February

4, 2020


RE: San Juan County Commission Opposes Recapture 4-34H and 11-
22H Applications for Permit to Drill and Access Roads Including
Rights-of-Way, DOI-BLM-UT-Y020-2016-0066-EA

Dear Monticello BLM Field Office Manager Torres:

The San Juan County Commission respectfully requests that the Monticello
Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, deny the 4-34H and 11-22H
Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs) and the associated Access Roads.

Drilling for Oil and Gas in these Leases Poses Significant Risk and
Irreparable Harm to Groundwater Quality and Quantity.

Approval of the APDs would allow drilling for oil and gas in an area that
puts at risk the ground water aquifer that provides the sole source of clean
drinking water to residents of Bluff, St. Christopher’s Mission, and other
San Juan County citizens residing south of Bluff and St. Christopher’s
Mission on the Navajo Nation. In fact, many residents of the surrounding
area get their drinking water from wells located in Bluff and St.
Christopher’s Missions because the groundwater wells located closer to
their homes have been contaminated by oil and gas drilling and related
development activities.

The aquifer underlying these leases provides clean drinking water that
requires little, if any, treatment to residents. If this aquifer is contaminated
with pollutants from drilling and other development, there is no other
source of clean, safe drinking water for the residents of this area. Indeed,
the BLM’s EA included 40 comments from citizens expressing specific
concerns about the significant and unreasonable risk to the groundwater
resource, the only aquifer available for drinking water in the area. This
issue received more comments of concern that any other issue.

The risk of irreparable harm to this drinking water aquifer greatly
outweighs the benefit to the County and residents from drilling oil and/or
gas wells on these two leases. The risk of contamination cannot be
adequately mitigated or eliminated, and contamination to the aquifer
cannot not be undone once it is contaminated. There is no alterative
economical, clean and safe drinking water source in this area. These two
APDs should be denied.

BLM Failed to Take a Hard Look at the Impacts to Cultural Resources.

The BLM’s Environmental Assessment includes responses from the Navajo
Nation Heritage and Historic Preservation Department (NNHHPD) and the
Hopi Cultural Preservation Office (HCPO) specifically responding to BLM’s
cultural resources consultation request letters. Both the NNHHDP and the
HCPO indicated tribal affiliation with the cultural landscape of the project
area. Specifically, the NNHHPD deems:

. . . this area as significance to the Navajo people, as it is located
within the Navajo aboriginal land boundaries and associated
tributaries of bodies of springs, offering places and areas for
medicinal plant gathering. Please contact our office at a suitable time
to schedule a proper government-to-government consultation
meeting regarding this project initiative.

And both the NNHPD and the HCPO requested copies of the cultural
resource inventory for review and comment. Yet, there is no indication
that the requested detailed cultural inventory report was provided to the
NNHHPD or the HCPO for their review and comment. And further, there is
no indication that the requested government-to-government consultation
meeting with the NNHHPD regarding this project proposal was held.

San Juan County Commission respects the cultural heritage of Native
American tribes who have cultural affiliation with cultural landscapes
located in San Juan County. The EA fails to indicate that the BLM’s
statutorily required cultural consultation process has been completed.
Thus BLM must complete the cultural consultation process with the
NNHHPD and the HCPO, amend the EA to reflect the outcome of the
cultural resources consultation process, and then solicit public comments
prior to issuing a decision on the proposed APDs.

BLM Failed to Analyze All Reasonably Foreseeable Cumulative

Impacts.

The cumulative impact analysis in the BLM’s EA falls short of the minimum
NEPA standard set forth in recent federal court decisions including Diné
Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment v. Bernhardt (“Diné CARE”), 923
F.3d 831 (10th Cir. 2019), and WildEarth Guardians v. Zinke, 368 F. Supp.
3d 41 (D.D.C. 2019). As the 10th Circuit noted, the preparation of a
reasonably foreseeable development scenario (RFDS) makes it reasonable
that the number of wells identified therein will be drilled. See Diné CARE,
923 F.3d at 854. Further, once BLM has prepared a RFDS the wells
predicted therein become “reasonably foreseeable future actions” for
purposes of all future environmental analysis. Id. at 853. The RFDS must
be analyzed in all site-specific environmental assessments

The Monticello BLM prepared an RFDS for oil and gas development in July
2005, which projected that over the next 15 years a total of “about 195” oil
and gas wells would be drilled. REASONABLY FORESEEABLE
DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO (RFD) FOR OIL AND GAS, July 1, 2005. Thus,
site specific EAs must include not only direct impact analysis for immediate
impacts, and indirect impact analysis to looks at reasonably foreseeable
future impacts, but must consider past impacts or the impact of the
proposed action when added to other past, present, or future actions.

However, BLM’s EA for the Recapture 4-34H and 11-22H Applications for
Permit to Drill and Access Roads failed to include any analysis for the
reasonably foreseeable cumulative impacts of the RFDS. Thus, BLM’s
cumulative impact analysis falls short. The EA must include assess the
cumulative impacts taking into consideration the RFDS for cultural
resources, groundwater and surface water resources, wildlife and wildlife
habitat, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and scenic and visual
resources among others.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,


Kenneth Maryboy, Chairman
San Juan County Commission