March 2012

FEIS

Appendix H

Special Status Species List
FEIS H-1 March 2012

Appendix H

Special Status Species Identified for the Greater Natural Buttes Project Area

Common 

Name Scientific Name Status* Habitat Association

Potential for Occurrence Within the Proposed 

Project and Cumulative Effects Area 

Eliminated 

From 

Detailed 

Analysis

(Yes/No) References

MAMMALS

Big free-tailed 

bat

Nyctinomops 

macrotis

SPC; 

BLM

This bat species occurs at lower elevations, in 

pinyon-juniper woodlands, arid grasslands, and 

semi-desert shrublands. In Utah, specimens have 

been collected from six counties including Millard, 

San Juan, Utah, Washington, Wayne, and Grand 

counties. The big free-tailed bat inhabits rugged, 

rocky terrain and typically nests in rock crevices. 

Low. Potentially suitable habitat for this species is 

present within the GNBPA; however, this species 

has not been observed in Uintah County. 

Yes. Fitzgerald et al.

1994; Oliver 

2000; UDWR 

1998, 2006b.

Black-footed 

ferret

Mustela nigripes FE This species inhabits semi-arid grasslands and 

mountain basins associated primarily with prairie dog

colonies. It is usually a secretive species observed 

rarely except at night. The ferret is most likely 

solitary except during breeding season. The only 

known populations are in captivity or have been 

reintroduced.

Present. In Utah, the distribution of this species is 

limited to a nonessential experimental population 

reintroduced into Coyote Basin in Uintah County. 

An unconfirmed observation was documented in 

Kennedy Wash within the GNBPA and 

individuals have been documented outside of the 

Primary Management Zone within the Uinta 

Basin. A credible sighting also occurred on Tribal 

lands west of Fantasy Canyon. The nearest 

colony within the Coyote Basin prairie dog 

complex is approximately 1.5 miles northeast of 

the GNBPA. Small scattered white-tailed prairie 

dog colonies also are present within the GNBPA. 

No. Clark et al. 1988;

Fitzgerald et al. 

1994; Maxfield 

2009; UDWR 

2007e, 1998.

Canada lynx Lynx canadensis FT This species primarily occurs in Douglas-fir, sprucefir, and subalpine forests at elevations above 7,800 

feet. The lynx uses large woody debris, such as 

downed logs and windfalls, to provide den sites for 

protection and thermal cover for kittens.

None. If extant in Utah, this species most likely 

occurs in montane forests in the Uinta Mountains.

Suitable habitats for this species are not present 

within the GNBPA.

Yes. Fitzgerald et al. 

1994; Ruggiero et 

al. 1999; UDWR 

1998.
Appendix H (Continued)

FEIS H-2 March 2012

Common 

Name Scientific Name Status* Habitat Association

Potential for Occurrence Within the Proposed 

Project and Cumulative Effects Area 

Eliminated 

From 

Detailed 

Analysis

(Yes/No) References

Fringed myotis Myotis 

thysanodes

SPC; 

BLM

The fringed myotis is known to occur in a wide range 

of habitats from low desert scrub to fir-pine 

associations, with oak and pinyon-juniper woodlands 

acting as the most used vegetative types. This 

species roosts in caves, mines, and buildings. Water 

courses and lowland riparian areas are very 

important to this species. Females are sensitive to 

any activity during mating and nesting, thus the low 

reproduction occurrence. A few scattered 

observations of this species have been documented 

in Uintah County.

Moderate. Potentially suitable habitats for this 

species are present within the GNBPA. These 

habitats are limited and species occurrence is 

anticipated to be scattered.

No. Oliver, 2000; 

UDWR 1998,

2006b. 

Spotted bat Euderma 

maculatum

SPC; 

BLM

Spotted bats are known to occur in montane forests, 

pinyon-juniper woodlands, and open semi-desert 

shrublands. Rocky cliffs are used for roosting 

habitat. This species occupies ponderosa pine 

woodlands in the reproductive season and lower 

elevations at other times of the year. Known to occur 

throughout Utah but have a low reproduction 

potential (1 offspring per year) and limited 

populations. 

Moderate. This species has been identified as 

occurring in Uintah County and potentially suitable 

habitat is present within the GNBPA.

No. Fitzgerald et al. 

1994; Oliver, 

2000; UDWR 

2006b.

Townsend’s 

big-eared bat

Plecotus

townsendii

SPC; 

BLM

This species occupies semi-desert shrublands, 

pinyon-juniper woodlands, and open montane 

forests. The bat is frequently associated with caves 

and abandoned mines for day roosts but will also 

use abandoned buildings and rock crevices for 

refuge.

Moderate. This species occurs throughout much of 

Utah and has been observed within Uintah County. 

Relative to the GNBPA, one individual was 

collected north of the GNBPA at the Ouray 

National Wildlife Refuge. Roosting habitat may be 

present in rock cliffs and caves found along the 

White River.

No. BLM 2008c; 

Fitzgerald et al. 

1994; Oliver 

2000; UDWR 

2006, 2007g.

White-tailed 

prairie dog

Cynomys 

leucurus

SPC; 

BLM

In Utah, this species occurs predominantly in the 

Uinta Basin and the northern portion of the Colorado 

Plateau. Colonies occur primarily in basins, semidesert grasslands, and open shrublands. This 

species is distributed in relatively large, sparsely 

populated complexes and lives in loosely knit clans. 

Present. Small scattered colonies of prairie dogs 

have been observed within the GNBPA. These 

colonies are not associated with the Coyote Basin 

Black Footed Ferret Reintroduction complex. The 

closest colony related to the Coyote Basin 

Complex is approximately 1.5 miles northeast of 

the GNBPA.

No. BLM 2008d; 

Fitzgerald et al. 

1994; UDWR 

2007e.
Appendix H (Continued)

FEIS H-3 March 2012

Common 

Name Scientific Name Status* Habitat Association

Potential for Occurrence Within the Proposed 

Project and Cumulative Effects Area 

Eliminated 

From 

Detailed 

Analysis

(Yes/No) References

BIRDS

American white 

pelican

Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos

SPC; 

BLM

Utah represents a critical breeding region for this 

species. These social birds nest colonially in suitable 

areas. Nest sites usually occur on small islands with 

low gradient slopes. Utah’s only colony of breeding 

pelicans occurs at Gunnison Island on the north arm 

of the Great Salt Lake.

Low. Suitable nesting and foraging habitats for this 

species are not present within the GNBPA. 

Occurrences within the GNBPA would be limited to 

loafing and migrating individuals. 

Yes. BLM 2008c; 

UDWR 2006b.

Bald eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus

SPC; 

BLM

The breeding habitat of this species requires an 

adequate supply of fish and nearby nesting sites. 

This species may be sensitive to disturbance during 

the nesting period. It preferentially roosts in conifers 

or other sheltered sites in winter in some areas, 

typically selecting the larger, more accessible trees.

High. This species is known to winter along the 

Green River, and occasionally the White River. 

However, no bald eagle nests or nesting attempts 

have been documented within the GNBPA.

No. BLM 2008d;

Johnsgard 1990; 

Maxfield 2009; 

UDWR 1998.

Bobolink Dolichonyx 

oryzivorus

SPC; 

BLM

This species inhabits mesic and irrigated meadows, 

riparian woodlands, and marshes at lower elevations 

(2,800 to 5,500 feet). Suitable breeding habitat for 

this ground nester includes tall grass, flooded 

meadows, prairies, and agricultural fields; forbs and 

perch sites also are required. 

Low. This species breeds in isolated areas of 

northern Utah. Habitat occurs in mid elevations of 

the Uinta Mountains and the Book Cliffs. Suitable 

habitat for this species is not present within the 

GNBPA. 

Yes. BLM 2008c;

UDWR 2006b; 

Parrish et al. 

2002.

Burrowing owl Athene 

cunicularia

SPC; 

BLM

Habitat for the owl includes open grassland and 

prairies. This species nests in underground mammal 

burrows that are unoccupied and are often 

associated with prairie dog colonies. 

High. This species is known to occur within 

suitable habitats (prairie dog colonies) north and 

south of the White River.

No. BLM 2008c; 

UDWR 1998,

2006b.

Ferruginous 

hawk

Buteo regalis SPC; 

BLM

Habitat includes grasslands, agricultural lands, 

sagebrush/ saltbush/ greasewood shrub lands, and 

the periphery of pinyon-juniper woodlands. Nesting 

habitat includes trees, cliffs, and buttes.

High. Suitable nesting and foraging habitat is 

present within the GNBPA; however, most nests 

occur north of the GNBPA boundary. No nests 

have been found within the GNBPA.

No. Johnsgard 1990;

Maxfield 2009;

UDWR 2006b.

Grasshopper 

sparrow

Ammodramus 

savannarum

SPC; 

BLM

This species occurs in dry grasslands characterized 

by short to mid-height clumps of grass with few to no 

shrubs. The species is known to occur throughout

most of the United States in summer, but is limited 

to the south and in Mexico during winter months. The 

main concentration of this species is located in the 

Great Plains from North Dakota south to northern 

Texas. The only known occurrences of this species 

in Utah are documented in the northernmost region 

of the state.

Low. Once considered a historically abundant 

species, currently only a few known breeding 

sites have been documented in the grasslands of 

northern Utah. Habitat for this species occurs in 

the grasslands of the Uinta Basin, although there 

have been no documented occurrences in the 

GNBPA. 

No. BLM 2008i; 

UDWR 2006b.
Appendix H (Continued)

FEIS H-4 March 2012

Common 

Name Scientific Name Status* Habitat Association

Potential for Occurrence Within the Proposed 

Project and Cumulative Effects Area 

Eliminated 

From 

Detailed 

Analysis

(Yes/No) References

Greater sage -

grouse

Centrocercus 

urophasianus

FC; 

BLM; 

SPC

This species inhabits upland sagebrush grasslands, 

foothills, and mountain valleys. Breeding occurs on 

open leks (or strutting grounds) with nesting and 

brooding generally occurring within a 4-mile radius of 

the lek. Leks are used by grouse each breeding 

season. During the winter, sagebrush habitats at submontane elevations are commonly used. 

Present. Four leks are present within the GNBPA

and one lek occurs approximately 1 mile south of 

the GNBPA boundary. Northeast and southern

sections of the GNBPA include crucial nesting, 

brooding, and wintering habitat identified by the 

UDWR.

No. CDOW 2008; 

Maxfield 2009; 

UDWR 2006b, 

1998.

Lewis’ 

woodpecker

Melanerpes 

lewis

SPC; 

BLM

For this species, breeding habitat includes 

ponderosa pine and open riparian areas. Winter 

habitat includes open woodlands and lowland 

riparian areas. This species is a cavity nester and 

requires large open pine forests for foraging. Diet 

consists primarily of insect prey during breeding 

season and nuts and berries at other times of the 

year.

Present. This species is occasionally found in the 

riparian habitats of the Uinta Basin and along the 

Duchesne River and Green River. This species 

has been documented in the GNBPA along 

portions of the White River and Green River.

No. BLM 2008c; 

UDWR 2006b,

2007g; Parrish et 

al. 2002

Long-billed 

curlew

Numenius 

americanus

SPC; 

BLM

Habitat includes dry uncultivated rangelands and 

pastures near water. This species forages in moist 

meadow wetlands and upland habitats. 

High. This species is known to nest within the 

GNBPA. Habitat also occurs in the mid elevation 

of the Uinta Mountains and the Book Cliffs.

No. BLM 2008c; 

UDWR 1998,

2006b, 2007g; 

Parrish et al. 

2002.

Mexican 

spotted owl 

Strix 

occidentalis 

lucida 

FT Habitat includes mixed conifer forests and hardwood 

forests with canyons. This species also utilizes 

riparian areas. Nests are typically constructed in 

caves or erosions in steep wall canyons. This

species exhibits a high level of nest site fidelity. In 

Utah, this species has been known to also inhabit 

dry canyons that lack a conifer component. The BLM 

Vernal Field Office utilizes a Mexican spotted owl

habitat model that has been accepted by the 

USFWS. This habitat model includes unsuitable, 

poor, fair, and good habitats. Surveys have been

conducted within the GNBPA; no Mexican spotted 

owls have been identified, and the habitat has all 

been downgraded to poor habitat. 

Low. No pairs are known to nest in the GNBPA. 

The habitat has been identified as poor within the 

GNBPA by the USFWS. Observations of three 

individuals have been documented in 

northeastern Utah since 1958, none of which 

have been observed to be nesting. 

