UTE INDIAN TRIBE 

P. 0. Box 190 

Fort Duche ne Utah 84026 

Phone (435) 722-5141 • Fax (435) 722-5072 

Government-to-Government Consultation on Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(ANPR) on July 18, 2014 

The Ute Indian Tribe is committed to the sustainable and responsible development of 

mineral resources. 

• Development is necessary to enable the Tribe to realize the full potential of its resources 

and achieve economic self-sufficiency. 

• The Tribe is also concerned with protecting the air quality in the Uintah Basin. 

• The Indian Country Minor NSR Program should balance the need to regulate energy 

producers in Indian Country with ensuring that Tribes can continue to develop their 

resources. 

• This solution should give operators on Tribal lands the same fast permitting turnaround 

times as they experience on state lands. 

• Any program should also respect tribal sovereignty and self-determination. 

• Because Tribes are recognized by EPA as a state, Tribes should be afforded that same 

treatment. 

The Ute Indian Tribe has used energy production to improve the lives and well being of its 

members through the revenues generated from such development. 

• Regulatory obstacles limit development on the Reservation. 

• These obstacles prevent the Tribe from achieving the level of governmental efficiency 

and effectiveness necessary for the Tribe to fully benefit from its resources. 

• Ensuring that EPA balances the needs for environmental protection with Tribal concerns 

is important for energy producing tribes that rely heavily upon energy production. 

• Tribes don't want to be put at a competitive disadvantage with states. Tribes want to 

level the playing field. 

• Tribes don't want the Minor NSR Program to impose unduly burdensome regulations on 

operators that will cause a race to fee land. 

The Federal Government must ensure that it honors its trust obligations to the Tribe and 

respect tribal sovereignty and self-determination. 

• Tribes need to retain control and responsibility of their own energy development and 

other opportunities as governments and landowners. 

1 
___ _ _ _ __, T.._.h""eL-L-F.ederaLGoy_emmenLmusLensure--that---it-mggts-it-s tmst eblig-atien te 1'fi-bes--and ----' 

allows the continued development of tribal resources. 

• If the Program is too strict, tribes will be unable to compete with states and will lose the 

ability to develop trust resources. 

• Federal law and Indian self-determination prevents Indian lands from being treated as 

public lands. 

• Regulatory hurdles have a direct and negative impact on the development of the Tribe's 

resources. 

• Burdensome regulations will cause operators to divert their capital off the Reservation. 

• If Operators are forced to leave the Reservation for lands outside of EPA's jurisdiction, it 

could take several years before they reinvest on the Reservation. 

• If Operators leave the Reservation, the Tribe's economy will suffer greatly as it will lose 

out on millions of dollars in royalties, bonuses, taxes and throughput fees. 

The Indian Country Minor NSR Program must protect air quality in the Uintah Basin. 

• EPA must address ozone levels while also allowing for economic growth and the 

responsible development of energy resources in the Uintah Basin. 

• Unique geologic features of the Uintah Basin make it susceptible to the formation of 

winter ozone levels during certain conditions. 

• O&G Emissions are contributing to air quality degradation throughout the Uintah Basin. 

• Any solution must balance new growth by mitigating the potential for adverse air quality 

impacts from overall increases in emissions. 

General Permits would cause undue delays in the development of Tribal minerals. 

• General permits will delay oil and gas operations and incentivize companies to seek 

easier and faster permitting requirements off Tribal lands. 

• General permits will cause unnecessary delays because they require preconstruction 

permits. 

• General permits are also subject to a public notice and comment period, which will also 

cause delays. 

• Enabling the public to challenge any particular source receiving coverage is unnecessary 

and will consume valuable EPA resources. 

• A general permit will only apply to new and modified oil and natural gas facilities and 

will not address existing sources. 

A Permit-By-Rule is preferable to a General Permit. 

• A permit-by-rule would benefit Tribes and operators through faster permit times as it 

preauthorizes construction. 

• This promotes reliability by allowing companies to plan for drilling schedules in advance. 

• It also offers both predictability and certainty, allowing companies to proceed with and 

include Tribal lands in their drilling schedules. 

2 
..__It-also uses less agenG-y--FesGur~-as---ths-operateF--_previde-s-netiee--that it-meet-s-alJ------

eligibility criteria for coverage by the permit-by-rule. 

• The permitting process is faster under a permit-by-rule because the public may only 

object through judicial challenge. 

• As a result of the faster process, Tribes will benefit through continued investment on 

Tribal lands and allowing the Tribe to maximize the benefits of its natural resources. 

A Federal Implementation Plan is also preferable to a General Permit. 

• A FIP could fast-track the approval permit process as it avoids the need pre-construction 

approval and other undue delays in the development of Tribal minerals. 

• Unlike other permitting mechanisms, public comment will not disrupt the permitting 

process under a PIP. 

• While a PIP should · establish permitting requirements for new sources, it could also 

include certain existing sources. 

• Neither a general permit nor a permit-by-rule would allow EPA to regulate existing O&G 

Emissions. 

• If a PIP is used, it must be flexible regarding existing sources and should not cover all 

existing sources as continued development is essential in the Uintah Basin. 

• Any authorization mechanism should not require retroactive controls or otherwise place 

overwhelmingly burdensome requirements on existing sources. 

• This flexibility can balance continued development in the Uintah Basin with air quality 

protections. 

The Tribe wants the EPA to level the playing field between Indian and non-Indian lands. 

• The Tribe would like to level the playing field between economic inequities associated 

with on-reservation versus off-reservation energy development that have resulted from 

the need for shorter permitting and facility approvals in Indian Country. 

• State lands in the development of oil and gas resources where they are subject to less 

stringent minor source permitting requirements that impose more effective and 

reasonable controls to regulate emissions from the same facilities. 

• The Indian Country Minor NSR Rule should not cause operators to race to fee lands and 

non-Indian lands. 

• The Ute Indian Tribe has already seen operators move off the reservation to lands 

regulated by the states, which have more robust rules allowing the issuance of synthetic 

minor permits to sources that want to begin construction and avoid the PSD process. 

• How can EPA guarantee that Indian country will be placed on a "level playing field" with 

federal, state, fee lands and even between tribes located in different regions? 

3 
-------£E!dP--rA~camwt--ilwlude---a-setbac-k---RquiFement-in---the-lndian--(;euntr-y-MinoF-NSR----Progmm----­

because EPA does not have jurisdiction over Tribal land. 

• A setback requirement is inappropriate because EPA does not have jurisdiction over 

Tribal surface. 

• EPA should defer to the Tribes regarding setback requirements as setbacks have nothing 

to do with air quality and EPA does not have surface authority. 

• Tribes have passed zoning laws for oil and gas facilities and have setback provisions in 

oil and gas exploration and development agreements or leases. 

• Attempting to regulate Tribal surface would be an overreach of EPA authority and 

violate Tribal sovereignty. 

4