This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
Impacts of Oil and Gas Development on Riparian Zones
in the Overthrust Belt: The Role of Industrial Siting1
Robert G. Elder
2
Richard C. Moore
2
Abstract.--As oil and gas development in the Overthrust
Belt of Wyoming expands, the need to m1n1m1ze impacts to
riparian systems becomes increasingly important. However,
regulatory control is sometimes ineffectual. Because of
its broad powers, the Industrial Siting process can play
a key role in mitigating environmental impacts that are
otherwise unregulated.
INTRODUCTION
roads, and pipelines. Typical impacts are caused
by direct
disturbances, accelerated erosion,
reserve pit failure, aerosols, and blow-outs.
Facilities
obviously
impact
riparian zones
directly if they are constructed within flood
plains or stream bottoms. However, the long-term
consequences of sedimentation on streams and
riparian zones can be more serious. These include
changes in channel morphology, loss of stream
bank
stability,
downcutting,
drawdowns
in
alluvial
groundwater,
and
deterioration of
riparian habitat !Skinner
and
Stone 1983).
These processes, particularly in
arid areas
such as southwestern Wyoming, result in positive
feedback mechanisms which are self-perpetuating
and difficult to control except by expensive
reclamation techniques. And whereas reclamation
is certainly an important mitigation, it should
not
be
used
as
a
substitute for sound
construction practices and effective planning.
Oil and gas production in recent years has
continued to rise dramatically in the Overthrust
Belt (Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
1982). This belt is one of nine geologically
distinct
salients
that
exist
within
the
Cordilleran Fold, a much larger tectonic province
which extends from Alaska to Mexico (VerPloeg
and DeBruin 1982).
The Overthrust Belt, or
the Idaho-Wyoming-Utah Salient, is an arcuate
region of folds and faults e~tending 200 miles
from the Snake River Plain in Idaho to the Uinta
Uplift in Utah.
It is about 100 miles wide
with its
convexity protruding into Wyoming.
The use of improved exploration and drilling
technologies has opened areas heretofore immune
to
development, areas
that
are
not
only
mountainous, but in many cases very remote,
pristine,
and
contain
important
riparian
resources. These riparian resources exist within
a region
that is nationally known for its
abundance and diversity of wildlife and its
excellent fisheries.
This paper discusses two
aspects of the rapid development of oil and
gas reserves in western Wyoming: 11 impacts
on
riparian
zones,
and
21
the existing
governmental regulatory framework as it relates
to those impacts.
Nevertheless, we
often
find
that mare
emphasis is
placed on
reclamation than on
avoiding needless damage at the outset. For
example, one
stabilizing
influence
in the
headwaters of many drainages is the presence
of beaver. Beaver ponds act as sediment traps,
reduce
discharge
velocities,
and attenuate
hydrographic amplitudes, all of which stabilize
erosional processes.
However, in many cases,
little effort is applied toward preserving these
systems of naturally occurring controls.
IMPACTS ON RIPARIAN ZONES
Impacts on
aspects of oil
riparian
and gas
Less frequent impacts include the effects
of reserve pit failure, aerosols, and blow-outs.
The
possibility
of
reserve
pit
failure
necessitates the careful planning and design
of wellpads, particularly in
the Overthrust
Belt where pads are usually placed on steep
slopes.
Pit failure not only causes direct
physical damage and leads to accelerated erosion,
but introduces toxic chemicals to drainages.
Aerosols lost from reserve pits also contain
toxic materials.
Finally, the presence of hig~
construction of plant sites, wellpads, access
zones occur from all
development, including
lpaper presented at the First North American
Riparian Conference, Riparian Ecosystems and Their
Management: Reconciling Conflicting Uses, April
16-18,1985, Tucson, Arizona.
2Robert Elder is Environmental Specialist and
Richard Moore is Director, Office of Industrial
Siting Administration, State of Wyoming, Cheyenne.
379
cGncentrations of salinity and, of course, oil
can create serious environmental impacts after
blow-outs.
21 Compliance assurance is difficult with the
large number
of operations occurring within
federal lands. 31 Development sequencing often
occurs through the permitting of one component
at a time,
with little regard for overall
project impacts.
