5.0 Cumulative Impacts 

This chapter provides an analysis of the cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions on various natural and human resources. The following sections identify the time frame for effects, the 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects analyzed; and the cumulative impacts for each 

resource. The primary human influences in the area have been oil and gas development, historic and current 

gilsonite mining, and livestock grazing. The compilation of these actions provides the basis for estimating 

future environmental changes that may affect the extent and quality of natural and human resources. 

5.1 Time Frame 

Based on the project development and operational periods (up to 50 years), and the time frame for vegetation 

and wildlife habitat recovery in saltbush and sagebrush communities, the overall time frame for the effects of 

cumulative surface disturbing activities is 75 years. KMG estimates that wells may have productive lives of 30 

to 50 years. 

5.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects 

Table 5.2-1 identifies the Cumulative Impact Study Areas (CISAs) for individual resources and resource 

issues, and the rationale for the selection of each area. Because of the many projects that have recently been 

approved or are in the approval process, the general cumulative effects area covers three reasonably 

foreseeable development (RFD) areas: Monument Butte – Red Wash, West Tavaputs Plateau, and East 

Tavaputs Plateau (Figure 5.2-1). This area includes much of the southern half of the Uinta Basin and is 

managed under the BLM Vernal RMP (BLM 2008c). There is no equivalent resource management guidance 

for Tribal, state, or private lands. Figure 5.2-2 shows the locations of past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions included in the general cumulative effects area for oil and gas field development 

projects. Figure 5.2-3 shows the locations of pipeline and seismic projects in the BLM Vernal Field Office that 

were considered as part of the cumulative impact analysis for vegetation. Figure 5.2-4 shows the relationship 

of pipeline projects and well development projects used for the cumulative impact analysis for wildlife 

resources. 

5.2.1 Oil and Gas 

5.2.1.1 Exploration and Production 

Oil and gas development in the GNBPA and surrounding region began in the 1950s and 1960s, and rapidly 

increased in the 1990s. As presented in Chapter 2.0, existing oil and gas development in the GNBPA includes 

1,562 well pads and a total existing surface disturbance of 7,766 acres (Table 2.2-1). Under the No Action 

Alternative, an additional 1,102 well pads with a surface disturbance of 4,702 acres remain to be developed as 

disclosed in existing NEPA decision documents (Table 2.4-1). In addition to these existing and approved 

development activities within the GNBPA, Table 5.2-2 provides a list of past and present oil and gas 

development projects, and Table 5.2-3 presents estimates for reasonably foreseeable oil and gas activity in 

the general cumulative effects area for the proposed project. The projects listed as reasonably foreseeable 

include those for which NEPA decision documents are anticipated or in-process but have not yet been 

completed. 

It is assumed that the portion of the projects listed in Table 5.2-2 that are within the GNBPA are accounted for 

as part of the existing and approved activities disclosed in Tables 2.2-1 and 2.4-1. Therefore, the disturbance 

outside of the GNBPA is calculated on Table 5.2-2. 

DEIS 5-1 July 2010 
 

Table 5.2-1 Cumulative Impact Study Areas for the Greater Natural Buttes EIS 

Resource Cumulative Impacts Study Area Study Area Rationale/Interrelated Projects 

Air Quality Eastern Uinta Basin and additional study areas in the region 

as identified at the direction of the BLM 

The Uinta Basin is bounded by higher terrain on all sides, which 

results in similar climate and dispersion conditions for pollutants. 

Projects: All human and natural activities within the Uinta Basin 

that inject pollutants into the air. 

Cultural GNBPA boundary Archaeological sites generally are located in discrete areas and 

Resources effects on these sites are a consequence of implementing 

surface disturbance activities associated with a development 

proposal. 

Projects: Bonanza EA, Love Unit EA, North Chapita EA, River 

Bend Unit Infill EA, Rock House EA, West Bonanza EA, Big 

Pack EA, Chapita Wells-Stagecoach EIS, Little Canyon EA, and 

Greater Chapita Wells Infill EIS. 

Native American GNBPA boundary The location of cultural resources is site-specific, and effects are 

Traditional a consequence of implementing a development proposal. 

Cultural However, traditional use areas, religious sites, and certain 

Properties archaeological sites have to be considered in an expanded 

landscape context. This area encompasses major regional 

landscape and cultural features (Green River corridor and major 

Green River tributaries) as well as intensive oil and gas 

development. 

Projects: Bonanza EA, Love Unit EA, North Chapita EA, River 

Bend Unit Infill EA, Rock House EA, West Bonanza EA, Big 

Pack EA, Chapita Wells-Stagecoach EIS, Little Canyon EA, and 

Greater Chapita Wells Infill EIS. 

Geology For oil shale, the study area is the portion of the KOSLA 

within the GNBPA. For all other geologic and mineral 

resources, the study area is the GNBPA. 

For oil shale, the known leasing area identifies areas of high 

potential for development near the GNBPA. For other resources, 

the area encompasses similar oil and gas, gilsonite, and tar 

sands deposits with similar extraction methods and similar 

potential for geologic hazards. 

Projects: Bonanza EA, Love Unit EA, North Chapita EA, River 

Bend Unit Infill EA, Rock House EA, West Bonanza EA, Big 

Pack EA, Chapita Wells-Stagecoach EIS, Little Canyon EA, and 

Greater Chapita Wells Infill EIS. 

Land Use GNBPA and the immediate surrounding area as defined by 

the management objectives for visibility, noise, and wildlife 

for the boundary of the White River SRMA, as defined in the 

Vernal RMP. 

These environmentally sensitive areas require the most planning 

regarding potential impacts and also may provide the most 

constraints for development within their boundaries. 

Projects: Bonanza EA, Love Unit EA, North Chapita EA, River 

Bend Unit Infill EA, Rock House EA, West Bonanza EA, Big 

Pack EA, Chapita Wells-Stagecoach EIS, Little Canyon EA, 

Greater Chapita Wells Infill EIS, Southam Canyon EA, RDG 

Uinta Basin EIS, and Greater Deadman Bench EIS. 

y White River SMRA: Bonanza EA and Rock House EA. 

Paleontology GNBPA boundary Impacts would be limited to direct surface disturbance. 

Projects: Bonanza EA, Love Unit EA, North Chapita EA, River 

Bend Unit Infill EA, Rock House EA, West Bonanza EA, Big 

Pack EA, Chapita Wells-Stagecoach EIS, Little Canyon EA, and 

Greater Chapita Wells Infill EIS. 

Range Resources The entirety of each grazing allotment all or partially within 

the GNBPA 

Grazing allotments define the type and level of livestock use, 

and use boundaries by individual permitees. Ute Tribe grazing 

allotments do not overlap those of the BLM. 

Projects: Little Canyon EA, Bonanza EA, Chapita WellsStagecoach EIS, Big Pack EA, Greater Deadman Bench EIS, 

Love Unit EA, North Chapita EA, RDG Uinta Basin EIS, River 

Bend Unit Infill EA, Rock House EA, West Bonanza EA, Greater 

Chapita Wells Infill EIS, and Southam Canyon EA. 

DEIS 5-2 July 2010 
 

 

 

 

Table 5.2-1 Cumulative Impact Study Areas for the Greater Natural Buttes EIS 

Resource Cumulative Impacts Study Area Study Area Rationale/Interrelated Projects 

Recreation GNBPA with a 2-mile buffer outside the boundary These roads make up some of the regional recreational travel 

corridors that intersect the GNBPA. The OHV designations 

provide specific management guidance on certain areas within 

the Vernal RMP jurisdiction. This is the area within which public 

users (travelers on roads, boaters on the White River) would 

hear industrial noise resulting from oil and gas operations. 

Projects: Bonanza EA, Love Unit EA, North Chapita EA, River 

Bend Unit Infill EA, Rock House EA, West Bonanza EA, Big 

Pack EA, Chapita Wells-Stagecoach EIS, Little Canyon EA, Hill 

Creek EA, RDG Uinta Basin EIS, Greater Chapita Wells Infill 

EIS, and Southam Canyon EA. 

Socioeconomics Uintah and Duchesne counties of Utah These two counties house a majority of the gas field workers 

and gas field service companies supporting this and other 

projects across the Uinta Basin and nearby areas of Colorado 

and Wyoming. 

Fiscal benefits and costs would be felt at the county and 

municipal levels. Communities that house labor, as well as 

provide goods and services are located within these counties. 

This area is the proper regional scale for consideration of these 

effects because of the mixture of land ownerships (federal, tribal, 

state, and private). 

Projects: All major natural resource and construction activities in 

the region, along with tourism, outdoor recreation, grazing, and 

other economic activities. 

Soils GNBPA boundary The site-specific management of vegetation and noxious weeds 

and invasive species affect erosion and sedimentation rates 

within the oil and gas development area. Land uses, 

revegetation success, and the potential introduction and/or 

spread of noxious weeds and invasive species are comparable 

throughout this area. 

Projects: Bonanza EA, Love Unit EA, North Chapita EA, River 

Bend Unit Infill EA, Rock House EA, West Bonanza EA, Big 

Pack EA, Chapita Wells-Stagecoach EIS, Little Canyon EA, and 

Greater Chapita Wells Infill EIS. 

Transportation GNBPA and primary access roads to the area for 

transportation 

This is the area within which the public and oil and gas 

developers would see the potential changes and impacts on the 

transportation network (Figure 2.4-1). 

Projects: Bonanza EA, Love Unit EA, North Chapita EA, River 

Bend Unit Infill EA, Rock House EA, West Bonanza EA, Big 

Pack EA, Chapita Wells-Stagecoach EIS, Little Canyon EA, Hill 

Creek EA, RDG Uinta Basin EIS, Greater Deadman Bench EIS, 

and Greater Chapita Wells Infill EIS. 

Vegetation GNBPA boundary The site-specific management of vegetation and noxious weeds 

and invasive species affect erosion and sedimentation rates 

within the oil and gas development area. Land uses, 

revegetation success, and the potential introduction and/or 

spread of noxious weeds and invasive species are comparable 

throughout this area. 

Projects: Bonanza EA, Love Unit EA, North Chapita EA, River 

Bend Unit Infill EA, Rock House EA, West Bonanza EA, Big 

Pack EA, Chapita Wells-Stagecoach EIS, Little Canyon EA, and 

Greater Chapita Wells Infill EIS. Existing and proposed pipeline 

and seismic projects that intersect the GNBPA. 

DEIS 5-3 July 2010 
 

 

 

Table 5.2-1 Cumulative Impact Study Areas for the Greater Natural Buttes EIS 

Resource Cumulative Impacts Study Area Study Area Rationale/Interrelated Projects 

Visual Resources Boundary of the VRM Class II areas within the GNBPA as 

well as the viewshed of the proposed project, particularly for 

views to and from the Duchesne, Green, and White rivers. 

This is the area within which public users (travelers on roads, 

recreational campers and hikers, and boaters on the Duchesne, 

Green, and White rivers) would see potential changes in the 

landscape resulting from oil and gas development. 

Projects: Bonanza EA, Castle Peak and Eightmile Flat EIS, 

Monument Butte EIS, Gasco Uinta Basin EIS, Gasco Riverbend 

EA, Love Unit EA, North Alger EA, North Chapita EA, River 

Bend Unit Infill EA, Rock House EA, RDG Uinta Basin EIS, West 

Bonanza EA, Big Pack EA, Chapita Wells-Stagecoach EIS, 

Greater Deadman Bench EIS, Newfield Gusher EA, Little 

Canyon EA, Hill Creek EA, West Tavaputs Plateau EIS, Wilkin 

Ridge EA, Greater Chapita Wells Infill EIS, Southam Canyon 

EA, and ANF South Unit EIS. 

Water Resources For surface water: the entirety of the following hydrographic 

basins: Duchesne River, Pelican Lake-Green River, 

Cottonwood Wash-White River, Coyote Wash, Lower 

Pariette Draw, Agency Draw-Willow Creek, Sheep WashGreen River, Asphalt Wash, White River, Bitter Creek, and 

Desolation Canyon. 

For groundwater: GNBPA boundary. 

Ongoing oil and gas development within the GNBPA may 

adversely impact hydrologic watersheds and groundwater, 

including water quantity and quality, wetlands, floodplains, and 

Waters of the U.S. 

Projects: Bonanza EA, Castle Peak and Eightmile Flat EIS, 

Monument Butte EIS, Gasco Uinta Basin EIS, Gasco Riverbend 

EA, Little Canyon EA, Hill Creek EA, Love Unit EA, Newfield 

Gusher EA, North Alger EA, North Chapita EA, River Bend Unit 

Infill EA, Rock House EA, RDG Uinta Basin EIS, West Bonanza 

EA, Big Pack EA, Chapita Wells-Stagecoach EIS, Greater 

Deadman Bench EIS, West Tavaputs Plateau EIS, Wilkin Ridge 

EA, Greater Chapita Wells Infill EIS, Southam Canyon EA, and 

ANF South Unit EIS. 

Wilderness GNBPA and the entire BLM Vernal Field Office Includes all non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

Characteristics Management Area identified by the BLM within the Vernal Field Office management 

area. 

Projects: Bonanza EA, Castle Peak and Eightmile Flat EIS, 

Monument Butte EIS, Gasco Uinta Basin EIS, Gasco Riverbend 

EA, Love Unit EA, North Alger EA, North Chapita EA, River 

Bend Unit Infill EA, Rock House EA, RDG Uinta Basin EIS, West 

Bonanza EA, Big Pack EA, Chapita Wells-Stagecoach EIS, 

Greater Deadman Bench EIS, Newfield Gusher EA, Little 

Canyon EA, Hill Creek EA, West Tavaputs Plateau EIS, Wilkin 

Ridge EA, Greater Chapita Wells Infill EIS, Southam Canyon 

EA, and ANF South Unit EIS. Existing and proposed pipeline 

projects within the BLM Vernal Field Office Management Area. 

Wildlife and GNBPA and the entire BLM Vernal Field Office Includes most of the Uinta Basin greater sage-grouse population 

Fisheries Management Area and parts of the Green and White rivers with designated critical 

Resources habitat for the Colorado River endangered fish. This cumulative 

study area encompasses areas included within the USFWS 

Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program for 

which surface water depletions above a certain threshold are 

compensated for by payments to USFWS. 

Projects: Bonanza EA, Castle Peak and Eightmile Flat EIS, 

Monument Butte EIS, Gasco Uinta Basin EIS, Gasco Riverbend 

EA, Love Unit EA, North Alger EA, North Chapita EA, River 

Bend Unit Infill EA, Rock House EA, RDG Uinta Basin EIS, West 

Bonanza EA, Big Pack EA, Chapita Wells-Stagecoach EIS, 

Greater Deadman Bench EIS, Newfield Gusher EA, Little 

Canyon EA, Hill Creek EA, West Tavaputs Plateau EIS, Wilkin 

Ridge EA, Greater Chapita Wells Infill EIS, Southam Canyon 

EA, and ANF South Unit EIS. Existing and proposed pipeline 

projects within the BLM Vernal Field Office Management Area. 

DEIS 5-4 July 2010 
Area

of

Detail

Uintah

County

Utah

4S19E 4S20E

2S 1E

1S 3W 1S 2W 1S 1W 1S 1E 5S24E 5S25E 1S 4W 5S21E 5S22E 5S23E 5S20E

5S19E

6S25E

2S 2E 2S 2W 2S 1W 1S 2E 6S24E 2S 3W 6S23E 2S 4W 6S21E 6S22E 6S20E 6S19E

7S24E 7S25E 2S 3E 1S 3E 7S23E 3S 4W 3S 3W 3S 2W 3S 1W 7S22E 7S20E 7S21E

7S19E

2S 4E 1S 4E 4S 1W

8S25E

4S 2W

3S 4E

4S 3W 4S 4W 8S22E 8S23E 8S24E 8S20E 8S21E

8S16E 8S17E 8S18E

8S15E

3S 5E

2S 5E 1S 5E

5S 4W 5S 3W 9S24E 9S25E 9S23E

5S

5W

9S21E 9S22E 9S20E 9S19E 9S16E 9S17E 9S18E 9S15E

10S24E 10S25E 10S23E

6S 3W

6S 4W

10S21E 10S22E 10S20E 10S19E

10S16E 10S17E 10S18E

10S15E

10S14E

11S24E 11S25E 11S23E

7S 4W

7S

5W

11S21E 11S22E 11S19E 11S20E

11S15E 11S16E 11S17E 11S18E

11S14E

12S24E 12S25E

12S22E 12S23E 12S20E 12S21E 12S19E 12S16E 12S17E 12S18E 12S14E 12S15E

13S24E 13S25E 13S22E 13S23E 13S20E 13S21E 13S18E 13S19E 13S14E 13S15E 13S16E 13S17E

14S23E 14S24E 14S25E 14S14E 14S15E 14S16E 14S17E 14S20E 14S21E 14S22E 14S18E 14S19E

Township/Range

Greater Natural Buttes Project Area

Reasonably Foreseeable Development Areas

NAME

Monument Butte - Red Wash

West Tavaputs Plateau

East Tavaputs Plateau

Tabiona - Ashley Valley

Altamont - Bluebell

3 1.5 0 3

Scale in Miles

4 2 0 4 8

Scale in Kilometers

Greater Natural Buttes 

Area Gas Development 

Project EIS

Figure 5.2-1

Reasonably Foreseeable

Development Areas

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 3:21:56 PM

X:\0Projects\12100_013_Kerr_McGee_Greater_Natural_Buttes\APDEIS_Figures\Fig5_2-1_ReasonablyForeseeableDevelopment.mxd

5-5
 

2S 1E 

1S 5W 1S 4W 1S 3W 1S 2W 1S 1W 1S 1E 

5S19E 5S20E 5S21E 5S22E 5S23E 5S24E 5S25E 

2S 5W 2S 4W 2S 3W 2S 2W 2S 1W 1S 2E 

2S 2E 6S19E Newfield Gusher EA 

6S20E 

6S21E 6S22E 6S23E 6S24E 6S25E Utah

Area

of

Detail

Uintah

County

7S19E 

3S 5W 3S 4W 3S 3W 3S 2W 3S 1W 1S 3E 2S 3E 7S20E 7S21E 

QEP Greater 

Deadman 

Bench EIS 

7S22E 7S23E 7S24E 7S25E Township/Range 

KMG Greater Natural Buttes EIS 

Newfield Monument Butte EIS 

4S 5W 

5S 5W 

6S 5W 

7S 5W 

11S13E 

Berry Petroleum 

ANF South 

Unit EIS 

4S 4W 

5S 4W 

6S 4W 

10S14E 

7S 4W 

11S14E 

4S 3W 

8S15E 

5S 3W 

9S15E 

6S 3W 

10S15E 

11S15E 

Newfield 

Castle Peak and 

8-Mile Flat EIS 

Gasco Riverbend EA 

XTO Little 

Canyon EA 

EOG North 

Alger EA 

Gasco Uinta Basin EIS 

XTO River Bend 

Unit Infill EA 

Gasco 

Wilkin 

Ridge EA 

Newfield 

Monument 

Butte EIS 

2S 4E 1S 4E 4S 2W 4S 1W 

3S 4E 

8S20E 

8S17E 8S16E 8S18E 

3S 5E 

2S 5E 1S 5E 

9S20E 9S19E 9S17E 9S18E 9S16E 

10S20E 

10S19E 10S17E 10S18E 10S16E 

11S19E 11S20E 

11S16E 11S17E 11S18E 

XTO Hill 

Creek 

Unit EA 

Enduring 

Resources 

Rock House EA 

RDG Uinta 

Basin EIS 

KMG Love 

Unit EA 

KMG Bonanza EA 

EOG Chapita 

Wells-Stagecoach 

EIS 

KMG Greater 

Natural 

Buttes EIS 

EOG Greater Chapita 

Wells Natural Gas 

Infill Project EIS 

Encana North Chapita EA 

8S22E 8S23E 8S21E 

9S23E 

9S22E 9S21E 

10S23E 10S22E 

10S21E 

11S23E 11S22E 11S21E 

Enduring 

Resources 

West Bonanza EA 

Enduring 

Resources Southam 

Canyon EA 

8S24E 8S25E 

9S25E 

9S24E 

10S24E 10S25E 

11S24E 11S25E 

BBC West Tavaputs Plateau EIS 

Berry Petroleum ANF South Unit EIS 

EOG Chapita Wells-Stagecoach EIS 

EOG Greater Chapita Wells Natural 

Gas Infill Project EIS 

EOG North Alger EA 

Encana North Chapita EA 

Enduring Resources Big Pack EA 

Enduring Resources Rock House EA 

Enduring Resources Southam Canyon EA 

Enduring Resources West Bonanza EA 

Gasco Riverbend EA 

Gasco Uinta Basin EIS 

Gasco Wilkin Ridge EA 

KMG Bonanza EA 

KMG Love Unit EA 

Newfield Castle Peak and 8-Mile Flat EIS 

Newfield Gusher EA 

QEP Greater Deadman Bench EIS 

RDG Uinta Basin EIS 

XTO Little Canyon EA 

XTO River Bend Unit Infill EA 

12S13E 12S14E 12S15E 

BBC West 

Tavaputs 

Plateau EIS 

12S16E 

12S17E 12S18E 12S19E 12S20E 12S21E 

Enduring 

Resources 

Big Pack EA 

12S22E 

12S23E 12S24E 12S25E 

XTO Hill Creek Unit EA 

3 1.5 

5 3.75 

0 

Scale in Miles 

2.5 1.25 0

Scale in Kilometers 

3 

5 

6 

13S13E 13S14E 13S15E 13S16E 13S17E 13S18E 13S19E 13S20E 13S21E 13S22E 13S23E 13S24E 13S25E 

Greater Natural Buttes 

Area Gas Development 

Project EIS 

Figure 5.2-2 

14S13E 14S14E 14S15E 14S16E 14S17E 14S18E 14S19E 14S20E 14S21E 14S22E 14S23E 14S24E 14S25E 

Cumulative Actions 

Oil and Gas Field 

Development 

5-6

X:\0Projects\12100_013_Kerr_McGee_Greater_Natural_Buttes\Figures_Folder\PDEIS\Fig5_2-2_CumulativeActionOildAndGasFieldDevelopment.mxd 

8/14/2009 @ 9:11:50 AM 
1S 5W 1S 4W 1S 3W 1S 2W 1S 1W 1S 1E 

2S 1E 

5S19E 5S20E 5S21E 5S22E 

Parallel Petroleum 

WM 3-D Seismic EA 

5S23E 5S24E 5S25E 

2S 5W 2S 4W 2S 3W 2S 2W 2S 1W 1S 2E 

2S 2E 6S20E 6S19E 

Ouray Valley 3-D Seismic 

6S21E 6S22E 6S23E 6S24E 6S25E Utah

Area

of

Detail

Uintah

County

3S 5W 3S 4W 3S 3W 3S 2W 3S 1W 1S 3E 2S 3E 

7S19E 

7S20E 

Elk Resources 

Uintah Basin 

3-D Seismic EA 

Aurora Green 

River 

Pipeline EA 

7S21E 7S22E 7S23E 7S24E 7S25E 

Township/Range 

KMG Greater Natural Buttes EIS 

4S 5W 4S 4W 4S 3W 

4S 2W 4S 1W 1S 4E 2S 4E 

8S20E 8S21E 8S22E 8S24E 8S23E 

Red Wash 3-D Seismic 

8S25E 

Pipeline Projects 

3-D Seismic Project 

Dawson Geophysical Coyote Wash 2-D Seismic EA 

Linear 2-D Seismic Project 

8S15E 

8S16E 

Inland Natural 

Gas Gathering 

Pipeline Project EA 

8S17E 

8S18E 1S 5E 2S 5E 

3S 4E 

3S 5E 

5S 5W 5S 4W 5S 3W 

9S15E 9S16E 9S17E 9S18E Gasco 2-D Seismic EA 

9S19E 

9S20E 9S21E 

KMG Chapita Wells 

Compressor/PPL 

Extension EA Dawson Geophysical 

Coyote Wash 2-D 

Seismic EA 

9S23E 

9S22E 

9S24E 9S25E 

6S 5W 6S 4W 

10S14E 

6S 3W 

10S15E 

10S16E 10S17E Questar Pipeline 

Southern 

Expansion II EA 

10S18E 10S19E 10S20E 10S21E 

Green River 3-D Seismic 

10S22E 10S23E 10S24E 10S25E 

7S 5W 7S 4W 

11S13E 11S14E 

11S15E 11S16E 11S17E 11S18E 11S19E 

Big Pack Pass Pipeline 

(PROJECT DROPPED) 

11S20E 11S21E 11S22E 11S23E 11S24E 11S25E 

12S13E 

13S13E 

12S14E 

13S14E 

12S15E 

13S15E 

12S16E 

13S16E 

12S17E 

13S17E 

12S18E 

13S18E 

12S19E 

13S19E 

12S20E 

13S20E 

Veritas Agency 

Draw 3-D 

Seismic DNA 

Slate River Sunday 

School Canyon 

Pipeline EA 

12S21E 12S22E 

13S21E 13S22E 

12S24E 12S23E 

13S24E 13S23E 

McElvain 

Hanging Rock 

3-D Seismic EA 

12S25E 

13S25E 

3 1.5 0 3 6

Scale in Miles 

5 3.75 2.5 1.25 0 5

Scale in Kilometers 

Greater Natural Buttes 

Area Gas Development 

Project EIS 

Veritas 2-D Seismic EA 

Figure 5.2-3 

Cumulative Actions Pioneer Park 

14S22E Ridge 3-D Seismic and Pipeline 14S14E 14S15E 14S16E 14S17E 14S23E 14S24E 14S25E 14S13E 14S21E 14S18E 14S19E 14S20E Seismic EA Projects Bill Barrett Evergreen Resources Main Tumbleweed Canyon 3-D Seismic EA 3-D Seismic EA 

Wednesday, December 31, 2008 12:26:35 PM 

X:\0Projects\12100_013_Kerr_McGee_Greater_Natural_Buttes\Figures_Folder\PDEIS\Fig5_2-3_CumulativeActionSeismicAndPipelineProjects.mxd 

5-7
Morgan 

County 

Rich 

County Uinta 

County Sweetwater 

County 

Daggett 

County 

Summit 

County 

Moffat 

County 

Utah
 

County
 

Wasatch
 

County
 Duchesne
 

County
 

Uintah
 

County
 

Rio
 

Blanco
 

County
 

Sanpete 

County 

Carbon
 

County
 

Garfield
 

County
 

Emery Grand 

County County Mesa 

County 

Uintah

Area County

of

Detail Utah

BLM Vernal FO (Wildlife and Fisheries CISA) 

State Boundary 

County Boundary 

KMG Greater Natural Buttes EIS 

NEPA -Pipeline Projects 

NEPA - Oil and Gas Field Development 

7 3.5 0 7 14

Scale in Miles 

10 7.5 5 2.5 0 10 

Scale in Kilometers 

Greater Natural Buttes 

Area Gas Development
 

Project EIS
 

Figure 5.2-4 

Cumulative Actions Oil and 

Gas Field Development 

and Pipeline Projects 

X:\0Projects\12100_013_Kerr_McGee_Greater_Natural_Buttes\Figures_Folder\PDEIS\Fig5_2-4_CumulativeActionVernalFO_11x17.mxd 

8/14/2009 @ 9:25:56 AM 

5-8
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5.2-2 Surface Disturbance Estimates for Past and Present Projects in the General Cumulative 

Effects Area 

Project Name1 

Total per Project Outside the GNBPA 

Wells 

(#) 

Well Pads 

(#)2 

Disturbance 

(acres)3 

Fraction 

(%) 

Wells 

(#) 

Well Pads 

(#) 

Disturbance 

(acres) 

KMG Bonanza EA 95 95 877 0 0 0 0 

Newfield Castle Peak and Eightmile Flat EIS 973 973 3,701 100 973 973 3,701 

Gasco Riverbend EA 49 49 245 100 49 49 245 

KMG Love Unit EA 125 125 706 5 6 6 35 

Encana North Chapita EA 264 264 1,320 84 222 222 1,109 

Enduring Resources Rock House EA 60 24 106 87 52 21 92 

RDG Uinta Basin EIS 420 420 2,100 100 420 420 2,100 

Enduring Resources West Bonanza EA 133 133 665 75 100 100 499 

EOG Chapita Wells-Stagecoach EIS 627 627 1,735 86 539 539 1,492 

QEP Greater Deadman Bench EIS 1,239 1,239 4,561 100 1,239 1,239 4,561 

Newfield Gusher EA 75 75 375 100 75 75 375 

Gasco Wilkin Ridge EA 54 54 270 100 54 54 270 

Total Existing and Ongoing 4,114 4,078 16,661 3,729 3,698 14,479 

1

 Information in this table was compiled from various notices and NEPA documents for each project. 2

 Number of well pads includes development of new pad locations and expansion of existing pads. If number of pads was not stated, all were assumed to be 

drilled vertically (i.e., one well per pad). 

3 Where disturbance estimates were not available, total project-related disturbance was estimated by assuming 5 acres per well pad. 

Table 5.2-3 Surface Disturbance Estimates for Reasonably Foreseeable Projects in the General 

Cumulative Effects Area 

Project Name1 

Total per Project Inside the GNBPA 

Wells 

(#) 

Well Pads 

(#)2 

Disturbance 

(acres)3 

Fraction 

(%) 

Wells 

(#) 

Well Pads 

(#) 

Disturbance 

(acres) 

Gasco Uinta Basin EIS 1,538 1,538 10,302 0 0 0 0 

EOG North Alger EA 44 44 220 0 0 0 0 

XTO River Bend Unit Infill EA 484 266 1,103 15 73 40 165 

Enduring Resources Big Pack EA 664 292 1,620 13 86 38 211 

XTO Little Canyon EA 510 362 1,882 6 31 22 113 

BBC West Tavaputs Plateau EIS 807 538 3,656 0 0 0 0 

EOG Greater Chapita Wells Natural Gas Infill Project EIS 7,028 1,679 5,688 14 984 235 796 

Enduring Resources Southam Canyon EA 249 152 858 0 0 0 0 

Berry Petroleum ANF South Unit EIS 400 400 2,000 0 0 0 0 

Newfield Monument Butte EIS 5,7504 3,250 15,612 0 0 0 0 

XTO Hill Creek EA 144 108 287 0 0 0 0 

Total Other Pending Projects 17,618 8,629 43,228 1,173 335 1,285 

KMG Greater Natural Buttes EIS (Proposed Action) 3,675 3,675 12,658 100 3,675 3,675 12,658 

Grand Total Pending Projects 21,293 12,304 55,886 4,848 4,010 13,943 

1

 Information in this table was compiled from various notices and NEPA documents for each project. 2

 Number of well pads includes development of new pad locations and expansion of existing pads. If number of pads was not stated, all wells were assumed to 

be drilled vertically (i.e., one well per pad). 

3 Where disturbance estimates were not available, total project-related disturbance was estimated by assuming 5 acres of disturbance per well pad. 4

 Of the 5,750 total wells, up to 3,250 would be oil wells and 2,500 would be deep gas wells. 

