would be related to
increased potential for mass movement (e.g.,
landslide), increased erosion and sedimentation,
compaction, mixing soil layers, decomposition of
organic material, reduction in soil quality, and
construction over unmapped abandoned mines, which
could lead to collapse. The contribution of impacts
from construction and operation of the proposed rail
line to cumulative impacts in each affected project
category is summarized as follows.
As it relates to the potential cumulative effect of
hazardous waste sites, generally, only projects
occurring adjacent or very close to the project footprint
would have the potential to affect or be affected by the
proposed rail line due to the limited potential impact
radius associated with the release of hazardous waste
into the environment. As discussed in Section 3.5,
Geology, Soils, Seismic Hazards, and Hazardous
Waste Sites, OEA did not identify any potential direct
impacts related to hazardous waste sites in the study
area.
JA 408
Oil and Gas Development
Any of the Action Alternatives would intersect
with oil and gas fields in the cumulative impacts study
area. This overlap would include existing oil and gas
wells, as well as both exploratory and production wells
and supporting infrastructure that may be created in
the future. Ground-disturbing activities associated
with exploration and oil production, including drilling
and road construction, would contribute to cumulative
impacts, which would affect slope failure, soil erosion,
and the potential for collapse. The Action Alternatives
would also connect with the terminals at Myton and
Leland Bench. The Myton terminal area contains soil
resources that are vulnerable to both wind and water
erosion. Both terminals could be constructed in the
area of unmapped abandoned mines. Therefore,
ground-disturbing activities associated with all three
Action Alternatives would contribute to cumulative
impacts affecting soil erosion near the Myton terminal
and to cumulative impacts related to the potential for
collapse associated with abandoned mines at both
terminals. OEA assumes that future oil and gas
development would comply with applicable federal
and state permits and associated mitigation
measures.
However, because future oil and gas development,
the terminals, and the proposed rail line would be
subject to many of the same applicable federal, state,
and local permitting requirements, cumulative
impacts related to geology, soils, and seismicity would
be avoided or minimized through compliance with
state and federal laws and regulations and local
permitting requirements, including CWA Section 402,
JA 409
Occupational Safety and Health regulations, and
Federal Railroad Administration requirements.
Therefore, OEA concludes that the impacts related to
geology, soils, and seismicity from the proposed rail
line when combined with impacts from the terminals
would not result in significant cumulative impacts.
Other Projects and Actions
In addition to potential future oil and gas
development projects, the cumulative impacts study
area for geology and soils Action Alternatives would
intersect with the footprint of the Removal of Indian
Canyon Guard Station (Figure 3.15-1, Item 22) and
the Gateway South Transmission line (Figure 3.15-1,
Item 24) and the Uintah Advantage Energy Associates
crude oil processing facility (Figure 3.15-1, Item 27).
Ground-disturbing activities associated with all of
these actions would contribute to cumulative impacts
affecting slope failure, soil erosion, and the potential
for collapse. Both the removal of the Indian Canyon
Guard Station andtThe Gateway South Transmission
line would be constructed on geologic units subject to
slope failure and, on soils subject to soil erosion,. Both
projects and could be constructed in the area of
unmapped abandoned mines. The Uintah Advantage
Energy Associates crude oil processing facility is
located on relatively flat land in the Basin where there
is no risk of slope failure, but the facility is in an area
that would be subject to wind erosion.
However, because the other projects and actions
and the proposed rail line would be subject to many of
the same applicable federal, state, and local
permitting requirements, cumulative impacts related
to geology, soils, and seismicity would be avoided or
JA 410
minimized through compliance with state and federal
laws and regulations and local permitting
requirements,
including
CWA
Section
402,
Occupational Safety and Health regulations, and FRA
requirements. Therefore, OEA concludes that the
impacts related to geology, soils, and seismicity from
the proposed rail line, when combined with impacts
from the other actions and projects, would not result
in significant impacts.
3.15.5.6 Noise and Vibration
Cumulative Impacts Study Area
OEA defined the noise and vibration cumulative
impacts study area as a 1-mile buffer from the track
centerline of each Action Alternative. The cumulative
impacts study area for noise and vibration is the same
as the project study area for the analysis of direct and
indirect effects.
Cumulative Impacts
Only projects occurring adjacent to or very close
to the project footprint would have the potential to
interact with the Action Alternatives to result in
cumulative impacts related to noise and vibration. For
example, the 65 DNL noise contours for rail operations
would be less than 700 feet from the tracks. If another
project were to generate noise at that level 700 feet
from the tracks, the result would be a cumulative
increase in noise level of 3 decibels. Noise sources
further away would cause small cumulative increases
in noise level, which typically would not be noticeable.
Vibration is even more localized; therefore,
cumulative vibration effects would be unlikely.
JA 411
Oil and Gas Development
All of the Action Alternatives would intersect with
oil and gas fields in the cumulative impacts study
area. This overlap would include existing oil and gas
wells, as well as both exploratory and production wells
and supporting infrastructure that may be created in
the future. As stated previously, cumulative noise and
vibration effects are unlikely because of the lack of
overlap of associated 65 DNL contours.
Truck-to-rail terminal facilities providing for tank
car loading and storage could include multiple short
tracks, one or more long tracks, or loop tracks. These
activities would generate noise and vibration, as well
as truck traffic to and from the terminals. Cumulative
noise impacts associated with a terminal and rail line
operations would be possible, but unlikely because
there would be no through trains in the immediate
vicinity of the new terminals. Therefore, OEA
concludes that the impacts from the proposed rail line,
when combined with impacts from past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable actions, would not result in
significant cumulative impacts related to noise and
vibration.
Other Projects and Actions
The additional planned or proposed projects and
actions known to OEA would not have direct impacts
on rail operations noise and vibration because of the
lack of overlap of associated 65 DNL contours.
Therefore, OEA concludes that impacts from the
proposed rail line, when combined with impacts from
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions,
would not result in significant cumulative impacts
related to noise and vibration.
