Letters to BLM Management

Stan Olmstead

P.O. Box 403

Jonesborough TN 37659

stanolmstead@gmail.com

October 11, 2017

Vernal Field Office – BLM

Ms. Ester McCollough

170 South 500 East

Vernal, UT 84078

Field Manager McCollough:

I have been interested in the abandonment and reclamation of oil and gas operations at the Vernal Field Office for many years. I had worked at the office from 1992 thru 2012 and after retirement put an effort into adding encouragement to management in the effort to accomplish much needed plugging, facility removal, contouring and re-vegetating abandon locations, specifically well sites.

My question has to do with two specific wells:

Seep Ridge #1, lease number UTU6616; T13S R22E, SENW Sec. 23

Seep Ridge #3, lease number UTU10178A; T13S R22E, SENW Sec. 22

These two individual wells were somewhat representative of a failure to fulfill the Bureau’s obligation to heal the land. Each was non-producing upon my arrival in 1992 and remained non-producing when I retired in 2012. Hard working staff spent thousands of hours traveling to the field, inspecting the locations, documenting their findings, discussing the obligation, communicating with the operator and yet they remained with trashy infrastructure, eroding soils, weed infested, unplugged and out of compliance.

Although the wells were earlier held by Hot Rod Oil the Seep Ridge No. 1 transferred to Summit and they may now be “operated” by Crescent Point Energy if my information is correct?   Would you please provide a detailed explanation of the status of the wells and the situation to their compliance; plugging, abandonment and final reclamation.

Sincerely,

Stan Olmstead

Stan Olmstead

P.O. Box 403

Jonesborough TN 37659

stanolmstead@gmail.com

December 15, 2017

Vernal Field Office – BLM

Ms. Ester McCollough

170 South 500 East

Vernal, UT 84078

Field Manager McCollough:

It is with pleasure and appreciation that I am in receipt of your letter responding to my October 11, 2017 request for information about the status of the Seep Ridge #1 & #3 well locations and their plugging, abandonment and reclamation conditions. You answered my request in full if not in detail, the particulars are of little importance. What I understand from your letter is that the status quo prevails and the operator continues to languish in managing his actions to fulfill his energy responsibility as he has done since I first visited the well locations in 1993, production extremely slight and of little consequence to be of any merit.

I ask not that you respond to this message; you do not know me, nor I you; however the information presented here should speak for itself and allow you the opportunity to do “soul searching” and consider your responsibility as Field Manager to fulfill the mission: To sustain the health, diversity and productivity of public lands for the present and future generations.

I remain in contact with many individuals of the Basin to include many that work within the Field Office. As the status quo continues to be an unfulfilled action towards meeting the mission, I continue at present as I did during my employment with the Office to be in a quandary as to why the industrial activity takes so much precedence over all other resource values, contrary to wise stewardship and science of public land management. 

When arriving at the Vernal Office in the 90’s many of the managers were of the natural resource background, education, land stewardship and understanding. However as time elapsed and the political climate changed these stewards of the land were replaced by industrial minded managers with a background in mining, petroleum engineering, industrial geology and the like and those that cared and understood ecology, habitat and the human impact to land, air and water were relegated to the processing teams.

I remember vividly the decline of the sage grouse, the extirpation of the mountain plover, the lack of concern for the ferruginous hawk, the continued allowance of the same grazing Animal Unit Months even though much of the acreage was denuded by energy development. These experiences, your short letter and information from friends and associates in the Basin indicate that little has changed.

Please consider the first definition of Connive: To encourage or assent to a wrong by silence or feigned ignorance.

Then ask where does the ignorance lie? How when the earth is shredded by our consumption and abuse do we explain it to the next generation? I remember vividly the “arguments” with a few select industrial biased individuals of the office and the struggles by the ecosystem minded staff in the “battles” to turn the tables in an ecological minded direction. Why is it that those that care deeply for the health of the land suffer so greatly by those that only promote commodities and lack the internal understanding of a healthy ecosystem?  

Vernal BLM employees that I am in contact with have expressed a noticeable low morale within the office and it appears to me that low morale is a vivid indication that wrong is a foot. The entire staff within a successful office must be working in the same direction and with pride; pride represents professionalism. If that part of your staff that cares deeply for the environment is discouraged then it is obvious that failure is occurring.