Finally, it must be remembered
that federal land management agencies administer
only national lands and that many projects in
the Overthrust Belt are on other lands. Sometimes
facilities
cross
boundaries
of
different
ownership. In
these
cases, applying uniform
standards to all project components is difficult.
In addition to localized impacts, cumulative
impacts are becoming obvious as more industry
moves into southwestern Wyoming.
A flight over
the region impresses one with the large amounts
of surface disturbance associated with roads,
pipelines, wellpads, seismic lines, and plant
sites. Presently, there are nine major fields
in the Wyoming portion of the Overthrust Belt
and at least eight big processing plants either
planned or in
operation.
When appurtenant
components, smaller plants, and small wellfield
operators are included, the
overall impacts
to one of the Nation's most important wildlife
and
fishery
resources
becomes
extremely
significant.
Other
federal
agencies
have ,limited
jurisdiction
over
oil and gas development.
The Army Corps of Engineers oversees Section
404 of the Clean Water Act. 'However, regulatory
review is limited to waters with a mean annual
flow of 5 cfs or more, which eliminates most
lower-order streams in the Overthrust Belt from
the individual permitting requirements of Section
404.
It
is,
therefore,
imperative
that
development proceed in an orderly way, that
mitigations and safeguards to protect riparian
:ones are implemented, and
that appropriate
regulatory authority
exists.
Many examples
of problems and concerns cited so far have
occurred since the passage of most of our major
environmental statutes.
Why, at a time when
regulation is viewed by some as duplicative,
unneeded, excessively cumbersome, and expensive,
do problems still exist?
Do they exist because
of
insufficient
regulatory
authority
or
ineffectiveness within
the
existing system?
We address these questions in the following
sections.
The Environmental Protection Agency IEPAl
implements water quality standards in Wyoming
through the Wyoming Department of Environmental
Quality IDEQ), Nonpoint discharge is a major
factor in damage to riparian zones but the 208
program, authorized by the Clean Water Act to
address nonpoint pollution, is ineffective in
this case.
Although water quality management
plans are in effect in Wyoming, none address
sediment directly nor establish BMPs for the
oil and gas industry.
Wyoming
state
agencies
governing
environmental aspects of oil and gas permitting
requirements include the Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission IDGCCl, DEQ, and the Industrial Siting
Administration IISAl. The ISA, its environmental
regulatory authority, and its relationship to
other permitting agencies, is the main focus
of this paper.
Accordingly, it is discussed
separately in
the
following
section.
The
functions of OGCC and DEQ are summarized below.
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
In
Wyoming,
regulatory
control
of
environmental impacts associated with the oil
and gas industry exists solely with the federal
and state governments. Counties and communities
may have zoning and land use plans, but state
law prohibits the use of such plans to impede
mineral extraction.
The OGCC has responsibility for all wellhead
activities, including drilling, deepening, and
plugging. As the name implies, the main purpose
of the OGCC is the conservation of the resource
and the management
of
the
State's vested
interests. Although the OGCC has environmental
authority, particularly in the wellfield, limited
staffing and the legislative intent of the Oil
and Gas Act to develop the resource probably
will limit
its
role
as
an environmental
regulator. Furthermore, ail and gas production
in southwestern Wyoming is far more complicated
than simply the
development
of wellfields.
Large processing plants, major pipelines, and
other
facilities
are
becoming increasingly
common.
Federal lands in the Overthrust Belt are
administered almost exclusively by the Forest
Service and the Bureau of Land Management IBLMI.
However, the BLM administers federal onshore
mineral rights and, thus, maintains at least
some control over all surface disturbances on
federal lands caused by mineral extraction.
Both the Forest Service and the BLM use
the same
"best management practices" IBMPsl
to control surface disturbances associated with
oil and gas exploration and production !U.S.
Departments of Interior and Agriculture 19781.
Additionally,
the
federal
land
management
agencies require site-specific mitigations to
insure that particularly sensitive areas are
not
unnecessarily
damaged.
Although
the
permitting
system
employed
by the federal
government
is
beccming
very
effective in
ameliorating impacts to riparian :ones, several
shortcomings are still apparent:
11 There is
some question as to whether lease development
can be denied once the lease has been issued.
The Wyoming DEQ is the state's counterpart
to EPA.