Yes. Behle 1981; 

SWCA 2005; 

UDWR 1998. 
Appendix H (Continued)

FEIS H-5 March 2012

Common 

Name Scientific Name Status* Habitat Association

Potential for Occurrence Within the Proposed 

Project and Cumulative Effects Area 

Eliminated 

From 

Detailed 

Analysis

(Yes/No) References

Mountain 

Plover

Charadrius 

montanus

SPC; 

BLM

In the Uinta Basin, small mountain plover 

populations breed in shrub-steppe habitat where 

vegetation is sparse and sagebrush communities are 

dominated by Artemesia spp. with components of 

black sage and grasses. Nest locations also vary 

with respect to topography (nests were located on 

flat, open ground; on the top or at the base of slopes; 

or very close to large rocky outcroppings).

Low. This species is rare in the Uinta Basin, and 

the nearest known population is located on 

Myton Bench, approximately 10 miles northwest 

of the GNBPA. Suitable habitats for this species 

are limited within the GNBPA and the 

grasshopper sparrow is not known to occur.

Yes. BLM 2008i.

Northern 

goshawk

Accipiter gentilis CS This species inhabits mature mountain forest,

mountain valley cottonwood, and mountain riparian 

zone habitats. Areas of potentially suitable nesting 

habitat consist of coniferous forest and mixed-aspen 

forest types.

Low. No known nests have been documented in 

the GNBPA. One nest has been identified by the 

BLM approximately 25 miles northeast of the 

GNBPA. Potentially suitable habitat types, such as 

pinyon-juniper woodlands, are limited within the 

GNBPA. In Utah, this species is most commonly 

associated with Englemann spruce, subalpine fir, 

lodgepole pine, and quaking aspen. Populations 

have been identified in the mid-elevations of the 

Uinta Mountains and the Book Cliffs.

Yes. BLM 2008c; 

Graham et al. 

1999; UDWR 

1998.

Short-eared 

owl

Asio flammeus SPC; 

BLM

The short-eared owl is an open country, groundnesting species that occupies open habitats such as 

old fields, pastures, marshes, hay meadows, 

grassland, and tundra.

High. This species is associated with grasslands

that are limited within the GNBPA. It is likely that 

breeding or transient short-eared owls could occur 

within the GNBPA. 

No. BLM 2008c; 

Johnsgard 2002; 

UDWR 1998.

Three-toed 

woodpecker

Picoides 

tridactylus

SPC; 

BLM

This species can be found in coniferous forests, 

generally above 7,800 feet. Populations of 

woodpeckers mimic that of their main food source, the 

spruce bark beetle. This species must have an 

adequate supply of dead trees for foraging and 

nesting.

None. Suitable habitat is not present in the 

GNBPA.

Yes. BLM 2008c; 

UDWR 1998;

Parrish et al. 

2002.

Western 

yellow-billed 

cuckoo

Coccyzus 

americanus 

FC; 

BLM; 

SPC

Nesting habitat for the cuckoo includes dense 

lowland riparian vegetation of regenerating canopy 

trees, willows, or other riparian shrubs that occur 

within 100 meters of water. The species nests from 

late May through July.

Moderate. This species is limited to fragments of 

riparian habitat in northern Utah. Potential habitat 

for this species would be limited to the riparian 

corridors along the Green River and White River.

No. UDWR 1998;

Parrish et al. 

2002.

AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES

Corn snake Elaphe guttata SPC;

BLM

This snake occurs in a variety of habitats along 

stream courses, on rocky wooded hillsides, in 

canyons and arroyos, and in coniferous forests.

Present. This species has been documented in the 

GNBPA and suitable habitat is present.

No. UDWR 1998; 

Grasslands 

2008b.
Appendix H (Continued)

FEIS H-6 March 2012

Common 

Name Scientific Name Status* Habitat Association

Potential for Occurrence Within the Proposed 

Project and Cumulative Effects Area 

Eliminated 

From 

Detailed 

Analysis

(Yes/No) References

Smooth 

greensnake

Opheodrys 

vernalis

SPC; 

BLM

Habitat for this snake includes mountain meadows, 

parks, semi-desert grasslands, marshes, wetlands, 

swamps, and river bottoms. 

High. Presence has been identified within Uintah 

County, and suitable habitat for this species is 

present within the GNBPA.

No. BLM 2008c; 

UDWR 1998.

Western 

(Boreal) Toad

Bufo boreas SPC This species can be found in a variety of habitats 

including slow moving streams, wetlands, desert 

springs, ponds, lakes meadows, and woodlands at 

altitudes primarily between 8,000-11,500 feet. This 

species has been documented in 10 counties in

Utah, but not in Uintah County.

None. The GNBPA is below the elevation range 

of this species and the species is not known to 

occur in Uintah County.

Yes. UDWR 2006b; 

USFWS 2008c.

FISH

Bluehead 

sucker

Catostomus 

discobolus

CS This species can be found in a variety of habitats, 

including fast flowing water in high gradient reaches of 

mountain rivers and turbid or muddy, sometimes 

alkaline, waters with vegetation absent or sparse. It is 

known to inhabit the Colorado River drainage.

High. This species is known to occur in the Green 

River and White River within Uintah County.

No. BLM 2008c; 

UDWR 1998, 

2007g.

Bonytail Gila elegans FE The bonytail is found in main channels of large rivers 

generally associated with swift currents and water 

depths of 3-4 feet with a shifting sand bottom. It is 

known to occur within the Green River.

High. This species occurs in the Green River; 

however, no populations have been found in the 

White River. 

No. UDWR 1998; 

USFWS 2002b; 

Irving et al. 2003.

Colorado 

pikeminnow

Ptychocheilus 

lucius

FE This species is endemic to the Colorado River system.

It is a long distance migratory fish that requires pools, 

deep runs, and eddy habitats maintained by high 

spring flows. 

High. This species occurs in the Colorado River 

Basin. Populations have been documented in the 

White River.

No. UDWR 1998; 

USFWS 2002c;

Irving et al. 2003.

Colorado River

cutthroat trout

Oncorhynchus 

clarkii

pleuriticus

CS This trout inhabits cool, clear water of high elevation 

streams and lakes. Most existing populations are 

limited to elevations above 7,000 feet. Presence is 

possible within Uintah County; mainly limited to the 

Green River.

Low. Although this species is known to occur in the 

Green River, it usually is observed above 7,000 

feet. Elevations in the GNBPA are all below 7,000 

feet. Furthermore, aquatic habitats within the 

GNBPA do not constitute preferred trout habitat.

Studies in the White River have not found this 

species to be present.

Yes. Behnke 1992; 

BLM 2008c; 

UDWR 1998,

2007g; Lentsch et 

al. 2000.

Flannelmouth 

sucker

Catostomus 

latipinnis 

CS Adults live in pools of streams and large rivers. These 

water bodies have little to no vegetation, are clear to 

murky, and have slow to swift waters. The species is

known to inhabit the Colorado River drainage.

High. This species is known to occur within the 

Green and White River and has been identified as 

one of the most common fish species captured in 

the White River.

No. BLM 2008c; 

UDWR 1998.
Appendix H (Continued)

FEIS H-7 March 2012

Common 

Name Scientific Name Status* Habitat Association

Potential for Occurrence Within the Proposed 

Project and Cumulative Effects Area 

Eliminated 

From 

Detailed 

Analysis

(Yes/No) References

Humpback 

chub

Gila cypha FE This species is endemic to the Colorado River 

(including the Green River and White River) system 

within deep, swift-running rivers and canyon shaded 

environments.

High. This species is known to occur downstream

from the GNBPA in the Green River and upstream 

at the confluence of the Green and Yampa rivers. 

No populations have been found in the White 

River.

No. UDWR 1998; 

USFWS 2002d; 

Irving et al. 2003.

Razorback 

sucker

Xyrauchen 

texanus

FE This species is endemic to large rivers of the Colorado 

River Basin, including the Green River and White 

River. Its habitat includes warm water reaches of large 

rivers in areas that include deep runs, eddies, 

backwaters, and flooded off channel environments. 

High. This species is known to occur in the Green 

River and White River within the GNBPA. 

No. UDWR 1998; 

USFWS 2002e.

Roundtail chub Gila robusta CS This species is found in main channels of large rivers

and is most often found in murky pools near strong 

currents. It is known to occur in the Green River.

High This species occurs in the Colorado River 

system including the Green and White rivers.

No. BLM 2008c; 

UDWR 1998.

PLANTS

Alcove bogorchidPlatanthera

zothecina

BLM This plant is endemic to Emery, Garfield, San Juan, 

Grand, and Uintah counties, Utah and Moffat 

County, Colorado. The orchid occurs in seeps, 

hanging gardens, and moist stream banks in mixed

desert shrub, pinyon-juniper, and oak brush 

communities. Elevations range from 4,000 to 6,200

feet.

None. Suitable habitat is not present within the 

GNBPA. 

Yes. BLM 2008c;

UNPS 2006.

Barneby ridgecressLepidium 

barnebyanum

FE Endemic to the Indian Canyon Drainage in Duchesne 

County, this species grows with mound-forming 

species in pinyon-juniper communities on white shale

outcrops of the Uinta Formation. It occurs mainly on 

ridge crests at 6,200 to 6,500 feet elevation.

Low. This species occurs on the Uinta Formation, 

which is found within the GNBPA. However, 

elevations within the GNBPA are lower than the 

known elevation ranges of this species. This

species has not been observed in Uintah County.

Yes. UNPS 2006.

Clay reedmustard Schoenocrambe 

argillacea

FT Endemic to the Book Cliffs in Uintah County, this plant 

occurs on shale substrates at the contact zone 

between the lower Uinta and upper Green River 

Formations in mixed desert shrub of Indian ricegrass 

and pygmy sagebrush between 4,800 and 5,600 feet

elevation.

Present. This species has been documented in the 

Willow Creek drainage in the southwest portion of 

the GNBPA. Suitable habitat for this species has 

been identified only in this location.

No. UNPS 2006; BLM 

2008c.

Duchesne 

green-thread

Thelesperma 

caespitosum

BLM Endemic to Duchesne County, Utah, and 

Sweetwater County, Wyoming, this species grows on 

white shale slopes and ridges of the Green River 

Formation or in mountain shrub/pinyon-juniper 

communities of the Uinta Formation. It is found 

between 5,900 and 8,860 feet elevation.

Low. This species has not been observed in 

Uintah County. The known range of this species is 

west and outside of the GNBPA.

Yes. BLM 2008c; 

UNPS 2006.
Appendix H (Continued)

FEIS H-8 March 2012

Common 

Name Scientific Name Status* Habitat Association

Potential for Occurrence Within the Proposed 

Project and Cumulative Effects Area 

Eliminated 

From 

Detailed 

Analysis

(Yes/No) References

Gibbens 

beardtongue

Penstemon 

gibbensii

BLM This species in found in Daggett County, Utah;

Moffatt and Rio Blanco counties, Colorado; and

Carbon and Sweetwater counties, Wyoming. It 

inhabits sandy or shaly (often Green River Shale) 

bluffs and slopes with juniper, thistle, Eriogonnum, 

Elymus, serviceberry, rabbitbrush, and Thermopsis.

It is found at 5,500 to 6,400 feet elevation

None. This species is not known to occur within 

Uintah County. 

Yes. UNPS 2006.

Goodrich’s 

blazingstar

Mentzelia 

goodrichii

BLM Goodrich’s blazingstar is endemic to southern 

Duchesne County along the escarpment of the 

Willow and Argyle canyons. It grows in steep, white, 

marly calciferous shale of the Green River Formation 

in scattered limber and pinyon pine, Douglas-fir, 

mountain mahogany, and rabbitbrush communities 

at 8,100 to 8,800 feet elevation.

None. The known range of this species is west and 

outside of the GNBPA and is found in higher 

elevations than those occurring in the GNBPA.

Yes. UNPS 2006.

Goodrich’s 

cleomella

Cleomella 

palmeriana var.

goodrichii

BLM This species grows on eroded slopes of heavy clay 

in the Mancos, Tropic, and Morrison formations at 

4,000 to 6,000 feet elevation within Uintah County. 

None. The species is known to occur in only one 

location in Uintah County, which is outside the 

GNBPA. The geologic formations associated with 

this species range occur north and outside of the 

GNBPA.

Yes. BLM 2008c; 

UNPS 2006.