JA 412
3.15.5.7 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
Cumulative Impacts Study Area
The air quality and greenhouse gases (GHGs)
cumulative impacts study area includes the same
areas as described in Section 3.7, Air Quality and
Greenhouse Gases. The cumulative impacts study area
for regional air quality includes the area within 100
kilometers (i.e., 62 miles) of the proposed rail line as
shown in Section 3.7, Figure 3.7-1. This area is in the
Wasatch Front Air Quality Control Region (AQCR)
and the Utah Intrastate AQCR in Utah, as designated
by USEPA. The eastern edge of the cumulative
impacts study area also extends about 18 miles into
the Yampa Intrastate AQCR in Colorado. Within the
cumulative impacts study area, OEA assessed air
quality related values (AQRVs), which are resources
that could be adversely affected by a change in air
quality, such as visibility and acidic deposition. There
are no Class I areas within the cumulative impacts
study area. However, OEA assessed AQRVs at the
nearest Class I areas and at sensitive Class II areas
that are located in the cumulative impacts study area.
Cumulative Impacts
As discussed in detail in Section 3.7, Air Quality
and Greenhouse Gases, construction and operation of
the proposed rail line would result in emissions of
criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants,
changes in ambient concentrations of such pollutants,
and impacts on visibility and acidic deposition. Any of
the Action Alternatives would contribute to
cumulative impacts on air quality by adding to
impacts from other projects. Any of the Action
Alternatives would contribute incrementally to
JA 413
climate change by adding GHG emissions. The
following subsections describe the impacts of the other
projects and how impacts from the proposed rail line,
when added to the impacts of these other projects,
could result in cumulative impacts on air quality.
Oil and Gas Development
The cumulative air quality impact assessment for
oil and gas development is based on the assumptions
discussed in Section 3.15.4.1, Oil and Gas
Development. Although this assessment focuses on oil
development because crude oil is the primary product
that would be transported on the proposed rail line,
the wells in the cumulative impacts study area also
may produce natural gas. The construction and
operation of infrastructure to process and transport
the gas also would contribute to cumulative impacts.
Wells and Infrastructure Emissions
To estimate emissions from construction
equipment, drilling equipment, and vehicles used in
well development, OEA used information from the
BLM Monument Butte Oil and Gas Development
Project Final Environmental Impact Statement, which
evaluated a proposed oil and gas field development
project in the Uinta Basin (BLM 2016). The
Monument Butte project would consist of 5,750 new oil
and gas wells, including both vertical and horizontal
oil wells, across 119,743 acres of southeastern
Duchesne County and southwestern Uintah County.
As noted, OEA considers Monument Butte to be
an example of the development that could occur as
part of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future oil and gas projects. Because of the volatility of
energy markets, it would be speculative for OEA to
JA 414
predict the timing and amount of oil and gas
development that could occur as part of the Monument
Butte project. In the Monument Butte EIS, BLM
conservatively calculated the air emissions that could
occur if all 5,750 proposed oil and gas wells were
operating in a given year (the maximum emissions
year), which would be unlikely to occur. Because the
number of producing wells in the maximum emissions
year for the Monument Butte EIS (5,750 wells) is
higher than the number of producing wells that would
be needed to support the high oil production scenario
in any year (3,330 wells), OEA believes that the air
quality impacts described for the maximum emissions
year in the Monument Butte EIS represent a
conservative estimate of the air quality impacts that
could result from producing the crude oil that could
move on the proposed rail line.
To assess cumulative impacts on air quality and
greenhouse gases, OEA added the estimated
emissions from operation of the proposed rail line to
estimated
emissions
from
other
reasonably
foreseeable projects, including the oil and gas
development that would be needed to meet the oil
production scenarios, and compared those combined
emissions to the emissions for the maximum
emissions year from the Monument Butte EIS. OEA
did not add the maximum emissions year emissions
from the Monument Butte EIS to the cumulative
emissions from the proposed rail line and reasonably
foreseeable future projects because doing so would
unreasonably overestimate potential future emissions
from oil and gas development and cumulative air
quality impacts in the study area. OEA assumed that
total the oil and gas development in the Basin would
JA 415
not increase above baseline levels by more than would
be required to meet the high oil production scenario.
Oil and gas development at levels greater than would
be required to meet the high oil production scenario
would be unlikely because the project would not have
the capacity to transport the additional production,
and no alternative infrastructure exists to transport
additional production from the Basin.
The air quality analysis described in the
Monument Butte Final EIS drew on the data and
results of the Utah Air Resource Management
Strategy (ARMS) Modeling Project (BLM 2014), a
comprehensive regional modeling study. The ARMS
Modeling Project is a cumulative assessment of
potential future air quality impacts associated with
predicted oil and gas activity in the Basin. The ARMS
Modeling Project provides data, models, and estimates
of future air quality impacts to facilitate BLM’s future
NEPA and land use planning efforts. The CMAQ
photochemical modeling system was used, primarily
because if its ability to replicate observed wintertime
ozone formation and timing in the Basin (BLM 2014).
To analyze potential future year impacts, model
simulations were conducted for a “typical year” based
on annualized 2010 emissions, and for four 2021
scenarios reflecting differing levels of emissions
controls. Cumulative air quality impacts within the
Basin were assessed for criteria pollutants and
AQRVs.
As discussed previously, the Monument Butte
development project is an example of a recent oil and
gas development proposal in the Basin. If the
Monument Butte project were developed, crude oil
JA 416
produced from the Monument Butte wells potentially
could be transported on the proposed rail line. The
Monument Butte EIS considers the environmental
impact of developing and operating a total of 5,750
new wells, including both vertical and horizontal
wells. OEA recognizes that the characteristics of other
potential future oil and gas development projects in
the cumulative impact study area could differ from
those in the Monument Butte oil field, but there are
no available data on the characteristics of other
potential future oil and gas development projects.
Because the Monument Butte EIS provides the best
available data source on oil and gas development
projects in the Basin, OEA adopted the assumptions
and inputs from the Monument Butte EIS to assess
cumulative air impacts. OEA assumed that future oil
and gas field development in the cumulative impacts
study area would have characteristics similar to those
described for the Monument Butte project, including
the types and numbers of equipment, trucks, and
commuter vehicles that would be required, and that
construction emissions on a per-well or per-facility
basis would also be similar to those estimated for
Monument Butte.
Similarly, OEA assumed that localized air quality
impacts of future oil and gas field development in the
cumulative impacts study area would be similar to the
localized impacts described for the Monument Butte
project. The specific locations of localized air quality
impacts in the cumulative impacts study area are not
known because there are no available data on the
characteristics or local site conditions of potential
future oil and gas development projects.