The DEQ has minimum authority over
riparian
zones
impacted
by
oil
and gas
development
until
a
problem
exists.
The
existence of state-wide water quality standards
enables corrective action to be enforced, but
the lack of a standard for suspended solids
380
makes prosecution of sedim~nt~related offenses
very
difficult.
Furthermore, violations of
other water quality standards may result in
non-compliance
proceedings
but,
by
then,
irrevocable damage may have occurred.
It is apparent
that
the environmental
regulatory process can be not only complex,
bu~ ineffective in
addressing some impacts. The
difficulty arises
in trying
to develop an
efficient
regulatory
system
in
which all
:? n vi r o r1 rn P n t a 1 con c: ern s are
addressed but whi c: h 1
Jt the same
time,
m1n1m1zes jurisdictional
ov2rlap. In order to avoid overlap, most agencies
are delegated with very
specific authority.
This means that during permit proceedings, gaps
in authority are encountered that, in some cases,
lead to a lack of jurisdiction over industries,
facets of industries, or certain lands. For
example,
gas
pipelines
crossing
the
"checkerboard" pattern of alternating sections
of public domain and private land in southwestern
Wyoming can create administrative imbroglios.
prap~re~
a compr~h~n~iv~ lnd@pDnd~nt an~ly~i~
of the facility. As a result of this analysis,
the staff recommends permit conditions which
should be required.
The
permit
may be
conditioned
upon
the
applicant
providing
appropriate mitigation to resolve these, and
any other, concerns that are identified during
the process.
Although
the
Council
has
broad
and
comprehensive
jurisdiction
over all aspects
of an industrial facility, there is a very fine
line which has to be followed to ensure that
all environmental issues are adequately addressed
without resulting in overlapping jurisdiction
with other
regulatory ag!ncies with specific
authorities.
The Act has been described as
a "safety net" provided to ensL1re that problems
which cannot be adequately resolved by other
agencies can still be addressed. Before granting
a permit, the Council must be able to find that
the
proposed
facility
complies
with
all
applicable law; that the facility will not pose
a threat of serious injury to the environment
or the social and economic conditions of the
inhabitants in the area; and that the facility
will not substantially impair the health, safety
or welfare
of the inhabitants.
This broad
authority vested in the Council has enabled
it to resolve problems caused by development
on a
case-by-case basis,
seeking the most
appropriate solutions under the circumstances
surrounding each project.
The kinds of
environmental
impacts and
permitting problems discussed so far indicate
the need for a broad, generalized regulatory
authority capable of incorporating innovation,
site-specific
analyses,
and
comprehensive
planning into mitigation requirements.
This
is the premise behind the many industrial siting
laws that now exist in the United States. The
Wyoming Industrial Development Information and
Siting Act was passed in 1975 to this end.
Coordination with agencies of the federal
government is not mandated.
However, it has
been recognized that there is the potential
for duplication of effort between State and
federal
permitting
requirements,
with
the
possibility of conflicting requirements.
The
Administration cooperates with both the Forest
Service and the BLM to eliminate duplication
in the permitting process.
INDUSTRIAL SITING ACT
The coverage of the Industrial Siting Act
extends to all types of industrial development
occurring within
Wyoming.
Specific coverage
is provided for energy generating and conversion
plants.
The Act also provides for inclusion of any
other industrial
facility wi·th an estimated
construction cost of at least $50 million in
1975 dollars.
This provision includes any major
industrial facility
not specifically covered
above.
As a
result of the oil and gas
development occurring in southwestern Wyoming,
the
1981
Legislature
amended
the Act to
specifically include any gas processing plant
with an estimated construction cost which exceeds
the jurisdictional threshold amount.
Likewise, a provision does not exist for
the coordination of permit processing with other
state agencies or for joint hearings. However,
other regulatory agencies are considered advisory
to the Council, and may provide recommendations
to the Council.
These agencies also benefit
in their review of their own permit applications
from the information developed as a result of
the siting process.
The Council has the authority to preempt
other state agencies, except the Public Service
Commission and the Department of Environmental
Duality. When regulations were adopted, however,
the Council determined that this authority was
not specific enough to allow for the preemption
of other permits required by statute. Therefore,
in practice, the Council does not preempt other
state agencies.