Goodrich 

penstemon

Penstemon 

goodrichii

BLM This penstemon is endemic to the Uinta Basin at the 

Lapoint-Tridell-Whiterocks area. It grows on blue gray 

to reddish clay badlands of the Duchesne River 

Formation in shadscale and juniper/mountain 

mahogany communities from 5,600 to 6,200 feet

elevation.

None. The known range of the species is 

northwest of the GNBPA. The GNBPA does not 

contain suitable habitat

Yes. BLM 2008c; 

UNPS 2006.

Graham’s

beardtongue

Penstemon 

grahamii

PT,

BLM

This species is endemic to Carbon, Duchesne, and 

Uintah counties within Utah. It grows in sparsely 

vegetated shadscale, Eriogonum, horsebrush, 

ryegrass, and pinyon-juniper communities on shale 

ledges and talus of the Green River Formation at 

approximately 4,600 feet. 

Moderate. Potential habitat may be present within 

the GNBPA. This species occurs in eastern

Duchesne and Uintah counties. No known 

populations have been identified within the

GNBPA.

No. BLM 2008c; 

UNPS 2006.

Hamilton 

milkvetch

Astragalus 

hamiltonii

BLM This species occurs on the Lapoint and Dry Gulch 

members of the Duchesne River Formation and the 

Dakota, Wasatch, and Mowery Shale formations in 

pinyon-juniper and desert shrub communities. It is 

found at elevations from 5,250 to 6,200 feet.

None. The geological formations associated with 

this species do not occur in the GNBPA. Known 

occurrences are found north of the GNBPA.

Yes. BLM 2008c; 

UNPS 2006.
Appendix H (Continued)

FEIS H-9 March 2012

Common 

Name Scientific Name Status* Habitat Association

Potential for Occurrence Within the Proposed 

Project and Cumulative Effects Area 

Eliminated 

From 

Detailed 

Analysis

(Yes/No) References

Huber’s 

pepperweed

Lepidium huberi BLM This species is endemic to Uintah County. It grows in 

black sagebrush, mountain brush, ponderosa pine, 

lodgepole pine, and spruce-fir communities, and in 

sand or silty sands derived from the Shinarump 

Member of the Chinle, Park City, and Webber 

Sandstones. It is found from 5,000 to 9,700 feet

elevation.

Low. This species is known to occur north of the 

GNBPA in the Uinta Mountains and has the 

potential to occur south of the GNBPA in the Book 

Cliffs. Areas of potential habitat are limited in the 

GNBPA, and known locations of the species are 

found at higher elevations than those present in 

the GNBPA.

Yes. BLM 2008c; 

UNPS 2006.

Ownbey thistle Cirsium ownbeyi BLM This species is endemic to the east flank of the Uinta 

Mountains in Daggett County and northern Uintah 

County. It grows in sagebrush, juniper, and riparian

communities between 5,500 and 6,200 feet. This

species is often associated with alcove seeps and 

abandoned stream channels. 

Low. The GNBPA is outside of the known range 

for this species. Known locations of this species 

are found north of the GNBPA in Brown’s Park, 

Diamond Mountain, and Cliff Ridge.

Yes. BLM 2008c; 

UNPS 2006.

Pariette cactus Sclerocactus 

brevispinus

BLM This cactus occurs in Duchesne and Uintah 

counties. It grows in saline and alkaline soils in clay 

badlands.

Low. This species has not been documented in the 

GNBPA and is not known to occur east of the 

Green River. USFWS has confirmed that this 

species is not present in GNBPA.

Yes. Crist 2007; 

UNPS 2006.

Park rockcress Arabis

fernaldiana var. 

fernaldiana

BLM This species is endemic to Uintah County, Utah. It 

grows in mixed desert shrub and pinyon-juniper 

communities in limestone and sandstone outcrops 

(Weber Formation) at 5,000 to 6,000 feet. It is found 

in Dinosaur National Monument, on Diamond 

Mountain, and on Cliff Ridge.

None. The geologic formations associated with this

species are not present in the GNBPA. This

species has a limited distribution, and the known 

occurrences are found northeast of the GNBPA.

Yes. BLM 2008c; 

UNPS 2006.

Rock

hymenoxys 

Hymenoxys 

lapidicola

BLM This species is endemic to Uintah County. It occurs 

on rock crevices in the ponderosa pine-manzanita 

and pinyon-juniper communities between 6,000 and 

8,100 feet elevation.

None. There is no potential habitat for this species

in the GNBPA. Most of the GNBPA is below the 

elevation range for the species.

Yes. BLM 2008c; 

UNPS 2006.

Shrubby reedmustard Schoenocrambe

suffrutescens

FE This species is endemic to Duchesne and Uintah 

counties. It grows in shadscale, pygmy sagebrush, 

mountain mahogany, juniper, and other mixed desert 

shrub communities in calcareous shale of the 

Evacuation Creek member of the Green River Shale 

Formation at 5,400 to 6,000 feet elevation.

Low. This species is found on the Evacuation 

Creek member of the Green River Shale 

Formation, which is outside of the GNBPA. It is 

known to occur in the Hill Creek drainage, Willow 

Creek drainage, and Badland Cliffs.

Yes. BLM 2008c.

Stemless 

beardtongue

Penstemon 

acaulis

BLM This species is endemic to Daggett County, Utah, and 

Sweetwater County, Wyoming. It occupies habitat of 

pinyon-juniper and sagebrush-grass communities on 

semi-barren substrates between 5,840 to 7,285 feet

elevation.

None. This species is not known to occur within 

Uintah County. The known occurrences in Utah 

are located north of the GNBPA in Brown’s Park.

Yes. BLM 2008c; 

UNPS 2006.
Appendix H (Continued)

FEIS H-10 March 2012

Common 

Name Scientific Name Status* Habitat Association

Potential for Occurrence Within the Proposed 

Project and Cumulative Effects Area 

Eliminated 

From 

Detailed 

Analysis

(Yes/No) References

Uinta Basin 

hookless 

cactus

Sclerocactus 

wetlandicus

FT This species occurs in Carbon, Duchesne, and Uintah 

counties. It grows on gravelly hills and terraces in salt 

desert shrub, pinyon-juniper communities on river 

benches, valley slopes, and rolling hills of the 

Duchesne River, Green River, and Mancos 

Formations between 4,500 to 6,600 feet elevation. The

taxonomy changed from S. glaucus wetlandicus to S. 

wetlandicus on September 18, 2007, by USFWS.

Present. This species is known to occur

extensively in the GNBPA. 

No. BLM 2008d; 

Grasslands 

2008a,b.

Untermann 

daisy

Erigeron 

untermannii

BLM This species is endemic to Duchesne County. It is 

confined to pinyon-juniper, mountain mahogany, 

limber and bristlecone pine, and sagebrush 

communities on calcareous shale, sandstones, and 

siltstone of the Uinta and Green River formations at

elevations from 7,000 to 9,400 feet elevation.

None. This species is endemic to the West 

Tavaputs Plateau, which is outside the GNBPA. It 

also occurs at higher elevations than those found 

in the GNBPA.

Yes. BLM 2008c; 

UNPS 2006.

Ute ladies’-

tresses

Spiranthes 

diluvialis

FT This species occurs in wet meadows, stream banks, 

abandoned oxbows, marshes, and sub-irrigated 

floodplain habitats at 4,500 to 6,800 feet elevation.

Low. Within the Uinta Basin, this species occurs 

along the Green River in Brown’s Park (Utah and 

Colorado), Dinosaur National Monument, and 

near the confluence with the Yampa River. The 

species also occurs on Ashley Creek, within 

Ashley Valley, along Big Bruch Creek, the upper 

Duchesne River, and tributaries to the Duchesne 

River. This species has not been documented in 

the GNBPA.

Yes. BLM 2008c; 

UNPS 2006.

White River

beardtongue

Penstemon 

scariosus var. 

albifluvis

FC This species occurs in Uintah County and is found in 

shadscale, rabbitbrush, ricegrass, ryegrass, 

sagebrush, Barneby’s thistle, and pinyon-juniper 

communities. It occupies sparsely vegetated tan shale 

slopes of the Green River Formation at 5,000 to 6,880 

feet elevation.

Low. This species is found along the White River 

west of the Flat Tops area of Western Colorado 

and into eastern Utah. Known locations for this 

species are found east of the GNBPA on surficial 

outcrops of oil shale in southern Uintah County 

and southeast Duchesne County. This species 

has not been documented in the GNBPA.

Yes. BLM 2008c;

Holmgren 2007; 

UNPS 2006.

FE = Federally listed as endangered.

FT = Federally listed as threatened.

FC = Federal candidate.

PT = Proposed to be listed as federally threatened species.

CS = Species Receiving special management under a Conservation Agreement in order to preclude the need for a federal listing.

BLM = BLM Sensitive Species

SPC = Wildlife species of concern.

*Status was derived using the USFWS List by County (USFWS 2007b), the UDWR Utah Sensitive Species List (UDWR 2006b), and the BLM sensitive plant list species list by county (BLM 2008c). 
March 2012

FEIS

Appendix I

Underground Water Rights In and Within One Mile of the GNBPA
FEIS I-1 March 2012

Appendix I

Underground Water Rights In and Within One Mile of the GNBPA

Water 

Right 

Number Source Type

Quantity, 

(cfs)

1

Quantity 

(acre-feet)

2 Location3 Owner Use4

Well

Depth or Aquifer5

(feet)

Water Right 

Status6

43-8496 Underground 0.015 0.000 N200 E405 S4 32 4S 3E US A-1 Tank Rental I 70 WI

49-1219 Underground 0.015 0.000 S700 E700 NW 35 10S 20E SL Belco Dev Corp I ND EXP

49-1228 Underground 0.200 0.000 S2200 E100 NW 15 10S 21E SL Curry Leasing I ND EXP

49-1228 Underground 0.200 0.000 S2200 W1900 NE 23 10S 21E SL Curry Leasing I ND EXP

49-1228 Underground 0.200 0.000 S660 W660 NE 17 10S 22E SL Curry Leasing I ND EXP

49-1264 Underground 0.015 0.000 S700 E700 NW 35 10S 20E SL Belco Dev Corp I ND EXP

49-1359 Underground 0.000 2.000 S2200 W400 NE 16 10S 21E SL Martin Water Service I ND EXP

49-1399 Underground 0.015 0.000 S2200 W400 NE 16 10S 21E SL Dalbo Incorporated I ND LAP

49-1400 Underground 0.500 0.000 S2200 W400 NE 16 10S 21E SL Dalbo Incorporated I ND EXP

49-1403 Underground 0.000 20.000 S660 E660 NW 35 10S 20E SL Target Trucking I ND EXP

49-1443 Underground 0.000 20.000 S660 E660 NW 35 10S 20E SL Target Trucking I ND EXP

49-1457 Underground 0.000 20.000 S660 E660 NW 35 10S 20E SL Target Trucking I ND EXP

49-1475 Underground 0.000 20.000 S660 E660 NW 35 10S 20E SL Target Trucking I ND EXP

49-1492 Underground 0.100 0.000 S1546 E1279 NW 31 9S 22E SL Coastal Oil & Gas Corp I ND EXP

49-1493 Underground 0.100 0.000 S629 W261 NE 32 9S 21E SL Coastal Oil & Gas Corp I ND EXP

49-1495 Underground 0.000 20.000 S660 E660 NW 35 10S 20E SL Target Trucking I ND EXP

49-153 Underground 0.050 0.000 N2180 W510 S4 21 11S 21E SL BLM I 350-500 CLAIM

49-1613 Underground 0.500 0.000 N4515 W3200 SE 33 8S 20E SL Nebeker Trucking Co. I 20-45 EXP

49-173 Underground 0.380 0.000 N758 W1825 E4 02 10S 24E SL Barber Asphalt Corp I 29 CERT

49-206 Underground 0.015 0.000 N804 W1918 E4 02 10S 24E SL ConocoPhillips Co D ND ND

49-2161 Underground 0.000 10.000 S2000 W1000 NE 05 9S 22E SL A-1 Tank And Brine Serv I ND WI

49-2197 Underground 0.250 0.000 N1855 E348 SW 33 9S 21E SL UT Trust Lands I 215 LAP

49-2219 Underground 0.000 20.000 N2090 W30 E4 33 8S 20E SL Buggsy`s Water Serv I 40 EXP

49-222 Underground 4.300 0.000 S1177 W2430 E4 02 10S 24E SL American Gilsonite Co I, A <50 CERT

49-222 Underground 4.300 0.000 N2385 W2400 SE 02 10S 24E SL American Gilsonite Co I, A <50 CERT