JA 417
Total air pollutant emissions each year would
vary according to the number of wells constructed in
that year. Construction emissions on a per-well basis
would be the same for both the low oil production
scenario and high oil production scenario, but the high
oil production scenario would result in more wells
under construction at any particular time and so
would have greater annual emissions than the low oil
production scenario. For purposes of estimating
cumulative impacts of the proposed rail line, OEA
assumed the low oil production scenario would
coincide with the low rail traffic scenario, and the high
oil production scenario would correspond to the high
rail traffic scenario. Table 3.15-119 shows the
emissions by source type for both oil production
scenarios. OEA assumed that future well operations
in the cumulative impacts study area would have
characteristics similar to those of the Monument
Butte project as discussed previously, including the
same facilities, equipment and vehicles, truck trips,
and emissions controls.
Once a well is producing, emissions occur from
operations and maintenance activities, which
generate truck trips to the well site, and from trucks
that transport the crude oil to the rail terminals.
Emissions also occur from venting, flaring, equipment
leaks, and engine exhaust from equipment located at
operating wells (e.g., heaters, dehydrators, separators,
tanks,
pumpjack
engines).
Operations
and
maintenance activities for gas wells are similar to
those for oil wells, and emissions are assumed to be
similar.
JA 418
3.15-911. Estimated Emissions Associated with
Oil and Gas Development by Source
Rail Terminal Emissions
As discussed previously, the Coalition has not
proposed to construct and operate new rail terminals
in the Basin. OEA assumes that other entities, such
as firms that specialize in oil field and/or freight
logistics, would construct new rail terminals at the
terminus points of the proposed rail line near Myton
and Leland Bench. Because those new rail terminals
are not part of the Coalition’s proposed project, OEA
does not know the specific size and design of the
JA 419
terminals and, therefore, cannot quantify the
construction emissions. In general, rail terminal
facilities consist mostly of rail track, storage tanks,
and structures that can be built using standard
construction techniques and that occupy a relatively
small construction footprint compared to the size of
the completed facility. Because new rail terminals
would be located in generally flat areas, there would
be minimal need for earthmoving, a construction
activity that can result in high levels of air emissions.
Activities related to the construction of terminal rail
tracks would move over time, which would result in
more dispersion of emissions than if the activity
occurred at only one location. Given these
circumstances, OEA anticipates that the emissions
from terminal construction, including construction of
the rail line leading from the terminal, would not lead
to ambient concentrations that could exceed the
NAAQS in the local areas of the terminals.
Concentrations would be lower at greater distances
from the terminals. Therefore, OEA anticipates that
terminal construction would not contribute to
cumulative air quality impacts.
OEA estimated emissions from terminal
operations based on permitted emissions for the
existing Price River Terminal in Price, Utah (UDEQ
2015) adjusted for the quantities of oil handled. Table
3.15-119 includes the estimated emissions from
terminal operations. The terminals would require air
quality permits. As part of the permit application
process the terminal developer must demonstrate to
the satisfaction of UDEQ that the facility would not
cause ambient concentrations to exceed the NAAQS.
In addition, OEA does not expect that the cumulative
JA 420
impact of terminal operations and rail operations on
the line to the terminal would exceed the NAAQS
because the locomotives would be moving and would
not be near the stationary emissions sources at the
terminal for long periods of time, which would result
in more dispersion of emissions than if all the sources
were concentrated at only one location, and
concentrations would be lower at greater distances
from the terminals.
Downstream End Use Emissions
Refiners would refine the crude oil transported by
the proposed rail line into various fuels and other
products. To the extent that the crude oil would be
refined into fuels that would be combusted to produce
energy, emissions from the combustion of the fuels
would produce GHG emissions that would contribute
to global warming and climate change.
As discussed in Section 3.7, Air Quality and
Greenhouse Gases, there is broad scientific consensus
that humans are changing the chemical composition
of Earth’s atmosphere. Activities such as fossil fuel
combustion, deforestation, and other changes in land
use are resulting in the accumulation of GHGs such as
carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide
(N2O), and several industrial gases in Earth’s
atmosphere. The International Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) estimates that the global average
concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O in the
atmosphere have increased by around 40, 150, and 20
percent, respectively, from pre-industrial times until
today (IPCC 2014). An increase in GHG emissions is
thought to result in an increase in Earth’s average
surface temperature, primarily by trapping heat and,
JA 421
thus, decreasing the amount of heat energy radiated
by Earth back into space. This phenomenon is
commonly referred to as global warming. Global
warming is expected, in turn, to affect land and sea
surface temperatures, precipitation rates, weather
patterns, average sea level polar ice levels, ocean
acidification, and other climatic variables, effects
which collectively are referred to as climate change.
The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC 2014)
indicates that the climate system is warming. The
report states that global mean surface temperature
has increased since the late 19th century and that
maximum and minimum temperatures over land have
increased on a global scale since 1950. In addition, the
globally averaged combined land and ocean surface
temperature data show a warming of 0.85 degrees
Celsius (°C) or 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) since 1950.
The IPCC concludes that it is extremely likely that
human influence has been the dominant cause of the
observed warming. The IPCC (2014) has predicted
that the average global temperature rise between
1986 and 2100 could be as great as 4.8°C (8.6°F),
which could have massive deleterious impacts on the
natural and human environments.
The Board generally cannot restrict the types of
products and commodities that are transported on rail
lines and, in fact, has held that railroads have a
common carrier obligation to carry all commodities,
including hazardous materials, upon reasonable
request under 49 U.S.C. § 11101. See Riffin v. STB,
733 F.3d 340, 345-47 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (and cases cited
therein). In addition, the Board has no role in
determining or controlling the final destinations or
JA 422
end uses of any products or commodities transported
on the proposed rail line. Therefore, because it has no
jurisdiction or control over the destinations or end
uses of any products or commodities transported on
the proposed rail line, the Board is not required to
analyze impacts related to the destinations or end
uses of any such products or commodities. Dep’t of
Transp. v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 766-70 (2004).
Nevertheless, OEA is reporting the GHG emissions
that could be associated with the combustion of fuels
produced from crude oil transported on the proposed
rail line in the context of cumulative impacts. See id.
at 769-70. OEA assumed conservatively that
combustion would be the end use of all of the crude oil.