DEIS 5-9 July 2010 
 

 

 

For the general cumulative effects area, past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development is estimated 

by combining the number of well pads and surface disturbance associated with the following activities: 

•	 The total existing (1,562 well pads and 7,766 acres; Table 2.2-1) and ongoing (1,102 well pads and 

4,702 acres; Table 2.4-1) development within the GNBPA; 

•	 The portion of the past and present development projects outside the GNBPA (3,698 well pads and 

14,479 acres; Table 5.2-2); and 

•	 The total reasonably foreseeable future oil and gas development projects (including the Proposed 

Action) within the general cumulative effects area (12,304 well pads and 55,886 acres; Table 5.2-3). 

These activities add to a total of 18,666 well pads and 82,833 acres of disturbance in the general cumulative 

effects area. Some resources (e.g., range) are analyzed using a subset of the projects listed in Tables 5.2-2 

and 5.2-3. The cumulative impact analysis for these resources was scaled accordingly based on the projects 

listed in Table 5.2-1. 

For the most part, the projects listed in Table 5.2-3 are located outside of the GNBPA. For those proposed 

projects that partially overlap into the GNBPA (River Bend Unit Infill EA, Big Pack EA, Little Canyon EA, and 

Greater Chapita Wells Infill EIS), the portion of each project within the GNBPA is estimated. Using this 

percentage, it is estimated that 335 additional well pads and 1,285 acres of disturbance would occur within the 

GNBPA in addition to the Proposed Action. 

For those resources for which the CISA is the GNBPA only (cultural resources, Native American traditional 

values, geology, paleontology, soils, and vegetation), past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development 

is estimated by combining the number of well pads and surface disturbance associated with the following: 

•	 The total existing (1,562 well pads and 7,766 acres; Table 2.2-1) and ongoing (1,102 well pads and 

4,702 acres; Table 2.4-1) development within the GNBPA; 

•	 The portion of the other reasonably foreseeable oil and gas development projects (excluding the 

Proposed Action) within the GNBPA (335 well pads and 1,285 acres; Table 5.2-3); and 

•	 The Proposed Action (3,675 well pads and 12,658 acres; Table 2.6-1), the Resource Protection 

Alternative (3,675 well pads and 8,147 acres; Table 2.7-1), or the Optimal Recovery Alternative 

(13,446 well pads and 42,620 acres; Table 2.8-1). 

These activities add to a total of 6,674 well pads and 26,411 acres of cumulative disturbance within the 

GNBPA for the Proposed Action Alternative; 6,674 wells pads and 21,900 acres for the Resource Protection 

Alternative; or 16,445 well pads and 56,373 acres for the Optimal Recovery Alternative. 

Seismic surveys associated with oil and gas exploration are ongoing and expected to increase during the life 

of the project. According to the BLM Vernal RMP (BLM 2008c), 45 to 75 Notices of Intent (NOIs) to perform 

surveys are anticipated over the next 5 years. The majority of the oil and gas development activity is 

anticipated to occur in the Monument Butte-Red Wash exploration and development area. Most coalbed 

natural gas activity is expected to occur in the East and West Tavaputs Plateau areas. 

5.2.1.2 Pipelines 

Recently completed natural gas transportation pipeline projects include the Kanda Lateral and Mainline 

Expansion by the Wyoming Interstate Company (WIC) and the Southern System Extension II (SSXPII) by 

Questar Pipeline. The Kanda Lateral is a 24-inch, 124-mile pipeline that interconnects with the Natural Buttes 

Gas Field and moves gas to WIC’s mainline at an interconnect near Rock Springs, Wyoming. The Kanda 

Lateral was placed in-service in January 2008. The Questar SSXPII project consisted of 55 miles of pipeline in 

the southern Uinta Basin. The project was placed in-service on November 1, 2007. 

DEIS 5-10	 July 2010 
 

 

 

There are no reasonably foreseeable future pipeline projects in the general cumulative effects area 

(FERC 2009). It likely is that more major transportation pipelines would be built to provide natural gas 

producers with more market access and alleviate the chronic price differential between gas produced in the 

Rocky Mountain region as compared to gas produced in the Gulf Coast region. However, there presently are 

no major transportation projects that could be considered reasonably foreseeable. 

5.2.2 Oil Shale 

The study area is underlain by the Eocene-aged Green River Formation, which contains oil shale beds that are 

highly prospective for oil shale resources. The eastern Uinta Basin contains an estimated in-place resource of 

214 billion barrels of oil (Trudell et al. 1983). Oil shale development has been speculative and highly 

dependent on oil prices. There have been several periods of optimism about the economic viability of the 

resource, the latest having occurred in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The oil price collapse in the mid to late 

1980s repressed proposed oil shale development. The experimental White River oil shale mine was operated 

from 1974 to 1985 on 160 acres located in T10S, R24E on the south side of the White River (Oil Shale 

Exploration Company [OSEC] 2007), approximately 4 miles from the GNBPA east boundary. In 2005, the BLM 

issued a 160-acre lease to OSEC to conduct research and development pursuant to development of a 

commercial process to extract the oil resource. Phase I of the project began in July 2007, whereby previously 

mined stockpiled oil shale is being shipped to Canada for extraction under a proprietary process. Also during 

Phase I, the mine is being prepared for production. Phase II would include the development of a 250-ton per 

hour on-site processing facility, which OSEC expects to eventually increase to 500 tons per hour. Phase III, or 

full commercial production, would include development of multiple 250- to 500-ton per hour processing plants 

scattered on as much as 46,354 acres (pending acquisition of rights to mine). If developed to full capacity, the 

facility would produce 50,000 barrels of oil per day from a reserve estimated to be 2.7 billion barrels 

(OSEC 2007). No timetable was given, but commercial production would be expected to begin within the next 

5 to 10 years depending on oil prices and commercial viability of the process. 

A large portion of the GNBPA contains prospective oil shale lease areas as well as existing oil shale leases, 

but the tracts that potentially could be mined by OSEC are outside of the GNBPA. The reasonably foreseeable 

future oil shale activities would be those associated with Phase I described above. Phase II and III would still 

be considered speculative because they are predicated on the development of a commercially viable process. 

The BLM is evaluating leasing on other designated prospective oil shale lands, some of which are within the 

GNBPA. A draft of a national programmatic EIS was issued for public review in December 2007, which 

considers alternatives for leasing oil shale and tar sands (BLM 2008f). Depending on the outcome of the 

environmental analysis, oil shale leasing in the GNBPA is at least hypothetically possible, but no new leasing 

can occur unless Congress removes a moratorium on oil shale leasing (Snow 2008). Therefore, mining of oil 

shale in the GNBPA is not a near-term reasonably foreseeable activity. 

5.2.3 Gilsonite 

Gilsonite was first mined in the 1880s and production continues to the present (Notarianni 2008). Table 5.2-4 

lists the recent mining operations in the area. Although several of the small mine operations are inactive, all of 

the large gilsonite mine permits are active according to recent information from the UGS (Bon and 

Wakefield 2008, 2006). In 1961, a reported 470,000 tons of gilsonite was produced (Notarianni 2008). By 

2004, only 63,600 tons were produced, which was an increase of 11,600 tons over 2003 (USGS and 

UGS 2004). The BLM (2002a) estimates that gilsonite production will continue to average approximately 

60,000 tons per year over a 15-year period beginning in 2003, but the magnitude of production and likely 

amounts of disturbance are difficult to estimate. Authorized gilsonite leases are present in the GNBPA, but 

mining is occurring only at the Cottonwood mine. 

DEIS 5-11 July 2010 
 

 

 

 

 

Table 5.2-4 Permitted Gilsonite Mines, Uinta Basin 

Name Operator 

Location 

(SectionTownship-Range) Within 

GNBPA Type of Mine Status 

Bonanza American Gilsonite Co. 23-9-24 No Underground Active 

Cottonwood Mine Lexco, Inc. 34-10-21 Yes Underground Active 

Ziegler Gilsonite Zeigler Chemical and Minerals Corp. 16-9-24 No Underground Active 

Hardaway Zeigler Chemical and Minerals Corp. 7-11-24 No Underground Inactive 

ITM Mine Lexco Inc. 25-10-20 Yes Underground Inactive 

Neil State #1, #2 and #3 Zeigler Chemical and Minerals Corp. 32-11-24 No Underground Inactive 

Tom Taylor Mine Zeigler Chemical and Minerals Corp. 3-10-24 No Underground Active 

Sources: Bon and Wakefield (2008, 2006) 

Because of its occurrence as near-vertical dikes, historic mining of gilsonite has resulted in essentially open 

fissures that are a few feet wide or less and are continuous over long distances. The overall historical 

disturbance due to gilsonite mining is not known. 

5.2.4 Tar Sands 

Tar sands consist of heavy hydrocarbon residues, such as bitumen, from which volatile components have 

been lost. Oil can be liberated from these deposits by heating and other processes. In the Uinta Basin, tar 

sands appear to consist principally of degraded oil deposits along the basin margins. Extensive tar sand 

deposits in the basin have been classified into Special Tar Sand Areas (STSA) by the USGS and active mining 

occurs in the Asphalt Ridge STSA northwest of the GNBPA (Bon and Wakefield 2008, 2006). None of the 

STSAs overlaps the GNBPA, although the Chapita Wells minor tar sand deposit occurs in and adjacent to the 

north-central portion of the area. The Chapita Wells deposit is estimated to contain 7.5 to 8 million barrels of 

in-place bitumen (BLM 2002a). As discussed above, a programmatic EIS considering the leasing of 

prospective oil shale and tar sand deposits is in progress (BLM 2008f). Two STSAs are just to the south of the 

GNBPA and potential leasing and development of tar sand deposits would have effects on the general area. 

However, at this time, leasing and mining of tar sand deposits is not considered reasonably foreseeable for 

this analysis. The BLM (2002a) concluded that there is a low potential for development of the tar sand 

resource in the next 10 years. 

5.2.5 Sand and Gravel 

As discussed in Section 3.3, sand and gravel deposits may be present in the alluvial deposits within the 

GNBPA, but there are no current mining permits. It is possible that local deposits could be mined for use in 

road and location construction pursuant to the proposed gas field development activities, but the location and 

amount of disturbance cannot be estimated at this time. 

5.2.6 Other Activities 

Phosphate and uranium deposits are located in the general vicinity of the GNBPA, but there is low potential for 

development of these commodities in the general cumulative affects area (BLM 2002a). Other projects 

associated with recreation, livestock grazing, and vegetation treatments are anticipated to be implemented in 

the general vicinity of the GNBPA. However, the impacts from these projects are not quantifiable. 

DEIS 5-12 July 2010 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.3 Cumulative Impacts by Resource 

5.3.1 Air Quality 

5.3.1.1 Cumulative Impacts of Criteria Pollutants 

The Air Quality Technical Support Document (Appendix G) analyzed cumulative impacts to air quality from 

proposed oil and gas development and included other past, present, and foreseeable future projects in the 

CISA. Surface disturbance, drilling, completion, and operational activities resulting in effects to air quality in the 

GNBPA would contribute incrementally to those cumulative impacts analyzed for the CISA. 

Most of the emissions in the Uinta Basin are associated with oil and gas exploration and production activities. 

Table 5.3-1 contains a summary of the total emissions from oil and gas operations in the Uinta Basin for the 

year 2006. 

Table 5.3-1 Summary of Emissions from Oil and Gas Operations in Uinta Basin – 2006 

County 

NOX 

(tpy) 

CO 

(tpy) 

SOX 

(tpy) 

PM 

(tpy) 

VOC 

(tpy) 

Uintah 6,096 4,133 247 344 45,646 

Carbon 995 814 22 40 2,747 

Duchesne 3,053 2,448 96 173 19,019 

Grand 337 207 16 22 2,360 

Emery 273 199 9 14 453 

Total 10,754 7,800 391 592 70,226 

Table 5.3-2 compares the cumulative impacts, including the Proposed Action, to the NAAQS based on 

near-field dispersion modeling results. Cumulative impacts from criteria pollutants to ambient air quality are 

modeled to be well below the NAAQS at Class I areas and selected Class II areas. 

Table 5.3-2 Cumulative Impacts Compared to NAAQS 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

Proposed Action 

Maximum 

Predicted Impact 

(μg/m3

) 

Background and 

Existing Source 

Impacts 

(μg/m3

) 

Proposed Action plus 

Cumulative Sources 

Maximum Predicted Impact 

plus Background (μg/m3

) 

Proposed 

Action as 

Percent of 

Cumulative NAAQS (μg/m3

) 

NO2 Annual 2.53 13.17 15.70 16.1 100 

CO 1-hour 270 6,325 6,595 4.1 40,000 

8-hour 175 3,910 4,088 4.3 10,000 

SO2 3-hour 0.85 18.34 19.19 4.5 1,300 

24-hour 0.39 10.48 10.87 3.6 365 

Annual 0.05 2.62 2.67 1.9 80 

PM10 24-hour 2.87 18.00 20.87 13.8 150 

PM2.5 24-hour 2.87 27.00 28.93 9.9 35 

Annual 0.34 7.00 7.34 4.6 15 

5.3.1.2 Cumulative Impacts on Visibility 

Since the Proposed Action emissions sources constitute numerous small sources spread out over a very large 

area, discrete visible plumes are not likely to impact the Class I areas, but the potential for cumulative visibility 

impacts (increased regional haze) is a concern. Potential changes to regional haze are calculated in terms of a 

perceptible "just noticeable change" (1.0 deciview) in visibility when compared to background conditions. 

DEIS 5-13 July 2010 
A 1.0 deciview change is considered potentially significant as described in the USEPA Regional Haze 

Regulations (40 CFR 51.300 et seq.), and originally presented in Pitchford and Malm (1994). A 1.0 deciview 

change is defined as approximately a 10 percent change in the extinction coefficient (corresponding to a 2 to 

5 percent change in contrast, for a "black target" against a clear sky, at the most optically sensitive distance 

from an observer), which is a small but noticeable change in haziness under most circumstances when 

viewing scenes in mandatory federal PSD Class I areas. 

It should be noted that a 1.0 deciview change is not a "just noticeable change" in all cases for all scenes. 

Visibility changes less than 1.0 deciview may be perceptible in some cases, especially where the scene being 

viewed is highly sensitive to small amounts of pollution. Under other view-specific conditions, such as where 

the sight path to a scenic feature is less than the maximum visual range, a change greater than 1.0 deciview 

might be required to be a "just noticeable change." 

However, this NEPA analysis is not designed to predict specific visibility impacts for views in specific 

mandatory federal PSD Class I areas based on specific project designs, but to characterize reasonably 

foreseeable visibility conditions that are representative of a fairly broad geographic region, based on 

"reasonable, but conservative" emission source assumptions. This approach is consistent with both the nature 

of regional haze and the requirements of NEPA. At the time of a pre-construction air quality permit application, 

the applicable air quality regulatory agency may require a much more detailed visibility impact analysis. 

Factors such as the magnitude of deciview change, frequency, time of the year, and the meteorological 

conditions during times when predicted visibility impacts are above the 1.0 deciview threshold (as well as 

inherent conservatism in the modeling analyses) should all be considered when assessing the significance of 

predicted impacts. 

The USFS, NPS, and the USFWS, published their "Final FLAG Phase I Report" (FLAG 2000), providing "a 

consistent and predictable process" for assessing the impacts of new and existing sources on AQRVs, 

including visibility. For example, the Final FLAG Phase I Report states, "a cumulative effects analysis of new 

growth (defined as all PSD increment-consuming sources) on visibility impairment should be performed," and 

further, "if the visibility impairment from the Proposed Action, in combination with cumulative new source 

growth, is less than a change in extinction of 10% [1.0 deciview] for all time periods, the Federal Land 

Managers (FLMs) will not likely object to the Proposed Action" (FLAG 2000). 

The CALPUFF modeling cumulative analysis shows that non-project sources (2018 Projected Baseline 

sources) totally dominate the regional haze impacts on visibility at Class I areas. There would be no days with 

an incremental increase over the baseline above 1.0 deciview threshold for either the Proposed Action or the 

Optimal Recovery Alternative in Class I areas. For the Proposed Action, the maximum eighth highest value is 

0.13 deciview (1.3 percent increase in extinction) at Arches National Park. For the Optimal Recovery 

Alternative, the maximum eighth highest value is 0.25 deciview, also at Arches National Park. At these levels, 

the incremental impacts from the Proposed Action or the Optimal Recovery Alternative would be virtually 

impossible to discern, and would not contribute to regional haze at the Class I areas. 

The CALPUFF modeling indicates that the 2018 Projected Baseline emissions would result in impacts of 

1.0 deciview for at least 201 days per year at the Class II areas. Modeling results for the Proposed Action at 

the listed sensitive Class II areas show discernible impacts at Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area and 

Dinosaur National Monument. Results predict an incremental impact of 102 days above 1.0 deciview 

(10 percent increase in extinction) at Flaming Gorge, and 32 days per year above 1.0 deciview at Dinosaur 

National Monument. 

For the Optimal Recovery Alternative, incremental impacts are below 1.0 deciview at all Class I areas. At 

Class II areas under the Optimal Recovery Alternative, incremental visibility impacts are above 1.0 deciview at 

Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area and Dinosaur National Monument. However, FLM guidance does not 

provide visibility thresholds of concern for Class II areas. 

DEIS 5-14 July 2010 
 

 

 

5.3.1.3 Cumulative Impacts at Class I and II areas – Acid Deposition 

The CALPUFF model system provides acid deposition results for sulfate and nitrate ion deposition at Class I 

and sensitive Class II areas, which are then used to analyze impacts to the acid neutralizing capacity of 

selected sensitive lakes in the modeling domain. Cumulative deposition from all modeled sources is below the 

established comparative deposition values for both alternatives at all Class I and Class II areas in the vicinity of 

the project. The Proposed Action and the Optimal Recovery Alternative contribute less than 1 percent to the 

acid deposition in Class I areas. At Flaming Gorge (a Class II area), the Proposed Action and the Optimal 

Recovery Alternative contribute 4.3 and 8.3 percent of the cumulative acid deposition, respectively. 

The model shows that project-related impacts at sensitive lakes were below the USFS screening threshold for 

acid neutralizing capacity established for further analysis. Therefore, no additional analysis was conducted on 

these impacts. 

5.3.1.4 Cumulative Impacts on Ambient Ozone Levels 

Impacts on ambient air ozone were evaluated using the CMAQ model system. The modeling system meets 

the USEPA-established criteria for acceptable model accuracy and error statistics at the existing monitoring 

stations in the modeling domain. A model performance evaluation was conducted in accordance with USEPA 

guidelines (USEPA 2007). The evaluation compares actual monitored ozone data to modeled levels for a 

concurrent period. By incorporating the results of this evaluation, the model provides a means to compare the 

relative change in ambient ozone concentration between the project alternatives and baseline air quality. The 

model results show ozone levels below the current ozone standard of 75 ppb for the fourth highest annual 

level in the Uinta Basin for the Projected Baseline. For the Optimal Recovery Alternative, modeled ozone 

concentrations would be below the ozone standard of 75 ppb based on the 2005 meteorological data and 

below 79 ppb based on the 2006 meteorological data. The maximum fourth highest cumulative impact is 

2.4 ppb from the Proposed Action scenario and 4.9 ppb from the Optimal Recovery Alternative. The Proposed 

Action ozone impact would be approximately 3.2 percent of the cumulative ozone impact within the Uinta 

Basin. The Optimal Recovery Alternative would contribute approximately 6.2 percent to the cumulative ozone 

impact. Results indicate that the Optimal Recovery Alternative may contribute to localized exceedences of the 

NAAQS for ozone. 

5.3.2 Cultural Resources and Native American Traditional Values 

The CISA for cultural resources is the entire GNBPA. Impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions within the CISA would be as discussed in Section 5.2.1.1. Given the average site density of 

7.1 sites per square mile, approximately 293 sites could be located within accumulated disturbance areas for 

the Proposed Action, 243 sites for the Resource Protection Alternative, and 625 sites for the Optimal Recovery 

Alternative. It should be noted that sites are not evenly dispersed throughout the CISA, but typically are found 

in high potential areas such as juniper vegetation zones, sand dunes, or areas within 1 km of a permanent 

water source. 

As directed by law, cultural resources inventories and consultations would be conducted for any projects 

involving federal lands, and adverse effects to NRHP-eligible sites would be avoided or mitigated as 

appropriate. All activities associated with the Proposed Action would be in accordance with federal laws and 

agency guidelines. Impacts to any previously unknown NRHP-eligible sites that may be discovered during 

construction activities would be mitigated in accordance with this EIS. 

Although sites located within disturbance areas are avoided or mitigated, sites located outside of and adjacent 

to disturbance areas are vulnerable to indirect impacts such as vandalism, illegal collection, dust, and erosion. 

It is anticipated that there would be a cumulative increase in vandalism, illegal collection, and dust due to the 

increase in roads throughout the entire oil and gas field, and increased erosion at sites located in the vicinity of 

well pads and associated pipelines where vegetation cover has been reduced or eliminated. 

DEIS 5-15 July 2010 
5.3.3 Geology 

For most geologic resources, the CISA is the GNBPA. For oil shale, the study area is the portion of the KOSLA 

within the GNBPA. Impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the CISA 

would be as discussed in Section 5.2.1.1. Extraction of oil and gas would irreversibly and irretrievably expend 

the resource, which would not be available for future use. 

A large area of the southern Uinta Basin in the vicinity of the GNBPA is underlain by high quality oil shale with 

a perceived potential for development. Much of this area has been designated as KOSLA in recognition of this 

potential. Approximately 84 percent of the GNBPA is within a designated KOSLA. There are no active federal 

oil shale leases within the KOSLA, although there are numerous State of Utah active leases, including 

38,000 acres within the GNBPA (BLM 2008f). There are no active oil shale extraction operations within the 

KOSLA and no existing or proposed NEPA approvals for such developments on BLM-managed lands. As oil 

shale extraction is not a currently foreseeable activity, there would be no additional cumulative impacts to oil 

and gas extraction resulting from oil shale development and no additional cumulative impacts to oil shale 

development from oil and gas extraction. 

Cumulative impacts associated with geologic and mineral resources would be limited to current and 

foreseeable oil and gas development and continuation of ongoing gilsonite mining within the GNBPA. 

5.3.4 Land Use 

Oil and gas development has been prominent on the landscape in and around the GNBPA for many years and 

projections indicate that this trend is likely to continue. The CISA for land use is as defined on Table 5.2-1. 

Cumulative impacts to sensitive areas within the CISA includes the White River SRMA (2,831 acres). 

Impacts within the White River SRMA would be caused by more human activity as well as increased surface 

disturbance. The applicant-committed measure to set back new wells 0.5 mile from the White River centerline 

within the White River viewshed would lessen project-related impacts. Topographic features and low-profile 

tanks also would help to obscure facilities from view. Although surface occupancy is not allowed in the BLM 

White River natural area, impacts to wilderness characteristics (i.e., naturalness, primitive and unconfined 

recreation, and solitude) would still occur due to an increase in human activity in the area. 

In light of the minimal surface disturbance within the White River SRMA and the ACEPMs that would be 

implemented, cumulative impacts would be minimal. 

5.3.5 Paleontology 

For paleontological resources, the CISA is the GNBPA. Impacts to paleontological resources would result from 

direct surface disturbance of fossiliferous rocks, either through development activities or poaching. Impacts 

from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the CISA would be as discussed in 

Section 5.2.1.1. 

Approximately 84 percent (10,633 acres) of the disturbance associated with the Proposed Action would occur 

in areas underlain by the Middle Eocene Uinta Formation, which is considered to be of high paleontologic 

importance in the GNBPA (PFYC ranking of 4 or 5). Destruction of scientifically-important fossils would 

irreversibly and irretrievably damage the paleontological information base and those destroyed fossils would 

not be available for future analysis. None of the NEPA actions indicated in Tables 5.2-2 and 5.2-3 would 

authorize development of other mineral resources and there would be no additional cumulative impacts to 

other paleontological resources from mineral development within the GNBPA. In addition to the potential for 

destruction of fossil resources, pre-construction surveys and other required mitigation measures typically 

required by the BLM would result in recovery of important fossils and expansion of the existing paleontological 

knowledge base. 

DEIS 5-16 July 2010 
 

 

 

5.3.6 Range Resources 

The CISA for range resources as defined in Table 5.2-1 includes the 12 grazing allotments listed on 

Tables 5.3-3, 5.3-4, and 5.3-5 and illustrated in Figure 5.3-1. The cumulative impact assessment includes 

surface disturbances and water management activities associated with the proposed project as well as 

interrelated actions within the CISA. 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the CISA, excluding the proposed project, 

would result in the cumulative loss of approximately 25,295 acres from active grazing preference and 

associated 2,131 active AUMs as a result of surface disturbance activities within portions of each affected 

allotment. Tables 5.3-3, 5.3-4, and 5.3-5 show the total cumulative impacts for each allotment under the 

Proposed Action, Resource Protection, and Optimal Recovery alternatives, respectively. As shown on 

Table 5.3-3, the Proposed Action would result in a disturbance of approximately 11,966 acres (1,018 AUMs). 

This would be approximately 32 percent of the total cumulative loss of 37,261 acres (3,149 AUMs). The 

incremental additional impacts to range resources as a result of the proposed project would be long-term in 

nature for the majority of the project disturbance area. 

The Resource Protection Alternative incrementally would increase surface disturbance-related impacts to 

range resources in the CISA by approximately 7,702 additional acres (655 AUMs; Table 5.3-4), resulting in a 

total cumulative disturbance to range resources of 32,997 acres (2,787 AUMs). Impacts associated with the 

Resource Protection Alternative would represent approximately 24 percent of the total cumulative loss. 

The Optimal Recovery Alternative incrementally would increase surface disturbance-related impacts to range 

resources in the CISA by approximately 40,290 additional acres (3,425 AUMs; Table 5.3-5), resulting in a total 

cumulative disturbance to range resources of 65,585 acres (5,556 AUMs). Impacts associated with the 

Optimal Recovery Alternative would represent approximately 62 percent of the total cumulative loss. 

In addition to cumulative available forage and AUM loss, the development of access roads has had, and would 

continue to have, both adverse and beneficial impacts on the livestock grazing activities, range facilities, and 

resources. Range facilities including water sources, fences, cattle guards, and corrals, could be adversely 

impacted by construction and maintenance activities associated with proposed project and interrelated actions 

within the CISA. Water sources could be affected by the loss of access due to the placement and construction 

of new facilities, roads, and fences. Fences, cattle guards, and corrals could be damaged or destroyed by 

operation and maintenance activities, as well as the placement of permanent facilities. 

Roads would provide additional access to portions of the allotments that currently do not have access. Roads 

also have the ability to increase livestock distribution in some areas, but also could disrupt distribution patterns. 

Increased livestock distribution would occur in some areas that have previously been inaccessible due to 

terrain limitations, distance from water, or a combination of both. Roads also would allow increased vehicular 

traffic, contributing to potentially adverse disturbance and increases in mortality to livestock from OHV users 

and those seeking dispersed recreational opportunities. Roads also would result in an increase in the spread 

of weeds. Specifically in the CISA, the spread of halogeton into disturbed areas would have impacts for 

livestock operators as it decreases native forage and can lead to livestock mortality. In addition, the new roads 

and utility ROWs would increase the fragmentation of grazing allotments, which would result in the reduction of 

native vegetative communities and decrease available forage. 

Based on these direct and indirect cumulative impacts, past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions would cumulatively and incrementally reduce available acres from active grazing preference. This 

would reduce the associated available active AUMs for the lifetime of oil and gas development and production 

until such time that reclamation is deemed successful (approximately 10 to 50 years depending on the 

vegetation cover type). 

DEIS 5-17 July 2010 
Table 5.3-3 Cumulative Carrying Capacity Impacts per Allotment for the Proposed Action Alternative 

Grazing Allotment 

Name 

Total Allotment 

Acreage 

Total Allotment 

Active AUMs1 

Impacts Without Proposed 

Project 

Impacts from Proposed 

Action Alternative2 

Cumulative Impa

Action 

Acreage 

Disturbed 

Active AUMs 

Lost3 

Acreage 

Disturbed 

Active 

AUMs Lost3 

Acreage 

Disturbed 

A

AUM

BLM Antelope Draw 61,530 3,976 3,923 253 232 15 4,155 Coyote Wash 99,290 9,554 4,942 476 1,681 162 6,623 Olsen AMP 134,306 12,144 5,388 487 2,859 259 8,247 Sand Wash 75,136 7,974 4,397 467 3,988 423 8,385 

Seven Sisters 19,285 2,348 2,469 300 669 81 3,138 

Southam Canyon 13,827 1,357 264 26 29 3 293 

Thorne-Ute Broome 5,436 400 197 12 6 1 203 

White River Bottoms 12,900 885 97 7 42 3 139 

BLM Total 421,710 38,638 21,677 2,028 9,506 947 31,183 2

BIA Cottonwood Wash 7,486 168 573 13 582 14 1,155 Molly's Nipple 10,742 400 872 32 818 30 1,690 

Capita Grove 11,330 311 1,345 37 220 6 1,565 

North White River 18,960 485 828 21 840 21 1,668 

BIA Total 48,518 1,364 3,618 103 2,460 71 6,078 

Grand Total 470,228 40,002 25,2954 2,131 11,966 1,018 37,2614 3

1 An AUM represents the quantity of forage necessary to sustain 1 cow-calf pair or 5 sheep for 1 month. 2 Values taken from Table 4.6-2. 3 Projected active AUMs lost and percent active AUM loss were calculated based on a percentage of the stocking rate within the surface disturbance-related impact area comp

rate as a whole.
 

4 Formal grazing allotments do not exist for 9,313 acres within the GNBPA; therefore, this value does not equal the total number of acres of new surface disturbance within the DEIS 5-18 
Table 5.3-4 Cumulative Carrying Capacity Impacts per Allotment for the Resource Recovery Alternative 

Grazing Allotment 

Name 

Total 

Allotment 

Acreage 

Total Allotment 

Active AUMs1 

Impacts Without Proposed 

Project 

Impacts from Resource 

Protection Alternative2 

Cumulative Im

Prot

Acreage 

Disturbed 

Active 

AUMs Lost3 

Acreage 

Disturbed 

Active 

AUMs Lost3 

Acreage 

Disturbed 

BLM Antelope Draw 61,530 3,976 3,923 253 149 10 4,072 Coyote Wash 99,290 9,554 4,942 476 1,082 104 6,024 Olsen AMP 134,306 12,144 5,388 487 1,840 166 7,228 

Sand Wash 75,136 7,974 4,397 467 2,567 272 6,964 

Seven Sisters 19,285 2,348 2,469 300 430 53 2,899 Southam Canyon 13,827 1,357 264 26 20 2 284 Thorne-Ute Broome 5,436 400 197 12 4 ≤1 201 

White River Bottoms 12,900 885 97 7 27 2 124 

BLM Total 421,710 38,638 21,677 2,028 6,119 609 27,796 

BIA Cottonwood Wash 7,486 168 573 13 374 8 947 Molly's Nipple 10,742 400 872 32 526 20 1,398 

Capita Grove 11,330 311 1,345 37 142 4 1,487 

North White River 18,960 485 828 21 541 14 1,369 

BIA Total 48,518 1364 3,618 103 1,583 46 5,201 

Grand Total 470,228 40,002 25,2954 2,131 7,702 655 32,9974 

1 An AUM represents the quantity of forage necessary to sustain 1 cow-calf pair or 5 sheep for 1 month. 2 Values taken from Table 4.6-4. 3 Projected active AUMs lost and percent active AUM loss were calculated based on a percentage of the stocking rate within the surface disturbance-related impact area comp

rate as a whole.
 

