April 24, 2010
To: Lauri Hogeboom
Interdisciplinary Team Leader
Huron-Manistee National Forests
1755 S. Mitchell Street
Cadillac, MI 49601
From:
Marvin Roberson
Sierra Club Forest Ecologist
1094 Ortman Rd.
Marquette, MI 49855
(906) 360-0288
marvin.roberson@sierraclub.org
Bruce Pregler
President, Anglers of the Au Sable
PO Box 200
Grayling, MI 49738
re: Corrected Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the USA and State South Branch 1-8 well.
Submitted by US Mail and electronically to: comments-eastern-huron-manistee@fs.fed.us
Dear Ms. Hogeboom,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the NOI to prepare and EIS for the South Branch 1-8 project. We are representing the 25,000 Sierra Club members in Michigan, and the approximately 750 member of the Anglers of the Au Sable. Our members are actively engaged in providing input for a variety of projects on the Huron-Manistee, including the original Old-Growth designation in which the proposed project is located. In addition, Anglers of the AU Sable has actively engaged in significant stream restoration activities in the South Branch, virtually adjacent to the project area. Our members hike, hunt, fish, bird watch, camp, and engage in a variety of activities in the proposed project area. Mr. Roberson personally visits the very site of the proposed project on average over a dozen times per year.
Comments:
First, we incorporate by reference all public comments received and in the USFS project file for the previous South Branch 1-8 project. We also incorporate all documents which were part of the litigation over the South Branch 1-8 project (Case No. 05-10152, United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, decision attached). We request that the EIS analyze all deficiencies noted by Judge Lawson.
Purpose and Need:
The EIS should discuss further the Purpose and Need. While the applicants have legal mineral rights and a legal right to extract minerals, they do not have any legal right to do so from a location solely of their choosing, or at the most cost-effective location. When discussing the Purpose and Need, energy needs and supplies should be analyzed. This discussion should include predicted amounts of energy to be supplied by this project, and should do so in relation to US energy consumption overall. The percentage of annual US energy needs this project will supply should be discussed.
Alternatives Analysis:
The EIS should analyze a full range of feasible and prudent alternatives, as required by NEPA. NEPA and NFMA clearly allow for the USFS to consider and implement modified alternatives to the applicant's preferred alternative, including location of the wellhead. In particular, we request that the following alternatives be analyzed:
1) Placing the wellhead and production facility at the junction of FS 4209 and River Lake Road (aka Hickey Creek Road).
2) Placing the wellhead at the currently operating production facility on River Lake Road.
The applicant's proposed location will involve slant drilling at an angle and at a considerable distance. The above locations are also slant drilling at an angle and at a considerable distance. Consequently, the difference is simply one of degree. The EIS should discuss the difference in angle and distance. If claims are made regarding safety issues between the applicant's proposal and the above alternatives, there must be explicit demonstration of the reasons one is deemed safe and another not. There must be a determination of the point at which angle and distance move from safe to unsafe. There have been other wells drilled nearby and operated at angles and distances greater than the applicant's proposal. A description of these wells, the angles and distances, and the reasons they operated safely must be included. In particular, State South Branch 1-19 must be compared. The EIS should describe and analyze the positive socioeconomic impacts of moving the wellhead to the above alternate locations, including decreased noise in the river corridor, decreased odor, enhanced visitor experience at the Chapel and in the river, etc. When discussing noise and visitor effects, USFS should contact the MDNR offices in the area to determine whether complaints have been filed with MDNRE over noise and odor issues within the Mason Tract, as documented in the appeals of the SB 1-8 proposal appeals (which are on file with SUFS and already in the record). Further, the “No Action” alternative must be given serious consideration. As described in the judgement against the USFS over the SB 1-8 EA, it is insufficient to simply claim that the “No Action” alternative is contrary to law since it would not allow applicant's access to legally leased minerals. There is no legal requirement to grant access from applicant's preferred location, and so, as ordered by the Court, the “No Action” alternative deserves serious consideration. Please refer to pp. 36-37 of Judge Lawson's decision.
Forest Plan and Direction:
The EIS should describe the Forest Plan Road density in the affected MA. If the current road density is above DFC for the MA, will this project move the road density towards or away from the DFC? Would the proposed alternatives above move towards or away from DFC for road densities? Would the proposed project move the designated Old Growth MA towards or away from vegetative DFC in the MA? Would the proposed alternative locations above move towards or away from vegetative DFC in the MA? The EIS should address how s SUPO for oil and gas exploration and productions is or is not consistent with the overall DFC for the Old Growth MA.
Cumulative Effects:
This well proposal is exploratory. If successful a production facility, pipelines, etc. will be proposed, as well as up to three additional production well. The cumulative effects of these reasonably foreseeable actions must be analyzed, even if they will require further NEPA analyses themselves. There are many oil and gas wells in Crawford County. The EIS must discuss the cumulative effects of these wells as a whole. This is particularly true if the EIS discusses purported negligible effects of all these wells on visitor experience, as the EA did. In addition, the EIS should disclose other leased minerals in the general vicinity. It is reasonably foreseeable that if this project is successful, that other lessees will propose similar actions. The cumulative effects of these reasonably foreseeable actions must be disclosed, as well as the precedent this project would set in encouraging other, similar projects, both on and off USFS lands.
Unique Ecological and Recreational Activities
It is abundantly clear that the Mason Tract is a unique ecological and recreational resource. The impacts on this special area must be analyzed with far greater scrutiny than would be the case in other areas which do not have the special attributes or constituency that the Mason Tract does. The EIS must address the irretrievable loss of recreational activity and economic benefits associated with recreational activity. Every time an individual chooses to go elsewhere to avoid effects of this project, that potentil recreational experience and any associated economic benefits are irretrievably lost. Many landowners, residents, and particularly second home owners own property in the area largely due to the unique asset the Mason Tract provides. The EIS should address the loss to these property owners which may occur should this project move forward.
Further Considerations:
The above described issues are the most significant and warrant the most discussion and disclosure of effects. However, they are by no means the only major issues which need discussion and disclosure of effects. Below is a list of items which require analysis in the EIS:
- The impact on the Mason Tract as a designated Michigan “Natural Area”, as well as on the historical value of the Mason Tract
- The impact on the viability of the Mason tract and surrounding area as a MDNRE “Biodiversity Stewardship Area”
- The impact on the values associated with the South Branch of the Au Sable being designated as a Michigan “Natural River”
- The potential impacts of hazardous and toxic materials leaking into the environment
- Reaction plans must be provided to assess the potential response to leakage of hazardous or toxic materials
- The socioeconomic impacts of un- or poorly remediated leaks of these materials
- Bond coverage provided by the applicant to assure remediation
- The high level of concern about this project indicated by the immense number of comments received on the EA
- Demonstration of how this project, if implemented, would protect other natural resources and environmental quality
- The level of uncertainty regarding the socioeconomic impacts of this proposal
- Demonstration of compliance with the Minerals Leasing Act requirements to “protect other natural resources and environmental quality”.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us at the contact information at the top.
Sincerely,
Marvin Roberson
Bruce Pregler