OEA estimated the GHG emissions from this
combustion, assuming conservatively that these fuels
would not displace other fuels from the market, but
would add to existing fuel consumption. Table 3.15120 shows the estimated GHG emissions from
combustion of the crude oil transported by the
proposed rail line.
Table 3.15-1012. Estimated GHG Emissions from
Combustion of Fuels Refined from Cude Oil
Transported on the Proposed Rail Line
For comparison, the downstream end use
emissions associated with the combustion of crude oil
transported on the proposed rail line under the low oil
production scenario represent approximately 0.3
percent of nationwide GHG emissions and 0.04
JA 423
percent of global GHG emissions. Downstream end
use emissions under the high oil production scenario
represent approximately 0.8 percent of nationwide
GHG and 0.1 percent of global GHG emissions.
Downstream end use emissions would represent a
higher percentage of statewide emissions in Utah, but
such a comparison would not be appropriate because
OEA expects that the crude oil transported on the
proposed rail line would not be refined or used in
Utah. As noted previously, the estimates in Table
3.15-12 and the corresponding percentages of
nationwide and global GHG emissions are
conservative and may overstate impacts because some
of the crude oil transported on the proposed rail line
could be refined into products other than fuels and
some of the fuels produced from crude oil transported
on the proposed rail line could displace other fuels
from the market. To the extent that crude oil
transported on the proposed rail line could be refined
into products other than fuel or the fuels produced
from crude oil transported on the proposed rail line
could displace other fuels, GHG emissions from
downstream end uses would be lower than those
shown in Table 3.15-12.
Cumulative Air Quality Effects
Approach
Ambient pollutant concentrations and AQRVs in
the cumulative impacts study area are influenced by
numerous emissions sources spread throughout the
study area and beyond, as well as by regional
meteorology and topography. BLM and other agencies
have modeled the cumulative impacts of oil and gas
development and other reasonably foreseeable
JA 424
development in the region. To assess the cumulative
impacts of the proposed rail line and the projected oil
and gas development, OEA used information from a
detailed photochemical air quality modeling study
developed for the Monument Butte EIS (BLM 2016,
Appendix K). The Monument Butte Final EIS includes
details of the modeling. The maximum emissions year
analyzed in the Monument Butte Final EIS assumes
that a total of 5,750 wells would be producing in a
single year, which is substantially higher than the
3,330 wells that would be needed to support the high
oil production scenario, as described in Section
3.15.4.1, Oil and Gas Development, for the high oil
production scenario.
The Monument Butte development would be
located in the Basin in Duchesne County southeast of
Duchesne County and south of Myton, and would
extend eastward about 255 miles into Uintah County.
This area is within the region from which producers
would truck their crude oil production to the rail
terminals. OEA considers the location of the
Monument Butte development to be reasonably
representative of the cumulative impacts study area
in which oil and gas development would occur and,
therefore, concluded that the estimated impacts of the
Monument Butte development should be used to
represent the impacts of the oil and gas development
described in Section 3.15.4.1, Oil and Gas
Development. Because the Monument Butte Final EIS
analyzed a maximum emissions year that would
involve more wells than would be needed to support
the maximum projected rail traffic on the proposed
rail line, OEA considers the results of the Monument
Butte modeling study to be a conservative
JA 425
representation of the air quality impacts of future oil
and gas development. Table 3.15-131 shows that the
estimated emissions of Monument Butte for the
maximum emissions year are larger than the sum of
the cumulative emissions from the operation of the
proposed rail line and other reasonably foreseeable
projects.
OEA estimated the air quality effects of the oil
and gas development described in Section 3.15.4.1, Oil
and Gas Production, by using the Monument Butte
study. That study used the Community Multi-scale
Air Quality (CMAQ) model, version 5.0. CMAQ is a
photochemical grid model, which is a type of computer
model that simulates the formation, transport, and
fate of ozone and other pollutants in the atmosphere.4
Further details of the emissions inventories, input
parameters, and model assumptions are provided in
the BLM study (BLM 2016: Appendix K).
4 The modeling domain encompassed Utah and western Colorado
using a grid of cells 4 kilometers and 12 kilometers on a side.
JA 426
Table 3.15-1113. Relative Levels of Monument
Butte and Uinta Basin Railway Cumulative
Ambient Concentrations
An important capability of the CMAQ model is the
ability to estimate ozone concentrations. Ozone is a
component of photochemical smog and is formed from
reactions of precursor chemicals (primarily oxides of
nitrogen [NOx] and volatile organic compounds
[VOCs]) in the presence of sunlight. Ozone is of
particular concern in the Basin because high levels of
ozone have been measured there in winter, and
USEPA has designated the Basin as nonattainment
for ozone.
JA 427
Appendix M, Air Quality Emissions and Modeling
Data, Tables M-1 through M-7, shows the predicted
impact of the Monument Butte project on criteria
pollutant levels in the cumulative impacts study area,
as well as the nearest Class I and sensitive Class II
areas. The results reported in the Monument Butte
project analysis indicate the following.
•
The maximum nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels at all
sites would be less than the NAAQS and Utah
Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS). Because
the high oil production scenario that OEA
analyzed would involve a smaller number of wells
than were considered in the Monument Butte
project, OEA concludes that cumulative NO2
concentrations from the proposed rail line and
potential future oil and gas development would
also be less than the NAAQS and Utah AAQS.
•
The maximum carbon monoxide (CO) levels at all
sites would be less than the NAAQS and Utah
AAQS. Because the high oil production scenario
that OEA analyzed would involve a smaller
number of wells than were considered in the
Monument Butte project, OEA concludes that
cumulative CO concentrations from the proposed
rail line and potential future oil and gas
development would also be less than the NAAQS
and Utah AAQS.
•
The maximum sulfur dioxide (SO2) levels at all
sites would be less than the NAAQS and Utah
AAQS. Because the high oil production scenario
that OEA analyzed would involve a smaller
number of wells than were considered in the
Monument Butte project, OEA concludes that
JA 428
cumulative SO2 concentrations from the proposed
rail line and potential future oil and gas
development would be less than the NAAQS and
Utah AAQS.