4 Formal grazing allotments do not exist for 9,313 acres within the GNBPA; therefore, this value does not equal the total number of acres of new surface disturbance within the DEIS 5-19 
Table 5.3-5 Cumulative Carrying Capacity Impacts per Allotment for the Optimal Recovery Alternative 

Grazing Allotment 

Name 

Total 

Allotment 

Acreage 

Total 

Allotment 

Active AUMs1 

Impacts Without 

Proposed Project 

Impacts from Optimal 

Recovery Alternative2 

Cumul

Optim

Acreage 

Disturbed 

Active 

AUMs 

Lost3 

Acreage 

Disturbed 

Active 

AUMs 

Lost3 

Acreag

Disturbe

BLM Antelope Draw 61,530 3,976 3,923 253 779 50 4,702 Coyote Wash 99,290 9,554 4,942 476 5,660 545 10,602 

Olsen AMP 134,306 12,144 5,388 487 9,626 870 15,014 

Sand Wash 75,136 7,974 4,397 467 13,429 1,425 17,826 

Seven Sisters 19,285 2,348 2,469 300 2,252 274 4,72

Southam Canyon 13,827 1,357 264 26 98 10 362 Thorne-Ute Broome 5,436 400 197 12 21 2 218 White River Bottoms 12,900 885 97 7 142 10 239 

BLM Total 421,710 38,638 21,677 2,028 32,007 3,186 53,684 

BIA Cottonwood Wash 7,486 168 573 13 1,958 44 2,53Molly's Nipple 10,742 400 872 32 2,754 102 3,626 Capita Grove 11,330 311 1,345 37 744 21 2,089 

North White River 18,960 485 828 21 2,827 72 3,655 

BIA Total 48,518 1,364 3,618 103 8,283 239 11,901 

Grand Total 470,228 40,002 25,2954 2,131 40,290 3,425 65,585

1 An AUM represents the quantity of forage necessary to sustain 1 cow-calf pair or 5 sheep for 1 month. 2 Values taken from Table 4.6-6. 3 Projected active AUMs lost and percent active AUM loss were calculated based on a percentage of the stocking rate within the surface disturbance-related impact area com

rate as a whole.
 

4 Formal grazing allotments do not exist for 9,313 acres within the GNBPA; therefore, this value does not equal the total number of acres of new surface disturbance within the DEIS 5-20 
White River 

Green River 

Bitter Creek 

Willow Creek 

Hill Creek 

Evacuation Creek 

Duchesne River 

Texas Creek 

Douglas Creek 

Missouri Creek 

West Douglas Creek 

Uinta River 

West Creek 

Dripping Rock Creek 

Stinking Water Creek 

Cottonwood Creek 

Whiskey Creek 

Red Wash 

Shavetail Wash 

Ninemile Creek 

West Evacuation Creek 

East Twin Wash 

Farm Creek 

North Fork Texas Creek 

Big Foundation Creek 

West Red Wash 

Big Bluejay Creek 

Green River 

Uinta River 

T6S R22E T2S R1W T2S R1E T2S R2E T6S R23E T6S R24E T6S R25E

40 

T6S R19E T6S R20E T6S R21E 

Uintah

T7S R19E Area County

of

T3S R1W T3S R1E T7S R24E T7S R25E Detail Utah T3S R2E T7S R22E T7S R23E

T7S R20E T7S R21E 

88 

T4S R2E 

64 T4S R1W 

LEGEND 

GNBPA 

Township/Range 

T4S R1E 

T8S R20E T8S R24E T8S R25E

T8S R21E T8S R22E T8S R23E

T4S R3E Major Roads 

Road Classification 

Limited Access 

Highways 

Secondary Roads 

Named Streams and Rivers 

BLM Grazing Allotments 

T8S R17E T8S R18E T5S R1E 

T5S R3E T8S R19E 

T5S R2E 

T9S R24E T9S R25E

T9S R21E T9S R22E T9S R23E 45 T9S R20E

T9S R17E T9S R18E T9S R19E Antelope Draw

Coyote Wash 

Olsen Amp 

Sand Wash 

Seven Sisters 

Southam Canyon 

Thorne-Ute-Broome 

White River Bottoms T10S R24E T10S R25E T10S R22E T10S R23E

T10S R20E T10S R21E T10S R18E T10S R19E Tribal Grazing Allotments T10S R17E 

Cottonwood Wash 

Molly’s Nipple 

Chipeta Grove 

North White River

Colorado 

Utah

T11S R24E T11S R25E

T11S R22E T11S R23E

T11S R20E T11S R21E T11S R19E T11S R17E T11S R18E 

T12S R17E 

T12S R24E T12S R25E

T12S R22E T12S R23E

T12S R18E 

T12S R19E T12S R20E 3,0001,5000 3,0006,0009,00012,00015,00018,00021,00024,00027,00030,00033,00036,000 

Feet 

2 1.5 1 0.5 0246 

Scale in Kilometers 

139 Greater Natural Buttes 

T12S R21E 

Area Gas Development 

Project EIS
 

T13S R25E T13S R26E T13S R24E T13S R22E T13S R23E

T13S R18E T13S R19E T13S R20E T13S R21E Figure 5.3-1

Grazing Allotments
 

Cumulative Impacts
 T14S R25E T14S R17E Study Area

T14S R26E T14S R23E T14S R24E T14S R20E T14S R21E T14S R22E T14S R19E 

T14S R17E 

5-21

Thursday, February 19, 2009 11:41:04 AM 

X:\0Projects\12100_013_Kerr_McGee_Greater_Natural_Buttes\Figures_Folder\PDEIS\Fig5_3-1_GrazingAllotmentsCISA.mxd 
 

 

5.3.7 Recreation 

The CISA for recreation is the GNBPA with a 2-mile buffer outside the boundary. Any decrease in recreation 

numbers within the BLM Vernal Field Office boundary could be attributed to oil and gas development. 

However, within the CISA, even though the Proposed Action would add 3,675 well pads to the GNBPA, the 

landscape already has been impacted by energy development over the decades. Adverse cumulative impacts 

to recreational resources within the CISA would include closures (both short- and long-term), restrictions as 

project development moved through its various stages, reduced recreational experiences due to noise and 

activity associated with oil and gas development, and a reduction in dispersed camping opportunities due to 

less available acreage. While a substantial portion of the CISA, including the White River, would be affected by 

industrial noise from oil and gas operations, the addition of wells from the proposed project would have a 

minimal cumulative impact to recreational activities within the CISA. Due to previous oil and gas development 

through the years, an extensive road network already is in place. These roads have reduced the value of 

primitive recreational activities in the area including naturalness, primitive and unconfined recreation, and 

solitude. Additional roads corresponding with new development would give even more access to potential 

recreational users, especially motorized recreation. Restrictions and closures during construction and 

development would impact recreationists in the short term, while the need for recreational users such as 

hunters to avoid areas that have been heavily developed would continue in the long term. 

5.3.8 Socioeconomics 

This section addresses the socioeconomic impact of the project alternatives when added to the past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future energy resource development in the two-county study area. Oil and gas 

development is the largest variable component of the RFDs and supports large segments of the regional 

economy. A study by the University of Utah (2007) estimated that the energy exploration and production 

industry supported nearly 50 percent of all jobs in the area in 2006; higher than, but reasonably comparable to, 

the 38 percent estimated as part of this assessment (Section 3.8). Energy exploration and production also is 

responsible for generating substantial public sector revenues that fund local public facilities and services and is 

a key driver affecting local population, demographic, and migration trends. Other historically and economically 

important segments of the regional economic base are agriculture, recreation, and tourism. 

The cumulative effects of past and current development in the region are evident in the existing settlement 

patterns, physical development and infrastructure, fiscal structures, and social setting and networks in the 

region. Such development and related activities, events, and people associated with it, provide the area with 

its rich heritage and cultural history. Absent the area’s energy resource endowments, the region likely would 

be much less developed and populated than it is today. 

The collective cumulative activity has contributed to past growth and development and underlies important 

economic and social conditions and trends in the area. These trends include labor markets characterized by 

unemployment that is commonly below statewide levels, higher transient elements of the work force, 

competition and shortage of qualified labor, higher labor compensation costs, and population growth. Such 

growth provides much of the impetus for new residential and commercial development and expansion of local 

government infrastructure and services. Cumulative social effects also have occurred and energy resource 

development has resulted in some conflicts with recreation, tourism, and grazing on public lands. Cumulative 

impacts to recreation arise from fragmentation of contiguous areas available for outdoor recreation, changes in 

access, and development related traffic, dust and other factors that affect the quality of recreational 

experiences. 

Future development by KMG would interact with other future activity to create similar cumulative effects. The 

Proposed Action is but one of several active and proposed oil and gas projects in the area. Prior to the onset 

of the current economic recession, more than 25 oil and gas drilling rigs were active in Uintah and Duchesne 

counties (Baker Hughes Inc. 2008). More than 500 wells were spud in Duchesne County in 2006 and 2007, 

with more than 1,350 additional wells spud in Uintah County during the same period. Weaker demand and 

lower commodity prices in 2008 and 2009 contributed to dramatic slowdowns in the rate of exploration and 

DEIS 5-22
 July 2010 
development; the number of new wells spudded in the 2 counties was less than half the levels in the preceding 

3 years. 

Despite the recent slowdown, long-term energy market forecasts call for higher prices and rising production for 

the Mountain region, encompassing Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Nevada, 

Colorado, Arizona, and western New Mexico. Achieving the 20 percent growth in projected natural gas 

production by 2030, including the production needed to off-set declining production from existing wells, can be 

expected to stimulate renewed development in the Uinta Basin. As shown in Figure 5.3-2, the 6.07 Tcf of 

natural gas production over the life of the field for the Proposed Action is nearly equivalent to a single year’s 

total production for the entire Mountain region. Alternatively, the average annual production under the 

Proposed Action would represent 3 to 4 percent of the annual regional production over the next two decades. 

Over the first 30 years of production, the average annual production for the Proposed Action also would 

represent approximately 40 to 45 percent of the 2008 gas production for the State of Utah (442 Bcf). Such 

development would be accompanied by investments in treatment, processing, compression, and transmission 

Source: USDOE 2009. 

capacity to move the production to market. 

Figure 5.3-2 Gas Production in the Mountain Region 

 d h considers future energy 

development activity, provide a perspective on cumulative growth in the region. The current projections, 

tural 

m 

uld 

Projected Natural

Economic and emographic forecasts periodically prepared by the UGOPB, whic

released in early 2008, were predicated on a slowdown in natural resource development extending through 

2014, followed by a steady increase in natural resource related employment through 2027. Thereafter, na

resource employment is projected to decline, presumably due to declining levels of new development and 

stabilized or declining production from older wells. However, total employment based in Duchesne and Uintah 

counties is projected to increase by approximately 20 percent, topping 35,800 by 2035, and driving long-ter

population growth. The Proposed Action, projected to directly and indirectly support an average of 2,921 jobs 

during the development phase, would be a major source of economic activity and personal income in the 

region. Under the current forecasts, the 2 counties are projected to reach a combined population in excess of 

63,000 residents by 2035; a 40 percent increase over the estimated 2007 population (Figure 5.3-3). It sho

be noted that, although the long-term projections portray a pattern of steady growth, future growth will in 

actuality be characterized by periods of more rapid growth and decline reflecting the scale and timing of 

cumulative actions. 

DEIS 5-23 July 2010
0 

5,000 

10,000 

15,000 

20,000 

25,000 

30,000 

35,000 

40,000 

2007 2011 2015 2019 2023 2027 2031 2035

45,000 

Uintah

Duchesne

Source: UGOPB 2008. 

5-24

Figure 5.3-3 P Population of Uintah and Duchesne Counties to 2035 

ab le capacities 

in public facilities, accommodating the future growth would require further residential and commercial 

ds. The 

s associated with the Proposed Action would combine with 

those generated by other cumulative actions to help fund local governments, school districts, and the state 

 and 

s 

n. 

term, although such revenues would fluctuate over time in response to changes in commodity prices and 

rojected Resident

Following the sorption of vacant housing, commercial and industrial development, and availab

development and expansion of public infrastructure. Public sector expenditures likely would increase in 

conjunction with infrastructure expansion and increases in staffing and services to meet higher deman

level of development and employment associated with the Proposed Action would be among the major 

contributors to growth pressures over the next decade. Once development phase of the Proposed Action is 

completed, the incremental contribution attributable from the project would decline markedly in terms of 

employment, population, housing demand, and demands on public services, as other activities would be 

responsible for increasing shares of future growth. 

The taxes, royalties and other public sector revenue

government. Due to the vast federal, Tribal, and state lands in the area, energy resource development 

generates substantial revenues in the form of mineral lease royalties and severance taxes. Federal mineral 

lease royalties accrue to the federal and state government, and also benefit the Tribe. Severance taxes

royalties on production from state lands accrue to the state’s coffers. Substantial ad valorem (property taxes)

levied on the value of production as well as production, processing, and transportation equipment and facilitie

accrue to local entities, principally the counties and school districts. The 2007 University of Utah study reported

more than $400 million in federal mineral royalties and lease bonus payments and $71.5 million in severance 

taxes on oil and gas production in Utah in 2006, the bulk of which were associated with activity in the Uinta 

Basin. Property taxes and royalties derived from production on state lands yielded nearly $54 million 

(University of Utah 2007). Oil and gas development generates sales and use taxes and other fees, both 

directly and indirectly, through the households and incomes supported by development and productio

Cumulative actions, including the Proposed Action, would continue to generate such revenues over the long

production levels. For this analysis, estimated public sector revenues were calculated based on a $6.00/Mcf 

average price of gas and $45 per barrel of condensates over the life of the field; actual revenues could be 

higher or lower depending on actual future prices. Project-related public sector revenues generated on future

production, projected to exceed $6 billion over the life of the field, would continue for decades following the

initial effects on population growth, housing, and demands on public facilities and services. More than 

DEIS July 2010
60 percent of these revenues would accrue to the benefit of the state’s general fund, Permanent Community 

Impact Fund, Permanent Public School Fund, UDOT, Uintah County and the Uintah School District, an d 

several other state agencies. 

The nature of the cumulative e conomic and demographic impacts is subject to underlying uncertainties 

regarding the timing and pace of development of the various cumulative actions, which are in turn linked to 

factors including the availability of drilling capacity, labor force, natural gas transmission capacity, and ca pital 

to implement programs, as well as energy commodity prices and market demand. Potential outcomes includ e 

accelerated growth with higher population and demands on housing and services, or alternatively, sustained 

development activity over a longer time horizon resulting in future production characterized by a less 

pronounced peak and subsequent decline commonly associated with a single project. 

Potential cumulative adverse economic impacts would occur in the areas of grazing an d recreation. Impacts 

on grazing would occur as the combined effects of past and future energy resource development affect 

portions of one or more grazing allotments within the GNBPA, resulting in further reductions in grazing. 

Impacts on recreation would occur as the cumulative levels of development adversely affect the quality of the 

recreation experiences and potentially the level of recreation activity. These impacts could have slight 

incremental effects on the local tourism and outdoor recreation related industries; however, the timing, 

magnitude, and intensity of these effects are uncertain. The assessment in Section 4.8 noted the possi bilities 

for potential jurisdictional mismatches between the growth in local tax bases in Uintah County while som e 

population growth and demands on services would occur in Duchesne County and its communities. The 

prospect of future development in Duchesne County, along with recent and ongoing increases in the local tax 

base, could alleviate or lessen some of the fiscal mismatches. 

Section 4.8 cited findings in Smith et al. (2001) that community well-being is often disrupted during resource 

development booms by the effect of waves of transient workers; landscape change; intrusion of industrial 

activity into recreational open space; and stress to local facilities, services, and institutions. While the pace of 

drilling is always subject to short-term variability, causing cycles of expansion and contraction in communiti es, 

a growing inventory of producing wells and field facilities can support workforces for a generation or longer. By 

enlarging the well base, development under the RFD potentially would add stability to the region’s population. 

Though typically an order of magnitude smaller than the transient job waves accompanying drilling runs, a 

production workforce potentially invests and integrates in communities where there is industry employment. 

5.3.9 Soils 

The extent of theGNBPA defines the CISA for soil resources. Impacts from past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable futu re actions within the CISA would be as discussed in Section 5.2.1.1. Past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions would cumulatively and incrementally increase disturbed soil acreage s 

and reduce soil productivity for the lifetime of oil and gas development and production until such time tha t 

reclamation is deemed successful in terms of soil stability and soil productivity. Cumulative losses for soil 

resources could include accelerated soil erosion and soil loss and the reduced soil productivity as measure d 

by amounts and types of vegetative cover and forage as well as BSC cover. 

With implementation of the Proposed Action, cumulative impacts to soils from surface disturbance for past 

(existing), present (ongoing), and reasonably foreseeable (pending) projects within the GNBPA are projected

to be 26,411 acres or 16.2 percent of the GNBPA (Tables 2.2-1, 2.4-1, 2.6-1, and 5.2-3). The proposed 

12,658 acres of new disturbance would represent approximately 48 percent of the 26,411 acres of cumulative 

disturbance anticipated under the Proposed Action. 

Implementation of the Resource Protection Alternativewould reduce the acres of cumulative disturbance and 

associated soil impacts to a total of 21,900 acres (13.4 percent of GNBPA); 4,511 acres less than disturbed 

under the Proposed Action (Tables 2.2-1, 2.4-1, 2.7-1, and 5.2-3). The proposed 8,147 acres of new 

disturbance would represent approximately 37 percent of the 21,900 acres of cumulative disturbance 

anticipated under the Resource Protection Alternative. 

DEIS 5-25
 July 2010 
 

Implementation of the Optimal Recovery Alternative would increase the cumulative soil disturbance to 

56,373 acres (34.6 percent of the GNBPA); 29,962 acre s more than disturbed under the Proposed Action 

(Tables 2.2-1, 2.4-1, 2.8-1, and 5.2-3). The proposed 42,620 acres of new disturbance would represent 

approximately 76 percent of the 56,373 acres of cumulative disturbance anticipated under the Optimal 

Recovery Alternative. 

Portions of past disturbances have been stabilized and revegetated with protective and productive vege tative 

cover. In some of theseareas, BSCs have begun to recover in spaces between higher plants. Drought and 

other factors have contributed to reduced reclamation success for some areas of disturbance where 

reclamation measures were applied, but have failed to fully restore soil and plant cover and have slower BSC 

recovery to pre-disturbance conditions. Assessments of reclamation success have identified the key issues to 

be the lack of full restoration of vegetative cover and productive wildlife and livestock forage. Pending 

attainment of successful reclamation by higher plants and BSCs, the incremental additional impacts to soils as 

a result of the Proposed Action or other alternatives within the GNBPA would be long-term in nature for the 

majority of the GNBPA. Depending on reclamation requirements for ongoing and proposed projects, dr ought 

conditions and other factors may continue to affect reclamation success for those projects. 

With the application of additional and specific measures to foster improved chances for success in stabilizing 

soils, enhancing potentials for successful re-establishment of protective vegetative and BSCcover as part of 

the proposed project, and with the continued efforts to improve the recovery of affected landscapes in the 

GNBPA, the rate of success for reclamation should improve (Appendix E). Soil stability and isolation of soil 

impacts to disturbed sites also would be addressed by the various SWPPPs for projects throughout the CISA. 

Reclamation measures would include those intended to optimize surface/slope stability, soil conditions (bo th 

physical and chemical/nutrient), seed mix composition and timely germination, BSC inoculation, and 

maintenance to resolve any soil conditions or revegetation issues prior to substantial impacts to either soil 

stability or higher plant and BSC cover re-establishment. 

No cumulative impacts to soil resources would be expected from spills or releases of contaminants from 

activities associated with the proposed project since any s pill or release would be contained and an approved 

clean-up process would be employed. 

5.3.10 Transportation 

The GNBPA has an extensive road netw ork in place. Further expansion of this network to accommodate oil 

and gas development, as w ell as trails and roads to support recreational use, would have adverse as well as 

beneficial impacts. Adverseimpacts would include an increase in project-related traffic and accidents within 

the GNBPA and primary access roads, as well as greater maintenance needs on new and existing roads as 

heavy truck traffic increases. A potential benefit would include an increased maintained road network that 

would cater to recreation as well as oil and gas development. 

In areas where oil and gas development is already in existence, more dead-end roads would be built as 

additional wells are installed. Furthermore, as exploration mov ed into areas with less of an existing road 

network, arterial roads would be constructed in addition to dead-end roads. Project-related traffic on these

roads would be greatest during construction, drilling, and completion phases; however, it is expected that use 

of telemetry would help to mitigate long-term traffic by enabling remote monitoring in some locations. 

An increase in road construction would lead to greater recreational access for hikers, hunters, and OHV users, 

as access to areas such as the White River and the Book Cliffs becomes easier. With increased acces s by 

passenger vehicles comes an increased probability of accidents with large trucks that are utilizing the same 

roads. 

5.3.11 Vegetation 

The CISA for vegetation resources is defined as the GNBPA boundary. Impacts from past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions within the CISA would result in the loss of 7,766 acres for existing 

DEIS 5-26
 July 2010 
 

projects; 4,702 acres f or ongoing projects (Table 4.11-1); 1,285 acres for reasonably foreseeable oil and gas 

development projects (Table 5.2-3) and the additional acres of surface disturbance identified for the various 

action alternatives (Section 4.11, Vegetation). The cumulative loss of vegetation would be approximately 

26,411 acres for the Proposed Action Alternative; 21,900 acres for the Resource Protection Alternative; and 

56,373 acres for the Optimal Recovery Alternative. The Proposed Action Alternative would represent 

approximately 48 percent of the cumulative vegetation loss in the GNBPA, whereas the Resource Protection 

Alternative and Optimal Recovery Alternative would represent 37 percent and 76 percent, respectively, of the 

cumulative vegetation loss in the GNBPA. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would 

cumulatively and incrementally reduce available vegetation cover types until such time that reclamation is 

deemed successful. Cumulative losses for vegetation resources potentially would include the reduction of 

numerous habitat functions including soil stability, erosion control, species biodiversity, wildlife forage and 

habitat, and available forage for livestock grazing operations. 

Successful reclamation is defined as re-establishing a sustainable vegetation community that has similar 

species diversity and vegetative cover compared to similar undisturbed native vegetative communities. 

Successful reclamation is difficult in the Uinta Basin due to sus tained drought conditions in the area, high 

percentage of soils with characteristics that limit restoration, and the presence of noxious and invasive weed 

species. It is estimated that successful reclamation would take at least 10 years, and would be potentially 

problematic in the desert shrub, and perennial grasslands/sagebrush communities (BLM 2008c). The des ert 

shrub type is associated with shallow and highly saline soils, and has limited moisture availability. When oil 

and gas activities are combined with other surface disturbances such as grazing and chaining and burning 

activities, the perennial grasslands/sagebrush and pinyon-juniper communities are both highly susceptible to 

noxious weed invasions. 

The BLM Vernal Field Office has yet to observe much reclamation success in the Uinta Basin. The recent 

multi-year drought conditions in the Uinta Basin area are believed to be the principal limitation to success for 

reclamation efforts. Basedon the difficulties in reclamation success, the incremental additional impacts to 

vegetation as a result of the proposed project would be long-term in nature for the majority of the project 

disturbance area. The loss of mature trees and shrubs would be minimal relative to the total acreage of wood y 

species communities that occur in the CISA. It is estimated that herbaceous-dominated plant communities 

would require a minimum of 10 years to establish adequate ground cover to prevent erosion and provide 

forage for wildlife species and grazing operations. Woody-dominated plant communities would require at least 

25 to 50 years for shrubs of similar stature to recolonize the area. Re-establishment of mature pinyon-juniper 

woodlands would require 75 to 100 years. 

Pipelines and seismic surveys such as those shown on Figure 5.2-3, have and would result in additional 

surface disturbance within the CISA. In addition, these linear projects have the potential to act as corridors for 

noxious weeds and invasive species to spr ead into the CISA. 

In addition to cumulative vegetation loss, other impacts on vegetation likely would occur as a result of 

cumulative forage use by livestock, wildlife, and wild horses, affecting plant productivity and vegetation 

community structure and composition. Vegetation recovery ma y become even more difficult as livestock and 

wildlife compete for resources that are becoming less available due to surface-related impacts. 

Indirect impacts to vegetation resources associated with surface disturbance-related activities may include soil 

loss and compaction, fugitive dust accumulation, and introduction and/or spread of noxious weeds and 

invasive species. Fugitive dust from development activities can adversely impact native vegetatio n 

communities and alter vegetative composition (USEPA 2008c; USFWS 2008b). Dust accumulation on plants 

has been shown to adversely affect a variety of plant functions including photosynthesis, respiration, 

transpiration, gas exchange and leaf conductance (USFWS 2008b). In addition, high dust accumulation can 

lead to partial defoliation, increased plant mortality, decreases in growth rates and vigor, and increase the 

spread of noxious weed and invasive species (USEPA 2008c; USFWS 2008b). 

DEIS 5-27
 July 2010 
 

Noxious weeds and invasive species exist throughout the CISA already. Surface disturbance activities from 

the Proposed Action as well as other past, present and future projects have alrea dy and could further spread 

noxious weed and invasive species into previously undisturbed areas, and increase already established 

noxious weed and invasive species populations in both acreage and population numbers. Linear surface 

disturbances such as those associated with pipelines, roads, transmission lines and seismic surveys can and 

have provided corridors for further infiltration of noxious and invasive species (Gelbard and Belnap 2003; 

Watkins et al. 2003) into the GNBPA. The cumulative effect of multiple linear projects each with several m iles

of roads, transmission lines, pipelines, etc. can form networks on the landscape that invasive species can use 

to spread and establish. These networks of corridors can then serve as a source of propagules (D’Antonioet 

al. 2001) for noxious and invasive species to spread into adjacent undisturbed areas. Localized surface 

disturbances can and have facilitated the invasion of noxious and invasive species by removing native 

vegetative cover, creating areas of bare ground (Burke and Grime 1996; Watkins et al. 2003), and increasing 

light and nutrient availability (Stohlgren et al. 2003, 1999). Construction and operation activities associate d with 

pipelines, transmission lines, oil and gas development and seismic surveys can aid in the mechanical tr ansport 

of seeds from outside the CISA. 

Fragmentation of the landscape by the cumulative impact of multiple linear and localized surface disturbances 

can impact native vegetative comm unities and native plant species. Impacts from fragmentation could include 

the loss of suitable habitat, the isolation of small populations, decreases in species densities, increased 

grazing pressure, more exposure to disturbances, increased competition, and decreased pollination. As 

landscape fragmentation increases the vulnerability of native vegetation communities, combined with 

increased sources of noxious weed and invasive species propagules and surface disturbances creating 

patches of bare areas, the potential for noxious weed and invasive species to spread and establish increa ses 

proportionately to the amount of disturbance. 

Federal, state, and local regulations require management and control of noxious weed and invasive species. 

The severity of the threat posed by individual n oxious weed and invasive species determines the amount of 

control required. Past, present and future projects including the Proposed Action would minimize the spread 

and establishment of noxious weed and invasive species through the implementation of noxious weed 

management techniques such as minimizing surface disturbance activities, the use of wash stations to contro l

the mechanical spread of seeds, herbicide spraying of known populations, and the reclamation of disturbed 

areas. 

5.3.11.1 Special Status Plant Species 

Cumulativeimpacts to special status plant species would be increased due to number of other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable oil and gas de velopment projects, pipelines, and seismic surveys in the CISA, and 

the associated direct and indirect impacts d iscussed above for general vegetation. Only the clay-reed mustard 

and the Uinta Basin hookless cactus were identified as having potential to occur within the CISA based on 

habitat requirements and known distribution. 

Graham’s beardtongue 

Within the CISA, potential habitat of 121 acres for Graham’s beardtongue is found in only one area and has 

minimal potential for ove rlap with most, if not all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development 

activities. Due to the extr emely limited distribution of this species, direct impacts from the Proposed Action and 

interrelated projects would be minimal. Indirect impacts, including effects from increased erosion, fugitive dus t, 

increased spread and establishment of noxious and invasive species in potential habitat, and the loss of 

pollinators could increase slightly as a result of the Proposed Action and other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable development activities. 

Clay-reed Mustard 

Within the CISA, potential habitat of 322 acres for clay-reed mustard is found in only one location and has 

minimal potential for overlap with most, if not all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development 

DEIS 5-28
 July 2010 
 

 

activities. Due to the extremely limited distribution of this species, direct impacts from the Proposed Action and 

interrelated projects would be minimal. Indirect impacts, including effects from fugitive dust, increased sprea d 

and establishment of noxious and invasive species in suitable habitat, and road construction leading to 

increased access to isolated populations could increase slightly as a result of the Proposed Action and other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development activities. 

Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus 

Cumulative impacts to Uinta Basin hookless cactus may be substantial due to overlap of development 

activities from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects within the CISA with extensive portions of 

the known range of the species . The cumulative long-term surface disturbance of Uinta Basin hookless cactus 

habitat within the CISA is shown in Table 5.3-6. 

Table 5.3-6 Cumulative Estimated Surface Disturbance of Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus Habitat 

Habitat1 

Within CISA 

(a 2 

Total 

Habitat 

cres) 

Estimated Cumulative Habitat Disturbed3 

Proposed Action 

Alternative 

Resource Protection 

Alternative 

Optimal Recover y 

Alternative 

Acres4

 Perce nt Acres4 Percent 4 Acres Percent 

Uinta Basin hookless cactus 54,555 4,778 9 3,140 6 14,610 27 

1

 Habitat identified based on mod eling as describe d in Section 3.11.3.2, Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus. 

2 The CISA for vegetat ion resources is defined as the GNBPA b oundary.

3 Values include impacts associated with the project alternativ es as well as other oil and gas development projects in the cumulative effects area 

(Tables 5.2-2 and 5.2-3). 4 Due to the programmatic nature of this project, actual disturbance values were not available; therefore, a quantitative assessment was calculated 

as the sum of the acres of habitat impacted within the CISA by each proje ct in the general cumulative effects area. The acres of habitat impacted in 

the CISA for each project was calculated as a percentage of habitat type within the project boundary multiplied by the actual surface disturbance 

associated with that projec t. 

Cumulative effects to the cactus include direct and indirect impacts as discussed above for general vegetation . 

Direct impacts would re sult from the trampling and crushing of individuals, temporary or permanent removal of 

above ground cover, the temporary or permanent loss of suitable habitat, and soil compaction as the result of 

construction and operation activities, grazing, and recreational use. 