49-222 Underground 4.300 0.000 N1141 W2391 SE 02 10S 24E SL American Gilsonite Co I, A <50 CERT

49-222 Underground 4.300 0.000 N1786 W2375 SE 02 10S 24E SL American Gilsonite Co I, A <50 CERT

49-222 Underground 4.300 0.000 S486 W2297 E4 02 10S 24E SL American Gilsonite Co I, A <50 CERT

49-222 Underground 4.300 0.000 N214 W2276 E4 02 10S 24E SL American Gilsonite Co I, A <50 CERT

49-222 Underground 4.300 0.000 S1052 W2266 E4 02 10S 24E SL American Gilsonite Co I, A <50 CERT

49-222 Underground 4.300 0.000 N1365 W2250 SE 02 10S 24E SL American Gilsonite Co I, A <50 CERT

49-222 Underground 4.300 0.000 S720 W2178 E4 02 10S 24E SL American Gilsonite Co I, A <50 CERT

49-222 Underground 4.300 0.000 S353 W2162 E4 02 10S 24E SL American Gilsonite Co I, A <50 CERT

49-222 Underground 4.300 0.000 S73 W2159 E4 02 10S 24E SL American Gilsonite Co I, A <50 CERT

49-222 Underground 4.300 0.000 N31 W2144 E4 02 10S 24E SL American Gilsonite Co I, A <50 CERT
FEIS I-2 March 2012

Water 

Right 

Number Source Type

Quantity, 

(cfs)

1

Quantity 

(acre-feet)

2 Location3 Owner Use4

Well

Depth or Aquifer5

(feet)

Water Right 

Status6

49-222 Underground 4.300 0.000 N628 W2123 E4 02 10S 24E SL American Gilsonite Co I, A <50 CERT

49-222 Underground 4.300 0.000 N404 W2076 E4 02 10S 24E SL American Gilsonite Co I, A <50 CERT

49-222 Underground 4.300 0.000 N1140 W2100 SE 02 10S 24E SL American Gilsonite Co I, A <50 CERT

49-222 Underground 4.300 0.000 N1730 W2030 SE 02 10S 24E SL American Gilsonite Co I, A <50 CERT

49-222 Underground 4.300 0.000 N652 W1931 E4 02 10S 24E SL American Gilsonite Co I, A <50 CERT

49-222 Underground 4.300 0.000 N624 W1807 E4 02 10S 24E SL American Gilsonite Co I, A <50 CERT

49-2221 Underground 0.000 100.000 S1177 W2430 E4 02 10S 24E SL Enduring Resources LLC I Shallow EXP

49-2221 Underground 0.000 100.000 N2385 W2400 SE 02 10S 24E SL Enduring Resources LLC I Shallow EXP

49-2221 Underground 0.000 100.000 N1141 W2391 SE 02 10S 24E SL Enduring Resources LLC I Shallow EXP

49-2221 Underground 0.000 100.000 N1786 W2375 SE 02 10S 24E SL Enduring Resources LLC I Shallow EXP

49-2221 Underground 0.000 100.000 S486 W2297 E4 02 10S 24E SL Enduring Resources LLC I Shallow EXP

49-2221 Underground 0.000 100.000 N214 W2276 E4 02 10S 24E SL Enduring Resources LLC I Shallow EXP

49-2221 Underground 0.000 100.000 S1052 W2266 E4 02 10S 24E SL Enduring Resources LLC I Shallow EXP

49-2221 Underground 0.000 100.000 N1365 W2250 SE 02 10S 24E SL Enduring Resources LLC I Shallow EXP

49-2221 Underground 0.000 100.000 S720 W2178 E4 02 10S 24E SL Enduring Resources LLC I Shallow EXP

49-2221 Underground 0.000 100.000 S353 W2162 E4 02 10S 24E SL Enduring Resources LLC I Shallow EXP

49-2221 Underground 0.000 100.000 S73 W2159 E4 02 10S 24E SL Enduring Resources LLC I Shallow EXP

49-2221 Underground 0.000 100.000 N31 W2144 E4 02 10S 24E SL Enduring Resources LLC I Shallow EXP

49-2221 Underground 0.000 100.000 N628 W2123 E4 02 10S 24E SL Enduring Resources LLC I Shallow EXP

49-2221 Underground 0.000 100.000 N404 W2076 E4 02 10S 24E SL Enduring Resources LLC I Shallow EXP

49-2221 Underground 0.000 100.000 N1140 W2100 SE 02 10S 24E SL Enduring Resources LLC I Shallow EXP

49-2221 Underground 0.000 100.000 N1730 W2030 SE 02 10S 24E SL Enduring Resources LLC I Shallow EXP

49-2221 Underground 0.000 100.000 N652 W1931 E4 02 10S 24E SL Enduring Resources LLC I Shallow EXP

49-2221 Underground 0.000 100.000 N624 W1807 E4 02 10S 24E SL Enduring Resources LLC I Shallow EXP

49-2229 Underground 0.000 20.000 N4780 W595 S4 33 8S 20E SL Dalbo Incorporated I 70 EXP

49-2231 Underground 0.000 100.000 N4600 W4150 SE 33 8S 20E SL Nile Chapman I 75 APP

49-2235 Underground 0.000 20.000 N4780 W595 S4 33 8S 20E SL Dalbo Incorporated I 68 EXP

49-2237 Underground 0.000 20.000 N1850 W425 E4 33 8S 20E SL Buggsy`s Water Service I 48 EXP

49-2238 Underground 0.000 20.000 S550 W900 N4 33 8S 20E SL Magnum Water Service I 70 EXP

49-2247 Underground 0.000 20.000 S550 W900 N4 33 8S 20E SL Magnum Water Service I 70 APP

49-2252 Underground 0.000 20.000 N2090 W30 E4 33 8S 20E SL Buggsy`s Water Service I 40 EXP

49-2253 Underground 0.000 20.000 N1850 W425 E4 33 8S 20E SL Buggsy`s Water Service I 48 EXP

49-2266 Underground 0.000 30.000 S1708 E1991 NW 17 9S 23E SL Questar Expl & Prod Co. I 25-400 APP

49-2281 Underground 0.000 20.000 N2090 W30 E4 33 8S 20E SL Buggsy`s Water Service I 40 EXP

49-2282 Underground 0.000 10.000 N1850 W425 E4 33 8S 20E SL Buggsy`s Water Service I 48 EXP

49-2290 Underground 0.000 20.000 N4500 W3200 SE 33 8S 20E SL Nebeker Trucking Co. I ND APP

49-2290 Underground 0.000 20.000 N4515 W3200 SE 33 8S 20E SL Nebeker Trucking Co. I 27 APP

49-2303 Underground 0.000 10.000 N1850 W425 E4 33 8S 20E SL Buggsy`s Water Service I ND EXP
FEIS I-3 March 2012

Water 

Right 

Number Source Type

Quantity, 

(cfs)

1

Quantity 

(acre-feet)

2 Location3 Owner Use4

Well

Depth or Aquifer5

(feet)

Water Right 

Status6

49-2324 Underground 0.000 10.000 N1850 W425 E4 33 8S 20E SL Buggsy`s Water Service I 48 APP

49-2325 Underground 0.000 20.000 N2090 W30 E4 33 8S 20E SL Buggsy`s Water Service I 40 APP

49-234 Underground 0.055 0.000 S660 E660 NW 35 10S 20E SL BLM A 1700-2500 CLAIM

49-252 Underground 0.022 0.000 S660 W660 NE 17 10S 22E SL BLM A 1560-1850 CLAIM

49-266 Underground 0.056 0.000 S250 W139 NE 10 9S 23E SL Mark M. Hall D,A 15 ND

49-267 Underground 0.016 0.000 N2282 W262 SE 22 9S 24E SL Joseph P. Hacking A 290 ND

49-3 Underground 0.026 0.000 S1650 W1564 NE 02 10S 21E SL Dekalb Ag Assoc Inc I 2460-2540 CLAIM

49-353 Underground 0.400 0.000 S2128 E2313 NW 12 10S 22E SL Tosco Corporation I 1390, 6000 REJ

49-354 Underground 0.600 0.000 N643 E592 SW 36 9S 21E SL Tosco Corporation I 1604,7000 REJ

49-355 Underground 1.000 0.000 N951 E689 SW 34 9S 21E SL Tosco Corporation I 1667,5000 REJ

49-356 Underground 1.250 0.000 S3200 E850 NW 02 10S 21E SL Tosco Corporation I 1525-1570 REJ

49-357 Underground 0.000 20.000 N1049 W1937 SE 13 9S 20E SL Belco Development Corp I 90-101, 285-290 LAP-REJ

49-391 Underground 1.250 0.000 S2000 W400 N4 25 10S 20E SL Magic Circle Energy Corp I 860-1040 REJ

49-392 Underground 0.170 0.000 N1930 E400 SW 19 10S 21E SL Magic Circle Energy Corp I 2200-3300 REJ

49-392 Underground 0.170 0.000 S2900 W1300 NE 19 10S 21E SL Magic Circle Energy Corp I 2200-3300 REJ

49-986 Underground 0.015 0.000 S2200 W400 NE 16 10S 21E SL Curry Leasing I ND CLAIM

49-990 Underground 0.015 0.000 S2300 W1900 NE 23 10S 21E SL Target Trucking Inc. I 520-560, 1570-2000 CLAIM

49-991 Underground 0.015 0.000 S2200 W400 NE 16 10S 21E SL Target Trucking Inc. I ND CLAIM

49-1645 Underground 0.070 50.000 N400 W550 E4 35 8S 21E SL R.N. Industries I 60 APP

49-1645 Underground 0.000 50.000 S1300 W1500 NE 35 8S 21E SL R.N. Industries I 40-80 APP

1 Withdrawal right in cubic feet per second

2 Withdrawal right in acre-feet (per year or season of use)

3 Location in metes and bounds (feet North, South, East or West) from corner (NE, SE, SW, NW) or quarter-corner (N4, S4, E4, W4) of the numbered Section, Township, and Range of indicated baseline. Example: N624 

W1807 E4 02 10S 24E SL is a point located 624 feet North, 1807 feet West of the East quarter-corner, Section 02, Township 10 South, Range 24 East, Salt Lake Baseline.

4 Water use: I – Industrial, A – Agricultural (Irrigation and Stock), D- Domestic.

5 ND = No data.

6 Water Right Status: WI – Withdrawn, EXP – Expired, CLAIM – Water Use Claim, CERT – Certification, LAP – Lapsed, APP – Approved, REJ – Rejected, ND – No data.

Source: Utah Division of Water Rights database at www.waterrights.utah.gov.
March 2012

FEIS

Appendix J

Migratory Bird Species List
FEIS J-1 March 2012

Appendix J

Migratory Bird Species on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern List, 

State of Utah Special Status Species List, and the

Partners in Flight High Priority Bird Species List Found within the GNBPA

Common Name Scientific Name

USFWS Birds of

Conservation

Concern

State of Utah 

Special Status 

Species

Partners in 

Flight HighPriority Bird 

Species

Primary 

Breeding 

Habitat

Secondary 

Breeding Habitat

Winter 

Habitat

American avocet Recurvirostra 

americana

X X Wetland Playa Migrant

American white 

pelican

Pelecanus 

erythrohychos

X X Water Wetland Migrant

American bittern Botaurus 

lentiginosus

X Wetland Wet meadow Migrant

Bald eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus

X Riparian Agriculture Riparian

Burrowing owl Speotyto cunicularia X X Grassland Shrub-steppe Migrant

Black-necked stilt Himantopus 

mexicanus

X Wetland Playa Migrant

Black-throated grey 

warbler

Dendroica 

nigrescens

X PinyonJuniperMountain Shrub Migrant

Bobolink Dolichonyx 

oryzivorus

X X Wet Meadow Agriculture Migrant

Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri X X Shrub-Steppe High Desert Scrub Migrant

Broad-tailed 

hummingbird

Selasphorus 

platycercus

X Lowland 

Riparian

Mountain Riparian Migrant

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis X X X PinyonJuniperShrub-Steppe Grassland

Flammulated owl Otus flammeolus X Ponderosa 

Pine

Sub-Alpine Conifer Migrant

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos X Cliff High Desert Scrub High Desert 