•
The maximum ozone impact of the Monument
Butte project would not lead to exceedances of the
ozone NAAQS at most sites. However, modeled
total ozone levels exceed the NAAQS at some sites
under existing conditions in the absence of
Monument Butte. This is consistent with ozone
exceedances measured by DEQ in winter in the
Basin. Although the Monument Butte project
would increase ozone concentrations, the
Monument Butte modeling predicted no new
exceedances due to Monument Butte. Because the
high oil production scenario that OEA analyzed
would involve a smaller number of wells than
were considered in the Monument Butte project,
OEA concludes that cumulative emissions of
ozone precursors (VOC and NOX) from the
proposed rail line and potential future oil and gas
development would be lower than predicted for
the
Monument
Butte
project.
Existing
exceedances of the ozone NAAQS would still
occur.
•
The maximum predicted levels of particulate
matter 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10) and
annual particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in
diameter (PM2.5) with the Monument Butte
project at all sites would be less than the NAAQS
and Utah AAQS. Total 24-hour PM2.5 levels would
be less than the NAAQS and Utah AAQS at all
sites except one. Because the high oil production
JA 429
scenario that OEA analyzed would involve a
smaller number of wells than were considered in
the Monument Butte project, OEA concludes that
cumulative PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations from
the proposed rail line and potential future oil and
gas
development
would
be
less
than
concentrations described for the Monument Butte
EIS.
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
The Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
program applies to projects subject to stationary
source permitting in attainment areas. The PSD
regulations set limits (i.e., increments) on the
incremental pollutant concentrations that a project
may contribute. The allowable increments are lower in
Class I areas than in Class II areas. (There are no
Class I areas in the cumulative impacts study area).
PSD requirements did not apply to the Monument
Butte project because the modeling was not part of a
stationary source permitting process. Nevertheless,
PSD increments can be used as a guide to compare
results and to provide context for evaluating air
quality impacts. PSD increments also do not apply to
rail projects because railroads are not stationary
sources, but the increments can be used to compare
potential impacts for purposes of information. In the
Monument Butte project analysis, no predicted
impacts exceeded the applicable PSD increments.
Because the oil production scenarios that OEA
analyzed would involve smaller numbers of wells than
were considered in the Monument Butte project, OEA
concludes that cumulative impacts of the proposed rail
JA 430
line and potential oil and gas development would also
be within the applicable PSD increments.
Visibility
•
Under the Clean Air Act, visibility is an AQRV of
concern for Class I areas (Section 3.7, Air Quality
and Greenhouse Gases). In the Monument Butte
project modeling, visibility impacts exceeded the
applicable thresholds on multiple days. Because
the oil production scenarios that OEA analyzed
would involve smaller numbers of wells than were
considered in the Monument Butte project, OEA
concludes that cumulative impacts of the
proposed rail line and potential oil and gas
development would be lower than those described
in the Monument Butte EIS. In general, the
number of days on which visibility impacts would
exceed the thresholds would be less than
estimated for the Monument Butte project.
Acidic Deposition
•
Under the Clean Air Act, acidic deposition is an
AQRV of concern for Class I areas. The Monument
Butte project modeling estimated that the
nitrogen deposition analysis threshold (DAT) was
exceeded in some areas but the sulfur DAT was
not exceeded in any area. Because the oil
production scenarios that OEA analyzed would
involve smaller numbers of wells than were
considered in the Monument Butte project, OEA
concludes that cumulative impacts of the
proposed rail line and potential oil and gas
development relative to acidic deposition would be
less than estimated for the Monument Butte
project.
JA 431
•
For sensitive lakes, the change in acid
neutralizing capacity (ANC) was calculated in the
Monument Butte project study using the
methodology suggested by the Forest Service
(2000). The change in ANC was compared to the
threshold of a 10 percent change in ANC for lakes
with background ANC values greater than 25
micro-equivalents per liter (μeq/l) and no more
than a 1 μeq/l change in ANC for lakes with
background ANC values equal to or less than 25
μeq/l. The only sensitive lake in the cumulative
impacts study area for which data are available is
Dean Lake in the High Uintas Wilderness Area.
At Dean Lake the estimated impact due to the
Monument Butte project is a 0.18 percent change
in ANC, which is less than the 10 percent
threshold, and a change in ANC of 0.15 μeq/l,
which is less than the 1 μeq/l threshold. Because
the oil production scenarios that OEA analyzed
would involve smaller numbers of wells than were
considered for the Monument Butte project (Table
3.15-131), OEA concludes that cumulative
impacts of the proposed rail line and potential oil
and gas development would also be less than the
applicable ANC thresholds.
Other Projects and Actions
The proposed rail line would affect air quality and
would combine with impacts from other projects to
result in cumulative impacts on air quality in the
cumulative impacts study area. Other projects and
actions would produce criteria air pollutant and
hazardous air pollutant emissions. These emissions,
when combined with emissions from other sources in
JA 432
and beyond the cumulative impacts study area, would
lead to cumulative impacts on ambient air quality and
AQRVs. Figure 3.15-1 shows the other projects and
actions in the cumulative impacts study area with the
potential to contribute to cumulative impacts, which
include infrastructure improvements, watershed
improvement projects, road improvement projects,
Forest Service actions, interstate electric power
transmission
lines,
and
cultural
resources
preservation, and a crude oil processing facility.
Most projects and actions would occur well
outside of the study area for the proposed rail line.
These projects would have to comply with Utah DEQ
and other state permits and approvals related to air
quality. Because of their expected emissions levels and
their distance from the proposed rail line, OEA
considers the air quality impacts of these projects to
be captured in the background concentrations applied
in the air quality modeling. The impacts described
above based on the modeling would include the
cumulative contributions from these projects.
Projects that occur near the proposed rail line, if
constructed simultaneously with rail line construction
in the same local area, could result in localized
cumulative impacts. OEA anticipates that only
roadway improvement projects and the crude oil
processing facility could occur near the proposed rail
line. Once constructed, roadway improvements would
not contribute further to air quality impacts. OEA
anticipates that the crude oil processing facility would
contribute to local air quality impacts during
operations. However, the crude oil processing facility
would have to comply with Utah DEQ permitting
JA 433
requirements, which are intended to prevent
violations of the applicable air quality standards.