Prior to commencing construction on any
facility defined
as an industrial facility,
an Industrial Siting Permit must be obtained
from a seven-member council appointed by the
Governor.
To receive a permit, the applicant
prepares
a
comprehensive evaluation of the
environmental and socioeconomic: considerations
of siting
the facility.
This includes an
assessment of the baseline condition, a complete
description of the facility, an estimate of
the impacts associated with construction and
operation of the facility, and proposed plans
to mitigate identified impacts.
The
staff
of
the
Administration
The Process provides for a maximum of public
participation. All affected units of government,
persons residing in the area, and nonprofit
citizens' groups may become parties to a permit
proceeding. All permit applications are subject
to an adjudicatory-style hearing
before the
then
381
Council.
All testimony is subject to cross
examination by other parties. Informal, written
comments may also be received by the Council
for their consideration.
livestock be allowed to
being revegetated.
roam
freely
over areas
Most of the permitting within the last
several years has related to the development
of oil and gas in the Overthrust Belt. Since
regulation of the oil and gas industry is only
a recent development in the Council's history,
both the industry and the Council have been
going through a "feeling
out" process with
respect
to
the
Act.
Because
of
the
jurisdictional problems with exempt facilities
described previously, much of
the attention
in recent proceedings has focused on thp extent
of the Council's authority, rather than on the
solutions to complex, cumulative impacts. As
the Council gains more experience with oil and
gas projects, and the industry learns what is
expected from the Siting Process, these problems
should become less acute.
PROBLEM AREAS
One
of
the
major difficulties in the
establishment of the siting process has revolved
around two questions of jurisdiction. The first
involves
the
specific exemption of certain
facilities.
The second involves the exemption
of any facilities that were either constructed
before passage of the Act in 1975 or before
the 1981 amendments expanding jurisdiction to
oil and gas processing plants, or that do not
meet
the
jurisdictional threshold criterion
in construction
costs.
These two questions
are discussed separately.
A major weakness of the program has been
the lack of jurisdiction over certain facilities,
including oil and gas pipelines, natural gas
pipelines, and oil and gas producing and drilling
facilities.
However, the
Act
requires the
Council to consider cumulative effects within
the area of site influence of a project. This
has created uncertainty in
how to regulate
consolidated projects consisting of both gas
processing plants, which are
clearly within
the Council's jurisdiction, and wellfields and
pipelines which by themselves would be exempt,
but which contribute to the cumulative effects
in the area of site influence. At this time,
the Council has not clearly resolved this issue.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The Wyoming Industrial Siting Process is
generally regarded
as having been extremely
successful. Since passage of the Act, numerous
permits have been issued for a wide variety
of types of facilities. All permits have been
processed without any significant delay to the
projects, yet have resulted in the issuance
of permits which have required comprehensive
mitigation programs.
In spite of the aforementioned problems,
the Industrial Siting Process has often resulted
in significant mitigations for impacted riparian
areas that no other regulatory review would
required.
These
accomplishments have
have
generally fallen into several broad categories
including
siting
of
facilities, monitoring
programs,
implementation
of
site-specific
standards, curtailment of channel alterations,
and improved design and construction techniques.
The second question of
jurisdiction is
related to the effective date of the Act and
the threshold criterion.
Virtually all areas
in Wyoming which are experiencing rapid growth
are experiencing that growth as a result of
the cumulative development of many projects.
Since the Siting Council cannot require one
impacts of another
company to mitigate the
company's project, the lack
of jurisdiction
over all projects in our rapidly growing areas
has
hindered
development
of
comprehensive
mitigation programs.
This is most evident in
the southwestern part of the State where oil
and gas development caused significant impacts
before the
Act was amended to include gas
processing plants.
The exemption of wellfields
and pipelines, however, has continued to hinder
the effectiveness of the Council in dealing
with all
the effects
of the oil and gas
development.
Because processing
plants must logically
be located within reasonable proximity to the
resource,
the
locational
siting
of major
facilities is
somewhat restricted.
However,
in several cases, the Siting Process has resulted
in
the
relocation
of
individual
project
components and, thus, reduced potential impacts
to riparian zones.