Indirect impacts include habitat fragmentation, increased dust effects, introduction and spread of invasive 

species, temporary or permanent loss of suitable habitat, and changes to the composition of the native 

vegetative community from surface disturbance activities such as oil and gas development, grazing, road 

construction, seismic surveys, well staking, cultural resources surveys, biological surveys, and other huma n 

activities. 

Changes in land use patterns or increased human encroachment also would adversely impact occupied and 

suitable habitats. In addition, recovery and reclamation of suitable habitats could be compounded by limiting 

reclamation conditions (e.g., drought). 

5.3.12 Visual Resources 

The CISA for visual resources (Table 5 .2-1) consists of the VRM Class II areas within the GNBPA and the 

background distance zone viewshed (approximately 1,382,613 acres) of the proposed project (including views 

from the Duchesne, Green, an d White rivers). The management directive for visual resources for the 

BLM-managed lands in the CISA is to comply with designated VRM class objectives. This directive does no t 

apply to private lands, lands under the jurisdiction of the State of Utah, or lands owned by the Northern Ute 

Tribe. There are no visual resource management objectives or aesthetic protections for lands in the Uinta 

DEIS 5-29 July 2010 
 

Basin not managed by the BLM. Views to and from the Green River and White River are of particularly high 

sensitivity to visual intrusions and related contrasts. 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future oil and gas development in the CISA would have both direct 

and indirect cumulative impacts to visual resources. The addition of 12,658 acres of disturbance (22 percent of 

the total cumulative disturbance), fugitive dust, combustion emissions, drilling rigs, storage tanks, other 

ancillary structures, roads, pipelines, overhead electrical lines, OHV activities, and general upsurge of human 

use under the Proposed Action Alternative would increase the extent and magnification of visual contras ts and 

associated impacts. Cumulative impacts to VRM Class II lands would be minimal due to the exclusion of new 

well pads in the viewshed of the White River up to 0.5 mile from the river. 

The Resource Protection Alternative would result in less disturbance, and therefore less cumulative visual 

impact, than the Proposed Action Alternative. The Optimal Recovery Alternative would result in more 

disturbance, and therefore more cumulative visual impact, than the Proposed Action Alternative. 

5.3.13 Water Resources 

The CISA for surface water co nsists of the Duchesne River, Pelican Lake – Green River, Cottonwood Wash – 

White River, Coyote Wash, Lo wer Pariette Draw, Agency Draw – Willow Creek, Sheep Wash – Green River,

Asphalt Wash, White River, Bitter Creek, and Desolation Canyon hydrographic basins. Cumulative impacts to 

water resources and associated wetlands and floodplains would result from ongoing oil and gas 

developments, irrigated agriculture, livestock grazing, vehicular traffic, and other mining and industrial activities 

within the water resources CISA (Figure 5.3-4). 

Surface water flows in the CISA are dominated by the Green River, which has an overall watershed area of 

approximately 35,500 square miles at Ouray, Utah. Contributions from the White River range from 

approximately 12 to 15 percent of the flows in the Green River at their confluence. High flows from the White 

River have become more important to the Green River system and related Colorado pikeminnow po pulations 

since flood control and withdrawals began at Flaming Gorge (Lentsch et al. 2000). 

Smaller streams such as Pariette Draw Creek, Willow Creek, and Ninemile Creek lik ely contribute less than 

5 percent overall to Green River flows through the CISA (Utah Board of Water Resources 1999). Based on 

these estimates, roughly 15 to 20 percent of the flow in the Green River through the CISA is contributed by th e 

White River and these smaller watersheds where large areas of existing, ongoing, or proposed oil and gas 

projects are located. Additional cumulative impacts to water resources would occur from water uses and water 

quality constituent loads in runoff associated with oil and gas developments. The water demands by existing 

and reasonably foreseeable oil and gas development, and the population it supports form a large portion of 

overall water use in the CISA. However, it is substantially less than agricultural and other demands in the wide r 

Uintah County region. The majority of water withdrawals for actual field development would create limited, 

short-term impacts to water quantities. With the estimate that approximately 15 to 20 percent of flows in the 

Green River through the CISA are contributed by study area watersheds where oil and gas development is 

concentrated, the cumulative impacts to water quantities in the river would be minor. 

Investigations in the area indicate that water quality varies significantly. No stream or w aterbody in the CISA is 

classified as a High Quality Water by the state. Beneficial uses for major streams in the region are similar to 

those identified for waterbodies in the GNBPA. Impaired waterbodies in the CISA, and the identified water 

quality constituents or factors that impair their designated beneficial uses, are shown in Table 5.3-7. 

DEIS 5-30
 July 2010 
 

 

 

 

 

Table 5.3-7 Summary of Impaired Waterbodies Within the CISA 

Watershed Waterbody Impaired Constituent(s) 

Duchesne Duchesne River Salinity/total dissolved solids/chlorides 

Lower Green – Desolation Canyon Ninemile Creek Temperature 

Pariette Draw Creek Boron, salinity/total dissolved solids/ chlorides, selenium 

Lower Green – Diamond Pelican Lake Temperature, pH 

Lower White none None 

Willow Willow Creek Total dissolved solids 

Source: Utah Division of Water Quality 2006. 

The White River, along with the Yampa River, Red Creek, Vermillion Creek, and other streams in the CISA, 

contributes a substantial amount of sediment and other water quality constituents to the Green River below 

Flaming Gorge Dam. Based on existing information (BLM 2008d,e,h), it appears that cumulative increases in 

sediment yield from oil and gas disturbance would represent less than 10 percent, and possibly less than 

5 percent, of the average sediment load in the Green River upstream of Desolation Canyon. This would 

represent a noticeable but minor impact to water quality. Reviews of historical water quality data along the 

lower White River (Section 3.13.1.3) indicate that suspended sediment concentrations (as TSS) increase 

between Bonanza and Ouray, but there is no apparent relationship to increasing oil and gas disturbance in the 

CISA. This is likely to hold true for other watersheds in the CISA since it is more likely that changes in water 

quality from one sampling location to another in these semi-arid to arid watersheds result from natural geologic 

and geomorphic conditions, flows evaporating or seeping into the channel beds, and overall land use patterns. 

Historical data indicate negligible to slight decreases in salinity (as TDS) in the lower White River over several 

decades of increasing oil and gas activity in the region. Similar to the suspended sediment concentrations, 

changes in reported salinity data may be more closely related to overall background conditions rather than 

strictly oil and gas disturbance. In addition, more extensive, long-term programs (e.g., the Colorado River 

Basin Salinity Control Program or implementation of Gold Book practices) may limit or reduce cumulative 

water quality impacts resulting from surface disturbance. 

Increases in salinity and other water quality parameters also could occur as a result of spills, leaks, and 

seepage or “weeping” from abandoned wells. Most impacts from such incidents would be avoided or mitigated 

by compliance with environmental guidelines and prevention or cleanup programs. Without adequate plugging 

and abandonment, the potential for long-term seepage of saline groundwater from wells would represent a 

substantial potential impact to surface water quality within the CISA. The potential for this is discussed in an 

historical context in Chapter 3, Section 3.13.1.3. Plugging and abandonment of wells in accordance with Utah 

Oil and Gas Conservation General Rules R649-3-24 would avoid these impacts or reduce them to less than 

significant levels. Assuming that regulatory and operating programs are implemented properly, and that 

catastrophic failure of the produced water system or a storage facility does not occur, cumulative impacts to 

water quality in the CISA would be minor. 

The CISA for groundwater is the GNBPA boundary. Cumulative impacts to groundwater could result from the 

continued injection of produced water under the No Action Alternative in combination with one of the action 

alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, produced water would be managed primarily through 

evaporation, with approximately 15 percent being injected into the subsurface. As discussed in 

Section 4.13.1.3, most produced water is being injected into the Birds Nest aquifer, with minor amounts 

injected into deeper saline aquifers. Under both the Proposed Action and the Resource Protection Alternative, 

approximately 10,744,000 bbls of produced water would be generated per year by proposed project activities. 

A major portion (greater than 75 percent) of this produced water would be disposed of by injection into new 

disposal wells permitted by the USEPA, which is the authorizing regulatory agency for the UIC program on 

lands in the GNBPA. 

DEIS 5-31 July 2010 
Whi te Riv er 

W hit e Rive r 

C liff Cr eek 

Yampa 

R ive r 

Pig eon 

Wate r Cre ek 

La ke F ork Riv er 

N inemil e C reek 

Texas 

H

Creek ill Creek 

Rock 

Cre ek 

Soldier Creek 

Grassy Trail C re ek 

Jack Creek 

Argyle C r eek 

Dry 

Gulc h Cr e e k 

R ock Cre e k 

Green 

R vi er 

Yellowstone River 

Uinta 

R iver 

Ye l low sto n e R iver 

Ashle y Cr eek 

Farm 

C r eek 

A n telope C reek 

Brush Cr e ek 

Bitter C er ek 

Wil ol w Cr eek 

D eep 

Cree k 

Dry 

C re e k 

Dugout Creek 

2N 2W 2N 1W 

2N 4W 

3S18E 

2N 5W 2N 3W 3S19E 3S23E 3S24E 3S25E 2N 7W 2N 6W 3S20E 3S21E 3S22E 

1N 2E 

2N 2E 

Uintah

4S19E Area County

of 1N 6W 

Detail Utah 1N 3W 1N 2W 1N 1W 1N 1E 2N 1E 4S24E 4S25E 1N 5W 4S22E 4S23E 1N 7W 4S20E 

4S21E 1N 4W 

4S19E 2S 1E 

1S 2W 1S 1W 1S 1E 5S25E 5S23E 1S 4W 1S 3W 5S24E 1S 7W 1S 6W 5S20E 5S21E

5S19E 

1S 5W 5S22E

Water Resources Cumulative Impact Study Area 

Perennial Stream/River 

2S 2W 2S 1W 1S 2E 6S23E 6S24E 6S25E Intermittent Stream 6S19E Newfield Gusher EA 2S 7W 2S 6W 2S 5W 2S 4W 2S 3W 2S 2E 6S21E 6S22E

6S20E Township/Range

Greater Natural Buttes Project Area 

BBC West Tavaputs Plateau EIS 7S19E 

Berry Petroleum ANF South Unit EIS 

3S 3W 3S 2W 3S 1W 1S 3E 2S 3E 7S22E 7S23E 7S24E 7S25E EOG Chapita Wells/Stagecoach EIS 3S 7W 3S 6W 3S 5W 3S 4W 7S20E 7S21E QEP Greater EOG Greater Chapita Wells Natural Gas Infill Project EIS Deadman 

Bench EIS EOG North Alger EA 

Encana North Chapita EA 

4S 2W 4S 1W Enduring Resources Big Pack EA 1S 4E 2S 4E 4S 3W 8S24E 8S25E 4S 7W 4S 6W 4S 5W 4S 4W 8S20E 8S21E 8S22E 8S23E Enduring Resources Rock House EA 

3S 4E Encana North Chapita EA Enduring Resources Southam Canyon EA 

8S16E 8S17E 8S18E 1S 5E Enduring Resources West Bonanza EA 8S15E 2S 5E 3S

Newfield 5E EOG Greater Chapita Enduring Gasco Riverbend EA

Monument Newfield Castle Resources West Wells Natural Gas Gasco Uinta Basin EIS 

Gasco Wilkin Ridge EA 5S 3W Butte EIS Peak and 8-Mile Bonanza EA Infill Project EIS 9S25E 5S 7W 5S 6W 5S 5W 5S 4W Flat EIS 9S20E 9S21E 9S19E 9S22E 9S23E 9S24E 9S16E 9S17E 9S18E 9S15E KMG Bonanza EA 

KMG Greater Natural Buttes EIS 

Berry Petroleum 

ANF South Unit EIS 10S22E KMG 

Gasco Riverbend EA XTO River KMG Love Unit EA Bonanza EA 6S 3W KMG Greater 10S24E

Bend Unit Newfield Castle Peak and 8-Mile Flat EIS Gasco Uinta Basin EIS Natural 10S23E Enduring 10S25E 6S 7W 6S 6W 6S 5W 6S 4W Infill EA 10S16E 10S17E 10S18E 10S19E Buttes EIS Resources Newfield Gusher EA 10S20E Enduring 10S15E 10S21E Resources Rock Southam Canyon EA QEP Greater Deadman Bench EIS Gasco Wilkin Ridge EA EOG North XTO Hill

7S 7W 10S14E Alger EA Creek Unit EA House EA RDG Uinta Basin EIS 10S11W 7S 6W 10S13E 7S 5W 7S 4W KMG Love XTO Little Canyon EA

11S20E Unit EA 11S24E XTO River Bend Unit Infill EA 11S11E 11S22E 11S23E 11S25E 11S13E 11S19E 11S21E

11S12E 11S15E 11S16E 11S17E 11S18E XTO Little Newfield Monument Butte EIS 11S14E Canyon EA RDG Uinta Basin EIS XTO Hill Creek Unit EA 

Enduring
 

Resources
 

12S19E Big Pack EA 12S24E 12S25E 12S11E 12S23E 12S20E 12S21E 12S12E 12S13E 12S14E 12S15E 12S16E 12S17E 12S18E 12S22E 

BBC West 3 1.5 036 

Tavaputs Scale in Miles 

Plateau EIS 5 0 3.75 2.5 1.25 5 10 

13S11E Scale in Kilometers 

13S24E 13S25E 13S26E 13S22E 13S23E 13S15E 13S16E 13S17E 13S12E 13S13E 13S14E 13S18E 13S19E 13S20E 13S21E Greater Natural Buttes

Area Gas Development 

Project EIS
 

14S11E 14S24E 14S25E 14S26E Figure 5.3-4 14S17E 14S23E 14S13E 14S14E 14S15E 14S16E 14S19E 14S20E 14S21E 14S22E 14S18E 

14S12E Water Resources CISA 

and Cumulative Actions 

15S24E 15S25E 15S26E Location Map 15S18E 15S19E 15S20E 15S23E 15S12E 15S14E 15S15E 15S16E 15S17E 15S21E 15S22E 15S11E 15S13E

5-32

Monday, February 9, 2009 1:23:51 PM 

X:\0Projects\12100_013_Kerr_McGee_Greater_Natural_Buttes\Figures_Folder\PDEIS\Fig5_3-2_WaterResourcesCISA_CumulativeActionLocationMap.mxd 
 

As noted in Section 2.6.2.6, the proposed expansion of water disposal capacity would be more than adequate 

to accommodate the volume of produced water from the Proposed Action. The cumulative volume of produced 

water that would be injected includes the volume injected under the No Action Alternative, which currently is 

being accommodated by the existing injection capacity. Hence, the injection capacity within the CISA is 

anticipated to be adequate to handle the cumulative injection volumes. Under the Optimal Recovery 

Alternative, more produced water would be generated, requiring the installation of additional injection wells 

over and above that required by the Proposed Action. 

Disposal of produced water under the UIC program is a highly regulated activity that provides for the protection 

of USDWs. Assuming compliance with UIC program regulatory requirements, cumulative injection of produced 

water within the CISA is not anticipated to impact other USDWs. This is due, in part, to the fact that injection 

activity can only take place where pre-existing groundwater quality (TDS greater than 10,000 mg/l) precludes 

other uses of the water. Due to the increased volume of produced water to be injected relative to the No Action 

Alternative, the injection plume within saline aquifers would be expected to increase in size due the increase in 

groundwater storage. 

5.3.14 Wilderness Characteristics 

The CISA for wilderness characteristics is the entire Vernal Field Office management area. Included in the 

cumulative impact analysis are all lands within the CISA found by the BLM to possess wilderness 

characteristics. These areas possess all of the values needed for wilderness including size, naturalness, and 

opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. 

Of the 277,596 acres found to have wilderness characteristics within the CISA, 106,178 acres (38 percent) are 

protected, preserved, and maintained for their wilderness values as BLM natural areas (BLM 2008b). In 

accordance with management prescriptions in the Vernal RMP, these areas would remain in their current 

state. The remaining 171,418 acres (62 percent) do not have prescribed management to protect the 

wilderness values, and allows for uses that could degrade the wilderness characteristics of these areas. 

Impacts to lands with wilderness characteristics could result from the past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions discussed in Section 5.2. Figure 5.3-5 illustrates how these cumulative actions 

would overlap non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics within the CISA. 

5.3.14.1 BLM White River Natural Area 

No cumulative effects would occur to BLM natural areas because no surface disturbance would occur within 

the BLM White River natural area under any of the proposed alternatives. 

5.3.14.2 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would result in impacts to three areas of non-WSA 

lands with wilderness characteristics within the CISA (Figure 5.3-5). Excluding the proposed project, 

approximately 64,450 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would overlap with past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects outside of the GNBPA. This disturbance would impact the 

ability of the BLM to manage wilderness characteristics in these areas. The three areas that would be 

impacted and the projects that would impact them are as follows: 

•	 White River non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be impacted by projects 

including Enduring Resource’s West Bonanza project, the RDG Uinta Basin project, and Enduring 

Resources Rock House Project. 

•	 Lower Bitter Creek non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be impacted by 

projects including Enduring Resources Big Pack project and the RDG Uinta Basin project. 

DEIS 5-33 July 2010 
 

 

•	 Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be impacted by 

projects including the BBC West Tavaputs Plateau project and Gasco’s Uinta Basin, Riverbend, and 

Wilkin Ridge projects. 

Each of the proposed alternatives would impact the BLM’s ability to preserve the wilderness values of the 

White River non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics due to surface disturbance associated with the 

proposed activities impacting up to 2,786 acres. Therefore, the maximum cumulative impact to non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics would total 67,236 acres, of which the proposed project would represent 

approximately 4 percent. These lands would no longer retain wilderness characteristics due to the additive and 

cumulative effects of oil and gas development. 

As discussed above, 277,596 acres of inventoried lands in the Vernal Field Office management area were 

found to have wilderness characteristics, of which 171,418 acres were not carried forward for protection, 

preservation, and maintenance of wilderness values under the Vernal RMP. A total of 39 percent 

(67,236 acres) of this 171,418 acres would be foregone based on development of past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future oil and gas development in the CISA. Less than 2 percent (2,786 acres) of this 

171,418 acres would result in the loss of wilderness characteristics due to the proposed development in the 

GNBPA. 

5.3.15 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources 

The CISA for wildlife, fisheries, and special status species encompasses the entire BLM Vernal Field Office 

management area. The CISA extends from the Book Cliffs in the south, east to the Utah/Colorado border, 

north to the eastern Uinta Mountains (Utah/Wyoming border), and west to the edge of the Wasatch Mountain 

Range. 

For wildlife, fisheries, and special status species, the cumulative analysis focuses on past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable oil and gas development projects (Tables 5.2-2 and 5.2-3) and pipelines 

(Figure 5.2-4). The cumulative impact analysis focuses on the regional wildlife resources and how they may 

be susceptible to the cumulative actions identified for the proposed project assuming that: 1) human use of the 

CISA would increase with the implementation of the proposed project, 2) wildlife habitats currently are at their 

respective carrying capacities in and adjacent to the GNBPA, and 3) the overall region has been previously 

affected by historic and current oil and gas development activities. 

5.3.15.1 Wildlife Resources 

Cumulative impacts to wildlife resources primarily would be directly related to habitat loss, habitat 

fragmentation, and animal displacement. Long-term surface disturbance incrementally adds to wildlife habitat 

losses, overall habitat fragmentation, and animal displacement. In areas where oil and gas development has 

occurred, habitat fragmentation may have resulted in the disruption of seasonal patterns or migration routes. 

Historic, current, and future developments in the vicinity of the GNBPA have resulted, or would result, in the 

reduction of carrying capacities as characterized by the amount of available cover, forage, and breeding areas 

for wildlife species. Surface disturbance in the CISA primarily results from oil and gas development, including 

pipelines and seismic exploration. However, other activities such as livestock grazing, development of 

recreational facilities, and growth of Uinta Basin communities also contribute to cumulative impacts on wildlife 

and their habitats. Big game, especially pronghorn, would be most susceptible to these impacts since 

encroaching human activities associated with oil and gas development have resulted, or would result, in 

habitat loss and fragmentation and animal displacement in areas designated as crucial habitat (e.g., crucial 

winter habitat, fawning habitat). Figures 5.3-6 through 5.3-10 display big game habitat within the CISA. Other 

wildlife species, such as raptor species, also would be susceptible to these cumulative impacts since 

encroaching human activities in the region resulted, or would result, in habitat loss and fragmentation and 

animal displacement in areas that may be at their relative carrying capacity for these resident species. Many of 

the local wildlife populations (e.g., small game, migratory birds) that occur in the CISA likely would continue to 

occupy their respective ranges and breed successfully, although population numbers may decrease relative to 

the amount of cumulative habitat loss and disturbance from incremental development. 

DEIS 5-34 July 2010 
Rich 

Morgan County County Uinta 

County 

Summit
 

County
 

Wasatch 

County Duchesne 

County 

Utah 

County 

Desolation 

Canyon 

Carbon 

County 

Sanpete
 

County
 

Emery 

County 

Sweetwater 

County 

Daggett 

County 

Cold Spring Mountain 

Dead Horse Pass 

Diamond Breaks 

Lower Flaming Gorge 

Mountain 

Home 

Diamond 

Mountain 

Wild 

Mountain 

Moffat 

County 

Vivas Cake Hill 

Beach Draw 

Bourdette 

Draw Bull 

Canyon 

Daniels Canyon 

Uintah 

County 

White River 

Rio 

Blanco 

County 

Lower 

Bitter 

Creek 

Bitter Creek 

Wolf 

Point 

Grand 

County 

Hells Hole Canyon 

Hideout Canyon 

Rat 

Hole 

Sweet Water 

Garfield 

County 

Mesa 

County 

Uintah

Area County

of

Detail Utah

BLM Vernal FO (Wilderness Characteristics CISA) 

State Boundary 

County Boundary 

Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics (WCR) 

KMG Greater Natural Buttes EIS 

NEPA -Pipeline Projects 

NEPA - Oil and Gas Field Development 

7 3.5 0 7 14

Scale in Miles 

10 7.5 5 2.5 0 10 

Scale in Kilometers 

Greater Natural Buttes 

Area Gas Development
 

Project EIS
 

Figure 5.3-5
 

Cumulative Actions
 

Wilderness Characteristics
 

5-35

X:\0Projects\12100_013_Kerr_McGee_Greater_Natural_Buttes\Figures_Folder\PDEIS\Fig5_3-5_CumulativeActionVernalFO_WildernessCharacteristics_11x17.mxd 

4/6/2010 @ 4:07:25 PM 
Rich
 

County
 Morgan Sweetwater County Uinta County County 

Daggett Summit County County 

Moffat
 

County
 

Utah
 

County
 

Wasatch
 

County
 Duchesne
 

County
 

Uintah
 

County
 

Rio Blanco
 

County
 

Sanpete 

County 

Carbon
 

County
 

Garfield
 

County
 

Emery Grand 

County County Mesa 

County 

Uintah

Area County

of

Detail Utah

BLM Vernal FO (Wildlife and Fisheries CISA) 

State Boundary 

County Boundary 

KMG Greater Natural Buttes EIS 

NEPA -Pipeline Projects 

NEPA - Oil and Gas Field Development 

Pronghorn Habitat 

Year-long crucial
 

Year-long substantial
 

7 3.5 0 7 14

Scale in Miles 

10 7.5 5 2.5 0 10 

Scale in Kilometers 

Greater Natural Buttes 

Area Gas Development
 

Project EIS
 

Figure 5.3-6 

Cumulative Actions 

Pronghorn Habitat 

5-36

X:\0Projects\12100_013_Kerr_McGee_Greater_Natural_Buttes\Figures_Folder\PDEIS\Fig5_3-6_Pronghorn_CumulativeActionVernalFO_11x17.mxd 

4/6/2010 @ 4:10:56 PM 
Rich
 

County
 Morgan Sweetwater County Uinta County County 

Daggett Summit County County 

Wasatch 

County Duchesne 

County 

Uintah 

County 

Utah 

County 

Carbon 

County 

Sanpete 

County 

Emery 

County 

Grand 

County 

Moffat
 

County
 

Rio Blanco
 

County
 

Garfield
 

County
 

Mesa
 

County
 

Uintah

Area County

of

Detail Utah

BLM Vernal FO (Wildlife and Fisheries CISA) 

State Boundary 

County Boundary 

KMG Greater Natural Buttes EIS 

NEPA -Pipeline Projects 

NEPA - Oil and Gas Field Development 

Mule Deer Habitat 

Year-long crucial
 

Winter substantial
 

Winter crucial
 

7 3.5 0 7 14

Scale in Miles 

10 7.5 5 2.5 0 10 

Scale in Kilometers 

Greater Natural Buttes 

Area Gas Development
 

Project EIS
 

Figure 5.3-7 

Cumulative Actions 

Mule Deer Habitat 

5-37

X:\0Projects\12100_013_Kerr_McGee_Greater_Natural_Buttes\Figures_Folder\PDEIS\Fig5_3-7_MuleDeerHabitat_CumulativeActionVernalFO_11x17.mxd 

4/6/2010 @ 4:06:57 PM 
Rich
 

County
 Morgan Sweetwater County Uinta County County 

Daggett Summit County County 

Wasatch 

County Duchesne 

County 

Uintah 

County 

Utah 

County 

Carbon 

County 

Sanpete 

County 

Emery 

County 

Grand 

County 

Moffat
 

County
 

Rio Blanco
 

County
 

Garfield
 

County
 

Mesa
 

County
 

Uintah

Area County

of

Detail Utah

BLM Vernal FO (Wildlife and Fisheries CISA) 

State Boundary 

County Boundary 

KMG Greater Natural Buttes EIS 

NEPA -Pipeline Projects 

NEPA - Oil and Gas Field Development 

Elk Habitat 

Winter crucial
 

Winter substantial
 

7 3.5 0 7 14

Scale in Miles 

10 7.5 5 2.5 0 10 

Scale in Kilometers 

Greater Natural Buttes 

Area Gas Development
 

Project EIS
 

Figure 5.3-8
 

Cumulative Actions
 

Elk Habitat
 

5-38

X:\0Projects\12100_013_Kerr_McGee_Greater_Natural_Buttes\Figures_Folder\PDEIS\Fig5_3-8_ElkHabitat_CumulativeActionVernalFO_11x17.mxd 

4/6/2010 @ 4:20:06 PM 
Rich
 

County
 Morgan Sweetwater County Uinta County County 

Daggett Summit County County 

Wasatch 

County Duchesne 

County 

Uintah 

County 

Utah 

County 

Carbon 

County 

Sanpete 

County 

Emery Grand 

County County 

BLM Vernal FO (Wildlife and Fisheries CISA) 

State Boundary 

County Boundary 

Moffat KMG Greater Natural Buttes EIS 

County NEPA -Pipeline Projects 

NEPA - Oil and Gas Field Development 

Rocky Mountain Bighorn

Sheep Habitat 

Year-long crucial 

Rio Blanco 

County 

7 3.5 0 7 14

Scale in Miles 

10 7.5 5 2.5 0 10 

Scale in Kilometers 

Greater Natural Buttes 

Area Gas Development Garfield Project EIS County 

Figure 5.3-9 

Cumulative Actions 

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Mesa 

County Sheep Habitat 

5-39

X:\0Projects\12100_013_Kerr_McGee_Greater_Natural_Buttes\Figures_Folder\PDEIS\Fig5_3-9_RockyMountainBighornSheepHabitat_CumulativeActionVernalFO_11x17.mxd 

4/6/2010 @ 4:21:52 PM 
Rich
 

County
 Morgan Sweetwater County Uinta County County 

Daggett Summit County County 

Wasatch 

County Duchesne 

County 

Uintah 

County 

Utah 

County 

Carbon 

County 

Sanpete 

County 

Emery 

County 

Grand 

County 

Moffat
 

County
 

Rio Blanco
 

County
 

Garfield
 

County
 

Mesa
 

County
 

Uintah

Area County

of

Detail Utah

BLM Vernal FO (Wildlife and Fisheries CISA) 

State Boundary 

County Boundary 

KMG Greater Natural Buttes EIS 

NEPA -Pipeline Projects 

NEPA - Oil and Gas Field Development 

Bison Habitat 

Year-long crucial 

7 3.5 0 7 14

Scale in Miles 

10 7.5 5 2.5 0 10 

Scale in Kilometers 

Greater Natural Buttes 

Area Gas Development
 

Project EIS
 

Figure 5.3-10
 

Cumulative Actions
 

Bison Habitat
 

5-40

X:\0Projects\12100_013_Kerr_McGee_Greater_Natural_Buttes\Figures_Folder\PDEIS\Fig5_3-10_BisonHabitat_CumulativeActionVernalFO_11x17.mxd 

4/6/2010 @ 4:19:56 PM 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable oil and gas development projects identified for the CISA, including 

the Proposed Action Alternative, have resulted, or would result, in the direct disturbance of approximately 

82,833 acres. Approximately 15 percent of this cumulative impact would be attributable to the Proposed 

Action. Cumulative impacts under the Resource Protection Alternative would be approximately 4,511 acres 

less than under the Proposed Action Alternative and therefore, reduce impacts to wildlife. Cumulative impacts 

under the Optimal Recovery Alternative would be approximately 29,962 acres more than under the Proposed 

Action Alternative and therefore, would result in an increase in wildlife-related impacts. The Resource 

Protection Alternative and the Optimal Recovery Alternative would represent 10 percent and 38 percent, 

respectively, of the total cumulative surface disturbance in the CISA. Table 5.3-8 presents cumulative 

long-term surface disturbance acreages for big game species under each alternative. A portion of the 

cumulative disturbance area has been, or would be, reclaimed or has recovered materially (i.e., wildfire areas). 

The reclaimed areas and areas associated with habitat conversion would be capable of supporting wildlife use 

(including big game); however, species composition and densities likely would change. 

Table 5.3-8 Cumulative Long-term Surface Disturbance of Big Game Habitat 

Species Habitat1 

Total 

Habitat Within 

CISA 

(acres)2 

Estimated Cumulative Habitat Disturbed3 

Proposed Action 

Alternative 

Resource Protection 

Alternative 

Optimal Recovery 

Alternative 

Acres4 Percent Acres4 Percent Acres4 Percent 

Pronghorn Year-long Crucial 873,475 50,611 5.8 46,954 5.4 74,909 8.6 

Year-long Substantial 314,127 3,192 1.0 3,129 1.0 3,617 1.2 

Mule Deer Year-long Crucial 328,573 3,608 1.1 3,078 <1.0 7,131 2.2 

Winter Substantial 712,216 10,805 1.5 10,740 1.5 11,237 1.6 

Elk Winter Substantial 525,875 7,618 1.4 7,610 1.4 7,676 1.5 

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Year-long Crucial 1,115,392 8,279 <1.0 7,530 <1.0 13,258 1.2 

Bison Year-long Crucial 1,081,016 18,347 1.7 15,080 1.4 40,048 3.7 1

 Habitat designated by UDWR. Elk and mule deer data taken from the Final Vernal RMP. 2

 The Wildlife and Fisheries CISA encompasses the entire BLM Vernal Field Office Management Area and is approximately 5,518,859 acres. 3

 Values include impacts associated with the project alternatives as well as other oil and gas development and pipeline projects in the cumulative effects area 

(Tables 5.2-2 and 5.2-3 and Figure 5.2-4). 4 Due to the programmatic nature of this project, actual disturbance values were not available; therefore, quantitative assessment was calculated as the sum of 

the acres of habitat impacted within the CISA by each project in the general cumulative effects area. The acres of habitat impacted in the CISA for each 

project was calculated as a percentage of habitat type within the project boundary multiplied by the actual surface disturbance associated with that project. 