Scrub

Gray vireo Vireo vicinior X X PinyonJuniperNorthern Oak Migrant

Greater sagegrouseCentrocercus 

urophasianus

X X Shrub-Steppe Shrub-Steppe Shrub-Steppe

Juniper titmouse Baeolophus ridgwayi X PinyonJuniperNorthern Oak Migrant

Lewis’ woodpecker Melanerpes lewis X X X Ponderosa 

Pine

Lowland Riparian Northern Oak

Long-billed curlew Numenius 

americanus

X X X Grassland Agriculture Migrant

Mountain plover Charadrius 

montanus

X X X High Desert 

Scrub

High Desert Scrub Migrant

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus X Wet Meadow High Desert Scrub Agriculture

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus X Cliff Lowland Riparian Wetland

Pinyon jay Gymnorhinus 

cyanocephalus

X PinyonJuniperPonderosa Pine PinyonJuniper

Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus X Cliff High Desert Scrub Agriculture

Sage sparrow Amphispiza belli X X Shrub-Steppe High Desert Scrub Low Desert 

Scrub

Snowy plover Charadrius 

alexandrius

X Playa Playa Migrant

Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni X X Agriculture Aspen Migrant

Virginia’s warbler Vermivora virginiae X X Northern Oak Pinyon-Juniper Migrant

Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii X Riparian Wetland Migrant

Yellow-billed 

cuckoo

Coccyzus 

americanus

X X X Lowland 

Riparian

Agriculture Migrant

Source: BLM 2008b; USFWS 2008c, 2002a.
March 2012

FEIS

Appendix K

Integrated Weed Management Plan
FEIS March 2012 K-1

Appendix K

Greater Natural Buttes

Integrated Weed Management Plan

Kerr-McGee Oil and Gas Onshore

Uintah County, Utah

Introduction

Kerr-McGee Oil and Gas Onshore LP (KMG) proposes to develop an infill drilling project (the Proposed 

project) in the Greater Natural Buttes Project Area (GNBPA). The Proposed project involves the large scale 

construction and development of natural gas wells, pipelines, electric power lines, compression facilities, 

access roads and water disposal facilities over approximately 162,911 acres within Uintah County, Utah. 

The Proposed project is located on lands owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Vernal Field 

Office, State of Utah lands, the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, and private lands. At the request of the BLM 

this Integrated Weed Management Plan (IWMP) has been developed to discuss the methods that will be 

used to identify and control noxious weed populations for the Proposed Project in the GNBPA. 

Project Area Description

The GNBPA is located entirely within the Uinta Basin floristic region as defined by the Eastern Tavaputs

Plateau. The Proposed project is located within the Uintah Basin Floor Ecoregion of the Colorado Plateau.

This ecoregion lies in a large synclinal basin that is enclosed by the Uinta Mountains and the Tavaputs 

Plateau (Woods et al. 2001). Because of the basin’s topographic position, precipitation is low and soils are 

arid. Vegetation communities in the area include salt desert shrublands, sagebrush shrublands, piñonjuniper woodlands, cliff and canyon areas, grasslands, agricultural fields, and riparian areas. Common 

species include greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus) Indian ricegrass (Stipa hymenoides), galleta (Hilaria 

jamesii.), Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata var. Wyomingensis), fourwing saltbush (Atriplex 

canescens), winterfat (Ceratoides lanata), needle-and- thread grass (Stipa comata), and black sagebrush 

(Artemesia nova). Riparian areas are present within the Project along the White River corridor and are 

comprised of cottonwood (Populus spp.) and willows (Salix exigua) (Woods et al. 2001).

Noxious Weeds

Noxious weeds and other invasive plants are non-native, undesirable native, or introduced species that are 

able to outcompete desired native species and thereby decrease overall species diversity. Noxious weeds 

often invade and persist in areas after disturbance. They are most prevalent in areas of prior surface 

disturbance, such as agricultural areas, roadsides, existing utility rights-of-way (ROWs), and wildlife 

concentration areas.

Noxious weeds have become a growing concern in the western U.S. based on their ability to increase in 

cover relative to surrounding vegetation and exclude native plants from an area. The spread of noxious 

weeds has resulted in substantial economic impacts on some sectors of the State of Utah. As a result, the 

State has enacted laws requiring the control of noxious weed species (Utah State Legislature 2007). A

"noxious weed" is defined as any plant Commissioner of Agriculture and Food determines to be especially 

injurious to public health, crops, livestock, land, or other property per the Utah Noxious Weed Act (Utah 

State Legislature 2007). There are three classes (A, B, and C) of noxious weeds on the Utah Noxious Weed 

List based on the level of control required, with Class A species of highest priority for control. In addition to 

the Utah State list, Uintah County and the BLM have identified noxious weed species of concern to Uintah 

County. Attached in Table 1 is a list of Utah, Uintah County, and BLM Vernal Field Office noxious/species 

of concern. 
FEIS March 2012 K-2

With the development of natural gas in the Greater Natural Buttes Project Area and associated land 

disturbance, it is the Company’s goal to minimize its impact on the current plant community and to make 

every effort to put into place this IWMP in order to respond to or prevent any noxious weed or weed of 

concern problems within the project area. 

Noxious Weed Control

The Company will use an integrated approach to control known noxious weeds or weeds of concern 

throughout construction, production, and reclamation of the GNBPA. Weed species, location, landscape,

and soils will all be considered when determining the best method of control. Timing is key in achieving 

noxious weed control, and all activities will be performed before seed set. The surrounding vegetation and 

land use also will be considered when using a combination of the following methods:

Education:

• The Company will provide periodic weed education and awareness programs for its employees and 

contractors through the county weed districts, state and federal agencies, educational institutions, 

and internal experts.

• Employees and contractors will be encouraged to report any new noxious weed infestations to the 

company representative responsible for weed management.

• Field employees and contractors will be notified of known noxious weeds or weeds of concern in 

the project area. In areas where noxious weeds or weeds of concern are identified in the project 

area, control methods will be employed including avoidance of these areas when possible.

Cultural:

• Areas of disturbance will be promptly re-seeded with a certified weed free seed mixture approved 

by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), or surface owner.

• Reclamation of disturbed sites will occur to assist in preventing the spread and establishment of 

invasive species that may be present in nearby areas.

• Certified weed-free mulch, gravel, sand, fill, borrow, erosion control materials, and seed mixes will 

be used in necessary locations.

• Vehicles and equipment may require cleaning or washing down before leaving or entering areas of 

known noxious weed infestations.

• Staging areas for equipment and materials will be in weed free areas 

• Travel through weed infested areas shall be avoided or minimized

• Surface disturbance will be minimized to the extent consistent with the Company’s right to 

economically develop its mineral resources.

Physical:

• In newly reseeded areas, mowing will be considered during the first season of establishment, prior 

to seed formation of weeds of concern.

• Hand pulling of weeds will be considered for small or new infestations.

Biological:

• Domestic animals or Approved biological agents may be used in areas most suited for this type of 

control, taking into consideration species, desired results, and management needs.
FEIS March 2012 K-3

• On BLM surface a Biological Control Agent Release Proposal would be submitted and approval 

obtained before the release of any biological control agents.

Chemical:

• The use of herbicides to control noxious weeds has been found to be very effective and feasible. 

Herbicides used will be specific for target species and location, and label instructions will be 

followed in order to obtain desired control for identified species.

• Application of herbicides will only be done by a commercially licensed applicator following all 

applicable state and federal laws regarding chemical use, adverse weather, chemical storage, and 

chemical drift.

• Only herbicides approved for application on BLM administered lands will be used.

• Control/treatment of noxious weeds/weeds of concern on private surface will be done in accordance 

with the Surface Use Agreement.

• Prior to spraying on BLM-managed lands, KMG will submit to the BLM a Pesticide Use Proposal 

(Attachment A). Within 24 hours of application, a pesticide application report will be filled out. The 

pesticide application report will be submitted to the BLM by December 1st of each year. Examples of 

forms and guidelines are included in Attachment A.

Threatened and Endangered Species, Sensitive Areas

Commercial herbicide applicators will be made aware of local threatened and endangered species through 

the use of maps in order to avoid an improper herbicide application. Herbicide-free buffer zones around 

threatened and endangered species habitat will be adhered to:

• 100 feet for Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus (Sclerocactus wetlandicus), and

• 300 feet for Clay Reed-Mustard (Schoencrambe argillacea).

Regarding riparian and other sensitive areas, Herbicide-free buffer zones around riparian area will be 

adhered to (for non-aquatic herbicides): 

• 100 feet for aerial, 

• 25 feet for vehicle, and 

• 10 feet for hand spray applications.

Monitoring and Maintenance

Starting with pre-construction and continuing through the lifetime of the project until final reclamation is 

achieved, KMG will conduct annual monitoring and control of the disturbance and areas within 100 feet of 

disturbances. Monitoring data collected will include the noxious weed species, their location, the extent of 

infestation, and results of previous control measures implemented. Throughout the life of the project, KMG 

will work cooperatively with the local weed and pest district in order to properly manage noxious and 

invasive weeds in the GNBPA. 

References

Woods, A. J., D. A. Lammers, S. A. Bryce, J. M. Omernik, R. L. Denton, M. Domeier, M., and J. A. 

Comstock. 2001. Ecoregions of Utah (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, 

and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,175,000).
FEIS March 2012 K-4

Table 1 Noxious and Invasive Weeds Potentially Occurring in the GNBPA

Common Name1 Scientific Name1

State of Utah 

Noxious 

Weed List2

Uintah County 

Noxious Weed 

List3

BLM Vernal Field 

Office Other 

Invasive Species 

of Concern4

Velvetleaf Abutilon theophrasti -- -- X

Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens X X X

Jointed goatgrass Aegilops cylindrica -- -- X

Common burdock Arctium minus -- -- X

Downy brome Bromus tectorum -- -- X

Whitetop Cardaria draba X X X

Plumeless thistle Carduus acanthoides -- -- X

Nodding plumeless thistle Carduus nutans X X X

Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa X X X

Spotted knapweed Centaurea stoebe ssp. micranthos X X X

Meadow knapweed Centaurea nigrescens -- -- X

Yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis X X X

Squarrose knapweed Centaurea virgata ssp. squarrosa X X --

Oxeye daisy Leucanthemum vulgare X -- X

Chicory Cichorium intybus -- -- X

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense X X X

Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare -- -- X

Poison hemlock Conium maculatum X -- X

Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis X X X

Bermudagrass Cynodon dactylon X X --

Houndstongue Cynoglossum officinale X -- X

Common teasel Dipsacus fullonum -- X X

Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia -- X X

Quackgrass Elymus repens X X --

Redstem filaree Erodium cicutarium -- -- X

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula X X X

Halogeton Halogeton glomeratus -- -- X

Venice mallow Hibiscus trionum -- -- X

Black henbane Hyoscyamus niger X -- X

Dyers woad Isatis tinctoria X X --

Perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium X X X

Dalmation toadflax Linaria dalmatica X -- X

Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris X -- X

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria X X --

Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium X X X

Sulfur cinquefoil Potentilla recta X -- X

Perennial sowthistle Sonchus arvensis -- -- X

Perennial sorghum Sorghum almum5 X X --

Johnsongrass Sorghum halepense X X --
FEIS March 2012 K-5

Table 1 Noxious and Invasive Weeds Potentially Occurring in the GNBPA

Common Name1 Scientific Name1

State of Utah 

Noxious 

Weed List2

Uintah County 

Noxious Weed 

List3

BLM Vernal Field 

Office Other 

Invasive Species 

of Concern4

Medusahead Taeniatherum caput-medusae X X --

Saltcedar Tamarix ramosissima X X X

Common tansy Tanacetum vulgare -- -- X

Puncturevine Tribulus terrestris -- X X

Common mullein Verbascum thapsus -- -- X

-- = Species not classified as noxious or invasive per the cooperating agency. 1 Species nomenclature is consistent with the NRCS Plants Database (NRCS 2008a). 2 Officially designated and published as “noxious” for the State of Utah (Utah State Legislature 2007; Utah Administrative Code 2008a). All 

property owners and custodians of public land are required by Law (4-17-7) to control weeds on lands under their jurisdiction. 3 Designated as “noxious” in Uintah County (Uintah County Weed Department 2008). 4 Species designated as a priority species per the BLM Vernal RMP (2008b) including species known to occur in Rio Blanco County, Colorado 

(abutting Uintah County, Utah). 