For example, requirements
to move proposed pipelines and access roads
out of sensitive drainages have been incorporated
into the review process. Another example was
the relocation of a water intake structure from
an environmentally sensitive riparian zone to
an area of less critical concern.
The final
location not only eliminated unnecessary impact
but was less expensive to the company. This
project also was under BLM review, but through
interagency cooperation and communication, ends
were achieved
that were
acceptable to all
parties.
Other problems that may not be as significant
as the
question of jurisdiction but which,
nevertheless,
surface
occasionally
include
interstate projects and private ownership of
affected lands.
The first of these has occurred
only once and involved a wellfield in Utah
serviced by
a processing plant in Wyoming.
The private ownership issue is one that has
created some
conflict but
has always been
resolved through cooperation between all parties
involved.
One
case
involved
a company's
excellent reclamation
plan which was almost
destroyed by the landowner's insistence that
Most permits issued by the Council contain
provisions for monitoring. Monitoring of impacts
on
riparian
zones
have
included
benthic
invertebrate studies, water quality monitoring,
382
and
sediment
e:<port
analyses,
each
with
corresponding conditions
requ1r1ng corrective
measL\res if
previ OL\Sl y agreed upon criteria
were e:·: c eed ed.
evident
as
the
industry
rapidly
expands
operations. We conclude that sound construction
practices and effective planning designed to
prevent unnecessary
disturbance are required
to mitigate the types of impacts evident in
riparian zones.
However, regulatory control
is often ineffective, not because of the lack
of laws or regulatory agencies, but because
of the lack of jurisdiction over certain facets
of development and the inability to implement
site-specific innovations. A broad, generalized
regulatory
authority
capable
of performing
integrated analyses on all aspects of development
is needed. Part of this concept is the idea
that the awareness generated through arbitration
can sometimes lead to substantial progress and
innovation
that
would
not
have
occurred
otherwise. The Wyoming Industrial Siting Process
lends itself particularly well to this approach.
However. its
effectiveness
in accomplishing
what it was designed to do has been paradoxically
diminished by imposed exemptions.
In at least one proceeding, a proposed stream
channelization was prevented. Railroad crossings
of streams not under 404 review
have been
realigned to achieve the shortest route possible
with the least disturbance to flood plains.
Site-specific standards are often imposed
in addition to what may be required by other
agencies. For example, water quality standards
for discharges may be imposed that are more
stringent than those that are required by DEQ.
Such standards are always discussed and agreed
upon
between
the
two
agencies
before
implementation.
This is an effective way to
increase
confidence
in
mitigations
for
particularly sensitive areas, and is an example
of where
overlap of
jurisdiction may have
positive environmental results.
Many
examples
exist
where construction
practices,
sediment
control techniques, and
reclamation methods have been implemented only
because
of
the
Industrial Siting Process.
Minimum disturbance widths at stream crossings
have also been required.
LITERATURE CITED
Skinner, Morris M. and Michael D. Stone. 1983.
Identification of instream hazards to trout
habitat quality
in Wyoming. U.
S. Dept.
Int., Fish. Wild. Serv. FWS/OBS-83/13.
One concept paramount to many successful
mitigation
efforts
is
that
the awareness
generated through negotiations with companies
and other agencies will, in many cases, lead
to
applicants
voluntarily
committing
to
environmental safeguards. In this way progress
has been made in extending sound environmental
protection practices into areas not under direct
Industrial Siting
jurisdiction but that are
tied to a facility which is.
This has included
wellfields and even components in neighboring
states.
U. S. Departments of Interior and Agriculture.
1978. Surface operating standards for oil
and gas exploration and development. Bureau
of Land Management, Geological Survey, and
Forest Service publication. Denver, CO.
VerPloeg, Alan J. and Rodney H. DeBruin. 1982.
The search for oil and gas in the
Idaho-Wyoming-Utah Salient of the Overthrust
Belt. The Geological
Survey
of Wyoming.
Report of Investigations No. 21. Laramie,
WY.
Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
1984. Wyoming oil and gas
production by
coL\nty. Wy. Oil and Gas Commission
publication. Casper, WY.
CONCLUSION
The need to minimize adverse impacts to
riparian zones from oil and gas activity in
the Overthrust Belt is becoming increasingly
383