While surface disturbance generally corresponds to associated wildlife habitat loss, accurate calculations of 

cumulative wildlife habitat loss cannot be determined because the direct impacts of habitat disturbance are 

species-specific and dependent upon: 1) the status and condition of the population(s) or individual animals 

being affected; 2) seasonal timing of the disturbances; 3) value or quality of the disturbed sites; 4) physical 

parameters of the affected and nearby habitats (e.g., extent of topographical relief and vegetative cover); 

5) value or quality of adjacent habitats; 6) the type of surface disturbance; and 7) other variables that are 

difficult to quantify (e.g., increased noise and human presence). However, surface disturbance calculations are 

still a useful indicator of habitat loss because as forage, foraging and/or hunting habitats, and breeding, 

nesting, and rearing habitats are removed, overall quality of wildlife habitat also will decrease. 

Indirect impacts associated with human presence and noise incrementally would increase in the CISA during 

the life of the proposed project. Indirect cumulative impacts from oil and gas development and other activities 

within the CISA would include: 

•	 Animal displacement. Displaced individuals could be forced into less suitable habitats possibly 

resulting in subsequent effects of deteriorated physical condition, reproductive failure, mortality, and 

general distress as important habitat is reduced and animals are displaced. Loss of habitat/forage 

consequently could result in increased competition between and among species for available 

resources. 

DEIS 5-41 July 2010 
•	 Decreased reproduction success. A decrease in reproductive success and physical condition from 

increased energy expenditure due to physical responses to disturbance, which may lead to mortality. 

•	 Increased traffic levels. An increase in traffic levels (associated with oil and gas development) on 

roadways has the potential to increase the risk of vehicle/wildlife collisions and increased human 

utilization of resources through hunting and other recreational activities that would expose wildlife to 

potential human harassment, either inadvertent or purposeful. 

Based on these direct and indirect cumulative impacts, ongoing and future well development in the CISA 

would cumulatively and incrementally reduce the ability of wildlife habitats in the CISA to support wildlife and 

special status species at their current levels for the lifetime of oil and gas development and production 

(potentially 50 years). Cumulative impacts would continue until such time that reclamation is deemed 

successful (approximately 10 to 100 years depending on the vegetation cover type). 

5.3.15.2 Fisheries Resources 

Cumulative impacts to fisheries resources include erosion and sedimentation from surface disturbance, water 

depletion of the Green and White rivers from oil and gas activities and other land uses, and the potential for 

leaks or spills of contaminants from facilities or development activities within the Green River and White River 

watersheds. 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the CISA could result in some level of erosion and 

sedimentation, which in turn may impact aquatic habitats in localized areas. An increase of fine inorganic 

sediment in rivers and streams may impact fish spawning, fish rearing, and feeding behavior (USEPA 2003). 

Due to existing surface disturbance, ongoing projects, and poor reclamation success of previously disturbed 

areas, increased erosion and subsequent sediment yield are likely to occur locally within the Green River and 

White River watersheds. 

Water depletions also may impact fisheries resources, including aquatic habitats, within the Green River and 

White River watersheds. Water requirements for drilling, hydrostatic testing, dust abatement, and other project 

activities have been or would be acquired from permitted sources. These sources may include direct 

withdrawals from the Green and White rivers, municipal sources, and local supply wells. Existing authorized 

water usage would directly and indirectly consume water from the Green and White Rivers and would 

ultimately cause reductions in flow within the Colorado River Basin. Many fish species are sensitive to water 

depletions and a reduction in surface flow, especially during the spawning period (USFWS 2002b,c,d,e). 

Activities within or adjacent to the 100-year floodplains of the Green and White rivers or within drainages 

leading to these rivers may increase the potential for a release of contaminants into these drainages. Leaks or 

spills of contaminants may lead to habitat degradation and mortality of fish (Crist 2007). These potential 

cumulative impacts are discussed further in relation to special status fish species. 

5.3.15.3 Special Status Species 

Special status wildlife species also would be cumulatively affected by reasonably foreseeable oil and gas 

development and the resulting direct impacts discussed above for wildlife resources and fisheries resources; 

however, on BLM-managed lands, surveys typically are required in potential or known habitats of threatened, 

endangered, or otherwise special status species. These surveys would help determine the presence of any 

special status wildlife species or extent of habitat, and protective measures generally would be taken to avoid 

or minimize direct disturbance in these important areas. Given the status of the Uinta Basin greater 

sage-grouse population and the Colorado River endangered fish, cumulative impacts for greater sage-grouse, 

Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, humpback chub, and bonytail may be more pronounced than for 

other special status species. 

DEIS 5-42
 July 2010 
 

Greater Sage-grouse 

Cumulative impacts to greater sage-grouse and their habitat would occur due primarily to disturbance 

associated with other nearby developments (oil and gas field development and pipelines) within the CISA 

(Figure 5.3-11). Table 5.3-9 presents the cumulative long-term surface disturbance of greater sage-grouse 

habitat within the CISA. 

Table 5.3-9 Cumulative Long-term Surface Disturbance of Greater Sage-grouse Habitat 

Habitat1 

Total 

Habitat Within 

CISA 

(acres)2 

Estimated Cumulative Habitat Disturbed3 

Proposed Action 

Alternative 

Resource Protection 

Alternative 

Optimal Recovery 

Alternative 

Acres4 Percent Acres4 Percent Acres4 Percent 

Nesting 108,267 4,029 3.7 3,381 3.1 8,329 7.7 

Brooding 821,544 34,669 4.2 32,960 4.0 46,025 5.6 

Wintering 225,453 14,628 6.5 13,328 5.9 23,267 10.3 

1

 Habitat designated by UDWR. 

2

 The Wildlife and Fisheries CISA encompasses the entire BLM Vernal Field Office Management Area and is approximately 5,518,859 acres.
 3

 Values include impacts associated with the project alternatives as well as other oil and gas development and pipeline projects in the cumulative
 

effects area (Tables 5.2-2 and 5.2-3 and Figure 5.2-4). 4 Due to the programmatic nature of this project, actual disturbance values were not available; therefore, quantitative assessment was calculated as 

the sum of the acres of habitat impacted within the CISA by each project in the general cumulative effects area. The acres of habitat impacted in 

the CISA for each project was calculated as a percentage of habitat type within the project boundary multiplied by the actual surface disturbance 

associated with that project. 

Similar to the East Bench population, other populations of greater sage-grouse within the CISA have declined 

over the past 10 years (e.g., Deadman Bench, Halfway Hollow/12 Mile, Myton Bench). Most of these 

populations have experienced some level of habitat loss and fragmentation due to disturbance associated with 

oil and gas development, prolonged drought, overgrazing, and spread of noxious weeds. Based on the 

historic, existing, and proposed level of development that would occur within habitats occupied by greater 

sage-grouse within the CISA, it is likely that these populations would continue to experience habitat loss and 

fragmentation and, therefore, may exhibit further population declines. 

Colorado River Endangered Fish 

The Colorado River endangered fish species (i.e., Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, humpback chub, 

and bonytail) may be impacted by activities that deplete or degrade the flow of downstream waters of the 

Upper Colorado River Basin. Portions of the Green and White rivers that occur within the CISA provide habitat 

elements required by the Colorado River endangered fish. Cumulative impacts to these species include the 

erosion and sedimentation associated with nearby surface disturbance, the potential for spills or release of 

contaminants, entrainment in pumping devices (i.e., hoses, pumps, etc.), and consumptive water use. 

The direct withdrawal of water from the Green and White rivers for development activities likely would increase 

the potential to impinge fish on intake screens. These potential impacts are similar to those outlined above for 

fisheries. In addition, the increased potential for release of natural gas condensate, hydrocarbons, or other 

toxic substances into the Green or White rivers or into tributary streams or drainages may cause direct 

mortality of individuals. Development activities in proximity to these aquatic resources within the CISA require 

special construction practices and spill prevention measures for projects that have the potential to impact the 

Green and White rivers. 

Water requirements for drilling, hydrostatic testing, dust abatement, and other project activities would be 

acquired from permitted sources. These sources may include direct withdrawals from the Green and White 

rivers, municipal sources, and local supply wells. Water depletions from past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions in the CISA also may impact the Colorado River endangered fish within these 

DEIS 5-43
 July 2010 
watersheds. Total water depletions of 757 acre-feet/year under the Proposed Action and Resource Protection 

alternatives and 1,385 acre-feet/year under the Optimal Recovery Alternative would constitute less than 

1 percent of the total water depletions (182,603 acre-feet/year) within the White and Green rivers 

(USFWS 2009b). 

DEIS 5-44
 July 2010 
Area

of

Detail

Uintah

County

Utah

Rio Blanco

County

Garfield

County

Moffat

County

Uintah

County

Carbon

County

Duchesne

County

Mesa

County

Emery

County

Grand

County

Brooding

4048 2

Scale in Miles

5 0 51 3.75 2.5 1.25 0

Scale in Kilometers

Greater Natural Buttes 

Area Gas Development 

Project EIS

Figure 5.3-11

Cumulative Actions

Greater Sage-grouse

Habitat

X:\0Projects\12100_013_Kerr_McGee_Greater_Natural_Buttes\Figures_Folder\PDEIS\Fig5_3-11_GreaterSageGrouse_CumulativeActionVernalFO_11x17.mxd

4/6/2010 @ 4:25:13 PM

5-45
6.0 Consultation and Coordination 

The CEQ regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500–1508) require an early scoping process to determine the issues 

related to the proposed action and alternatives that the EIS should address. The purpose of the scoping 

process is to actively acquire input from all interested parties to identify important issues, concerns, and 

potential impacts that require analysis in the EIS as well as to eliminate insignificant issues and alternatives 

from detailed analysis. The scoping process provides opportunities for the BLM, cooperating agencies, other 

interested parties, and the public to have meaningful involvement early in the decision-making process. 

In coordination with the BLM and cooperating agencies, a Draft EIS is then developed and sent to all 

interested parties for public review and comment. Following a 45-day public comment period, all comments 

received are to be compiled and responses prepared for incorporation as an appendix to the Final EIS. The 

Draft EIS is then modified, clarified, and/or corrected as appropriate in coordination with the BLM and 

cooperating agencies. Once complete, the Final EIS is distributed to all interested parties for one final review 

and comment. Following this 30-day comment period, the BLM would develop a ROD and issue a ROW grant. 

6.1 Agency Participation/Coordination 

The BLM is the Lead Federal Agency for this EIS, which was prepared by the BLM Vernal Field Office in 

Vernal, Utah. A third-party contractor, AECOM Environment (AECOM), was used by the BLM to conduct 

studies, gather data, and prepare documents. Uintah County and the BIA have been designated as 

cooperating agencies. The BLM and cooperating agencies have been actively involved in preparing, 

reviewing, and creating the Draft EIS, as well as in developing mitigations to reduce impacts from the 

proposed project. Other federal, state, and local agencies were consulted throughout the process to address 

specific issues as needed. 

The BLM conducted internal inter-disciplinary meetings as well as a public scoping meeting to solicit input and 

identification of environmental issues and concerns associated with the proposed project. A project kick-off 

meeting was held August 27, 2007, at the BLM facilities in Vernal, Utah. The kick-off meeting included the key 

BLM resource specialists, KMG representatives, and the third-party contractor (AECOM) project management 

team. The purpose of the kick-off meeting was to begin development of alternatives, establish the BLM 

interdisciplinary team communication protocol, discuss scheduling, identify preliminary sources of existing 

information, and review the status of the Project Description and other project information. Following this 

meeting, the BLM developed a Preliminary Interdisciplinary Team Analysis Record Checklist to assess the 

potential impact for the various resource areas (Appendix C). This Checklist is a “living” document and may 

be updated throughout the EIS preparation process, which terminates with the issuance of the ROD by the 

BLM. 

The following Tribes, agencies, and organizations/individuals were contacted during the scoping process for 

input regarding potential concerns in the project area. 

Tribes: 

Ute Mountain Ute 

Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation 

White Mesa Ute Council 

Laguna Pueblo 

Southern Ute Tribal Council 

Ute Indian Tribe 

DEIS 6-1 July 2010 
 

 

Santa Clara Pueblo 

Hopi Tribal Council 

Zia Pueblo
 

Navajo Nation 

Northwestern Band of Shoshone Nation
 

Eastern Shoshone Business Council 

Federal Agencies: 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Army Corps of Engineers 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

State Agencies: 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality 

Utah Department of Transportation 

Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining 

Utah Division of Water Resources 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration 

Utah State Historic Preservation Office 

Local Agencies: 

Uintah County Road Department 

Organizations: 

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance 

Utah Natural Heritage Program 

Refer to Section 1.5 for further discussion regarding participation and coordination with other agencies during 

development of this EIS and during the permitting process. A summary of the consultations to date for 

Section 7 of the ESA and Section 106 of the NHPA are included in Table 6.1-1. 

DEIS 6-2 July 
 2010 
 

 

 

Table 6.1-1 Status of Section 7 and Section 106 Consultation 

Agency Consulted Status Summary to Date 

USFWS A letter requesting to initiate consultation and requesting information on the project 

was sent on October 25, 2007. The USFWS responded on November 30, 2007, 

and it was agreed that the EIS for the project would include adequate information 

and analysis to serve as the Biological Assessment for the project. The USFWS 

has reviewed and commented on both the administrative draft and the preliminary 

draft EIS and all comments have been taken into consideration in the preparation of 

the Draft EIS. Ongoing discussions continue regarding the USFWS primary 

concerns for potential impacts to threatened and endangered fish species and the 

Uinta Basin hookless cactus. 

Utah SHPO In the summer and fall of 2008, a Class III (field survey) inventory was conducted of 

remaining portions of the GNBPA that had not been previously surveyed. The 

results are in the process of being compiled and combined with previous 

inventories conducted in the GNBPA into one report for the proposed project. Once 

completed, the Class III inventory report will be submitted to the BLM Vernal Field 

Office and the Utah SHPO for review. 

Native American Tribes The BLM initiated government-to-government consultation on January 9, 2008, by 

sending letters to 12 Tribal groups. Three of the contacted Tribes have responded 

to date. The Pueblo of Laguna and Navajo Nation indicated that the proposed 

project would have no significant impact on any traditional cultural properties or 

historic properties of importance to the Tribes. The Navajo Nation requested 

notification of any unanticipated discoveries unearthed during the course of the 

project, and the Pueblo of Laguna requested notification in the event any new 

archaeological sites are discovered and artifacts are recovered. The Hopi Tribe 

expressed concern with stone cairn sites previously documented in the GNBPA. At 

the request of the Hopi, the BLM and Director of the Hopi Office of Cultural 

Preservation visited several of the stone cairn sites in the GNBPA. The Director 

currently is preparing a report that will summarize the field visits, provide cultural 

affiliation and function of the sites, and indicate whether additional site visits are 

needed. 

The following Tribes, agencies, and organizations/individuals have received a copy of the Draft EIS or have 

been notified that the public Draft EIS is available for review and comment. 

Federal Agencies: 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Washington Office – Reston, Virginia
 

Uintah and Ouray Agency – Fort Duchesne, Utah
 

Bureau of Land Management 

Washington Office – Washington, D.C. 

Utah State Office – Salt Lake City, Utah
 

Colorado State Office – Denver, Colorado 

Vernal Field Office – Vernal, Utah
 

DEIS 6-3 July 2010 
 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Denver, Colorado 

Provo, Utah 

Federal Depository Library System – Washington, D.C. 

Federal Highway Administration – Salt Lake City, Utah 

Minerals Management Service 

Herndon, Virginia
 

Denver, Colorado 

National Park Service 

Washington Office – Washington, D.C. 

Utah Office – Salt Lake City, Utah 

Dinosaur National Monument – Dinosaur, Colorado 

Natural Resources Conservation Service – Provo, Utah 

Office of Surface Mining – Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Air Force – Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District 

Sacramento, California 

Grand Junction, Colorado 

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Compliance 

Washington, D.C. 

Grand Junction, Colorado 

U.S. Department of Interior 

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

 Washington, D.C. 

 Denver, Colorado 

Natural Resources Library – Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Federal Activities – Washington, D.C. 

Region 8, NEPA Compliance Division – Denver, Colorado 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Division of Environmental Quality – Arlington, Virginia 

Colorado Field Office – Denver, Colorado 

Utah Field Office Ecological Services - West Valley City, Utah 

U.S. Forest Service, Ashley National Forest – Vernal, Utah 

DEIS 6-4 July 2010 
 

U.S. Geological Survey
 

Environmental Affairs Program – Reston, Virginia
 

Region 8 – Denver, Colorado 

State and Regional Agencies: 

Public Land and Policy Coordination Office – Salt Lake City, Utah 

Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources – Vernal, Utah 

Utah Division of State History – Salt Lake City, Utah 

Antiquities Section 

State Historic Preservation Office 

Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration – Salt Lake City, Utah 

Counties: 

Daggett County Commissioners – Manila, Utah 

Duchesne County – Duchesne, Utah 

Commissioners 

Planning & Zoning 

Uintah County – Vernal, Utah 

Commissioners 

Planning Office 

Public Lands Committee
 

Municipalities: 

Vernal Area Chamber of Commerce – Vernal, Utah 

Media: 

Deseret News – Salt Lake City, Utah 

High Country News – Paonia, Colorado 

KNEU Radio – Roosevelt, Utah 

KVEL Radio – Vernal, Utah 

The Salt Lake Tribune – Salt Lake City, Utah 

Uintah Basin Standard – Roosevelt, Utah 

Vernal Express – Vernal, Utah 

Libraries: 

Brigham Young University – Provo, Utah 

DEIS 6-5 July 2010 
Colorado State University Library – Fort Collins, Colorado 

Harold B. Lee Library – Provo, Utah 

J. Willard Marriott Library – Salt Lake City, Utah
 

Uintah County Library – Vernal, Utah
 

Utah State University Library – Logan, Utah 

Elected Officials: 

Senator Bob Bennett 

Salt Lake City, Utah
 

Washington, D.C. 

Senator Orrin Hatch 

Salt Lake City, Utah
 

Washington, D.C. 

Representative Jim Matheson 

Salt Lake City, Utah
 

Washington, D.C. 

Governor Gary Herbert – Salt Lake City, Utah 

Utah State Senator Kevin Van Tassell – Vernal, Utah 

State Representative John Mathis – Vernal, Utah 

Mayor Gary Showalter – Vernal, Utah 

Tribes: 

Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation – Ibapah, Utah 

Eastern Shoshone Business Council – Fort Washakie, Wyoming 

Hopi Tribal Council – Kykotsmovi, Arizona 

Laguna Pueblo – Laguna, New Mexico 

Navajo Nation – Window Rock, Arizona 

Northwestern Band of Shoshone Nation – Brigham City, Utah 

Santa Clara Pueblo – Espanola, New Mexico 

Southern Ute Tribal Council – Ignacio, Colorado 

Ute Indian Tribe – Fort Duchesne, Utah 

Ute Mountain Ute – Towaoc, Colorado 

White Mesa Ute Council – White Mesa, Utah 

Zia Pueblo – Zia Pueblo, New Mexico 

DEIS 6-6 July 2010 
Organizations: 

Center for Native Ecosystems – Denver, Colorado 

Colorado Plateau Archaeological Alliance – Ogden, Utah 

Earth Justice – Denver, Colorado 

Oil & Gas Accountability Project – Durango, Colorado 

Western Land Exchange Project – Seattle, Washington 

Environmental Preservation Fund – Salt Lake City, Utah 

Forest Guardians – Santa Fe, New Mexico 

National Trust for Historic Preservation – Washington, D.C. 

Natural Resource Defense Council – Washington, D.C. 

Nine Mile Canyon Coalition – Price, Utah 

Sierra Club – Salt Lake City, Utah 

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance – Salt Lake City, Utah 

The Nature Conservancy – Salt Lake City, Utah 

The Wilderness Society – Denver, Colorado 

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership 

Boulder, Colorado 

Jackson, Wyoming 

Uintah Mountain Club – Vernal, Utah 

Utah Cattlemen’s Association – Salt Lake City, Utah 

Utah Environmental Congress – Salt Lake City, Utah 

Utah Heritage Foundation – Salt Lake City, Utah 

Utah Historic Trails Consortium – Taylorsville, Utah 

Utah Professional Archaeological Council – Salt Lake City, Utah 

Utah Rivers Council – Salt Lake City, Utah 

Utah Rock Art Research Association – Salt Lake City, Utah 

Businesses: 

AECOM Environment 

Golden, Colorado 

Fort Collins, Colorado 

Alameda Corp. – Book Cliffs Ranch – Roosevelt, Utah 

American Gilsonite Company – Bonanza, Utah 

Bjork, Lindley, & Little – Denver, Colorado 

Budd-Falen Law Offices, LLC – Cheyenne, Wyoming 

Buys & Associates – Littleton, Colorado 

DEIS 6-7 July 2010 
Elcan and Associates, Inc. – Mobile, Alabama 

EOG Resources, Inc. – Denver, Colorado
 

Hiko Bell Mining & Oil Company – Vernal, Utah
 

LEXCO, Inc. – Vernal, Utah
 

OSO Energy Resources Corporation – Durango, Colorado 

Petros Environmental Group, Inc. – Littleton, Colorado
 

Piney Valley Ranches Trust – Craig, Colorado 

QEP Uinta Basin, Inc. – Vernal, Utah
 

R.W. McKamy – Billings, Montana
 

Smiling Lake Consulting – Evergreen, Colorado 

TRC Mariah Association, Inc. – Laramie, Wyoming
 

Ziegler Chemical & Mineral Corp. 

Bonanza, Utah 

Jericho, New York 

Individuals: 

Cindy MacDonald – North Las Vegas, Nevada 

Donald L. Morgan – Palo Alto, California 

John Hunting – Vernal, Utah 

Lane Lasrich – Sandy, Utah 

Larry H. and Susan K. Robinson – Rifle, Colorado 

Larry Q. Hutchins – Knoxville, Pennsylvania 

Lenora & Clifford Smith – Maybelle, Colorado 

Mike Kouris – Kinnear, Wyoming 

Pablo Geronimo – Vernal, Utah 

Wm. R. Robinson – Vernal, Utah 

William R. Robinson – Jensen, Utah 

6.2 Public Involvement 

NEPA requires full disclosure and open public participation in the federal decision making process, including 

those projects proposed by non-federal proponents that require federal approval. There are two key points 

during the development of an EIS that the general public is invited to participate in the process: 1) during the 

scoping period, and 2) during the 30-day review period of the Draft EIS. 

The NOI for the Greater Natural Buttes Project EIS was published in the Federal Register on October 5, 2007. 

This NOI included a project description and BLM contact information. On this same date, the BLM issued a 

press release containing a description of the proposed project; information about the public scoping meeting 

date, time, and location; and BLM contact information. Additionally, a card providing notice of the 30-day public 

scoping period was mailed to the interested parties on the BLM Vernal Field Office’s NEPA mailing list. This 

DEIS 6-8 July 
 2010 
 

 

 

 

 

mailing list included a total of 93 individuals representing federal agencies, state agencies, local agencies, 

elected officials, tribes, the media and libraries in the vicinity, as well as other interested stakeholders. 

The public scoping meeting held in Vernal, Utah on October 24, 2007, was attended by 7 individuals not 

affiliated with the BLM, KMG, or the third party NEPA contractor (AECOM). The official scoping period ended 

November 5, 2007. Nine written responses were received during the scoping period in response to this project. 

These include responses from: 

•	 Bjork, Lindley, and Little Lawyers, PC on behalf of a number of oil and gas producers that explore and 

operate on public lands in Utah; 

•	 Budd-Falen Law Offices, L.L.C. on behalf of William Robinson; 

• EOG Resources, Inc.; 

•	 State of Utah, Office of the Governor; 

•	 Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership; 

•	 Uintah County Commission; 

•	 USEPA, Region VIII; 

•	 BIA, Western Region; and 

•	 Mr. Larry Hutchins. 

The issues and concerns identified by the public during the scoping period are summarized in Section 1.6. 

The release of this Draft EIS will be followed by a 45-day comment period. Comments received will be 

reviewed and substantive comments will receive a response. Substantive comments and corresponding 

responses will be provided as an appendix to the Final EIS. Comments will be used to modify, clarify, and/or 

correct the Final EIS as appropriate. 

6.3 List of Preparers and Reviewers 

Table 6.3-1 identifies the BLM staff members on the EIS interdisciplinary team for the Project. 

Table 6.3-1 BLM Interdisciplinary Team 

Resource Name 

NEPA Coordinator Stephanie Howard 

Geology and Minerals Jerry Kenczka 

Paleontology Blaine Phillips 

Water Resources/Flood Plains Stephanie Howard 

Air Quality Craig Nicholls, Leonard Herr, Bill Stringer 

Soils Steve Strong 

Vegetation Clayton Newberry 

Wetlands/Riparian Areas Stephanie Howard 

Areas of Special Designation (ACECs, Natural Areas, etc.) Jason West 

Invasive and Non-native Species Jessie Salix 

Special Status Plants Jessie Salix 

Wildlife and Fisheries Scott Ackerman 

Special Status Animals Scott Ackerman 

DEIS	 6-9 July 
 2010 
Table 6.3-1 BLM Interdisciplinary Team 

Resource Name 

Land Use and Access Paul Rodriquez 

Livestock Management and Grazing/Rangeland Health Mark Wimmer, Michael Cutler 

Recreation and BLM Natural Areas Jason West 

Wilderness Characteristics Jason West 

Visual Resources Chuck Patterson 

Socioeconomics Stephanie Howard, Bill Stevens 

Transportation Paul Rodriquez 

Cultural Resources Blaine Phillips 

Native American Concerns Blaine Phillips 

Environmental Justice Stephanie Howard 

Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste Stephanie Howard 

Fuels and Fire Management Steven Strong 

AECOM is the third-party environmental contractor responsible for preparing the EIS under the direction of the 

BLM. The responsibilities and experience of the individual team members are summarized in Table 6.3-2. 

Table 6.3-2 Preparers/Reviewers for AECOM and Subcontractors 

Name / Affiliation Education Responsibility 

Mark Degner 

AECOM 

B.S. Geology, 1982, University of Kansas Senior Project Advisor, Project 

Description, Alternatives, Review 

Dan Gregory 

AECOM 

M.S. Geology, 1982, Colorado State University 

B.S. Geology, 1974, Colorado College 

Project Manager, Project 

Description, Alternatives, 

Cumulative, Review 

Molly Giere 

AECOM 

M.B.A. Business Administration, 2002, University 

of Dayton 

B.S. Biology, 1988, The Ohio State University 

Project Coordinator, Project 

Description, Alternatives, Public 

Participation 

Richard Bell 

PetrosEnvironmental 

Masters studies – Agronomy/Soil Science, 

Colorado State University 

B.A. Distributive Major: Biology, Geology, 

Chemistry; 1974, University of Colorado 

NEPA Process Advisor, Project 

Description, Alternatives, Soils 

Joe Fetzer 

PetrosEnvironmental 

M.S. Geology, 1973, The Ohio State University 

B.S. Geology, 1970, The Ohio State University 

Oil and Gas Technical Advisor, 

Project Description, Alternatives, 

Geology, Paleontology, Hazardous 

Materials and Solid Waste 

Vince Scheetz 

AECOM 

M.S. Systems Management, 1970, University of 

Southern California 

B.S. Mathematics / Meteorology, 1964, Regis 

University, Denver 

Air Quality 

Bruce MacDonald 

AECOM 

Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, 1988, Colorado State 

University 

M.S. Atmospheric Science, 1974, Colorado State 

University 

B.A. Mathematics, 1967, North Dakota State 

University 

Air Quality Technical Support 

Document 

DEIS 6-10
 July 2010 
 

 

 

 

Table 6.3-2 Preparers/Reviewers for AECOM and Subcontractors 

Name / Affiliation Education Responsibility 

Eric Hodek 

AECOM 

M.B.A. Business Administration, 2008, University 

of Colorado 

B.S. Environmental Sciences,1997, University of 

Oklahoma 

Air Quality Technical Support 

Document 

Kim Munson 

AECOM 

M.A. Anthropology, 1997, Colorado State 

University 

B.A. Anthropology, 1994, Colorado 

Cultural Resources and Native 

American Concerns 

Steven Graber 

AECOM 

B.S. Natural Resources Management, 2002, 

Colorado State University 

B.A. Economics, 2002, Colorado State University 

Land Use, Recreation, 

Transportation 

Erin Bergquist 

AECOM 

M.S. Ecology, 2005, Colorado State University 

B.S. Environmental Studies and Economics, 1998, 

University of Colorado 

Range Resources, Vegetation, 

Special Status Plants, Wetlands 

Ron Dutton 

Sammons/Dutton, LLC 

M.S. Economics, 1976, University of Wyoming 

B.S. Economics, 1974, University of Wyoming 

Socioeconomics 

Merlyn Paulson 

AECOM 

MLA II Landscape Architecture and Geographic 

Information Systems, 1975, Harvard University 

BLA Landscape Architecture and Environmental 

Planning, 1972, Utah State University 

Visual Resources, GIS 

Jim Burrell 

AECOM 

M.S. Civil Engineering, 1989, Colorado State 

University 

B.S. Forest Management, 1974, Colorado State 

University 

Water Resources 

Jen Ashlin 

AECOM 

B.S. Geology and Environmental Science, 1999, 

University of California 

Groundwater 

Matt Brekke 

AECOM 

B.S. Wildlife Biology, 2006,Colorado State 

University 

Wildlife, Fisheries, Special Status 

Animals 

Chris Gayer 

Grasslands Consulting 

B.S. Biology, 2001, Metropolitan State College Fisheries, Special Status Species 

(Plants and Animals) 

Todd White 

AECOM 

MDP Masters in Community Planning, 1999, 

University of Cincinnati 

MEn Masters in Environmental Science, 1992, 

Miami University 

M.A. Anthropology, 1989, University of Colorado 

B.A. Geology, 1989, Miami University 

GIS, Qualitative Analysis 

Peggy Roberts 

AECOM 

M.S. Technical Communications (in progress), 

Colorado State University 

B.J. Journalism/Public Relation, 1997, The 

University of Texas at Austin 

Public Outreach 

Debbie Thompson 

AECOM 

Colorado State University, coursework 

A.A.S. Business Secretary, 1985, Aims Community 

College 

Document Production 

DEIS 6-11 July 2010 
7.0 Glossary 

Acre-foot Volume of water required to cover 1 acre to a depth of 1 foot; 

equivalent to a volume of 43,560 cubic feet, approximately 325,829 

gallons, or approximately 7,758 barrels of water. 

Alluvial Pertaining to material or processes associated with transportation or 

deposition of soil and rock by flowing water (e.g., streams and rivers). 