My time at the Vernal Office was spent challenging these ignorant ideas of commodities first, after retirement I challenged through FOIA requests and executive and legislative appeals to encourage and “force” more appropriate abandonment and reclamation of the numerous energy locations that languish as “sores” on public land and now I appeal to you; Field Manager of the Vernal Office to stand up to Washington and State executive directives that wish only to streamline permitting of development and return to the wise and balance of sustaining your “charge” and focus your staff in a combined effort to health, reclamation, to minimize disturbance and promote a healthy flora and fauna for the myriad of acres of habitat that are in the Field Office domain. 

I close my letter with a few quotes from a recent book that I am presently reading and ask that you consider not just the refugia of parks, wilderness and wildlife refuges but refuge within the public domain that have not been selected for special uses, to limit disturbance, that habitat fragmentation be curtailed to the least, that air, land and water are not fouled and that the non-consumptive resources have superior value over commodities. There is a movement to leave fossil fuels in the ground. Fossil fuels have provided the human society to advance to increasing numbers but now fossil fuels may be the cause of vast numbers of mortality, destruction and troubles.

Are you the manager that will connive with political ignorance or will you be the manager that stands tall, organize the team in a common direction to fulfillment: To sustain the health, diversity and productivity of public lands for present and future generations?  

____________________________________________________________________________

John Muir – Selective Writings by Tempest Williams: 2017 – Everyman’s Library

Oil is optional water is not

Everyone needs beauty as well as bread, places to play in and pray in, where Nature may heal and cheer and give strength to body and soul alike.

Muir … could not have prepared himself for the scale of changes piled on to the Earth by modernity from his era to ours – neither Muir nor God could save the Earth from fools.

We need to deepen Muir’s ethos of the wild and expand our thinking about how environmental issues and social issues must be seen as issues of justice in a world increasingly weighted towards the advantage of the privileged.

In the era of climate change upon us, we are now recognizing that many of our most valuable carbon banks are upon and beneath the ground, insurance policies for the future are found within our protected … public lands.

I ask you to be a savior not a destroyer of our natural heritage and protect public lands so they are indeed healthy, diverse and productive in continuum.

Sincerely,

Stan Olmstead – Natural Resource Advocate

Motion to Dismiss: Not!!

STATE OF TENNESSEE

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION 

IN THE MATTER OF:                                               DOCKET NUMBER 04.30-1412531J

STAN OLMSTEAD                                                     CASE NUMBER WPC 16-0097

                  Petitioner,                                                               

  

  

v.                                                                                                        

                                                                                                            

                                                                                                            

TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF                             DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES ENVIRONMENT AND                                                                 

CONSERVATION                                                                                    

                  Respondent,                                                                    

                                                                                        Administrative Judge

                                                                                         Mattielyn B. Williams

                                                                                                                            

and                                                                                                  

                                                                                                            

US NITROGEN LLC,                                                               

                  Intervenor,                                                             

PETITIONER’S SUPPLEMENT TO THE OPPOSITION OF MOTION TO DISMISS

As the Petitioner in the matter of TDEC and NPDES Permit TN0081566 authorization, I respectfully ask that the respondent’s and Intervenor’s request for a Motion to Dismiss, “once again” be rejected, the following is a supplement to my original opposition to their motion. As petitioner and Pro Se appellant I continue to argue my opposition for the dismissal based on statutes and law.  The right to appeal before an administrative judge is clear in the statutes of the state.

In the matter of the Hearing Set For September 26 -27, 2017, delayed until October 26^th, 2017 and due to the respondents Motion to Dismiss and the Petitioner’s obligation to argue why the Motion to Dismiss should be denied, I plead with the Administrative Judge to allow the hearing to occur and the argument for dismissal is faulty based on the following.

Motion to Dismiss: The Respondents have submitted three arguments for dismissal.

•          Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6): the Petitioners failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
•           Collateral Attacks on Tennessee’s General Water Quality Criteria should be excluded from any contested case hearing.
•           Under Section 303 (c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act there is another avenue of administrative procedures for argument: a). Designated uses of water-bodies. b). Establishing water quality criteria is based on the protection of these uses. c).  Anti-degradation policy is in place.  

 My Response:

1). The Federal Water Pollution Control Act also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA); Section 101 clearly states the objective of the Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nations Waters. I am able show proof that the policies of the state has not resulted in restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical and biological integrity of state waters and that the degrading biological make up of aquatic organisms are “Facts of Truth” to this appeal.  

2). The Tennessee Water Quality Control Act; T.C.A. 69-3-102 clearly states:  “it recognizes that the waters of Tennessee are the property of the state and are held in public trust for the use of the people of the state, it is declared as public policy that the people of Tennessee, as beneficiaries of this trust, have a right to unpolluted waters. In the exercise of its public trust over the waters of the state, the government of Tennessee has an obligation to take all prudent steps to secure, protect, and preserve this right”. The State’s surface waters as administered by TDEC is not fulfilling this trust and that based on the understanding of the biological community of surface waters there is proof of failure.