5 Species designated as a noxious weed species per the State of Utah; however, this species is not designated as a noxious weed species per 

the Utah Weed Control Association (2008).
March 2012

FEIS

Appendix L

Range Improvement Specifications and Design Drawings
FEIS March 2012 L-1

Appendix L

Bureau of Land Management – Vernal Field Office

Range Improvement Specifications and Design Drawings

Range Improvements

Through the authority of 43 CFR 3101.1-2, no roads, well pads, or pipelines will be placed within 

200 meters of existing livestock water sources/systems, corrals, rain gauges, or vegetation studies. If it is 

determined that there is no means to avoid the existing range facilities, replacement will be required of 

the proponent.

The operator will repair or replace any fences, cattleguards, gates, drift fences, and natural barriers that 

are damaged as a result of the proposed project. Cattleguards or gates will be installed for livestock 

control on road rights-of-way (ROWs) when fences are crossed, and these structures will be maintained 

for the life of the project. See attached Cattle Guard and Gate Specifications and drawings.

Cattleguards

Each existing fence to be crossed by an access road will be braced and tied off before cutting the wire. In 

order to reduce the need for maintenance and increase the life of the fence, the braces will be of steel 

pipe with a minimum outside diameter (od) of 2 7/8 inches. The braces will consist of three steel posts 

and two steel top rail-braces. The brace posts will be cemented in the ground at a minimum of 3 feet deep 

and welded with a 2 7/8 inch top rail. Any open ends will be capped. The height of the brace posts will be 

at 40 inches from the ground to the top of the brace. A 16 foot steel frame gate (see attached Steel Gate 

drawing) will be welded to the fence brace post adjacent to the cattleguard. The ease of opening and 

closing a steel gate as opposed to a wire type gate increases the likelihood that the gate will be closed 

after someone goes through it. A cattleguard (see attached Cattle Guard drawings) will be installed on 

pre-cast concrete bases. The wings to the cattleguard will be attached to a stand-alone green treated 

wood post or steel pipe (minimum 5 inch diameter). The fencing, braces, gate, cattleguard, and bases will 

follow the attached BLM specifications and drawings. The entity in charge of the road’s maintenance 

(company or county) will assume the maintenance of all such cattleguards.

Pipelines

Each existing fence to be crossed by a pipeline shall be braced using a Type I end panel (see attached

Barbed Wire Fence drawing) and tied off on each side of the proposed gate before cutting the wire. The 

braces will be set posts and brace posts of green treated wood, a minimum of 5 inches by 7 feet. The 

braces will consist of three set posts and two braces placed on each side of the opening. The set posts 

will be in the ground a minimum of 2 feet deep. The height of the brace posts, from the ground to the top 

of the brace, will be at 40 inches. A 16 foot wire type gate will be attached to the fence brace post. The 

gate will be closed when there is no construction through the gate. When the pipeline construction is 

completed the gate will be wired permanently shut. 

No pipeline will be placed on top of the ground, buried within the gate opening next to a cattleguard, or 

within the cattleguard. The gate is used for passage of livestock, traffic, and machinery that is excluded 

from travel over a cattleguard. Surface or buried pipelines must be put outside the tie-off bracing on each 

side of the fence.
Cattle Guard and Gate Specifications 

The company shall: 

General Construction Specifications:

If the road is a county road the company shall work through the county to install and 

maintain cattle guards. 

If the road is a BLM road the company shall work through the BLM to install and 

maintain cattle guards. 

The company shall be responsible for the purchase of all materials (including gates and 

cattle guards), the costs of labor, and equipment required for construction and 

maintenance of the cattle guards, gates, fence bracing and tie offs.

The fencing, cattle guards, bases, gates, and tie off bracing shall be constructed and 

maintained to the original BLM specifications and drawings below. 

The cattle guard and accompanying gate shall be installed at the time of the access road 

upgrade or at the time of pad construction. 

No blading, dozing, or scraping of the ground along the fence line on any Bureau of 

Land Management administered land is permitted.

In the event that the company sells or transfers the lease or wells the road is servicing to 

another company the responsibility for the maintenance and repair of the cattle guards 

and associated gates shall transfer to the new company.

Extra fencing materials and trash shall be removed from the allotment and disposed of 

properly.

Fence Tie-off and Bracing Specifications:

Each existing fence to be crossed by an access road shall be braced and tied off before 

cutting the wire. 

Fence braces shall be constructed using the END PANEL – TYPE I style shown in the 

attached drawings. 

The fence braces shall be a minimum of 2 7/8 or 2 3/8 inch outside diameter (od) steel 

pipe, in order to reduce the need for maintenance and to increase the life of the fence. 

The fence braces shall consist of 3 steel posts and 2 top rail braces. 

The fence brace posts shall be cemented in the ground at a minimum of at least 3 feet 

deep, and welded with a 2 7/8 or 2 3/8 inch od top rail. Any open pipe ends shall be 

capped. 

The height of the brace posts shall be at least 40 inches from the ground to the top of the 

brace. 

Cattle Guard Specifications:

Cattle guards shall be placed on existing roads and new roads. 

Cattle guards must be a minimum of 16 feet x 8 feet wide. It must be installed in such a 

way to support oil field size machinery and the anticipated amount of increased traffic.

FEIS L-2 March 2012
A cattle guard (see attached specifications) shall be installed on pre-cast concrete bases. 

The wings to the cattle guard shall be attached to a stand-alone green treated wood post 

or steel pipe (minimum 5” diameter). See photos.

Next to each cattle guard shall be a 16 foot wide gate, which shall be a tubular steel gate. 

The gate shall be hung from the end post in the tie off bracing not on the same post at the 

cattle guard wing post. See photos. 

Additional modifications to cattle guards shall be required in areas that have wild horses 

or herd managements areas. The addition of rebar welded between the rails to prevent 

horses’ legs from becoming caught in the cattle guard. See drawing below. 

Gate Specifications:

A 16’ steel frame “powder river” gate (see attached specifications) will be welded to the 

fence brace post adjacent to the cattle guard. The steel gate increases the likelihood of the 

gate being closed after someone goes through it due to the ease of opening and closing 

the steel gate as opposed to the wire type gates.

The gate shall be hung flush on one side of the brace post so that the hinges allow the 

gate to swing completely open and lay flush up against the fence when open. See photo.

The gate shall be kept closed at all times except during actual pass through. The gate 

shall have a latch or chain to keep it closed, it shall not be locked. The chain shall be 

welded or attached to the gate to prevent lose. 

Fence Specifications: (If adjacent sections of the fence need repair)

Four strand wire fence. See Barbed Wire Fence (4 – Wire) drawing. Use end panel-type 

I. This fence shall be grounded, see section on Grounding Wire Fences below. 

Bottom wire 16” from the ground made of smooth wire.

The second wire from the bottom shall be barbed wire and 22” from the ground.

The third wire from the bottom shall be barbed wire and 28” from the ground.

The top wire is barbed wire and shall be 40” from the ground.

16 foot spacing between posts with at least two wooden or metal fence stays in between 

posts. 

Steel posts may be used but every fifth post should be wooden. Steel drill pipe may be 

substituted for wooden posts, especially for braces and gate posts. 

Pipelines and Cattle guards:

No pipeline will be allowed to be placed either on top of the ground or buried within the 

gate opening next to a cattle guard or within the cattle guard. The gate is used for livestock 

traffic and machinery that is excluded from travel over a cattle guard. Surface or buried 

pipelines must be put outside of the tie-off bracing on each side of the fence. 

Grounding Wire Fences:

Installation of a grounding device on wire fences is required on fences constructed under a 

high voltage power line, especially if only wood posts are used. Steel posts may be poor 

FEIS L-3 March 2012
grounding devices, unless they penetrate to a depth that assures permanent contact with 

moisture. At a minimum grounding shall be done at all gates and places where the fence 

crosses under the power line. The company shall contact the owner of the power lines 

(Moon Lake Electric Association of Roosevelt Utah or other owner), for specific 

grounding instructions. 

Existing Range Facilities:

No roads, well pads, or pipelines will be placed within 200 meters of existing facilities 

such as springs, livestock/wildlife water sources/systems, corrals, rain gauges, or 

vegetation studies, etcetera. If it is determined that there is no means to avoid the existing 

range facilities, mitigation to replace these will be required of the proponent (43 CFR 

3101.1-2). 

Maintenance:

Maintenance of the cattle guards will follow the original design specifications and be 

completed in a timely manner to assure that the cattle guards are kept up to the original 

standard in order to achieve the anticipated (reasonable) life expectancy. Maintenance 

must stay within the original area of disturbance. If any failure to provide maintenance, 

results in a shortened life expectancy, replacement costs will be the company’s 

responsibility. 

FEIS L-4 March 2012
END PANEL – TYPE I

Use this style

FEIS L-5 March 2012
STEEL FRAME GATE – Use this style

FEIS L-6 March 2012
FEIS L-7 March 2012
FEIS L-8 March 2012
MODIFICATION FOR WILD HORSES

FEIS L-9 March 2012
FEIS L-10 March 2012
Cattle Guard Specification Drawings and Photo: 

Single width 16’ or

Double width 24’ / 28’ / 32’

8’

FEIS L-11 March 2012
An example of concrete bases with cattle guard. *Drawings and photo taken from Big R 

Manufacturing Catalog. 

The addition of rebar welded between the rails to prevent horses’ legs from becoming caught in 

the cattle guard. 

FEIS L-12 March 2012
Detail A from above drawing. 

FEIS L-13 March 2012
FEIS L-14 March 2012
The gate shall be hung flush on one side of the brace post so that the hinges allow the 

gate to swing completely open and lay flush up against the fence when open. The chain 

shall be welded or attached to the gate. 

FEIS L-15 March 2012
March 2012

FEIS

Appendix M

BLM and USFWS Clay Reed-mustard and Uinta Basin Hookless 

Cactus Conservation Measures
FEIS M-1 March 2012

Appendix M

BLM and USFWS Clay Reed-mustard and 

Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus Conservation Measures

Clay reed-mustard (Schoencrambe argillacea) 

In order to minimize effects to the federally threatened clay reed-mustard, the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) developed the following avoidance 

and minimization measures. Integration of and adherence to these measures will help ensure the activities 

carried out during oil and gas development (including but not limited to drilling, production, and 

maintenance) are in compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The following avoidance and 

minimization measures should be included in the Plan of Development:

1. Pre-project habitat assessments will be completed across 100 percent of the project disturbance 

area within potential habitat1 prior to any ground disturbing activities to determine if suitable clay 

reed-mustard habitat is present.

2. Site inventories will be conducted within suitable habitat2 to determine occupancy. Where standard 

surveys are technically infeasible and otherwise hazardous due to topography, slope, etc., suitable 

habitat will be assessed and mapped for avoidance (hereafter, “avoidance areas”); in such cases, in 

general, 300-foot buffers will be maintained between surface disturbance and avoidance areas. 

However, site-specific distances will need to be approved by the USFWS and the BLM when 

disturbance will occur upslope of habitat. Where conditions allow, inventories:

a. Must be conducted by qualified individual(s) and according to the BLM and the USFWS

accepted survey protocols; 

b. Will be conducted in suitable and occupied3 habitat for all areas proposed for surface 

disturbance prior to initiation of project activities and within the same growing season, at a 

time when the plant can be detected (usually May 1 to June 5, in the Uinta Basin; however, 

surveyors should verify that the plant is flowering by contacting a BLM or USFWS botanist 

or demonstrating that the nearest known population is in flower); 

c. Will occur within 300 feet from the centerline of the proposed right-of-way for surface 

pipelines or roads; and within 300 feet from the perimeter of disturbance for the proposed 

well pad including the well pad; 

d. Will include, but not be limited to, plant species lists and habitat characteristics; and

e. Will be valid until May 1 the following year.

3. Design project infrastructure to minimize impacts within suitable habitat2

: 

a. Where standard surveys are technically infeasible, infrastructure and activities will avoid all 

suitable habitat (avoidance areas) and incorporate 300-foot buffers, in general; however, 

site-specific distances will need to be approved by the USFWS and the BLM when 

disturbance will occur upslope of habitat;

b. Reduce well pad size to the minimum needed, without compromising safety;

 

1

 Potential habitat is defined as areas that satisfy the broad criteria of the species habitat description; usually determined by 

preliminary, in-house assessment. 2

 Suitable habitat is defined as areas that contain or exhibit the specific components or constituents necessary for plant persistence; 

determined by field inspection and/or surveys; may or may not contain clay reed-mustard; habitat descriptions can be found in 

Federal Register Notice and species recovery plan links at <http://www.fws.gov/endangered/wildlife.html>. 3

 Occupied habitat is defined as areas currently or historically known to support clay reed-mustard; synonymous with “known habitat.”
FEIS M-2 March 2012

c. Limit new access routes created by the project;

d. Roads and utilities should share common rights-of-way where possible;

e. Reduce the width of rights-of-way and minimize the depth of excavation needed for the road 

bed; where feasible, use the natural ground surface for the road within habitat;

f. Place signing to limit off-road travel in sensitive areas; and

g. Stay on designated routes and other cleared/approved areas.