Alluvium Unconsolidated or poorly consolidated gravel, sands, and clays 

deposited by streams 

Ambient noise Total, all-encompassing noise associated with a given environment and 

time. 

Aquifer A body of rock that is sufficiently permeable to conduct groundwater 

and to yield economically significant quantities of water to wells and 

springs. 

Archaeology The scientific study of material remains (as fossil relics, artifacts, and 

monuments) of past human life and activities. 

Barrel Volume of water equivalent to 42 gallons of water; approximately 

7,758 barrels are equivalent to 1 acre-foot of water. 

Biological soil crusts The community of organisms living at the surface of desert soils. Major 

components are cyanobacteria, green algae, microfungi, mosses, 

liverworts, and lichens. 

Blowout preventer A large valve at the top of a well that may be closed if the drilling crew 

loses control of formation fluids. 

Borehole The wellbore itself, including the openhole or uncased portion of the 

well. Borehole may refer to the inside diameter of the wellbore wall, the 

rock face that bounds the drilled hole. 

Botany A branch of biology dealing with plant life. 

Casing annulus The space between the wellbore and casing where fluid can flow. 

Completion A generic term used to describe the assembly of downhole tubulars 

and equipment required to enable safe and efficient production from an 

oil or gas well. 

Condensate A low-density, high-API gravity liquid hydrocarbon phase that generally 

occurs in association with natural gas. Its presence as a liquid phase 

depends on temperature and pressure conditions in the reservoir 

allowing condensation of liquid from vapor. 

Critical habitat Habitat that is present in minimum amounts and is the determining 

factor in the potential for population maintenance and growth. 

DEIS 7-1 July 2010 
Crude oil A general term for unrefined petroleum or liquid petroleum. 

Cumulative effects The combined environmental impacts that accrue over time and space 

from a series of similar or related individual actions, contaminants, or 

projects. Although each action may seem to have a negligible impact, 

the combined effect can be significant. Included are activities of the 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future; synonymous with 

cumulative impacts. 

dBA A-weighting. The most commonly used frequency weighting measure; 

simulates human sound perception and correlates well with human 

perception of the annoying aspects of noise. 

Depletion The drop in reservoir pressure or hydrocarbon reserves resulting from 

production of reservoir fluids. 

Derrick The structure used to support the crown blocks and the drillstring of a 

drilling rig. Derricks are usually pyramidal in shape, and offer a good 

strength-to-weight ratio. 

Direct impacts Impacts that are caused by the action and occur at the same time and 

place (40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.7); synonymous with 

direct effects. 

Directional drill A means of subterranean drilling that can be carried out and controlled 

in terms of depth and direction. 

Disturbed area An area where natural vegetation and soils have been removed. 

Drill cuttings Small pieces of rock that break away due to the action of the bit teeth. 

Dry hole A wellbore that has not encountered hydrocarbons in economically 

producible quantities. 

Endangered species Any species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. Plant or animal species identified by the Secretary 

of the Interior as endangered in accordance with the 1973 Endangered 

Species Act. 

Evapotranspiration The portion of precipitation returned to the air through evaporation and 

plant transpiration. 

Fauna Animal life. 

Floodplain That portion of a river valley, adjacent to the channel, that is built of 

sediments deposited during the present regimen of the stream and that 

is covered with water when the river overflows its banks at flood 

stages. The 100-year floodplain is that portion of the river valley 

adjacent to the channel, which has a 1 in 100 chance of being 

inundated in a given year. 

Flora Plant life. 

DEIS 7-2 July 2010 
Formation A body of rock that is sufficiently distinctive and continuous that it can 

be mapped. In stratigraphy, a formation is a body of strata of 

predominantly one type or combination of types; multiple formations 

form groups, and subdivisions of formations are members. 

Fugitive dust Dust particles suspended randomly in the air from road travel, 

excavation, and rock loading operations. 

Gathering pipeline Typically smaller diameter pipelines connecting production wells to 

central gathering locations, such as tank batteries for hydrocarbon 

liquids or compressor stations for natural gas. For natural gas, 

gathering pipelines are upstream of transmission pipelines, which are 

upstream of distribution pipelines. 

Hydrocarbon resources Naturally occurring organic compounds comprising hydrogen and 

carbon. The most common hydrocarbons are natural gas, oil, and coal. 

Impact A modification in the status of the environment brought about by the 

Proposed Action or an alternative. 

Indirect impacts Impacts that are caused by the action and are later in time or farther 

removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable (40 Code of 

Federal Regulations 1508.8); synonymous with indirect effects. 

Injection well A well in which fluids are injected rather than produced, the primary 

objective typically being to maintain reservoir pressure. Two main types 

of injection are gas and water. 

Intermittent stream A stream that flows only part of the time or during part of the year. 

Irretrievable Applies primarily to the lost production of renewable natural resources 

during the life of the project. 

Irreversible Applies primarily to the use of nonrenewable resources, such as 

minerals, cultural resources, wetlands, or to those factors that are 

renewable only over long time spans, such as soil productivity. 

Irreversible also includes loss of future options. 

Lek An assembly area where grouse conduct display and courtship 

behavior. 

Migration The long-distance movement of wildlife, usually between breeding and 

non-breeding areas. 

Mitigate, Mitigation To cause to become less severe or harmful; actions to avoid, minimize, 

rectify, reduce or eliminate, and compensate for impacts to 

environmental resources. 

DEIS 7-3 July 2010 
Mud A term that is generally synonymous with drilling fluid and that 

encompasses most fluids used in hydrocarbon drilling operations, 

especially fluids that contain significant amounts of suspended solids, 

emulsified water, or oil. 

National Environmental Policy Act The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969; the national 

charter for protecting the environment. NEPA establishes policy, sets 

goals, and provides means for carrying out the policy. Regulations from 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1500-1508 implement the act. 

National Pollutant Discharge A part of the Clean Water Act that requires point source dischargers to 

Elimination System (NPDES) obtain Elimination System permits. These permits are referred to as 

NPDES permits and are administered by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

National Register of Historic Places A list, maintained by the National Park Service, of areas that have been 

(NRHP) designated as being of historical significance. 

Native species Plants that originated in the area in which they are found (i.e., they 

naturally occur in that area). 

Noise Unwanted sound; one that interferes with one’s hearing of something; a 

sound that lacks agreeable musical quality or is noticeably unpleasant. 

Paleontology A science dealing with the life of past geological periods as known from 

fossil remains. 

Perforation The communication tunnel created from the casing or liner into the 

reservoir formation, through which oil or gas is produced. 

Perennial stream A stream or reach of a stream that flows throughout the year. 

Plug and abandon To prepare a well to be closed permanently, usually after either logs 

determine there is insufficient hydrocarbon potential to complete the 

well, or after production operations have drained the reservoir. 

Primary production or recovery The means by which the initial reservoir production is achieved, such 

as natural production from a gas-drive reservoir. In many cases, a 

secondary recovery method, such as waterflood, is required to 

maintain a viable reservoir production rate. 

Produced water Groundwater pumped to the surface during reservoir production. 

Production tubing A wellbore tubular used to produce reservoir fluids. Production tubing is 

assembled with other completion components to make up the 

production string. 

Raptor Birds of prey, such as hawks, eagles, and owls. 

DEIS 7-4 July 2010 
Reclamation Rehabilitation of a disturbed area to make it acceptable for designated 

uses. This process consists of two stages, interim and final: 

Interim Reclamation – Involves shaping, stabilizing, re-vegetating, or 

otherwise treating disturbed areas in order to provide a self-sustaining 

and productive use of the land during production operations. 

Final Reclamation – Involves returning the land to a condition after 

production and operations cease that approximates the condition prior 

to disturbance and maintains a stable and productive condition 

compatible with the land use. 

Reserve pit An earthen-bermed storage area for discarded drilling mud. 

Reservoir A subsurface body of rock having sufficient porosity and permeability to 

store and transmit fluids. 

Rig The machine used to drill a wellbore. The rig includes virtually 

everything except living quarters. Major components of the rig include 

the mud tanks, the mud pumps, the derrick or mast, the drawworks, the 

rotary table or topdrive, the drillstring, the power generation equipment 

and auxiliary equipment. 

Right-of-Way (ROW) Strip of land or corridor designated via an administrative grant through 

which a pipeline, power line, access road, or maintenance road would 

pass. 

Riparian Situated on or pertaining to the bank of a river, stream, or other body of 

water. Riparian is normally used to refer to plants of all types that grow 

along streams, rivers, or at spring and seep sites. 

Roost A place where birds customarily rest. 

Runoff That part of precipitation that appears in surface streams; precipitation 

that is not retained on the site where it falls and is not absorbed by the 

soil. 

Scoping Discussion with and disclosure to agencies and the public with regard 

to a project or undertaking wherein areas of concern or issues to be 

addressed in a NEPA document are determined. 

Sediment Material suspended in or settling to the bottom of a liquid. Sediment 

input comes from natural sources, such as soil erosion and rock 

weathering, as well as construction activities or anthropogenic sources, 

such as forest or agricultural practices. 

Sediment yield Quantification of the amount of sediment transported. 

DEIS 7-5 July 2010 
Seismic Pertaining to waves of elastic energy, such as that transmitted by 

P-waves and S-waves, in the frequency range of approximately 1 to 

100 Hz. Seismic energy is studied by scientists to interpret the 

composition, fluid content, extent and geometry of rocks in the 

subsurface. Also – of, subject to, or caused by an earthquake; of or 

relating to an earth vibration caused by something else. 

Seismicity Relative degree to which an area is subject to earth movement caused 

by earthquakes or other seismic activity. 

Shale A fine-grained, fissile, detrital sedimentary rock formed by consolidation 

of clay- and silt-sized particles into thin, relatively impermeable layers. 

It is the most abundant sedimentary rock. 

Stratigraphy Form, arrangement, geographic distribution, chronological succession, 

classification, and relationships of rock strata. 

Tertiary The geologic span of time between 65 and 3 to 2 million years ago. 

Threatened species Any species of plant or animal that is likely to become endangered 

within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 

range. 

Visual resource The composite of basic terrain, geologic features, water features, 

vegetation patterns, and land use effects that typify a land unit and 

influence the visual appeal the unit may have for viewers. 

Water disposal well A well used for disposal or injection of produced water or other fluids. 

Watershed A region or area bounded peripherally by a water parting and draining 

ultimately to a particular watercourse or body of water. 

Well casing Large-diameter pipe lowered into an openhole and cemented in place. 

The well designer must design casing to withstand a variety of forces, 

such as collapse, burst, and tensile failure, as well as chemically 

aggressive brines. Casing is run to protect fresh-water formations, 

isolate a zone of lost returns or isolate formations with significantly 

different pressure gradients. 

Well pad A temporary drilling site, usually constructed of local materials such as 

gravel, shell or even wood. After the drilling operation is over, most of 

the pad is usually removed or contoured. 

Wellbore Synonym: borehole. 

Wellhead The surface termination of a wellbore that incorporates facilities for 

installing casing hangers during the well construction phase. 

DEIS 7-6 July 2010 
Wetlands Areas that are inundated by surface or groundwater with a frequency 

sufficient to support (and under normal circumstances do or would 

support) a prevalence of vegetation or aquatic life that requires 

saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and 

reproduction. 

Workover The process of performing major maintenance or remedial treatments 

on an oil or gas well. In many cases, workover implies the removal and 

replacement of the production tubing string after the well has been 

killed and a workover rig has been placed on location. 

Zone A slab of reservoir rock bounded above and below by impermeable 

rock. 

DEIS	 7-7 July 2010 
8.0 References 

Alderks, D. 2006. Paleontological Class I Report: Archy Bench, Asphalt Wash, Big Pack Mountain NW, Ouray, 

Red Wash, Red Wash SE, Red Was SW, and Red Wash NW Topographic Quadrangles, Uintah 

County, Utah. Intermountain Paleo-Consulting, Vernal, Utah. November 18, 2006. 

Aldridge, C. L. 2005. Identifying Habitats for Persistence of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) in Alberta, Canada. PhD Dissertation. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. 

American Petroleum Institute (API). 2004. Compendium of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Methodologies for the 

Oil and Gas Industry. February 2004. 

Andren, H. 1992. Corvid Density and Nest Predation in Relation to Forest Fragmentation: A Landscape 

Perspective. Ecology 73:794-804. 

Antonio, J. E. 2008. Governor, Pueblo of Laguna. Response to Bureau of Land Management Vernal Field 

Office Manager dated January 18, 2008. 

Avery, M. L. and A. C. Genchi. 2004. Avian Perching Deterrents on Ultrasonic Sensors at Airport Wind-shear 

Alert Systems. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:718-725. 

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 2006. Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power 

Lines: The State of the Art in 2006. Edison Electric Institute, APLIC, and the California Energy 

Commission. Washington, D.C. and Sacramento, California. 

. 1994. Mitigating Bird Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1994. Edison Electric 

Institute. Washington, D.C. 78 pp. 

Baker Hughes Incorporated. 2008. Rig Count Mapping for North America – Uinta Basin. Internet website: 

http://gis.bakerhughesdirect.com/RigCounts/default2.aspx. Accessed March 2008. 

Baker, W. L. and G. K. Dillon. 2000. Plant and vegetation responses to edges in the southern Rocky 

Mountains. In: Forest Fragmentation in the Southern Rocky Mountains. R. L. Knight, F. W. Smith, 

S. W. Buskirk, W. H. Romme, and W. L. Baker, eds. University Press of Colorado. Boulder, Colorado. 

Pp. 221-245. 

Bedell, S. 2008. Uintah County Roads Department, Uintah County, Utah. Email correspondence with 

S. Graber, AECOM, dated January 14, 2008. 

Behle, W. H. 1981. The Birds of Northeastern Utah. Utah Museum of Natural History Occasional Publication 

No. 2. University of Utah. Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Behnke, R. J. 1992. Native Trout of Western North America. American Fisheries Society Monograph 6. 

American Fisheries Society Publishing. Bethesda, Maryland. 

Belnap, J. and J. S. Gardner. 1993. Soil Microstructure in Soils of the Colorado Plateau: The Role of the 

Cyanobacterium Microcoleus vaginatus. Great Basin Naturalist 53(1): 40-47. 

Belnap, J., J. H. Kaltenecker, R. Rosentreter, J. Williams, S. Leonard, and D. Eldridge. 2001. Biological Soil 

Crusts: Ecology and Management. Technical Reference 1730-2. United States Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Geological Survey. 

DEIS 8-1 July 2010 
 

Bestgen, K. R., K. A. Zelasko, and C. T. Wilcox. 2007. Non-native Fish Removal in the Green River, Lodore 

and Whirlpool Canyons, 2002-2006, and Fish Community Response to Altered Flow and Temperature 

Regimes, and Non-native Fish Expansion. Final Report. Colorado River Recovery Implementation 

Program Project Number 115, Larval Fish Laboratory Contribution 149. 97 pp. 

Black, H. L. and J. Auger. 2004. Black Bears of Utah’s East Tavaputs Plateau. Final Report for Utah Division 

of Wildlife Resources and Brigham Young University. December 2004. 

Boeker, E. L. and T. D. Ray. 1971. Golden eagle population studies in the southwest. The Condor 73:463-467. 

Bon, R. L. and K. A. Krahulec. 2006. 2005 Summary of Mineral Activity in Utah. Utah Geologic Survey 

website: http://ugs.utah.gov/utahgeo/rockmineral/activity/min2005.pdf. Accessed October 2007. 

Bon, R. L. and S. Wakefield. 2008. Large Mines in Utah 2008: Open-File Report 515. Utah Geological Survey 

website: http://geology.utah.gov/online/ofr/ofr-515.pdf. Accessed March 25, 2008. 

. 2006. Small Mines in Utah 2005: Open File Report 405. Utah Geological Survey website: 

http://geology.utah.gov/online/ofr/ofr-405/ofr-405txt.pdf. Accessed March 24, 2008. 

Bonner, E. 2008. Mineral Resource Specialist, Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands (USITLA). Personal 

communication with J. Burrell, Senior Hydrologist, AECOM, dated December 29, 2008. 

Boyle, J. M., K. J. Covay, and D. P. Bauer. 1984. Quantity and Quality of Streamflow in the White River Basin, 

Colorado and Utah. U.S. Geological Survey Water-resources Investigations Report 84-4022. Denver, 

Colorado. 

Braun, C. E. 1986. Changes in sage grouse lek counts with advent of surface coal mining. Proceedings: 

Issues and Technology in the Management of Impacted Western Wildlife. R. D. Comer, T. G. 

Baumann, P. Davis, J. W. Monarch, J. Todd, S. VanGytenbeck, D. Willis, and J. Woodling, eds. 

Thorne Ecological Institute. Boulder, Colorado. 2:227-231. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2009a. Green River District Reclamation Guidelines for Reclamation 

Plans. Instruction Memorandum No. GR-2009-002. Green River District, Vernal, Utah. 

. 2009b. Vernal Field Office Surface Disturbing Weed Policy. Instruction Memorandum No. 

UTG010-2010-001. Green River District, Vernal, Utah. 

. 2008a. BLM National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Handbook, H-1790-1. Washington, D.C. 

January 2008. 

. 2008b. Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan. BLM-UT-PL-09-003-1610. 

Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah. October 2008. 

. 2008c. Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Vernal 

Field Office, Vernal, Utah. August 2008. 

. 2008d. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Biological Assessment, EOG Resources, Inc. 

Chapita Wells-Stagecoach Area Natural Gas Development. EIS UTU-080-2005-0010. Vernal Field 

Office, Vernal, Utah. Modified January 2008. 

. 2008e. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Greater Deadman Bench Oil and Gas Producing 

Region. UT-080-2003-0369V. Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah. January 2008. 

DEIS 8-2 July 2010 
. 2008f. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments/Record of Decision (ROD) for Oil Shale 

and Tar Sands Resources to Address Land Use Allocations in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming and 

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. BLM-WO-GI-09-001-3900. Washington, C.C. 

November 2008. 

. 2008g. Enduring Resources’ Big Pack Environmental Assessment. UT-080-06-488. Vernal Field 

Office, Vernal, Utah. December 2008. 

. 2008h. West Tavaputs Plateau Natural Gas Full Field Development Plan, Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement. UT-070-05-055. Price Field Office, Price, Utah. February 2008. 

. 2008i. XTO Energy’s River Bend Unit Infill Development Environmental Assessment and Biological 

Assessment. UT-080-07-772. Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah. December 2008. 

. 2007a. Oil and Gas and Mining Online Map Information. GeoCommunicator website: 

http://www.geocommunicator.gov/GeoComm/index.shtm. Accessed November 12, 2007. 

. 2007b. Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) System for Paleontological Resources on Public 

Lands. Instructional Memorandum 2008-009. Washington, D.C. 

. 2007c. BLM Utah State Office. Vernal Recreation - White River. Internet website: 

http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/vernal/recreation_/white_river.html. Accessed November 12, 2007. 

. 2007d. Environmental Assessment for Oil Shale Research, Development and Demonstration Project, 

White River Mine, Uintah County, Utah. UT-080-06-280. Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah. April 2007. 

. 2007e. Habitat Initiative Work Continues in the Unita Basin. News Release. Utah BLM State Office, 

Utah. March 1, 2007. Internet website: http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/info/newsroom/2007/03/ 

habitat_initiative.html. Accessed July 21, 2009. 

. 2007f. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation Treatments Using 

Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States. BLM Nevada State Office. 

June 29, 2007. 

. 2006a. Utah NEPA Guidebook. March 2006. 

. 2006b. Kerr-McGee’s Bonanza Area Environmental Assessment. UT-080-2006-240. Vernal Field 

Office, Vernal, Utah. October 2006. 

. 2006c. Kerr-McGee’s Love Unit Environmental Assessment and Biological Assessment. UT-080­

2006-253. Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah. December 2006. 

. 2006d. BLM News, December 15, 2006: Interior Department Issues Oil Shale Research, 

Development and Demonstration Leases for Public Lands in Colorado. Internet website: 

http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/BLM_Information/newsroom/2006/OilShaleLeaseIssue.html. Accessed 

November 2006. 

. 2006e. BLM News, March 31, 2006: Utah BLM’s May Oil and Gas Lease Sale Set to be Largest 

Ever. Internet website: http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/info/newsroom/2006/03/utah_blm_s_may_oil.html. 

Accessed November 2006. 

. 2005. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision, Castle Peak and Eightmile Flat 

Oil and Gas Expansion Project, UT-080-2002-168. Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah. 

DEIS 8-3 July 2010 
 

. 2002a. Mineral Potential Report for the Vernal Planning Area. Prepared for the Vernal BLM Field 

Office, Vernal, Utah. October 2002. Internet website: http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/vernal/planning/ 

mineral_potential.html. Accessed March 25, 2008. 

. 2002b. Guidance to Address Environmental Justice (EJ) in Land Use Plans and Related National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents. Instruction Memorandum No 2002-164 dated May 2, 

2002. Washington, D.C. 

. 1997a. Coastal Oil and Gas Corporation Natural Buttes Unit Environmental Assessment. EA No. 

1997-13. Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah. June 1997. 

. 1997b. Bureau of Land Management Utah Public Lands Health Standards. 

. 1986. BLM Visual Rating Handbook H-8431-1. 

. 1975. Environmental Analysis Record, Oil and Gas Leasing Program, Vernal District, Utah. Signed 

June 23, 1975. 

Burke, M.J.W. and Grime, J.P. 1996. An Experimental Study of Plant Community Invasibility. Ecology 77, 

776-790. 

Burr, S., D. Blahna, D. Reiter, and M. Butkus. 2001. A Statewide Telephone Survey of Utah Residents’ 

Attitudes toward Recreational Trails. Institute for Outdoor Recreation and Tourism. Utah State 

University. November 2001. 

Buys & Associates, Inc. 2006a. Spring 2006 Raptor Survey Report for Kerr McGee’s Love Unit Project Area. 

Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management Vernal Field Office and Kerr McGee Oil & Gas LLC. 

June 2006. 

. 2006b. 2006 Raptor Survey Report for Kerr McGee’s Proposed Greater Natural Buttes Pipeline. 

Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management Vernal Field Office and Kerr McGee Oil & Gas LLC. 

October 2006. 

. 2000. Final Environmental Assessment of Coastal’s Proposed Development of the Ouray Field, 

Uintah County, Utah. Prepared for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Uintah and Ouray Agency, Fort 

Duchesne, Utah. January 2000. 

Cashion, W. B. 1982. Descriptions of Four Stratigraphic Sections of Parts of the Green River and Uinta 

Formations in the Eastern Uinta Basin: Uintah County, Utah, and Rio Blanco County, Colorado. Open 

File Report 83-17. U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, Virginia. 

. 1973. Geologic and Structure Map of the Grand Junction Quadrangle, Colorado and Utah, 

Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-736. U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, Virginia. 

. 1967. Geology and fuel resources of the Green River Formation southeastern Uinta Basin, Utah and 

Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 518. 48 p. 

Clark, T. W. T. M. Campbell III, M. H. Schroeder, and L. Richardson. 1988. Handbook of Methods for Locating 

Black-Footed Ferrets. Bureau of Land Management Wildlife Technical Bulletin No. 1. Cheyenne, 

Wyoming. Revised 1988. 

Clem, K. 1985. Oil and Gas Production Summary of the Uinta Basin, in M. D. Picard, Editor, Geology and 

Energy Resources, Uinta Basin of Utah, Utah Geological Association, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

DEIS 8-4 July 2010 
Cole, E. K., M. D. Pope, and R. G. Anthony. 1997. Effects of Road Management on Movement and Survival of 

Roosevelt Elk. Journal of Wildlife Management 61(4):1115-1126. 

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). 2007. Colorado 2006 Air Quality Data 

Report. Denver, Colorado. Internet website: http://apcd.state.co.us/documents/techdocs.html. 

Accessed 2007. 

Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2008. Colorado Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Plan. Colorado 

Greater Sage-grouse Steering Committee, Denver, Colorado. 

Connelly, J. W., S. T. Knick, M. A. Schroeder, and S. J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation Assessment of Greater 

Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

Unpublished Report. Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to Manage Sage Grouse 

Populations and Their Habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):967-985. 

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater 

Habitats of the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-79/31. 

December 1979. 

Crist, L. 2007. Utah Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Letter to M. Brekke, AECOM Wildlife 

Biologist dated November 30, 2007. 

D’Antonio, C. M., J. M. Levine, and M. Thomsen. 2001. Ecosystem Resistance to Invasion and the Role of 

Propagule Supply: A California Perspective. Journal of Mediterranean Ecology 2, 233-245. 

Dinosaurland Travel Board. 2007. Dinosaurland: Lodging - Motels/Guest Ranches. Internet website: 

http://www.dinoland.com/motels.html. Accessed March 2007. 

Doelling, H. H. and R. L. Bon. 1990. Resource Maps of Utah. In: Energy and Mineral Resources of Utah, 

M. Lee Allison Editor, 1990 Guidebook, Utah Geological Association, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Doherty, K. E., D. E. Naugle, B. L. Walker, and J. M. Graham. 2008. Greater Sage-grouse Winter Habitat 

Selection and Energy Development. Journal of Wildlife Management 72(1):187-195. 

Duchesne County. 2006a. Sheriff’s Department Information. Internet website: 

http://www.duchesnegov.net/sheriff/sheriff.html#sheriff’sofficeinformation. Accessed November 2006. 

. 2006b. Fire and Emergency Management. Internet website: 

http://www.duchesnegov.net/emergency/emergency.html#SERVICE. Accessed November 2006. 

. 2005. Duchesne County General Plan: County Policies, Objectives and Action Steps. 1997 

(amended 1998, 2005). Internet website: http://www.duchesnegov.net/planning/ 

generalplandocument.pdf. Accessed March 2007. 

Duchesne County Chamber of Commerce. 2007. Recreation and Hospitality – Recreation Facilities. Internet 

website: http://duchesne.net/recreation. Accessed October 5, 2007. 

Duchesne County School District. 2006. Financial Statements, Year Ended June 30, 2006. Internet website: 

http://www.sao.state.ut.us/lgr/school/2005/05sfdusd.pdf. Accessed October 13, 2006. 

DEIS 8-5 July 2010 
Duchesne County Special Service District #2. 2004. General Purpose Financial Statements, Year Ending 

December 31, 2004. Internet website: http://www.sao.state.ut.us/lgr/special/2004/04dfdsd2.pdf. 

Accessed November 9, 2007. 

Farmer, N. 2007. Executive Director, Dinosaurland Travel Board, Vernal, Utah. Personal communication with 

L. Levy, Lloyd Levy Consulting, LLC, dated October 4, 2007. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2005. National Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance 

Definitions - Frequently Asked Questions for Engineers, Surveyors, and Architects. Internet website: 

http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/fhm/fq_genen.shtm#en14. Accessed January 2009. 

. 2001. Emergency Management and Assistance – Definitions. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 44, 

Volume 1, Section 59.1, Revised as of October 1, 2001. U. S. Government Printing Office, 

Washington, DC. 

. 1977. Map Service Center, Flood Hazard Zone Maps: Uintah County, Utah unincorporated areas. 

Internet website: http://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ 

FemaWelcomeView?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=-1. Accessed November 12, 2007. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2009. Gas – Industry Activities. Internet website: 

http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/indus-act/pipelines.asp. Accessed May 2009. 

Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Workgroup (FLAG). 2000. Phase I Report. 

December 2000. 

Fenneman, N. 1931. Physiography of the Western United States. McGraw-Hill, New York. 

Fitzgerald, J. P., C. A. Meaney, and D. M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. University Press of 

Colorado Publishing, Niwot, Colorado. 

Forman, R. T. and L. E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and Their Major Ecological Effects. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 

29: 207-231. 

Franczyk, K. J., T. D. Fouch, R. C. Johnson, C. M. Molenaar, and W. A. Cobban. 1992. Cretaceous and 

Tertiary Paleogeographic Reconstructions for the Uinta-Piceance Basin Study Area, Colorado and 

Utah. Bulletin 1787-Q. U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, Virginia. 

Gelbard, J. L. and J. Belnap. 2003. Roads as Conduits for Exotic Plant Invasions in a Semiarid Landscape. 

Conservation Biology 17(2): 420-432. 

Godfrey, E. B. and V. L. Bagley. 1994. Alternative Measures of Livestock Dependency. In: Current Issues in 

Rangeland Economics – 1994, N. R. Rimbey and D. E. Isaak (eds.), 9-16. Idaho Agricultural 

Experiment Station, University of Idaho. Moscow, Idaho. 

Go-Utah.com. 2007. Vernal - Camping. Internet website: http://www.go-utah.com/Vernal/Camping. Accessed 

October 2007. 

Graham, R. T., R. L. Rodriguez, K. M. Paulin, R. L. Player, A. P. Heap, and R. Williams. 1999. The Northern 

Goshawk in Utah: Habitat Assessment and Management Recommendations. General Technical 

Report RMRS-GTR-22; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Ogden, Utah. 

DEIS 8-6 July 2010 
Grasslands Consulting, Inc. (Grasslands). 2008a. Unpublished Wonsits 3D Seismic Uinta Basin Hookless 

Cactus Survey Report. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, Questar Exploration and 

Production, and Bureau of Indian Affairs. Denver, Colorado. June 2008. 

. 2008b. Unpublished Ouray 3D Seismic Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus Survey Report. Prepared for 

the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Anadarko Petroleum Corporation. 

Denver, Colorado. July 2008. 

Gunnell, G. and W. Bartels. 1999. Middle Eocene Vertebrates from the Uinta Basin, Utah, and Their 

Relationship with Faunas from the Southern Green River Basin, Wyoming, In: Vertebrate 

Paleontology in Utah, D. Gillette (ed.), 433-437. Miscellaneous Publication 99-1, Utah Geological 

Survey, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Hackford, D. 2008. Field Inspector, Oil and Gas Program, Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining. Personal 

communication with J. Burrell, Senior Hydrologist, AECOM, dated December 30, 2008. 

Hail, J. 1987. Chart Showing Intertongued Units of the Eocene Green River and Uinta Formations, 

Northwestern Piceance Creek Basin, Northwestern Colorado. Miscellaneous Investigations Series, 

Map I-1797-B. U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, Virginia. 

Hancock, B. 2007. Roosevelt City. Personal communication with L. Levy, Lloyd Levy Consulting, LLC, dated 

January 10, 2007. 

Harlow, D. L. and P. H. Bloom. 1987. Buteos and the Golden Eagle In: Proceedings of the Western Raptor 

Management Symposium and Workshop. National Wildlife Federation Science and Technology Series 

No. 12. Washington D.C. Pp. 102-110. 

Harrison, R. 2008. Chief, Roosevelt, Utah, Police Department. Personal communication with L. Levy, Lloyd 

Levy Consulting, LLC, dated October 29, 2008. 

Heil, K. D. and J.M. Porter. 2003. Sclerocactus wetlandicus. In: Flora of North America. Editorial Committee, 

eds. New York, New York. Vol. 4, pp. 197-201. 

Hintze, L. F. 1988. Geologic History of Utah. Brigham Young University Geology Studies Special Publication 7. 

Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 

Holbrook, H. T. and M. R. Vaughan. 1985. Influence of Roads on Turkey Mortality. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 49(3):611-614. 