3). Endangered Species Act of 1973:  Sec. 2 (a) Findings, (1) various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth and development un-tempered by adequate concern and conservation; (2) other species of fish, wildlife, and plants have been so depleted in numbers that they are in danger of or threatened with extinction. Numerous species within the direct physical and chemical disturbance of this action (U.S. Nitrogen) warrant, not only the protection of federally listed species but also the protection of species not listed that will necessitate listing in the future.

The “cavalier behavior” and process of the authorization of permit TN0081566, places in jeopardy species of life that are listed on the Federal Register of Endangered species. The original request to use Lick Creek for discharged water conflicted with Section 303(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and necessitated a pipeline installed to discharge into the Nolichucky River. The preferred location of discharge into the Nolichucky River and the least expensive for development resulted in the finding of a small number of individual fresh water mussels listed as endangered would be physically disturbed. U.S. Nitrogen’s needed then to select an alternate location which was up stream of these few federally listed individual organisms now threatened with chemical contamination due to the authorization of U.S. Nitrogen’s discharge.

I am able to argue that “cause and effect” due to chemistry is as negative to these organisms as would be physical disturbance.

4). Rules of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation; 0400-40-03-.06 Anti-degradation Statement. I claim the issuance of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Permit TN0081566 based on de minimis, 7Q10 Rule and mixing zone prevents degradation is not a reality and that the rules and regulations in and of themselves are in conflict with the intent of the Clean Water Act as well the states obligation to myself in protecting the surface waters to fulfill it’s Anti-degradation obligation . Review of this TDEC Rule and directive to prevent the degradation of waters, “Weaves In and Out of Degrading and Anti-degradation” language that is challengeable scientifically and requires the state in the discharge of pollutants into the Nolichucky River to have more “factual truth”. Dilution has been used as an argument for most of human history and the author “Rachel Carson, Silent Spring - 1962” demonstrated that parts per million and less can have devastating impacts to species. It is the same today with this authorized permit allowing nitrates, nitrites and metals to be discharged.

5). Tennessee Code Annotated 69-3-105 subsection (i): Duties and authority of the Water Quality Board allows for an appeal and that the final authority of the rules is solely the responsibility of the Board. However for the Board to hear this argument and accept the serious nature of the argument, it must be acknowledged by an Administrative Judge and if the court rules in favor of this appeal it would be the best course of action for the Board to respond seriously to the argument of the continued water degradation.  You are aware that procedures have changed from previous procedures in that appellants previously argued first before the Board and then appealed to the courts and now the petitioner argues to an Administrative Judge with an Initial Order reviewable by the Board.

6). Title 69-3-110; Hearings: Any hearing brought before the board pursuant to 69-3-105(i) … et. al … shall be conducted as a contested case. The hearing shall be heard before an administrative judge sitting alone pursuant to 4-5-301(a)(2) and 4-5-314(b), unless settled by the parties. It is clear that the issue before the court is unsettled and I request that I be given the opportunity to argue the case in full, without being encumbered by a lesser legal statute where as there are many other far compelling statutes that prevail.  

7). Collateral Attacks on Tennessee’s General Water Quality Criteria: My arguments are far from being collateral. There are many in the same opinion as myself and take offence of being subordinate, in an attempt to acknowledge these others and which the respondents refers to a collateral, subordinate, without direct objection; I contend my argument serves to support the failure of the state in its obligation to accomplish Anti-degradation of state waters. 

•           Clean Water Expected in East Tennessee
•           Tennessee Clean Water Network
•           Sierra Club Tennessee
•           Park Overall concerned citizen withdrawn Pro Se
•           Anne Harris concerned citizen withdrawn Pro Se
•           Save the Nolichucky web site
•           Hundreds if not more individuals that attended public meeting protesting U.S. Nitrogen
•           Brian Paddock Attorney and dedicated environmental activist
•           Gary Davis and Elizabeth Murphy attorneys for previous appellants during the first round of legal challenge
•           Hundreds of citizen posting their property with “No Free Water, Save the Nolichucky

The before list of concerned groups and citizens are only a sample of those concerned for the protection of the Nolichucky River and the respondents continue to state via Tenn. Civ. R. of Procedures 12.02(6) there is no claim as the process worked well and the standards are being met. “ Worked For Whom”? & “Who’s Standards”? Language within Rule 12.02 states: “If a pleading sets forth a claim for relief to which the adverse party is not required to serve a responsive pleading, the adverse party may assert at the trial any defense in law or fact to the claim for relief”. The respondent asserts there is no claim and the petitioner asserts there is a claim. The rule states that a trial (hearing) is to resolve the claim/counter claim.