Therefore, OEA concludes that the impacts from
the proposed rail line, when combined with impacts
from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
actions, would not result in new exceedances of the
NAAQS or AQRV thresholds. The cumulative impacts
of the proposed rail line could increase the pollutant
levels that are associated with existing exceedances of
the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the ozone NAAQS, and
visibility impact thresholds.
3.15.5.8 Energy
Cumulative Impacts Study Area
OEA defined the energy cumulative impacts
study area as the construction footprint for each
Action Alternative, because this is the area where all
construction and operation activities that would
consume energy would take place. The cumulative
impacts study area also includes the energy supply
and distribution infrastructure, including electricity
transmission, crude oil pipelines, natural gas
pipelines, and petroleum product pipelines that could
intersect the proposed rail line, and existing fuel
(gasoline, diesel fuel) transport, storage, and
distribution infrastructure that could supply fuel to
the proposed construction and operation of the rail
line.
OEA has included potential terminal locations
and construction and operation of diesel fuel storage
distribution equipment for fueling locomotives in the
cumulative impacts study area. OEA also considered
energy consumption related to the construction and
operation of potential new rail terminal facilities and
JA 434
the disposition of crude oil that would be transported
by the proposed rail line. For this reason, the
cumulative impacts study area for energy is not the
same as for the analysis of direct and indirect effects.
Cumulative Impacts
Oil and Gas Development
Construction of any of the Action Alternatives
would provide the capacity to transport crude oil from
the Basin to locations outside the Basin. Under the
low oil production scenario, an estimated 130,000
barrels per day would be transported from the Basin
by rail. Under the high oil production scenario, an
estimated 350,000 barrels per day would be
transported from the Basin by rail. There are five
petroleum refineries located in Utah, all in the Salt
Lake City area. These refineries have the capacity to
process approximately 100,000 barrels per day of
crude oil from the Basin received by truck. OEA does
not anticipate that crude oil transported via the Action
Alternatives would directly serve the existing oil
refineries in Salt Lake City in the short-term because
those refineries do not currently have the facilities to
accept trains carrying crude oil. OEA anticipates that
the crude oil would be transported by rail to other
states. Therefore, the additional production of crude
oil would contribute to the national supply of crude oil
but would not directly affect petroleum refining in
Utah or directly contribute to petroleum-product
production in Utah. OEA expects that the direct
impacts from the proposed rail line would not result in
cumulative impacts on petroleum refining or
petroleum production in Utah.
JA 435
In the event that the Board authorizes the
proposed rail line, rail terminals would be needed in
the Basin to transfer commodities between truck and
rail transportation modes. Operation of the rail
terminals would consume energy directly in the form
of fuel (diesel fuel and gasoline) for operation of rail
terminal equipment and vehicles and operation of rail
terminal personnel vehicles. Rail terminal equipment
would include heated crude oil storage tanks and
associated piping and pumping and mobile crane and
other loading and unloading equipment. Operation of
the rail terminals would also consume energy in the
form of electricity for operation of terminal equipment,
lighting, and administration and utility buildings.
OEA anticipates that fuel consumption for rail
operations and operation of the rail terminals would
be small relative to the refining capacity of the Salt
Lake City area refineries and would not, therefore,
have a significant impact on regional fuel supply.
Other Projects and Actions
Electric Transmission Line Construction
The right-of-way of the proposed PacifiCorp
Gateway South Transmission Line would cross the
Indian Canyon Alternative at fiveone locations, the
Whitmore Park Alternative at one location, and the
Wells Draw Alternative at three locations.
Construction of the Gateway South Transmission Line
is anticipated to occur from June 2021 to October 2023
(Rocky Mountain Power 2020). The Action
Alternatives also would cross the rights-of-way of two
existing electric transmission lines. Figure 3.8-1
shows the existing electric transmission lines in the
study area. Figure 3.15-1 shows the routes of the
JA 436
proposed planned electric transmission lines in the
cumulative impacts study area.
The Gateway South Transmission Line is
expected to be constructed from 2021 to 2023 and
could be constructed at the same time as the proposed
rail line. It is not known whether construction would
commence at the specific points where the Gateway
South Transmission Line would cross the Action
Alternatives before or after the commencement of
construction of the Action Alternatives. In either case,
any crossing of utility rights-of-way would occur in
accordance with applicable regulatory standards
(Appendix B, Applicable Regulations). As discussed in
Section 3.8, Energy, OEA does not anticipate that
construction of the proposed rail line would require
any modification or relocation of the right-of-way of
the proposed Gateway South Transmission Line. The
proposed TransWest Express Transmission Line
(Figure 3.15-1, Item 25) would not cross any of the
Action Alternatives; therefore, no cumulative impacts
would result.
Infrastructure Project Construction and Other
Cumulative Projects
Construction of infrastructure projects, including
the Roosevelt Airport expansion and improvements
and Peerless Port of Entry construction and
improvements, would consume energy in the form of
diesel fuel and gasoline for operation of on-road and
off-road construction vehicles and equipment and for
operation of construction personnel vehicles.
Infrastructure projects constructed during the same
timeframe as proposed construction of the Action
Alternatives would contribute to demand for diesel
JA 437
fuel and gasoline (Appendix R, Other Projects and
Actions Considered in the Cumulative Impacts
Analysis).
The anticipated construction timeframe for the
Indian Canyon Alternative and Whitmore Park
Alternative is 2 years (24 months), and the anticipated
construction timeframe for the Wells Draw
Alternative is 2.6 years (32 months). Cumulative
projects, including the Gateway South Transmission
Line, the Pelican Lake Sediment Control Project, and
several road improvement projects, could be under
construction during the same timeframe as the Action
Alternatives. Other cumulative projects, including the
Roosevelt Airport expansion, the Ashley Valley
Watershed Project, the Uintah Advantage Energy
Associates crude oil processing facility, and other road
improvement projects, are currently in the planning
phases and do not have firm estimates of construction
dates (Appendix R, Other Projects and Actions
Considered in the Cumulative Impacts Analysis).
Construction of these planned cumulative projects
could also occur during the timeframe of construction
of the Action Alternatives.
Section 3.8, Energy, Table 3.8-1, provides diesel
fuel and gasoline consumption for each year of
construction for each Action Alternative. OEA
anticipates that total fuel consumption from
construction of the Action Alternatives and from
cumulative projects constructed in the same
timeframe would be small relative to the refining
capacity of the Salt Lake City area refineries and
would, therefore, not affect regional fuel supply during
the construction period.