Holloran, M. J. 2005. Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Population Response to Natural Gas 

Field Development in Western Wyoming. PhD Dissertation, University of Wyoming, Laramie, 

Wyoming. 211 pp. 

Holmes, T. L., R. L. Knight, L. Stegall, and G. R. Craig. 1993. Responses of Wintering Grassland Raptors to 

Human Disturbance. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:461-468. 

Holmes, W. F., and B. A. Kimball. 1987. Ground Water in the Southeastern Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado. 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2248. U.S. Geological Survey. Denver, Colorado. 

Holmgren, N. 2007. Penstemon scariousus var. albifluvis. Center for Plant Conservation National Collection 

Plant Profile. Internet website: http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/asp/ 

CPC_ViewProfile.asp?CPCNum=7051. Accessed November 10, 2007. 

DEIS 8-7 July 2010 
Holzworth. 1972. Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds, and Potential for Urban Air Pollution Throughout the 

Contiguous United States. USEPA AP-101. Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina. 

Homer, C. G., T. C. Edwards, Jr., R. D. Ramsey, and K. P. Price. 1993. Use of remote sensing methods in 

modeling sage grouse winter habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management 72(1):187-195. 

Horizon Environmental Services, Inc. 2004. Guidance Document; Reasonable and Prudent Practices for 

Stabilization (RAPPS) of Oil and Gas Construction Sites. HJN 040027 IM. Austin, Texas. 55 pages. 

Hospital-Data.com. 2007a. Ashley Valley Medical Center – Vernal, Utah. Internet website: http://www.hospitaldata.com/hospitals/ASHLEY-VALLEY-MEDICAL-CENTER-VERNAL.html. Accessed October 2007. 

. 2007b. Uinta Basin Medical Center – Roosevelt, Utah. Internet website: http://www.hospitaldata.com/hospitals/UINTAH-BASIN-MEDICAL-CENTER-ROOSEVEL733.html. Accessed 

October 2007. 

Hunt, G. L. 1996. Environmental Handbook: Environmental Regulations for the Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Production Industry. Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining, Utah Department of Natural Resources, 

Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Hyde, M. 2006. Community Development Administrator, Duchesne County. Personal communication with 

L. Levy, Lloyd Levy Consulting, LLC, dated May 23, 2006. 

Ingelfinger, F. and S. Anderson. 2004. Passerine Response to Roads Associated with Natural Gas Extraction 

in a Sagebrush Steppe Habitat. Western North American Naturalist 64(3):385-395. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report – 

Summary for Policymakers. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, England, and New York, 

New York. 

. 2001. Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. A Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the 

Third Assessment Report of the IPCC (Watson, R. T. and the Core Writing Team [eds.]). Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, England, and New York, New York. 398 pp. 

Irving, D., B. Haines, and T. Modde. 2003. White River Base Flow Study, Colorado and Utah, 1995-1996. Draft 

Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Management Assistance Office, Vernal, Utah. 

Irving, D. B. and T. Modde. 1994. Assessment of Colorado Squawfish in the White River, Colorado and Utah, 

1992-1994. Final Report. Recovery Implementation Program for the Endangered Fishes of the Upper 

Colorado River Basin. 79 pp. 

Irwin, L. L. and J. M. Peek. 1983. Elk Habitat Use Relative to Forest Succession in Idaho. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 47(3):664-672. 

Joe, T. 2008. Program Manager, Historic Preservation Department – Traditional Culture Program, Navajo 

Nation. Response to Bureau of Land Management Vernal Field Office Manager dated March 5, 2008. 

Johnsgard, P. A. 2002. North American Owls: Biology and Natural History, Second Edition. Smithsonian 

Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 215 pp. 

. 1990. Hawks, Eagles, and Falcons of North America. Smithsonian Institution Press, 

Washington, D.C. 145 pp. 

DEIS 8-8 July 2010 
Johnson, K. 2007. Business Analyst, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Special Tabulation of Resident 

Hunting and Fishing licenses in Duchesne and Uintah Counties in 2006. December 21, 2007. 

Johnson, W. C. and S. K. Collinge. 2004. Landscape Effects on Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Colonies. Biological 

Conservation 115(2004):487-497. 

Kierst, C. 2009. Senior Petroleum Specialist, Oil and Gas Program, Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining. 

Personal communication with J. Burrell, Senior Hydrologist, AECOM, dated January 27, 2009. 

Kuhn, D. B. 2006. Highway Freight Traffic Associated with Development of Oil and Gas Wells in the Uintah 

Basin. Utah Department of Transportation. Salt Lake City, Utah 

Kuwanwisiwma, L. 2008. Director, Hopi Cultural Preservation Office. Response to Bureau of Land 

Management Vernal Field Office Manager dated January 15, 2008. 

. 2007. Director, Hopi Cultural Preservation Office. Response to Bureau of Land Management Vernal 

Field Office Manager dated September 24, 2007. 

LaGory, K. E., Y. S. Chang, K. C. Chun, T. Reeves, R. Liebich, and K. Smith. 2001. A Study of the Effects of 

Gas Well Compressor Noise on Breeding Bird Populations of the Rattlesnake Canyon Habitat 

Management Area, San Juan County, New Mexico. Final Report, May 2001. National Energy 

Technology Laboratory, National Petroleum Technology Office, U.S. Department of Energy, Tulsa, 

Oklahoma. 90 pp. 

Lentsch, L. D., B. G. Hoskins, and L. M. Lubomudrov. 2000. The White River and Endangered Fish Recovery: 

A Hydrological, Physical and Biological Synopsis. Publication Number 00-37. Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Liebermann, T. D., D. K. Mueller, J. E. Kircher, and A. F. Choquette. 1989. Characteristics and Trends of 

Streamflow and Dissolved Solids in the Upper Colorado River Basin, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, 

Utah, and Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2358. U.S. Geological Survey. 

Denver, Colorado. 

Lindskov, K. L. and B. A. Kimball. 1984a. Quantity and Quality of Streamflow in the Southeastern Uinta Basin, 

Utah and Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2224. U.S. Geological Survey. 

Washington, D.C. 

. 1984b. Hydrologic Effects of Oil-Shale Development in the Southeastern Uinta Basin, Utah and 

Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1307. U.S. Geological Survey. 

Washington, D.C. 

Lyon, A. G. and S. H. Anderson. 2003. Potential Gas Development Impacts on Sage Grouse Nest Initiation 

and Movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31(2):486-491. 

Lyon, L. J. 1983. Road Density Models Describing Habitat Effectiveness of Elk. Journal of Forestry 

81:592-595. 

. 1979. Habitat Effectiveness for Elk as Influenced by Roads and Cover. Journal of Forestry, 

October 1979, pp. 658-660. 

Maxfield, B. 2009. Sensitive Species Biologist, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Email correspondence with 

M. Brekke, AECOM, dated October 6 and 7, 2009. 

DEIS 8-9 July 2010 
Menalled, F. 2006. Management of Cheatgrass on Conservation Reserve Program Lands. MSU 

News Service, October 5, 2006. Montana State University. Internet website: http://www.montana.edu/ 

cpa/news/nwiprint.php?article=4111. Accessed February 2009. 

Miller, D. 2007. Duchesne City. Personal communication with L. Levy, Lloyd Levy Consulting, LLC, dated 

January 10, 2007. 

Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 2008. IMPLAN Pro – Version 2.0 Software and 2006 data sets for Uintah and 

Duchesne counties in Utah; Economic multipliers developed by Sammons/Dutton, LLC. Internet 

website: http://www.implan.com. Accessed August 2008. 

Monroe, L. 2007. Native Fish Biologist, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Email correspondence with 

M. Brekke, AECOM, dated November 8, 2007. 

Monson B. and J. Parnell. 1992. The Origin of Gilsonite Vein Deposits in the Uinta Basin, Utah. Contract 

Report 92-4, Utah Geological Survey, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Murphey, P. C. and D. Daitch. 2007. Paleontological Overview of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Areas in Colorado, 

Utah, and Wyoming. Argonne National Laboratory. 

Muscha, J. M. and A. L. Hild. 2006. Biological Soil Crusts in Grazed and Ungrazed Wyoming Sagebrush 

Steppe. Journal of Arid Environments 67: 195 – 207. 

Mustajarvi, K. P. Siikamaki, S. Rytkonen, and A. Lammi. 2001. Consequences of Plant Population Size and 

Density for Plant-pollinator Interactions and Plant Performance. Journal of Ecology. 89:80-87 

National Academy of Sciences. 2010. Advancing the Science of Climate Change. National Academic Press, 

500 Fifth Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20001. 

National Association of Realtors. 2009. Local Real Estate Listings and Homes for Sale – Roosevelt, Utah and 

Vernal, Utah. Internet website: http://www.realtor.com. Accessed October 2009. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2009. National Weather Service 

Hydrometeorological Design Studies Center Precipitation Frequency Data Server – Utah. Silver 

Spring, Maryland. Internet website: http://dipper.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/sa/ut_pfds.html. Accessed 

February 13 and May 12, 2009. 

National Park Service. 1995. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for 

Evaluation. Revised. National Park Service Interagency Resources Division, National Register 

Branch, Washington, D.C. 

National Water Information System (NWIS). 2009. Surface Water for Utah and Colorado. U.S. Geological 

Survey. Internet website: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ut/nwis/sw. Accessed October 21, 2009. 

. 2008. Average Monthly Flow Data for: White River at mouth near Ouray, Utah (Station 09306900); 

White River near Watson, Utah (Station 09306500); White River near Colorado State Line, Utah 

(Station 09306395); Green River near Ouray, Utah (Station 09307000); Green River near Jensen, 

Utah (Station 09261000); and Duchesne River near Randlett, Utah (Station 09302000). Internet 

website: http://waterdata usgs.gov/ut/ut/monthly. Accessed July and August 2008. 

. 2007. Surface Water for Utah. Internet website: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ut/nwis/sw. Accessed 

November 16, 2007. 

DEIS 8-10 July 2010 
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2009. National Soil Survey Handbook, Title 430-VI, Part 622 

Ecological and Interpretative Groups. Internet website: http://soils.usda.gov/technical/handbook/. 

Accessed October 9, 2009. 

. 2008a. The Plants Database, National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Internet website: 

http://plants.usda.gov. Accessed December 2008. 

. 2008b. Plant Guide: Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.). Internet website: http://plants.nrcs.usda.gov/ 

plantguide/pdf/pg_brte.pdf. Accessed February 2009. 

. 2006. Wetland Climate Data by County. Internet website: ftp://ftp.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/support/climate/ 

wetlands/ut/49047.txt. Accessed November 2, 2007. 

. 1997. Utah Natural Resource Inventory 1997 Results. Internet website: 

http://www.ut.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/nri/index.html. Accessed October 9, 2009. 

Natural Resources Impact Working Group. 2006. State of Utah: Uintah County Special Service District Project 

List. Internet website: http://www.rural.utah.gov/documents/UintahCOSSDprojectlist.doc. Accessed 

October 2006. 

. 2005. Permanent Community Impact Fund Board M/L Receipts and Grant/Loan Distribution by 

County. Rural Development Program, Governor’s Office of Economic Development, State of Utah. 

Internet website: http://www.rural.utah.gov/documents/PCIFBdistributionbycounty.xls. Accessed 

October 2006. 

NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. 

Arlington, Virginia. Internet website: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed May 28, 2009. 

Notarianni, P. F. 2008. Utah History Encyclopedia - Mining. Internet website: http://historytogo.utah.gov/ 

utah_chapters/ mining_and_railroads/mining.html. Accessed March 25, 2008. 

Oil Shale Exploration Company. 2007. The White River Oil Shale Mine. Internet website: 

http://www.oilshaleexplorationcompany.com/resource.asp. Accessed March 25, 2008. 

Oliver, G. V. 2000. The Bats of Utah: A Literature Review. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Publication 

00_14. Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Oliver, G. V., A. J. Kozlowski, K. S. Day, and K. D. Bunnell. 2009. Proposed Utah Bat Conservation Plan. Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources. 

Osmond, J. C. 1992. Greater Natural Buttes Gas Field, Uintah County, Utah. In: Hydrocarbon and Mineral 

Resources of the Uinta Basin. T. Fouch, V. Nuccio, and T. Chidsey (eds.), Guidebook 20, Utah 

Geological Association, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Oviat, J. 2007. Events Coordinator, Vernal Area Chamber of Commerce. Personal communication with 

C. Thornton-Kolbe, Sammons-Dutton. Dated October 29, 2007. 

Parker, P. L. and T. F. King. 1998. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. 

National Register Bulletin 38. National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, Department of 

the Interior, Washington, D.C. [Undated publication issued in 1989.] 

Parrish, J. R., F. P. Howe, and R. E. Norvell. 2002. Utah Partners in Flight Avian Conservation Strategy 

Version 2.0. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Publication Number 02-27. Salt Lake City, Utah. 

DEIS 8-11 July 2010 
 

 

 

 

Patterson, J. 2009. Montgomery Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Email correspondence with K. Munson, 

AECOM, dated January 22, 2009. 

Patterson, J., J. Fritz, K. Lower-Eskelson, R. Stash, and A. Thomas. 2008. NBU Class I Existing Data Review 

for Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP Uintah County, Utah. MOAC Report No. 06-264. January 11, 

2008. 

Pavek, D. S. 1992. Index of Species Information: Halogeton glomeratus. In: Fire Effects Information System, 

[Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire 

Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Internet website: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. Accessed 

February 2009. 

Pitchford, M. L. and W. C. Malm. 1994. Development and Application of a Standard Visual Index. Atmospheric 

Environment 28:1049-1054. 

Postovit, H. R. and B. C. Postovit. 1987. Impacts and Mitigation Techniques. In: Raptor Management 

Techniques Manual. National Wildlife Federation, Washington D. C. pp 183-212. 

Price, D. and L. L. Miller. 1975. Hydrologic Reconnaissance of the Southern Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado. 

Utah Department of Natural Resources Technical Publication 49. Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Rasmussen, D. T., G. Conroy, A. Friscia, K. E. Townsend, and M. Kinkel. 1999. Mammals of the Middle 

Eocene Uinta Formation. In: Vertebrate Paleontology in Utah. David D. Gillette (ed.), Utah Geological 

Survey Miscellaneous Publication 99-1. Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Reijnen, R. and R. Foppen. 1995. The Effects of Car Traffic on Breeding Bird Populations in Woodland. IV. 

Influence of Population Size on the Reduction of Density Close to a Highway. Journal of Applied 

Ecology 32:481-491. 

Reijnen, R., R. Foppen, and G. Veenbaas. 1997. Disturbance by Traffic of Breeding Birds: Evaluation of the 

Effect and Considerations in Planning and Managing Road Corridors. Biodiversity and Conservation 

6:567-581. 

Reijnen, R., R. Foppen, and H. Meeuwsen. 1996. The Effects of Traffic on the Density of Breeding Birds in 

Dutch Agricultural Grasslands. Biological Conservation 75:255-260. 

Reijnen, R., R. Foppen, C. T. Braak, and J. Thissen. 1995. The Effects of Car Traffic on Breeding Bird 

Populations in Woodland. III. Reduction of Density in Relation to the Proximity of Main Roads. Journal 

of Applied Ecology 32:187-202. 

Rhino Engineering, LLC. 1999. 100-Year Floodplain Study for the White River: Confluence of the Green River 

to 17 Miles Upstream. Project No. 98013.02. February 15, 1999. 

Robson, S. G. and E. R. Banta. 1995. Groundwater Atlas of the United States: Arizona, Colorado, New 

Mexico, Utah. HA 730-C. Internet website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_c/index.html. Accessed 

October 2007. 

Rost, G. R. and J. A. Bailey. 1979. Distribution of Mule Deer and Elk in Relation to Roads. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 43(3):634-641. 

Rowley, P., W. Hansen, O. Tweto, and P. Carrara. 1985. Geologic Map of the Vernal 1° x 2° Quadrangle, 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1526, U.S. Geological 

Survey. Reston, Virginia. 

DEIS 8-12 July 2010 
Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, G. M. Koehler, C. J. Krebs, K. S. McKelvey, and J. R. Squires. 

1999. Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR30WWW. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 

Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Sawyer H., R. M. Nielson, F. Lindzey, and L. L. McDonald. 2006. Winter Habitat Selection of Mule Deer Before 

and During Development of a Natural Gas Field. Journal of Wildlife Management 70(2):396-403. 

Schmutz, J. K. 1984. Ferruginous and Swainson’s Hawk Abundance and Distribution in Relation to Land Use 

in Southeastern Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management 48(4):1180-1187. 

Smith, L. S. 2009. Greater Sage-Grouse and Energy Development in Northeastern Utah: Implications for 

Management. Master’s Thesis. Utah State University, Logan, Utah. 

Smith, M. D., R. S. Krannich, and L. M. Hunter. 2001. Growth, Decline, Stability, and Disruption: A Longitudinal 

Analysis of Social Well-Being in Four Western Rural Communities. Rural Sociology 66(3):425-450. 

Snow, N. 2008. Senate Votes to Extend OCS, Oil Shale Moratoria. Oil and Gas Journal, March 24, 2008. 

Stalmaster, M. V. and J. R. Newman. 1978. Behavioral Responses of Wintering Bald Eagles to Human 

Activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 42(3):506-513. 

Stohlgren, T. J., D. T. Barnett, and J. T. Kartesz. 2003. The Rich Get Richer: Patterns of Plant Invasions in the 

United States. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1(1):11-14. 

Stohlgren, T. J., D. Binkley, G. W. Chong, M. A. Kalkhan, L. D. Schell, K. A. Bull, Y. Otsuki, G. Newman, 

M. Bashkin, and Y. Son. 1999. Exotic Plant Species Invade Hot Spots of Native Plant Diversity. 

Ecological Monographs 69(1):25-46. 

Stokes, D. W. and L. Q. Stokes. 1996. Field Guide to Birds: Western Region. Little, Brown, and Company. 

521 pp. 

SWCA Environmental Consultants. 2005. Final Assessment of Potential Mexican Spotted Owl Nesting Habitat 

on Bureau of Land Management-Administered Lands in Northeastern Utah. Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Thompson, S. P., R. S. Johnstone, and C. D. Littlefield. 1982. Nesting History of Golden Eagles in MalheurHarney Lakes Basin, Southeastern Oregon. Journal of Raptor Research 16(4):116-122. 

Torrell, R., J. A. Young, and B. Kvasnicka. 2000. Halogeton Poisoning. University of Nevada, Cooperative 

Extension Fact Sheet-00-20. Reno, Nevada. 

TriCounty Health Department. 2008. Locations and Hours. Internet website: http://www.tricountyhealth.com/ 

locations.html. Accessed October 13, 2008. 

Trudell, L. G., J. W. Smith, T. N. Beard, and G. M. Mason. 1983. Primary Oil-Shale Resources of the Green 

River Formation in the Eastern Uinta Basin, Utah. USDOE Number DOE/LC/RI-82-4 (DE83009081). 

Laramie Energy Technology Center, Laramie, Wyoming. 

Uintah County. 2006a. Emergency Management- Local Fire Departments. Internet website: 

http://www.co.uintah.ut.us/em/firedepts.php. Accessed October 13, 2008. 

. 2006b. Uintah County Financial Statements for the Year Ended December 31, 2006. Internet 

website: http://www.sao.state.ut.us/lgr/county/2006/06xfuico.pdf. Accessed December 31, 2006. 

DEIS 8-13 July 2010 
. 2005. Uintah County General Plan Update, Planning Commission Public Hearing Public Review 

Draft. August 29, 2005. 

Uintah County Weed Department. 2008. Noxious Weed Identification. Internet website: 

http://www.co.uintah.ut.us/weedctrl/weedID.htm. Accessed December 1, 2008. 

Uintah School District. 2005. Annual Financial Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2005. Internet website: 

http://www.sao.state.ut.us/lgr/school/2005/05sfuisd.pdf. Accessed April 28, 2006. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. 

Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2009. Regional Economic Information System: 1969 – 2007, Employment, 

Personal Income and Regional Economic Profiles, v. 4.1.4. Data and software downloaded from 

Internet website: http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis. Accessed December 2009. 

. 2007a. Regional Economic Accounts: Local Area Personal Income – CA5, Personal income by major 

source and earnings by NAICS industry, 2003. Internet website: 

http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/action.cfm. Accessed October 2007. 

. 2007b. Regional Economic Accounts: Local Area Personal Income – Journey to Work 2000. Internet 

website: http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/jtw/. Accessed October 2007. 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2009. Local Area Unemployment Statistics – Duchesne and Uintah Counties, 

Utah, 2007-2009. Internet website: http://data.bls.gov:8080/PDQ/outside.jsp?survey=la. Accessed 

October 2009. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009a. American FactFinder, Annual Population Estimates for 2008, Data Sets with 

Detailed Tables by Geography, Table T1. Internet website: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ 

DatasetMainPageServlet?_lang=en&_ts=290097458347&_ds_name=PEP_2008_EST&_program=PE 

P. Accessed December 2009. 

. 2009b. Annual Estimates of Housing Units for Counties in Utah: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008 

(HU-EST2008-04-08). August 6, 2009 Release. Internet website: http://www.census.gov/popest/ 

housing/HU-EST2008-4.html. Accessed December 2009. 

. 2007. Annual Estimates of the Components of Population Change for Counties of Utah: April 1, 2000 

to July 1, 2006. March 22, 2007 Release. Internet website: http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/ 

files/CO-EST2006-compchg2000_2006-49.cvs. Accessed October 2007. 

. 2003a. County-to-County Worker Flow Files, Utah, Residence County. Internet website: 

http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/commuting/2KRESCO_UT.xls. 

. 2003b. County-to-County Worker Flow Files, Utah, Workplace County. Internet website: 

http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/commuting/2KWRKCO_UT.xls. 

. 2000a. American FactFinder, Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF-1), Table DP-1 Profile of General 

Demographic Characteristics: 2000. Data Sets with Quick Tables by Geography. Internet website: 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_lang=en&_ts=290098888887&_ds_na 

me=DEC_2000_SF1_U&_program=DEC 

. 2000b. American FactFinder, Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF-3), Table DP-4 Profile of Selected 

Housing Characteristics: 2000. Data Sets with Quick Tables by Geography. Internet website: 

DEIS 8-14 July 2010 
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_lang=en&_ts=290099299796&_ds_na 

me=DEC_2000_SF3_U&_program= 

. 2000c. American FactFinder, Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF-3), Table DP-3 Profile of Selected 

Economic Characteristics: 2000. Data Sets with Quick Tables by Geography. Internet website: 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_lang=en&_ts=290099504407&_ds_na 

me=DEC_2000_SF3_U&_program= 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2007. Agricultural Prices 2006 Summary – Reports by Commodity. 

National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, D. C. Internet website: 

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriPricSu//2000s/2007/AgriPricSu-07-20­

2007_revision.pdf. 

. 1994. Utah Guide for Soil Survey Manuscripts. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, 

Utah. March 18, 1994. 

U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE). 2010a. Natural Gas Weekly Update, March 24, 2010. Energy 

Information Administration (EIA). Internet website: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/ngw/ngupdate.asp. 

Accessed March 31, 2010. 

. 2010b. Natural Gas Navigator – U.S. Natural Gas Wellhead Prices (Dollars per Thousand Cubic 

Feet). EIA. Internet website: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9190us3m.htm/. 

. 2009a. Annual Energy Outlook 2009 – Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook – 

Reference Case, Table 114, Lower 48 Natural Gas Production and Wellhead Price by Region. EIA. 

Internet website: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo09/supplement/index.html. 

. 2009b. Annual Energy Outlook 2009 – Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook – Low 

Oil Price Case, Table 114, Lower 48 Natural Gas Production and Wellhead Price by Region. EIA. 

Internet website: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo09/supplement/regionallowprice.html. 

. 1998. Deliverability on the Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline System. DOE/EIA-0618(98). EIA, Office of 

Oil and Gas. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Interior (USDOI) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2007. Surface Operating 

Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development. BLM/WO/ST06/021+3071/REV 07. Bureau of Land Management. Denver, Colorado. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2010. Climate Change – Science – State of Knowledge. 

Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html. Accessed 

May 2010. 

. 2009a. National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/air/ 

criteria.html#3. Accessed February 2009. 

. 2009b. STORET (STORage and RETrieval) database. Query results for Station 4933970 (White R 

near Bonanza at U45 XING), and Station 4933520 (White R near Ouray at U88 XING). Internet 

website: http://www.epa.gov/storet/. Accessed June 3, 2009. 

. 2008a. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006. Washington, D.C. 

. 2008b. Oil and Gas Injection Wells (Class II). Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw000/ 

uic/wells_class2.html. Accessed March 2008. 

DEIS 8-15 July 2010 
. 2008c. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) Red Dog Mine Extension – 

Aqqaluk Project Volume I. Seattle, Washington. 

. 2007. Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air 

Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze. USEPA, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina. EPA-454/B-07-002. April. 

. 2006. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors: AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point 

and Area Sources, Chapter 13.2.2 Unpaved Roads. November 2006. 

. 2005. USEPA’s National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM), A Consolidated Emissions Modeling 

System for MOBILE6 and NONROAD (EPA420-R-05-024). Office of Transportation and Air Quality. 

December 2005. 

. 2004. Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of 

Coalbed Methane Reservoirs. EPA 816-R-04-003, Attachment 4, The Uinta Basin. 

. 2003. Developing Water Quality Criteria for Suspended and Bedded Sediments (SABS): Potential 

Approaches (Draft, August 2003). Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/WARSSS/sedsource/ 

sabs.htm. Accessed March 20, 2008. 

. 2002a. Underground Injection Control Program: Criteria and Standards. 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations Part 146. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Internet website: 

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/40cfr146_02.html. Accessed March 2008. 

 . 2002b. State Underground Injection Control Programs, Subpart TT—Utah. 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations, Parts 147.2250-2253. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Internet 

website: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/40cfr147_02.html. Accessed March 2008. 

. 2000. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors: AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point 

and Area Sources, Chapter 3.2 Natural Gas-Fired Reciprocating Engines. July 2000. 

. 1998a. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors: AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point 

and Area Sources, Chapter 1.3 Fuel Oil Combustion. September 1998. 

. 1998b. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors: AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point 

and Area Sources, Chapter 1.4 Natural Gas Combustion. July 1998. 

. 1995a. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors: AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume II: Mobile 

Sources. January 1995. 

. 1995b. Protocol of Equipment Leak Emissions Estimates. EPA 453/R-95-017. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. November 1995. 

. 1990. New Source Review Workshop Manual: Prevention of Significant Deterioration and 

Nonattainment Area Permitting (Draft). Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. October 1990. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009a. Federal Register, 50 CFR 17. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

Plants; Taxonomic Change of Sclerocactus Glaucus to Three Separate Species. Final Rule. 

September 15, 2009. 

. 2009b. Section 7 Consultation, Sufficient Progress, and Historic Projects Agreement and Recovery 

Implementation Program Recovery Action Plan (RIPRAP). October 15, 1993. Revised April 2, 2009. 

83 pp. 

DEIS 8-16 July 2010 
 

. 2008a. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, 

Virginia. 85 pp. 

. 2008b. Conclusion of Section 7 Consultation for the Little Canyon Project Natural Gas Development 

Project Proposed by XTO. FWS/R6 ES/UT 06-F-0309; 6-UT-09-F-003. Memorandum from Utah Field 

Supervisor, Ecological Services, West Valley City, Utah. December 4, 2008. 

. 2008c. Mountain-Prairie Region Endangered Species Program: Boreal Toad. Internet website: 

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/amphibians/borealtoad/. Accessed December 15, 2008. 

. 2007a. 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, State 

Overview. July 2007 Release. Washington, D.C. 

. 2007b. Mountain-Prairie Region Endangered Species List in Utah by County. Internet website: 

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/endspp/CountyLists/Utah.pdf. Accessed March 20, 2008. 

. 2007c. Federal Register, 72 FR 53211. Petition to List Sclerocactus brevispinus (Pariette Cactus) as 

an Endangered or Threatened Species: Taxonomic Change from Sclerocactus glaucus to 

Sclerocactus brevispinus, S. glaucus, and S. wetlandicus; Notice of 12-month Petition Finding and 

Proposed Rule. 

. 2007d. Pacific Flyway Map. Internet website: http://library.fws.gov/Pubs/pacific_flywaymap.pdf. 

Accessed November 8, 2007. 

. 2006a. Federal Register, 50 CFR 17, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 

Threatened Status for Penstemon grahamii (Graham’s beardtongue) With Critical Habitat; Proposed 

Rule. January 19, 2006. 

. 2006b. Federal Register, 50 CFR 17. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of 

Proposed Rule to List Penstemon grahamii (Graham’s beardtongue) as Threatened With Critical 

Habitat; Proposed Rule. December 19, 2006. 

. 2002a. Birds of Conservation Concern 2002. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, 

Virginia. 99 pp. 

. 2002b. Bonytail (Gila elegans) Recovery Goals: Amendment and Supplement to the Bonytail Chub 

Recovery Plan. Mountain-Prairie Region (6), Denver, Colorado. 

. 2002c. Colorado Pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) Recovery Goals: Amendment and Supplement 

to the Colorado Squawfish Recovery Plan. Mountain-Prairie Region (6), Denver, Colorado. 

. 2002d. Humpback Chub (Gila cypha) Recovery Goals: Amendment and Supplement to the 

Humpback Chub Recovery Plan. Mountain-Prairie Region (6), Denver, Colorado. 

. 2002e. Razorback Sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) Recovery Goals: Amendment and Supplement to 

the Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan. Mountain-Prairie Region (6), Denver, Colorado. 

. 2002f. Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection from Human and Land Use Disturbances. 

Prepared by L. A. Romin and J. A. Muck. Utah Field Office, Salt Lake City, Utah. January 2002 

(update). 42 pp. 

. 1998. Federal Register, 63 FR 52824. Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of 

Black-footed Ferrets in Northwestern Colorado and Northeastern Utah; Final Rule. 

DEIS 8-17 July 2010 
. 1997. Federal Register, 62 FR 49401. Review of Plant and Animal Taxa that are Candidates or 

Proposed for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Notice of Review. 

. 1994. Utah Reed-Mustards: Clay Reed-mustard (Schoenocrambe argillacea), Barneby Reedmustard (Schoenocrambe barnebyi), Shrubby Reed-mustard (Schoenocrambe suffrutescens) 

Recovery Plan. Denver, Colorado. 22 pp. 

. 1992. Federal Register, 57 FR 1398. Final Rule to Determine the Plant Schoenocrambe argillacea 

(Clay Reed-mustard) to be a Threatened Species and the Plant Schoenocrambe barnebyi (Barneby 

Reed-mustard) to be an Endangered Species; Final Rule. 

. 1990. Uintah Basin Hookless Cactus (Sclerocactus glaucus) Recovery Plan. Denver, Colorado. 

26 pp. 

. 1979. Federal Register, 44 FR 58869. Determination that Sclerocactus glaucus is a Threatened 

Species; Final Rule. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2005. National Gap Analysis Program. Southwest Regional GAP Analysis Project— 

Land Cover Descriptions. RS/GIS Laboratory, College of Natural Resources, Utah State University. 