I also state as in my original appeal that:  T.C.A 69-3-105 (b): The board has and shall exercise the power, duty, and responsibility to adopt, modify, repeal, and promulgate, after due notice, all necessary rules and regulations that the board deems necessary for the proper administration of this part, the prevention, control, and abatement of pollution, or the modification of classification and the upgrading of the standards of quality in accordance with subsection (a).  I ask that you let me argue this need so I may have greater influence when presenting to the board.

8). Under Section 303 (c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act the respondents state that there is another avenue of administrative procedures to argue: a). That designated uses of water-bodies. b). That established water quality criteria is based on the protection of these uses. c). Anti-degradation policy is in place. 

The idea that the correct course of action based on executive and legislative installed procedures to be the best course of action, I argue that solely because Tennessee assumes they have met Section 303 (c) of the CWA;  “water quality standards applicable to interstate waters which was adopted by any state and submitted to, and approved by, or is awaiting approval by, the Administrator pursuant to the CWA as in effect immediately prior to the date of enactment shall remain in effect unless the Administrator determined that such standard is not consistent with the requirements of the Act as in effect immediately prior to the date of enactment of the CWA”.

There are repeated cases of concern presented to the legislative and executive branches of government only to be heard by the courts to correct. This is the case here that the hearing now set for October 26, 2017 must be allowed to present a much more holistic argument associated with the negative impacts that will occur by TDEC granting U.S. Nitrogen the authorization to pollute the Nolichucky.

9). Section 303(d) of the CWA: The implementation of the CWA provides “caveats” to the Anti-degradation of water quality and Section 303(d) requires the state identify impaired waters. The use of the Nolichucky River for discharge waters is only occurring because the original discharge outfall was Lick Creek and Section 303(d) although “valuable if not vital” is a single parameter pollution issue and the cumulative or synergistic impact of pollution is not rendered important. Lick Creek as with the Nolichucky are both impaired, the difference in the waterways is that Lick Creek is impaired for nitrogen where as the Nolichucky is not. The authorized discharge of the polluted discharge waters are located on river mile 20.8, the out flow of Lick Creek into the Nolichucky is approximately river mile 12; only 8 miles separates these nitrogen “laced” fluids from the two locations, resulting in the nitrogen pollutants to contaminate the surface waters of the state and to down stream locations. Additionally I contend that the “Best Available Technology economically achievable is with fault, that “to whom are we expecting to measure economically achievable”? The issue of pollution is not a statute issue designed for monetary gain as much as it is for biological, human health and value issues.  

CLOSING

The above is a clear and legal explanation that challenges the respondent and intervenor for their Motion to Dismiss. I argue that all my actions have been in good faith and the Motion to Dismiss is less so. I have listed above a holistic and cumulative argument that clearly identifies a problem and where the respondents are trying to use a single statute to discourage, I am trying to make the argument that the procedures of TDEC are industry biased and contrary to citizen-rights.

Please reject the Dismissal Motion and allow the hearing to go forward as scheduled.  Although I assure you I will make the specific argument of an “offence of law” in the issuance of this permit. There remains a greater need to analyze through this authorization a greater failure of water quality management and the only logical solution is to have an impartial decision maker in the Judicial Court to rule on the subject of “legal water degradation”. Only this process presently before the court has the opportunity to provide the necessary justice; where as the influence contrary to our state’s obligation to provide for social justice, economic justice and environmental justice clash within our system of governance. Let the case be heard.

Respectfully submitted,

  

____________________________________                                                           

Stan Olmstead – Natural Resource Advocate                                            

P.O. Box 403

Jonesborough TN 37659

stanolmstead@gmail.com

  

___________________________________________________________________________

Certificate of Service

I certify that a true and correct copy of this document was deposited in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, September 22, 2017 addressed to:

Administrative Judge

Mattielyn B. Williams

Administrative Procedures Division

Office of Tennessee Secretary of State

William R. Snodgrass TN Tower, 8^th floor

312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue

Nashville Tennessee 37243

Patrick Parker: Attorney

TDEC Office of General Counsel

Department of Environment and Conservation

William R. Snodgrass TN Tower, 2^nd Floor

312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue

Nashville, Tennessee 37243

Michael K. Stagg: Attorney

Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP

511 Union Street, Suite 2700

Nashville, Tennessee 37219