JA 438
Section 3.8, Energy, Table 3.8-4, provides fuel
consumption for rail operations by scenario for the low
rail traffic and high rail traffic scenarios for each
Action Alternative. Cumulative projects, including
road improvements, watershed improvements, and
Forest Service actions, would not consume fuel after
completion of construction except for equipment and
vehicle operations associated with maintenance
activities. The proposed Roosevelt Airport expansion
and improvements, and Peerless Port of Entry
construction and improvements, and the Uintah
Advantage Energy Associates crude oil processing
facility would increase fuel consumption for operation
of those facilities. OEA concludes that fuel
consumption for rail operations associated with the
proposed rail line, when combined with fuel
consumption from the operation of past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable actions, would not result in
significant cumulative impacts on regional fuel
supply. The Uintah Advantage Energy Associates
crude oil processing facility would process energy
feedstocks and base oil and may contribute to the local
fuel supply.
3.15.5.9 Cultural Resources
Cumulative Impacts Study Area
The cultural resources cumulative impacts study
area is larger than the study area for direct and
indirect cultural resources. It includes the area
illustrated on Figure 3.15-1, which encompasses the
region’s oil and gas fields and other proposed projects.
Its northern boundary latitude runs though Vernal
and its southern boundary through Price. On the west,
the boundary longitude is approximately parallel to
JA 439
State Route 89. The eastern boundary is the
Utah/Colorado state line.
Cumulative Impacts
Construction and operation of the proposed rail
line would result in the following impacts on cultural
resources: destruction, removal, or alteration of
resources within the project footprint, obstructions to
accessing cultural resources, and setting impacts
(including visual impacts) on resources outside the
project footprint. Any Action Alternative could
contribute to cumulative impacts on cultural
resources by adding to impacts from other projects.
Oil and Gas Development
Cumulative impacts on archaeological resources
from oil and gas development would result from
ground disturbance during the construction of new
access roads, well pads, pipelines, rail terminals, and
other associated infrastructure. To the extent that
they are present, archaeological resources located on
or below the ground surface would be damaged or
destroyed by the digging needed to construct the
infrastructure used to extract and transport oil and
gas. To the extent that tribal resources, above-ground
archaeological resources (e.g., rock imagery), and/or
built environment resources are present within the
footprint of the new infrastructure, these resources
would also be damaged or destroyed by construction.
Operation of new oil and gas extraction facilities could
also impact the setting of above-ground cultural
resources.
Impacts from construction and operation of the
proposed rail line combined with impacts from oil and
gas development could result in cumulative impacts
JA 440
on cultural resources if oil and gas development
projects were to take place within the APE of the
Action Alternatives. OEA concludes that adverse
cumulative impacts on cultural resources would result
because of the potential for permanent damage to or
destruction of such resources from construction and
degradation of their settings. Mitigation could reduce,
but would not eliminate, these cumulative cultural
resources impacts. As discussed in Section 3.9,
Cultural Resources, adverse effects on cultural
resources from construction and operation of the
proposed rail line would be appropriately addressed by
the implementation of the PA that OEA is developing
under Section 106 of the NHPA (Appendix O, Draft
Programmatic Agreement). Therefore, OEA concludes
that the contribution of the proposed rail line to
cumulative impacts on cultural resources would not be
significant.
Other Projects and Actions
Although the nature and intensity of each
planned project’s impacts would vary, the addition of
projects or actions in the study area would result in
more impacts on cultural resources. Depending on the
nature of the other project or action, cultural resources
including
tribal,
archaeological,
and
built
environment resources present within or adjacent to
the footprint of the any new infrastructure would be
damaged or destroyed by construction. Depending on
the character-defining features of cultural resources
within the study area of these projects or actions,
operation of new projects or actions could also impact
the setting of adjacent cultural resources.
JA 441
Infrastructure
Improvement,
Watershed
Improvement, and Road Improvement, and
Crude Oil Processing Facility Projects
To the extent that cultural resources are present
within or adjacent to the footprints of any proposed
facility, infrastructure, watershed, and road
improvement, and crude oil processing facility
projects, impacts from such projects would result.
Mitigation could reduce, but likely would not
eliminate, impacts. If the affected cultural resources
are located within the APE of the Action Alternatives,
then construction and operation of the proposed rail
line could contribute to cumulative impacts on those
cultural resources. Because adverse effects on cultural
resources from the proposed rail line would be
appropriately addressed by the implementation of the
PA that OEA is developing in consultation with
Section 106 consulting parties, OEA concludes that
the contribution of the proposed rail line to cumulative
impacts on cultural resources would not be significant.
Federal Agency Actions
Proposed Forest Service projects include removal
of a historic guard station, which would be an impact
on a cultural resource even with mitigation. Other
Forest Service projects may involve ground
disturbance or other activities that result in impacts
on cultural resources. Some proposed BLM actions
may involve ground disturbing activity or other forms
of damage/destruction to cultural resources that result
in an impact. Mitigation could reduce, but likely would
not eliminate, impacts. If the affected cultural
resources are located within the APE of the Action
Alternatives, then construction and operation of the
JA 442
proposed rail line could contribute to cumulative
impacts on those cultural resources. Because adverse
effects on cultural resources from the proposed rail
line would be appropriately addressed by the
implementation of the PA that OEA is developing in
consultation with Section 106 consulting parties, OEA
concludes that the contribution of the proposed rail
line to cumulative impacts on cultural resources would
not be significant.
Interstate Electric Power Transmission
The proposed Gateway South and the TransWest
Express transmission line projects both anticipate
impacts on cultural resources. Both projects have a
Section 106 PA in place to address avoiding,
minimizing, and mitigating such impacts. Due to the
nature of transmission lines, which have some
flexibility in terms of siting, it is possible that impacts
on cultural resources can be avoided but equally
possible that impacts that cannot be mitigated would
occur. Mitigation could reduce, but likely would not
eliminate, impacts. If the affected cultural resources
are located within the APE of the Action Alternatives,
then construction and operation of the proposed rail
line could contribute to cumulative impacts on those
cultural resources. Because adverse effects on cultural
resources from the proposed rail line would be
appropriately addressed by the implementation of the
PA that OEA is developing in consultation with
Section 106 consulting parties, OEA concludes that
the contribution of the proposed rail line to cumulative
impacts on cultural resources would not be significant.