. 2002. Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the Uinta-Piceance Province, 

Utah and Colorado; Digital Data Series DDS-69-B. Reston, Virginia. 

U.S. Geological Survey and Utah Geological Survey. 2004. U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook-2004: 

The Mineral Industry of Utah. Internet website: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/state/ 

2004/utstmyb04.pdf. Accessed March 25, 2008. 

University of Utah. 2009. Bureau of Economic and Business Research. Annual Series of Utah Construction 

Information Table 7: Cumulative Totals by Type of Structure for County and State January 2000­

December 2008. Internet website: http://webapps.utah.edu/bebr/report/table7.tpl. 

. 2007. The Structure and Economic Impact of Utah’s Oil and Gas Exploration and Production 

Industry, Phase I – The Uinta Basin. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. 

Salt Lake City, Utah. October 2007. 

Utah Administrative Code. 2008a. Rule 68-9: Utah Noxious Weed Act, as in effect November 1, 2008. 

. 2008b. Rule R649-3. Drilling and Operating Practices, as in effect October 1, 2008. 

. 2007. Rule R317-2, Standards of Quality for Waters of the State, as in effect November 1, 2007. 

Utah Association of Realtors. 2009. Market Reports for Utah Residential Sales. Internet website: 

http://www.utahrealtors.com/quarterly/mktrpts.htm. Accessed October 2009. 

Utah Board of Water Resources. 1999. Utah State Water Plan – Uintah Basin. Division of Water Resources, 

Utah Department of Natural Resources. Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Utah College of Applied Technology (UCAT). 2005. Fourth Annual Report 2004 – 2005. Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ). 2001. Ashley Valley Water Reclamation Facility Vernal, 

Utah [for immediate release June 14, 2001]. Internet website: http://www.deq.utah.gov/News/ 

2001/061401.htm. Accessed November 19, 2007. 

DEIS 8-18 July 2010 
Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT). 2008. Mineral Lease Fund Distributions, Summary Reports for 

Fiscal Years 2001 to 2007. Internet website: http://www.udot.utah.gov/index.php/m=c/tid=135. 

Accessed October 14, 2008. 

Utah Department of Workforce Services (UDOWS). 2007a. Utah Employment and Wages. Internet website: 

http://jobs.utah.gov/jsp/wi/utalmis/gotoIndustry.do. Accessed November 5, 2007. 

. 2007b. Labor Force Data (Not Seasonally Adjusted). Internet website: 

http://jobs.utah.gov/jsp/wi/utalmis/gotoLaborforce.do. Accessed November 5, 2007. 

. 2007c. FirmFind! (Copyright 2004, updated March 2007). Internet website: 

http://jobs.utah.gov/firmfind/pgindustry.asp. Accessed November 5, 2007. 

. 2005. State of Utah Job Vacancy Study: Fourth Quarter 2005. Internet website: 

http://jobs.utah.gov/opencms/wi/pubs/jvs/2005q4. Accessed November 5, 2007. 

Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ). 2008. Modeling Guidelines. Internet website: 

http://www.airquality.utah.gov/ Planning/Modeling/NSR_Permit_Modeling/Modguint.htm. Accessed 

December 2008. 

Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining (UDOGM). 2009a. Drilling Commences (Wells Spudded) – By County, 

2005 to 2009. Internet website: http://oilgas.ogm.utah.gov/Statistics/SPUD_County.cfm. Accessed 

December 2009. (The information on this table updates continually. Consequently, the exact data 

presented in Table 3.8-1 are not shown, but the differences are not material). 

. 2009b. Utah Oil Production – By County, 2005 to 2009. Internet website: 

http://oilgas.ogm.utah.gov/Statistics/PROD_Oil_County.cfm. Accessed December 2009. (The 

information on this updates continually. The exact data presented in Table 3.8-1 are not shown, but 

the differences are not material). 

. 2009c. Utah Nautral Gas Production – By County, 2005 to 2009. Internet website: 

http://oilgas.ogm.utah.gov/Statistics/PROD_Gas_County.cfm. Accessed December 2009. (The 

information on this updates continually. The exact data presented in Table 3.8-1 are not shown, but 

the differences are not material). 

. 2009d. Monthly Production Reports, By County – for December. Internet website: 

https://fs.ogm.utah.gov/pub/Oil&Gas/Publications/Reports/Prod/County/?C=M;O=D. Accessed 

December 2009. 

. 2007. Oil and Gas Production Statistics, Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Internet website: http://oilgas.ogm.utah.gov/Statistics/ Statistics.cfm. Accessed November 5, 2007. 

Utah Division of Travel Development. 2004. 2004 State and County Economic and Travel Indicator Profiles. 

Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Utah Division of Water Quality. 2007. Uinta Watershed Management Unit Water Quality Assessment – 2004 

305(b) Fact Sheet. Water Quality Documents and Rules, Utah Department of Environmental Quality, 

Salt Lake City, Utah. Internet website: http://www.waterquality.utah.gov/documents/DOC_RULE.htm. 

Accessed November 19, 2007. 

. 2006. Utah’s 2006 Integrated Report, Volume II – 303(d) List of Impaired Waters. Department of 

Environmental Quality, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

DEIS 8-19 July 2010 
 

Utah Division of Water Rights. 2009. Water Rights Information and Querying Water Rights Records. Internet 

website: http://nrwrt1.nr.state.ut.us/wrinfo/query.asp. Accessed December 2008 and January 2009. 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2009a. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). Wildlife 

Notebook Series No. 3. January 2009. 

. 2009b. Utah Greater Sage-grouse Management Plan. Utah Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Wildlife Resources. Publication 09-17. Salt Lake City, Utah. 

. 2008a. Utah Conservation Data Center: Clay Reed-Mustard (Schoenocrambe argillacea). Internet 

website: http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/ucdc/default.asp. Accessed November 19, 2008. 

. 2008b. Utah Big Game Annual Report 2007. Publication 08-42. Annual Performance Report for 

Federal Aid Project W-65-M, segments 55 and 56. 

. 2007a. Utah Big Game Annual Report 2006. Publication 07-22. Annual Performance Report for 

Federal Aid Project W-65-M, Segments 54 and 55. 

. 2007b. Mountain Lion (Felis concolor). Wildlife Notebook Series No. 5. Internet website: 

http://wildlife.utah.gov/publications/pdf/newlion.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2007. 

. 2007c. American Black Bear (Ursus americanus). Wildlife Notebook Series No. 1. Internet website: 

http://wildlife.utah.gov/publications/pdf/bearnew.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2007. 

. 2007d. Utah Furbearer Proclamation 2007-2008. Salt Lake City, Utah. 

. 2007e. Northeastern Region Black-footed Ferret Management Plan. Final Version, April 5, 2007. Salt 

Lake City, Utah. 

. 2007f. Utah Conservation Data Center: Bluehead Succker (Catostomus discobolus), Townsend’s 

Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendipleuriticus), Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis), 

Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus), Brown (Grizzley) Bear (Ursus 

arctos), and Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis). Internet website: http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/ucdc/default.asp. 

Accessed October 29, 2007. 

. 2006a. Utah Big Game Annual Report 2005. Publication 06-21. Annual Performance Report for 

Federal Aid Project W-65-M-53. 

. 2006b. Utah Conservation Data Center-Utah Sensitive Species: List and Appendices October 17, 

2007. Internet website: http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/ucdc/ViewReports/sslist.htm. Accessed 

October 29, 2007. 

. 2005. Utah Big Game Annual Report 2001-2004. Publication 06-20. Annual Performance Report for 

Federal Aid Project W-65-M-50, 51, 52, and 53. 

. 1998. Inventory of Sensitive Species and Ecosystems in Utah. Inventory of Sensitive Vertebrate and 

Invertebrate Species: A Progress Report – Revised August 18, 1998. Prepared for Utah Reclamation 

Mitigation and Conservation Commission and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Cooperative 

Agreement UC-95-0015. Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (UGOPB). 2008. Demographic and Economic Projections – 

2008 Baseline Projections. Internet website: http://governor.utah.gov/dea/projections.html. 

. 2006. 2006 Economic Report to the Governor, Table 19. Salt Lake City, Utah. 

DEIS 8-20 July 2010 
 

Utah Native Plant Society (UNPS). 2006. Utah Rare Plant Guide. Salt Lake City, Utah. Internet website: 

http://www.utahrareplants.org. Accessed October 29, 2007. 

Utah Office of Tourism. 2002. Southern Utah Visitor Profile Summary, 2000/2001. D.K. Shifflet and Associates, 

Ltd. for Utah Division of Travel Development. Internet website: http://travel.utah.gov/ 

research_and_planning/visitor_profiles. Accessed October 29, 2007. 

Utah Partners in Flight (PIF) 2005. Coordinated Implementation Plan for Bird Conservation in Utah. Prepared 

by Utah Steering Committee Intermountain West Joint Venture. Internet website: 

http://iwjv.org/Images/UTPlan2005.pdf. Accessed October 29, 2007. 

Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (USITLA). 2006. Material Permit Sites: Sand and 

Gravel Map, Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Utah State Auditor. 2006a. Survey of Local Government Finances, Utah Counties. 2006. Fiscal Year Ended 

December 31, 2006. Internet website: http://www.sao.utah.gov/lgr/2006 County UT_01.html. 

Accessed October 29, 2007. 

. 2006b. Survey of Local Government Finances, Utah Municipalities. 2006. Fiscal Year Ended 

June 30, 2006. Internet website: http://www.sao.utah.gov/lgr/2006 Municipal UT_1.html. Accessed 

October 29, 2007. 

. 2006c. 2006 Financial Statements, Year Ended June 30, 2006 – School Districts. Internet website: 

http://www.sao.utah.gov/lgr/2006 school Financials_1.html. Accessed October 29, 2007. 

. 2005. 2005 Financial Statements, Year Ended June 30, 2005 – School Districts. Internet website: 

http://www.sao.utah.gov/lgr/2005 School Financials_1.html. Accessed October 29, 2007. 

. 2002a. Survey of Local Government Finances, Utah Counties. 2001. Fiscal Year Ended 

December 31, 2001. Internet website: http://www.sao.utah.gov/lgr/2001 County UT_1.html. Accessed 

October 29, 2007. 

. 2002b. Survey of Local Government Finances, Utah Municipalities. 2001. Fiscal Year Ended 

June 30, 2001. Internet website: http://www.sao.utah.gov/lgr/2001 Municipal UT_1.html. Accessed 

October 29, 2007. 

. 2002c. 2001 Financial Statements, Year Ended June 30, 2001 – School Districts. Internet website: 

http://www.sao.utah.gov/lgr/2001 School Financials_1. Accessed October 29, 2007. 

Utah State Legislature. 2007. Utah Noxious Weed Act. Title 4, Chapter 17, (1-11). Internet website: 

http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE04/04_10.htm. Accessed November 1, 2007. 

Utah State Office of Education. 2007. Superintendent’s Annual Report, 2005-06, Section II. Internet website: 

http://www.schools.utah.gov/finance/other/AnnualReport/ar.htm. Accessed October 29, 2007. 

Utah State Tax Commission. 2007a. Utah Property Tax 2006 Annual Statistical Report. Property Tax Division, 

Salt Lake City, Utah. 

. 2007b. 2006 List of Final Values by Entity/By Property Type (from the TC-233b reports for each 

county). Property Tax Division, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Utah State University. 2009. Public Lands and Utah Communities: A Statewide Survey of Utah Residents. 

Institute for Social Science Research on Natural Resources, Cooperative Extension, Utah State 

University. Logan, Utah. July 2009. 

DEIS 8-21 July 2010 
. 2007. Continuing Education, Centers and Campuses, Uinta Basin Campus. Internet website: 

http://uintahbasin.usu.edu/. Accessed November 12, 2007. 

. 1996. Water Atlas of Utah. Utah Water Research Laboratory. Logan, Utah. Internet website: 

http://www.neng.usu.edu/uwrl/atlas. Accessed November 16, 2007. 

Utah Weed Control Association. 2008. Utah’s Noxious Weed List. Internet website: 

http://www.utahweed.org/weeds.htm. Accessed December 1, 2008. 

Ute Indian Tribe. 2008. The Official Web Site of the Ute Indian Tribe. Internet website: 

http://www.utetribe.com/. Accessed October 11, 2008. 

Ute Indian Tribe and BIA. 2006. Mineral & Mining Guide for the Uintah and Ouray Reservation. Uintah & Ouray 

Agency Branch of Real Estate Service - Minerals & Mining, Fort Duchesne, Utah. 

Vaillancourt, D. A. 1995. Structural and Microclimatic Edge Effects Associated with Clearcutting in a Rocky 

Mountain Forest. M.A. Thesis, Department of Geography and Recreation, University of Wyoming. 

Vernal City Online. 2008. Police Department. Internet website: http://www.vernalcity.org/departments/ 

police.htm. Accessed December 1, 2008. 

Walker, B. L., D. E. Naugle, and K. E. Doherty. 2007. Greater Sage-grouse Population Response to Energy 

Development and Habitat Loss. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(8):2644-2654. 

Waltemeyer, S. D. 1982. Selected Climatic Characteristics of the Southeastern Uinta Basin, Utah and 

Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Open File Report 82-91. 

Wanty, R. B., J. K. Pitman, and T. D. Fouch. 1991. Groundwater Chemistry and Diagenetic Reactions in 

Tertiary Sandstones of the Green River and Wasatch Formations, Uinta Basin, Utah. U.S. Geological 

Survey Bulletin 1787-X. 

Ward, A. L. 1976. Elk Behavior in Relation to Timber Harvest Operations and Traffic on the Medicine Bow 

Range in South-central Wyoming. In: Proceedings Elk-Logging-Roads Symposium, ed. S.R. Hieb. Pp. 

32-43. Moscow, University of Idaho. 142 pp. 

Watkins, R. Z., J. Chen, J. Pickens, and K. D. Brosofske. 2003. Effects of Forest Roads on Understory Plants 

in a Managed Hardwood Landscape. Conservation Biology 17(2):411-419. 

Western Regional Climate Center. 2007a. Historical Climate Information: Western U.S. Climate Historical 

Summaries. Internet website: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmut.html. Accessed 

November 17, 2007. 

. 2007b. Climate Summaries for Ouray 4NE (Station 426568) and Bonanza, Utah (Station 420802). 

Internet website: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmut.html. Accessed November 16, 2007. 

White, C. M. and T. L. Thurow. 1985. Reproduction of Ferruginous Hawks Exposed to Controlled Disturbance. 

The Condor 87:14-22. 

Woffinden, N. D. and J. R. Murphy. 1989. Decline of a Ferruginous Hawk Population: A 20-year Summary. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 53(4):1127-1132. 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. 2008. Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations. 

Internet website: http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/standards.asp. Accessed May 2008. 

DEIS 8-22 July 2010 
9.0 Index 

Abandonment ................................................................................... 1-8, 2-5, 2-11, 2-20, 3-95, 4-115, 4-118, 5-31 

Access Roads ........................................................................................................ 2-8, 2-12, 2-22, 2-27, 2-32, 2-35 

Aesthetics ..................................................................................................................... 3-79, 3-87, 4-46, 4-47, 5-29
 

Affected Environment ........................................................................................................................ 3-1, 3-87, 3-90
 

Air Quality .................................................................................................................. 2-25, 2-36, 3-2, 4-2, 5-2, 5-13 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated ............................................................................................................. 2-23 

Applicant-committed Environmental Protection Measures ................................................................... Appendix A 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) ............................................................................................... 3-28 

Biological Assessment (BA) ................................................................................................................................. 1-6 

BLM Preferred Alternative .................................................................................................................................... 2-1 

Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................................................................. 2-34, 2-35, 2-36 

Clay Reed-mustard ................................................................................ 3-82, 3-83, 4-92, 4-98, 4-100, 4-104, 5-28
 

Cultural Resources ....................................................................... 1-6, 2-5, 2-12, 2-36, 3-12, 4-18, 4-48, 5-2, 5-15 

Endangered Fish ................................................................................... 4-117, 4-124, 4-144, 4-151, 4-159, 4-163, 

.............................................................................................................................................................. 5-4, 5-42, 6-3
 

Environmental Impacts.......................................................................................................................... 1-4, 3-1, 4-1
 

Environmental Justice ...................................................................... 3-43, 3-68, 4-48, 4-53, 4-60, 4-68, 4-69, 4-75 

Fisheries ....................................................................................... 2-38, 3-110, 3-126, 4-117, 4-124, 4-124, 4-135, 

.................................................................................................. 4-143, 4-150, 4-157, 4-163, 4-165, 5-4, 5-34, 5-42
 

Floodplains....................................................................................... 2-13, 2-16, 2-38, 3-70, 3-77, 3-90, 3-97, 3-98,
 

..................................................................................................... 4-100, 4-111, 4-115, 4-116, 4-121, 4-124, 4-125, 

.............................................................................................................. 4-127, 4-129, 4-130, 4-144, 5-4, 5-30, 5-42
 

Geology ............................................................................................... 2-36, 3-22, 3-32, 3-96, 4-23, 5-2, 5-10, 5-16 

DEIS 9-1 July 
 2010 
Green River...................................................................................... 2-11, 2-15, 2-18, 2-20, 3-13, 3-22, 3-25, 3-26, 

........................................................................................................... 3-28, 3-32, 3-33,3-36, 3-54, 3-77, 3-82, 3-86, 

........................................................................................................... 3-90, 3-94, 3-98, 3-102, 3-110, 3-117, 3-126, 

....................................................................................................... 4-31, 4-111, 4-113, 4-116, 4-120, 4-124, 4-141, 

......................................................................................................... 4-151, 4-152, 4-165, 5-2, 5-4, 5-11, 5-30, 5-42 

Groundwater ............................................................................ 1-5, 2-4, 2-8, 2-11, 2-15, 3-22, 3-94, 3-102, 3-105, 

..................................................................................................... 4-113, 4-117, 4-122, 4-125, 4-127, 4-129, 4-130, 

................................................................................................................................................. 4-135, 5-4, 5-31, 5-33
 

Land Use and Access ........................................................... 1-6, 2-36, 3-16, 3-28, 3-54, 3-66, 3-82, 3-94, 3-107, 

................................................................................................ 3-110, 4-2, 4-17, 4-27, 4-37, 4-44, 4-65, 4-80, 4-84, 

............................................................................................................. 4-95, 4-143, 5-2, 5-3, 5-16, 5-29, 5-31, 5-42 

Minerals..................................................................................... 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-8, 2-1, 2-2, 2-13, 2-37, 3-13, 3-20, 

........................................................................................................ 3-22, 3-26, 3-28, 3-46, 3-47, 3-50, 3-60, 3-104, 

........................................................................................................... 4-23, 4-51, 4-57, 4-66, 4-118, 5-2, 5-16, 5-24 

Mitigation Effectiveness ......................................................... 4-11, 4-13, 4-16, 4-20, 4-21, 4-24, 4-25, 4-28, 4-29, 

................................................................................................ 4-31, 4-32, 4-38, 4-41, 4-43, 4-46, 4-68, 4-69, 4-75, 

...................................................................................................... 4-82, 4-84, 4-85, 4-87, 4-88, 4-89, 4-100, 4-102, 

..................................................................................................... 4-104, 4-108, 4-109, 4-110, 4-124, 4-127, 4-129, 

............................................................................................................................. 4-132, 4-133, 4-152, 4-157, 4-163 

Mitigation .................................................................................... 1-1, 1-10, 2-12, 3-32, 3-67, 3-68, 4-1, 4-11, 4-13, 

.......................................................................................................... 4-16, 4-18, 4-20, 4-21, 4-24, 4-25, 4-27, 4-28, 

.......................................................................................................... 4-29, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-38, 4-41, 4-43, 4-46, 

.......................................................................................................... 4-47, 4-68, 4-69, 4-75, 4-82, 4-84, 4-85, 4-86, 

........................................................................................................... 4-87, 4-88, 4-89, 4-100, 4-102, 4-104, 4-108, 

..................................................................................................... 4-109, 4-110, 4-124, 4-127, 4-129, 4-132, 4-133, 

................................................................................................................... 4-134, 4-152, 4-157, 4-158, 4-163, 5-16
 

Native American Consultation ............................................................................... 3-20, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 5-15, 6-3
 

DEIS 9-2 July 
 2010 
 

Native American Traditional Values ................................................. 2-36, 3-12, 3-19, 4-18, 4-19, 4-21, 5-10, 5-15 

No Action Alternative ........................................................................ 1-1, 2-1, 2-6, 2-35, 4-1, 4-6, 4-18, 4-23, 4-27, 

........................................................................................................ 4-31, 4-33, 4-45, 4-53, 4-79, 4-86, 4-90, 4-106, 

......................................................................................................................... 4-112, 4-131, 4-135, 5-1, 5-31, 5-33
 

Noise ................................................................................................... 2-17, 4-35, 4-39, 4-45, 4-136, 4-137, 4-138, 

...................................................................................................... 4-139, 4-140, 4-142, 4-145, 4-146, 4-147, 4-148 

...................................................................................................... 4-149, 4-150, 4-154, 4-155, 4-158, 4-159, 4-161 

......................................................................................................................................... 4-165, 5-2, 5-3, 5-22, 5-41
 

Noxious Weeds .......................................................................... 1-9, 2-4, 3-76, 3-79, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-39, 4-41
 

............................................................................................................. 4-43, 4-90, 4-91, 4-96, 4-102, 4-103, 4-122, 

.....................................................................................................4-137, 4-140, 4-146, 4-150, 5-3, 5-27, 5-38, 5-43
 

Oil and Gas Production and Distribution ....................................................................................................2-8, 4-75
 

Optimal Recovery Alternative.................................................... 2-1, 2-29, 4-2, 4-13, 4-21, 4-25, 4-29, 4-32, 4-41, 

............................................................................................................. 4-46, 4-69, 4-84, 4-88, 4-103, 4-109, 4-127, 

............................................................................................................. 4-133, 4-159, 4-165, 5-10, 5-14, 5-15, 5-17, 

.................................................................................................................... 5-20, 5-26, 5-27, 5-30, 5-33, 5-41, 5-44
 

Paleontology .......................................................................................................... 2-36, 3-32, 4-31, 5-2, 5-10, 5-16 

Pariette Cactus .................................................................................................................................................. 3-84, 

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects ..............................................................................5-1, 5-10
 

Primary Issues ................................................................................................................... 4-33, 4-90, 4-111, 4-135
 

Proposed Action ......................................................................... 1-1, 1-5, 1-7. 1-8, 2-1, 2-20, 2-35, 2-36, 3-2, 3-7,
 

...................................................................................................... 3-55, 3-67, 4-1, 4-2, 4-8, 4-18, 4-23, 4-27, 4-31, 

...................................................................................................... 4-34, 4-45, 4-60, 4-81, 4-86, 4-94, 4-106, 4-119, 

............................................................................................................................ 4-131, 4-145, 5-9, 5-10, 5-13, 5-14
 

Public Participation ............................................................................................................................................... 6-8 

Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................................................ 1-4 

Range Resources ........................................................................................................... 2-36, 3-36, 4-32, 5-2, 5-17
 

DEIS 9-3 July 
 2010 
Reclamation ................................................................................. 1-10, 2-3, 2-6, 2-7, 2-12, 2-15, 2-20, 2-21, 2-26, 

........................................................................................................ 2-30, 2-35, 3-70, 3-81, 3-125, 4-12, 4-13, 4-16, 

.......................................................................................................... 4-27, 4-28, 4-29, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-44, 4-47, 

.......................................................................................................... 4-49, 4-53, 4-63, 4-72, 4-77, 4-87, 4-90, 4-95, 

................................................................................................................ 4-101, 4-104, 4-110, 4-118, 4-135, 4-140, 

............................................................................................................................ 4-158, 5-17, 5-25, 5-26, 5-29, 5-40
 

Recreation ....................................................................................... 1-10, 2-36, 3-28, 3-40, 3-53, 3-86, 3-107, 4-27 

........................................................................................................... 4-45, 4-56, 4-64, 4-73, 4-131, 5-3, 5-22, 5-26 

Residual Impacts ............................................................................. 4-12, 4-13, 4-16, 4-20, 4-21, 4-24, 4-25, 4-28, 

.......................................................................................................... 4-29, 4-31, 4-32, 4-38, 4-39, 4-41, 4-43, 4-46, 

........................................................................................................ 4-47, 4-82, 4-84, 4-85, 4-87, 4-88, 4-89, 4-101, 

................................................................................................................ 4-103, 4-104, 4-108, 4-109, 4-110, 4-125, 

................................................................................................................ 4-127, 4-129, 4-132, 4-133, 4-134, 4-153, 

............................................................................................................................................................... 4-159, 4-164
 

Resource Protection Alternative ............................................... 2-1, 2-25, 2-35, 2-36, 4-2, 4-12, 4-21, 4-24, 4-28, 

...................................................................................................... 4-32, 4-39, 4-46, 4-69, 4-83, 4-88, 4-102, 4-108, 

........................................................................................................... 4-125, 4-132, 4-153, 4-165, 5-10, 5-15, 5-17, 

.............................................................................................................................. 5-25, 5-27, 5-30, 5-31, 5-41, 5-44
 

Riparian ............................................................................................ 1-6, 2-37, 3-76, 3-77, 3-80, 3-86, 3-99, 3-110, 

......................................................................................................... 3-117, 3-120, 3-125, 4-41, 4-90, 4-100, 4-111, 

..................................................................................................... 4-117, 4-122, 4-124, 4-141, 4-143, 4-148, 4-153, 

............................................................................................................................. 4-154, 4-156, 4-159, 4-161, 4-164 

Sage Grouse................................................................................... 1-10, 2-38, 3-111, 3-122, 4-135, 4-141, 4-149, 

............................................................................................................ 4-153, 4-156, 4-159, 4-162, 4-165, 5-4, 5-43 

Sedimentation ..................................................................................... 4-77, 4-81, 4-94, 4-99, 4-101, 4-111, 4-114, 

................................................................................................................ 4-117, 4-121, 4-125, 4-127, 4-129, 4-130, 

.............................................................................................................. 4-143, 4-144, 4-151, 4-163, 5-3, 5-42, 5-43
 

DEIS 9-4 July 
 2010 
Seismicity....................................................................................................... 5-1, 5-3, 5-10, 5-27, 5-28, 5-29, 5-34
 

Socioeconomics ............................................................................................................. 2-36, 3-43, 4-48, 5-3, 5-22
 

Soil Erosion..................................................................................... 3-70, 4-36, 4-77, 4-82, 4-94, 4-95, 4-122, 5-25 

Soils ................................................................................................... 1-6, 2-16, 2-19, 2-37, 3-22, 3-70, 3-77, 3-83, 

...................................................................................................... 3-86, 3-98, 4-35, 4-77, 4-90, 4-95, 4-138, 4-158, 

................................................................................................................................................... 5-3, 5-10, 5-25, 5-27
 

Special Recreation Management Areas .................................. 2-36, 3-28, 3-41, 4-27, 4-28, 4-29, 4-45, 5-2, 5-16
 

Special Status Species................................................................... 3-81, 3-118, 3-126, 4-96, 4-135, 4-153, 4-159, 

............................................................................................................................................ 4-164, 4-165, 5-34, 5-42
 

Species of Special Concern ............................................................................................................................... 3-81 

Surface Water ........................................................................ 2-8, 2-33, 2-38, 3-84, 3-90, 3-94, 3-97, 3-110, 4-77, 

....................................................................................................... 4-94, 4-112, 4-113, 4-114, 4-119, 4-120, 4-125, 

........................................................................................................... 4-126, 4-127, 4-128, 4-129, 4-130, 5-4, 5-30 

Transportation .......................................................................... 1-10, 2-17, 2-19, 2-37, 3-1, 3-43, 3-60, 3-74, 4-45, 

.................................................................................................................. 4-86, 4-151, 4-163, 5-3, 5-10, 5-24, 5-26
 

Vegetation ............................................................................ 2-5, 2-12, 2-37, 3-73, 3-76, 3-86, 3-97, 3-110, 3-117, 

...................................................................................................... 3-123, 3-125, 3-127, 4-124-13, 4-16, 4-18, 4-33, 

...................................................................................................... 4-35, 4-37, 4-39, 4-44, 4-77, 4-90, 4-108, 4-111, 

..................................................................................................... 4-114, 4-117, 4-122, 4-135, 4-137, 4-138, 4-142, 

................................................................................................... 4-145, 4-146, 4-148, 4-154, 4-158, 5-1, 5-3, 5-10, 

.............................................................................................................................. 5-12, 5-15, 5-17, 5-24, 5-26, 5-42
 

Visual Resources .............................................................................. 1-10, 2-38, 3-86, 4-27, 4-46, 4-106, 5-4, 5-29 

Water Quality ............................................................................... 2-25, 2-33, 3-28, 3-94, 3-96, 3-104, 4-36, 4-111, 

................................................................................................ 4-114, 4-120, 4-126, 4-128, 4-130, 5-30, 5-31, 5-33
 

Water Resources ......................................................................................... 1-7, 2-38, 3-90, 4-35, 4-111, 5-4, 5-30
 

DEIS 9-5 July 
 2010 
Watersheds ...................................................................................... 3-1, 3-74, 3-91, 3-93, 3-94, 3-97, 4-36, 4-111, 

................................................................................................................ 4-113, 4-115, 4-116, 4-119, 4-125, 4-128, 

....................................................................................................................................... 4-144, 5-4, 5-30, 5-31, 5-42
 

Well Drilling and Completion ........................................................ 2-8, 2-27, 2-30, 4-69, 4-86, 4-113, 4-114, 4-120 

Wetlands ...................................................................................... 3-53, 3-83, 3-90, 3-97, 3-98, 3-99, 3-111, 3-117, 

....................................................................................................... 3-125, 3-126, 4-91, 4-111, 4-112, 4-116, 4-117, 

..................................................................................................... 4-121, 4-122, 4-124, 4-125, 4-127, 4-129, 4-130, 

......................................................................................................................................................................5-4, 5-30
 

White River ...................................................................................... 1-10, 2-11, 2-22, 2-27, 2-32, 2-36, 2-38, 3-13, 

.......................................................................................................... 3-19, 3-28, 3-29, 3-32, 3-36, 3-37, 3-40, 3-41, 

.......................................................................................................... 3-53, 3-70, 3-74, 3-82, 3-85, 3-86, 3-87, 3-90, 

....................................................................................................... 3-107, 3-110, 3-117, 3-121, 3-125, 3-127, 4-27, 

............................................................................................................. 4-28, 4-29, 4-33, 4-45, 4-100, 4-106, 4-111, 

..................................................................................................... 4-120, 4-124, 4-126, 4-128, 4-131, 4-133, 4-141, 

.................................................................................................... 4-165, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-11, 5-16, 5-18, 5-22, 5-26, 

.............................................................................................................................. 5-29, 5-30, 5-31, 5-33, 5-42, 5-43
 

Wildlife Resources ............................................................................................... 2-5, 2-38, 3-110, 4-135, 5-4, 5-34
 

Wilderness Characteristics ............................................................. 2-38, 3-28, 3-107, 4-30, 4-131, 5-4, 5-16, 5-33 

Workovers .......................................................................................................................................... 1-7, 2-17, 4-49
 

DEIS 9-6 July 2010