4. Within occupied habitat,

3 project infrastructure will be designed to avoid direct disturbance and 

minimize indirect impacts to populations and to individual plants:

a. Where standard surveys are technically infeasible, infrastructure and activities will avoid all 

suitable habitat (avoidance areas) and incorporate 300-foot buffers, in general; however, 

site-specific distances will need to be approved by the USFWS and the BLM when 

disturbance will occur upslope of habitat;

b. Follow the above recommendations (#3) for project design within suitable habitats;

c. To avoid water flow and/or sedimentation into occupied habitat and avoidance areas, silt 

fences, hay bales, and similar structures or practices will be incorporated into the project 

design; appropriate placement of fill is encouraged;

d. Construction of roads will occur such that the edge of the right-of-way is at least 300 feet

from any plant and 300 feet from avoidance areas;

e. Roads will be graveled within occupied habitat; the operator is encouraged to apply water 

for dust abatement to such areas from May 1 to June 5 (flowering period); dust abatement 

applications will be comprised of water only;

f. The edge of the well pad should be located at least 300 feet away from plants and 

avoidance areas, in general; however, site-specific distances will need to be approved by 

the USFWS and the BLM when disturbance will occur upslope of habitat;

g. Surface pipelines will be laid such that a 300-foot buffer exists between the edge of the 

right-of-way and plants and 300 feet between the edge of right-of-way and avoidance areas; 

use stabilizing and anchoring techniques when the pipeline crosses suitable habitat to 

ensure pipelines don’t move towards the population; site-specific distances will need to be 

approved by the USFWS and the BLM when disturbance will occur upslope of habitat;

h. Construction activities will not occur from May 1 through June 5 within occupied habitat;

i. Before and during construction, areas for avoidance should be visually identifiable in the 

field, e.g., flagging, temporary fencing, rebar, etc.;

j. Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling or multiple wells from 

the same pad;

k. Place produced oil, water, or condensate tanks in centralized locations, away from occupied 

habitat; and

l. Minimize the disturbed area of producing well locations through interim and final 

reclamation. Reclaim well pads following drilling to the smallest area possible. 

5. Occupied clay reed-mustard habitats within 300 feet of the edge of the surface pipelines’ rights-ofway, 300 feet of the edge of the roads’ rights-of-way, and 300 feet from the edge of the well pad 

shall be monitored for a period of 3 years after ground disturbing activities. Monitoring will include 

annual plant surveys to determine plant and habitat impacts relative to project facilities. Annual 

reports shall be provided to the BLM and the USFWS. To ensure desired results are being 

achieved, minimization measures will be evaluated and may be changed after a thorough review of 
FEIS M-3 March 2012

the monitoring results and annual reports during annual meetings between the BLM and the 

USFWS. 

6. Reinitiation of Section 7 consultation with the USFWS will be sought immediately if any loss of 

plants or occupied habitat for the shrubby reed-mustard is anticipated as a result of project 

activities.

Additional site-specific measures also may be employed to avoid or minimize effects to the species. These 

additional measures will be developed and implemented in consultation with the USFWS to ensure 

continued compliance with the ESA.

Uinta Basin hookless cactus (Sclerocactus glaucus (= brevispinus and wetlandicus ) 

The following avoidance and minimization measures have been developed to assess impacts to the 

Uinta Basin hookless cactus. In order to minimize effects to the federally threatened Uinta Basin 

hookless cactus, the BLM in coordination with the USFWS developed the following avoidance and 

minimization measures. Integration of and adherence to these measures would help ensure the 

activities carried out during oil and gas development (including but not limited to drilling, 

production, and maintenance) are in compliance with the ESA. The following avoidance and 

minimization measures should be included in the POD:

1. Pre-project habitat assessments would be completed across 100 percent of the project 

disturbance area within potential habitat4 prior to any ground disturbing activities to 

determine if suitable Uinta Basin hookless cactus habitat is present.

2. Within suitable habitat,5 site inventories would be conducted to determine occupancy. 

Inventories: 

a. Must be conducted by qualified individual(s) and according to the BLM and USFWS 

accepted survey protocols.

b. Would be conducted in suitable and occupied6 habitat for all areas proposed for 

surface disturbance prior to initiation of project activities and within the same 

growing season, at a time when the plant can be detected, and during appropriate 

flowering periods:

i. Sclerocactus brevispinus surveys should be conducted March 15 to June 30, 

unless extended by the BLM.

ii. Sclerocactus wetlandicus surveys can be done any time of the year, provided 

there is no snow cover.

c. Would occur within 300 feet from the edge of the proposed ROW for surface 

pipelines or roads; and within 300 feet from the perimeter of disturbance for the 

proposed well pad including the well pad.

 

4

 Potential habitat is defined as areas that satisfy the broad criteria of the species habitat description; usually determined by 

preliminary, in-house assessment. 5

 Suitable habitat is defined as areas that contain or exhibit the specific components or constituents necessary for plant 

persistence; determined by field inspection and/or surveys; may or may not contain Uinta Basin hookless cactus. Habitat 

descriptions can be found in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 1990 Recovery Plan and Federal Register Notices for the 

Uinta Basin hookless cactus (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/wildlife.html). 6

 Occupied habitat is defined as areas currently or historically known to support Uinta Basin hookless cactus; synonymous 

with “known habitat.”
FEIS M-4 March 2012

d. Would include, but not be limited to, plant species lists and habitat characteristics; 

and

e. Would be valid until March 15 the following year for Sclerocactus brevispinus and 

1 year from the survey date for Sclerocactus wetlandicus.

3. Design project infrastructure to minimize impacts within suitable habitat:

a. Reduce well pad size to the minimum needed, without compromising safety;

b. Limit new access routes created by the project;

c. Roads and utilities should share common ROWs where possible;

d. Reduce width of ROW and minimize the depth of excavation needed for the road bed; 

where feasible, use the natural ground surface for the road within habitat;

e. Place signing to limit off-road travel in sensitive areas;

f. Stay on designated routes and other cleared/approved areas; and

g. All disturbed areas would be re-vegetated with native species comprised of species 

indigenous to the area and non-native species that are not likely to invade other 

areas.

4. Within occupied habitat, project infrastructure would be designed to avoid direct 

disturbance and minimize indirect impacts to populations and to individual plants:

a. Follow the above (#3) recommendations for project design within suitable habitats;

b. Buffers of 300 feet minimum between the edge of the ROW (roads and surface 

pipelines) or surface disturbance (well pads) and plants and populations would be 

incorporated;

c. Surface pipelines would be laid such that a 300-foot buffer exists between the edge 

of the ROW and the plants, use stabilizing and anchoring techniques when the 

pipeline crosses the habitat to ensure the pipelines don’t move towards the 

population;

d. Before and during construction, areas for avoidance should be visually identifiable in 

the field (e.g., flagging, temporary fencing, rebar, etc.);

e. Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling or multiple wells 

from the same pad;

f. Designs would avoid concentrating water flows or sediments into occupied habitat;

g. Place produced oil, water, or condensate tanks in centralized locations, away from 

occupied habitat; and

h. Minimize the disturbed area of producing well locations through interim and final 

reclamation. Reclaim well pads following drilling to the smallest area possible.

5. Occupied Uinta Basin hookless cactus habitats within 300 feet of the edge of the surface 

pipelines’ ROW, 300 feet of the edge of the roads’ ROW, and 300 feet from the edge of the 

well pad shall be monitored for a period of 3 years after ground disturbing activities. 

Monitoring would include annual plant surveys to determine plant and habitat impacts 

relative to project facilities. Annual reports shall be provided to the BLM and the USFWS. To 

ensure desired results are being achieved, minimization measures would be evaluated and 
FEIS M-5 March 2012

may be changed after a thorough review of the monitoring results and annual reports during 

annual meetings between the BLM and the USFWS.

6. Re-initiation of Section 7 consultation with the USFWS would be sought immediately if any 

loss of plants or occupied habitat for the Uinta Basin hookless cactus is anticipated as a 

result of project activities.

Additional measures to avoid or minimize effects to the species may be developed and implemented 

in consultation with the USFWS to ensure compliance with the ESA.
March 2012

FEIS

Appendix N

Graham’s Beardtongue Conservation Measures
FEIS N-1 March 2012

Appendix N

Recommended Measures to Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Penstemon grahamii

from ongoing Oil and Gas Development

(Appendix 1 from the Graham’s Beardtongue Conservation Agreement)

These conservation measures are specific to traditional oil and gas energy development. Measures 

relevant to oil shale and tar sand development will be developed at a later date as definitive biological 

information concerning P. grahamii becomes available and the nature of the impacts of tar sand and oil 

shale energy developments become better known.

1. Pre-project habitat assessments will be completed across 100% of the project disturbance area 

within potential habitat prior to any ground disturbing activities to determine if suitable Graham’s 

beardtongue habitat is present. 

2. Within suitable habitat, site inventories will be conducted to determine occupancy. Inventories:

a. Must be conducted by qualified individual(s) and according to BLM and Service accepted 

survey protocols,

b. Will be conducted in suitable and occupied habitat4 for all areas proposed for surface 

disturbance prior to initiation of project activities and within the same growing season, at a 

time when the plant can be detected (usually April 15th to May 20th in the Uintah Basin; 

however, surveyors should verify that the plant is flowering by contacting a BLM or FWS 

botanist or demonstrating that the nearest known population is in flower), 

c. Will occur within 300’ from the centerline of the proposed right-of-way for surface pipelines 

or roads; and within 300’ from the perimeter of disturbance for the proposed well pad 

including the well pad, 

d. Will include, but not be limited to, plant species lists and habitat characteristics, and

e. Will be valid until April 15th the following year.

3. Design project infrastructure to minimize impacts within suitable habitat2

:

a. Reduce well pad size to the minimum needed, without compromising safety, 

b. Limit new access routes created by the project,

c. Roads and utilities should share common right-of-ways where possible, 

d. Reduce the width of right-of-ways and minimize the depth of excavation needed for the road 

bed; where feasible, use the natural ground surface for the road within habitat, 

e. Place signing to limit off-road travel in sensitive areas, and

f. Stay on designated routes and other cleared/approved areas.

4. Within occupied habitat, project infrastructure will be designed to avoid direct disturbance and 

minimize indirect impacts to populations and to individual plants:

a. Follow the above (#3) recommendations for project design within suitable habitats, 

b. Construction of roads will occur such that the edge of the right of way is at least 300’ from 

any plant,

c. Roads will be graveled within occupied habitat; the operator is encouraged to apply water 

for dust abatement to such areas from April 15th to May 20th (flowering period); dust 

abatement applications will be comprised of water only,

d. The edge of the well pad should be located at least 300’ away from plants, 

e. Surface pipelines will be laid such that a 300 foot buffer exists between the edge of the right 

of way and the plants, use stabilizing and anchoring techniques when the pipeline crosses 

the habitat (exposed raw shale knolls and slopes derived from the Parachute Creek and 

Evacuation Creek members of the geologic Green River Formation) to ensure pipelines 

don’t move towards the population,

f. Construction activities will not occur from April 15th through May 30th within occupied 

habitat,

g. Before and during construction, areas for avoidance should be visually identifiable in the 

field, e.g., flagging, temporary fencing, rebar, etc.,
FEIS N-2 March 2012

h. Where technically and economically feasible, use directional drilling or multiple wells from 

the same pad, 

i. Designs will avoid concentrating water flows or sediments into occupied habitat, 

j. Place produced oil, water, or condensate tanks in centralized locations, away from occupied 

habitat, and

k. Minimize the disturbed area of producing well locations through interim and final 

reclamation. Reclaim well pads following drilling to the smallest area possible. 