JA 443
Cultural Resources Preservation
Although the PA between BLM and the Utah
State Historic Preservation Office designed to
mitigate adverse effects on historic properties, the
need for mitigation implies that cultural resources are
being impacted. If the affected cultural resources are
located within the APE of the Action Alternatives,
then construction and operation of the proposed rail
line could contribute to cumulative impacts on those
cultural resources. Because adverse effects on cultural
resources from the proposed rail line would be
appropriately addressed by the implementation of the
PA that OEA is developing, OEA concludes that the
contribution of the proposed rail line to cumulative
impacts on cultural resources would not be significant.
3.15.5.10 Paleontological Resources
Cumulative Impacts Study Area
OEA defined the cumulative impacts study area
for paleontological resources as the project footprint,
which includes all areas of temporary disturbance
where construction activities and staging would occur
and all areas of permanent disturbance, including the
railbed, access roads, communication towers, and
areas of cut and fill. The cumulative impacts study
area for paleontological resources is the same as for
the analysis of direct and indirect effects.
Cumulative Impacts
A cumulative impact on paleontological resources
would occur when past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects, in combination with the
proposed rail line, would cumulatively disturb,
damage,
or
destroy
scientifically
important
JA 444
paleontological resources. Paleontological resources
are nonrenewable resources because once they are
lost, they cannot be recovered. Cumulative impacts on
paleontological resources involve the loss of
scientifically important fossils and associated data
and the incremental loss to science and society of these
resources over time.
Past construction projects, such as road
construction and oil and gas well development, that
have disturbed the ground and subsurface in areas of
high potential to contain fossils have resulted in
cumulative conditions affecting paleontological
resources in the Basin. However, existing laws and
regulations
that
provide
protections
for
paleontological resources are known to reduce
potential impacts with the implementation of
mitigation measures during surface- and subsurfacedisturbing actions. When properly designed and
implemented, these mitigation measures can result in
the recovery and permanent preservation of large
numbers of scientifically significant paleontological
resources that would otherwise have been damaged or
destroyed and can greatly reduce the cumulative
impacts of construction projects on paleontological
resources. With appropriate mitigation, some
construction projects can result in beneficial impacts
on paleontological resources by making fossils
available for scientific research and education that
would otherwise never have been unearthed or
discovered.
Oil and Gas Development
Impacts on paleontological resources as the result
of oil and gas development in the cumulative impacts
JA 445
study area would occur primarily if fossil-rich geologic
units, such as the Green River and Uinta formations,
were disturbed during the construction of new access
roads, well pads, and pipelines. These actions could
damage or destroy surface and subsurface
paleontological resources through physical breakage,
resulting in direct adverse impacts. New road
construction facilitates increased public access to the
cumulative impacts study area, which can result in
indirect adverse impacts, such as the loss of
scientifically important paleontological resources due
to unlawful collection and vandalism. With the
implementation of appropriate mitigation measures,
these impacts could be reduced and could result in
beneficial cumulative impacts through the recovery of
previously undiscovered paleontological resources of
scientific importance. When combined with impacts
from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable oil and
gas development, OEA expects that impacts from the
proposed rail line would not result in significant
cumulative impacts on paleontological resources.
The Action Alternatives would connect with the
new rail terminals at Myton and Leland Bench. Both
terminals would be located in PFYC 2 geologic units,
which have low potential to contain paleontological
resources (Section 3.10, Paleontological Resources,
Figure 3.10-1). Therefore, OEA concludes that no
cumulative impacts on scientifically important
paleontological resources would occur.
Other Projects and Actions
Construction of various planned future projects in
the cumulative impacts study area would include
surface and subsurface disturbance to geologic units
JA 446
that have the potential to contain scientifically
important fossils that could be damaged or destroyed.
Additionally, development projects that result in
increased public access due to new roads and trails
increase the potential for the loss of scientifically
important paleontological resources due to theft and
vandalism. The Gateway South Transmission Line
project could have direct and indirect impacts on
paleontological resources. This project, in combination
with the Action Alternatives, would have the potential
to cumulatively disturb, damage, or destroy
scientifically important paleontological resources.
Once they are lost, paleontological resources cannot be
recovered because they are nonrenewable. However,
the implementation of appropriate mitigation
measures during the approval process for the
construction projects could result in a beneficial
impact through the recovery and permanent
preservation
of
scientifically
important
paleontological resources that would otherwise likely
never have been discovered. Therefore, OEA concludes
that the impacts from the proposed rail line, when
combined with impacts from past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable actions, would not result in
significant cumulative impacts on paleontological
resources.
3.15.5.11 Land Use and Recreation
Cumulative Impacts Study Area
The cumulative impacts study area for land use
and recreation encompasses Carbon, Duchesne,
Uintah, and Utah Counties in Utah. The cumulative
impacts study area differs from the footprint-specific
study area defined Section 3.11, Land Use and
JA 447
Recreation, because construction of an Action
Alternative would preclude any other land use
impacts within that footprint. The broader fourcounty planning cumulative impacts study area
supports a cumulative impact analysis of total acres of
land use designation and ownership impacts.
Cumulative Impacts
Oil and Gas Development
The impacts from oil and gas development would
be consistent with trends associated with the
continued development of oil and gas resources in the
cumulative impacts study area. These trends include
increasingly greater density of surface disturbance
and construction of facilities due to infill drilling in
known oil and gas fields; increasing the potential for
loss of livestock forage due to surface disturbance and
livestock mortality from vehicle traffic; and increasing
visual and noise impacts on recreational users. The
proposed rail line would contribute to these changes in
land use, including permanent changes in
landownership and the loss of public and private lands
used for grazing, agriculture, and mineral
development. Construction and operation of any of the
Action Alternatives would also contribute to visual
and noise impacts on recreational users, particularly
on areas of public lands where recreationists seek
solitude and unobstructed recreational experiences. In
the event the proposed rail line is authorized and
constructed, OEA anticipates that rail terminals
would be constructed near Myton and Leland Bench to
transfer commodities between truck and rail
transportation modes. Operation of the rail terminals,
as well as construction and operation of the proposed
JA 448
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.