5. Occupied Graham’s beardtongue habitats within 300’ of the edge of the surface pipelines’ right-ofways, 300’ of the edge of the roads’ right-of-ways, and 300’ from the edge of well pads shall be 

monitored for a period of three years after ground disturbing activities. Monitoring will include 

annual plant surveys to determine plant and habitat impacts relative to project facilities. Annual 

reports shall be provided to the BLM and the Service. To ensure desired results are being 

achieved, minimization measures will be evaluated and may be changed after a thorough review of 

the monitoring results and annual reports during annual meetings between the BLM and the 

Service. 
March 2012

FEIS

Appendix O

Long-term Monitoring Plan for Water Resources
FEIS O-1 March 2012

Appendix O

Greater Natural Buttes Project Area 

Natural Gas Development Project

Long-term Monitoring Plan for Water Resources

O1.0 Introduction

In response to public comments received on the Greater Natural Buttes Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) developed this long-term monitoring plan for water resources

within the Greater Natural Buttes Project Area (GNBPA).

O1.1 Objectives

The Long-term Monitoring Plan for Water Resources (Plan) is designed to guide the determination of impacts 

to water resources due to implementation of the agency preferred alternative. Data collected under this Plan

can be used to identify and evaluate any direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that may occur as 

project-related development proceeds, as well as identify the need for any additional investigations or 

environmental protection measures that may be necessary to address such impacts. 

Potential unanticipated impacts and their causes include:

• Impacts to surface water from leaks or accidental spills of fuels, lubricants, drilling fluids, hydraulic 

fracturing fluids, condensate, high gravity oil, or other fluids from evaporation ponds, production wells, 

reserve pits, or other project facilities;

• Impacts to groundwater from leaks or accidental spills of fuels, lubricants, drilling fluids, hydraulic 

fracturing fluids, condensate, high gravity oil, or other fluids from evaporation ponds, production wells, 

reserve pits, or other project facilities;

• Increased turbidity or suspended sediment in surface waters due to surface disturbance associated 

with construction, operation, and final reclamation, which could lead to increased water temperatures 

and adverse effects on cold water game-fish and aquatic life (Utah designated beneficial use 

Class 3A) in Willow Creek and Bitter Creek;

• Increased salinity in surface waters due to inadequate implementation or maintenance of erosion 

control practices, which could contribute to further impairment of Willow Creek for agriculture (Utah 

designated beneficial use Class 4) associated with Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) concentrations;

• Increased sedimentation, salinity, or turbidity in surface waters due to inadequate implementation or 

maintenance of erosion control practices, which could adversely affect designated beneficial uses of 

the White River and its tributaries;

• Decreased flows from springs near development areas due to modification of aquifer characteristics 

by drilling operations; and

• Changes in groundwater levels in water supply wells near development areas due to withdrawals of 

groundwater or modification of aquifer characteristics by drilling operations.

O1.2 Existing Monitoring Programs and Requirements

Several agency programs are in place that require monitoring of water resources in the GNBPA. The following 

list provides a brief description of each of these programs and their existing monitoring and reporting 

requirements. 
FEIS O-2 March 2012

• Disposal Wells: Permitting of existing and proposed injection wells for the disposal of produced 

water in the GNBPA is being conducted under the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(USEPA’s) Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. As part of the permitting requirements, a 

monitoring plan is being implemented to collect data on water levels and water quality from monitoring 

wells constructed in the vicinity of injection activities. Under this existing plan, data is being collected to 

assess the impact of injection activities on the Birds Nest Aquifer. In addition, any new injection wells 

would be evaluated and the existing plan updated to assess the impacts of new injection activities on 

the Birds Nest Aquifer. The monitoring plan for the disposal wells tracks the horizontal movement of 

injected fluids.

• Public Water Supply: Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the USEPA requires routine monitoring of 

public water systems. The Bonanza Public Water Supply obtains water from alluvial wells adjacent to 

the White River, upstream of the GNBPA. Although the system operator would be required to conduct 

routine monitoring of a broad range of constituents within the water supply source, it is recommended 

that limited monitoring of this source be conducted as outlined in this plan.

• Evaporation Ponds: The proponent (Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP) operates existing 

produced water evaporation facilities within the GNBPA. Two ponds are located at each of three 

adjacent facilities; each pond is double lined with a leak detection system that drains to sumps at the 

four corners of the pond. These facilities are permitted with the State of Utah, and monitoring of water 

levels within the leak detection system is conducted weekly and reported to the state quarterly.

The Plan for the GNBPA would not include any additional monitoring activities that would overlap with or 

duplicate the activities under these existing monitoring programs.

O1.3 Development of Detailed Plans and Plan Review

Once the Record of Decision for the Greater Natural Buttes area gas development project is signed, the 

operators would develop a comprehensive Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), which would include a 

comprehensive Sampling and Analysis Plan. These plans would be developed based upon a 5-year plan of 

development updated annually by the operators and would be updated annually based on monitoring results 

and any change in development plans for the proposed project. The QAPP would be reviewed and approved 

by the BLM with input from other agencies as appropriate.

The QAPP would be developed using USEPA guidance (USEPA 2001) and would be designed to document 

the planning, implementation, and assessment procedures for the project, including sampling methods, 

laboratory procedures, data management and analysis, and reporting. The QAPP would ensure data quality 

meets the required formats and standards necessary for incorporation into the current Utah Division of Water 

Quality database. This step is necessary to ensure that the data collected would provide reliable detection of 

impacts to water resources in or downstream of the GNBPA.

The QAPP would be prepared prior to any sample collection, including baseline sampling, and prior to 

commencement of the project. Implementation of the QAPP would provide information for the BLM to identify, 

evaluate, document, and monitor direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to water resources. It also would

provide the BLM with the tools necessary to determine appropriate response and mitigation measures in the 

unlikely event of impacts to water resources.

This Plan would be reviewed annually as part of the annual reporting process for potential modifications to 

monitoring station locations, frequency of measurement and sampling, methods of analysis, maintenance of 

records and databases, and procedures for data interpretations and decision-making. Any plan modifications 

would be documented in the QAPP for BLM approval to ensure that the effectiveness of monitoring and the 

management decisions resulting from it would be maintained. These reviews would be documented in the 

annual reports,
FEIS O-3 March 2012

O1.4 Plan Organization

This Plan is focused on surface water, springs, and groundwater monitoring within the GNBPA and is 

accordingly subdivided into major sections to address these resources. Chapter 2.0 presents a summary of 

the setting and baseline data for water resources in the GNBPA, and Chapter 3.0 presents the parameters to 

be analyzed in samples collected under this plan. Chapter 4.0 presents the monitoring locations for surface 

water sampling, and Chapter 5.0 discusses spring monitoring locations. Chapter 6.0 presents the locations 

and rationale for groundwater monitoring. Finally, Chapter 7.0 discusses the monitoring data reporting 

process, Chapter 8.0 presents additional monitoring and potential mitigation that could be employed to 

address observed impacts to water resources, and Chapter 9.0 lists the references used in this monitoring 

plan.

O2.0 Characteristics of the Project Area 

O2.1 Water Resources within the GNBPA

The GNBPA is located in the lower White River Basin, an area of semi-arid mesas and plateaus that have 

been deeply dissected by drainages. The White River is a perennial stream that drains an area of 

approximately 5,120 square miles. The river flows east to west within the GNBPA and flows into the Green 

River near the northwest corner of the GNBPA. Tributaries to the White River within or near the GNBPA

include Bitter Creek, Asphalt Wash, Coyote Wash and its tributaries, Sand Wash, Cottonwood Wash, and 

Willow Creek (Figure O-1). Bitter Creek is perennial over the lower 2 miles of its drainage due to discharge 

from the only spring known to occur within the GNBPA; otherwise, tributaries to the White River are 

ephemeral.

Groundwater occurs within eight aquifers underlying the GNBPA as identified in the Draft EIS:

• Shallow alluvial aquifers (also includes Uinta Formation);

• Birds Nest Aquifer (Green River Formation);

• Douglas Creek Aquifers (Green River Formation);

• Mesaverde Aquifer; and

• Dakota Aquifer;

• Morrison Aquifer;

• Entrada Aquifer; and 

• Glen Canyon Aquifer.

The shallow alluvial aquifers are of limited aerial extent and occur along major drainages in the GNBPA, 

especially the White River. The other seven aquifers occur in consolidated sedimentary deposits at increasing 

depths beneath the GNBPA. The last four aquifers (Dakota, Morrison, Entrada, and Glen Canyon) comprise 

the Dakota-Glen Canyon aquifer system.

O2.2 Baseline Surface Water Data

Recent surface water flow and water quality data are available for the White River from the following locations

(Figure O-1): 

• Upstream of the GNBPA: White River near Watson (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 09306500; map 

number SW-1) 

• Downstream of the GNBPA: White River near Ouray (USGS 09306900; map number SW-3)
FEIS O-4 March 2012

• Downstream of the GNBPA: White River near Ouray at Utah State Route 88 (Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality [UDEQ] Station 4933520; at mouth of White River)

The USGS gage upstream near Watson (SW-1 on Figure O-1) currently is operational and used for periodic 

water quality sampling. This station is 8 to 10 river-miles upstream of the GNBPA and has been operational 

since the 1950s. The USGS downstream station near the mouth of the river (SW-3) was operated from August 

1969 through September 1986. Currently, additional water quality monitoring downstream occurs at the UDEQ 

station identified in the USEPA STORET database (4933520). This station has sporadic data available into 

2006.

Also within the GNBPA, other surface flow and water quality data were retrieved periodically for 2 to 6 years 

(i.e., in the late 1970s and early 1980s) at the following locations:

• Cottonwood Wash (USGS 09306855; map number SW-9)

• Coyote Wash (USGS 09306878; map number SW-10)

• Sand Wash (USGS 09306870 and 09306872; near the mouth of the wash and above the mouth of 

Upper Sand Wash) 

• Bitter Creek (USGS 09306850; map number SW-5)

The only impaired waterbody near the GNBPA is Willow Creek. A small portion of the Willow Creek watershed 

is within the GNBPA. It is a perennial stream impaired by elevated TDS concentrations with designated 

beneficial uses that include secondary contact recreation, cold-water game-fish and aquatic life, and 

agriculture (Utah Administrative Code 2007). Historical data for Willow Creek has been collected at two 

locations near Ouray: USGS Station 09308000 (downstream of confluence with Hill Creek on Figure O-1) for 

water years 1975 through 1983 and UDEQ Station 4933500 (near SW-7) for data into 2006.

Analytes at these stations typically reflect USGS/UDEQ water quality constituent analyses, including water 

temperature, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, pH, specific conductance, ammonia, nitrate plus nitrite, 

orthophosphate, hardness, calcium, magnesium, sodium, sodium adsorption ratio, potassium, chloride, 

sulfate, carbonate, bicarbonate, TDS, total suspended solids or suspended sediment, boron, iron, manganese, 

and others. More extensive metals and metalloid analyses are included at Bitter Creek and Willow Creek. 

USGS analyses for Bitter and Willow creeks also include a large suite of organic and other constituents, such 

as aldrin, dieldrin, phenolic compounds, heptachlor, PCBs, 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, gross beta radioactivity, 

radium-226.

Temperature and precipitation data currently are monitored at Ouray (Ouray 4NE, Station 426568), Jensen

(Station 424342), Rangely, Colorado (Rangely 1E, Station 056832), and Dinosaur National Monument, 

Colorado (Station 052286). These stations fall in a range of elevations generally somewhat lower than the 

GNBPA, but would be used for general temperature and precipitation data. Daily data and longer-term 

statistical summaries available for these stations from the Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC) website 

(wrcc@dri.edu) would be incorporated into the monitoring plan database.

A substantial amount of water quality data is available from USGS sources within the GNBPA. Some of these 

data represent earlier periods of development in the area, typically from the late 1970s and mid-1980s; 

however, relatively current surface water data (flow and water quality) are available for the White River, which 

is the major surface waterbody in the GNBPA. With the exception of organic compounds, which were never 

measured at any of the stations, the existing water quality data adequately characterizes inorganic

constituents.

O2.3 Baseline Groundwater Data

Groundwater levels and water quality data were collected by the USGS at 10 wells within the GNBPA during 

the late 1970s and early 1980s. Most of these wells were completed in shallow alluvial aquifers. Water levels 

FEIS O-6 March 2012

were measured monthly, and between one to seven water quality samples were retrieved over the years, 

depending on the well. Groundwater quality analyses were similar to those examined for surface water 

samples, but usually involved a somewhat smaller suite of constituents. As with surface water baseline data, 

the existing groundwater baseline data adequately characterizes inorganic constituents but additional 

monitoring is needed to characterize baseline organic water quality.

Chemical quality of water from alluvial wells ranges from 440 to 27,800 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of dissolved 

solids. Groundwater from the alluvial aquifers is very alkaline, and the alluvial aquifers contain very hard water. 

During periods of low flow in the White River (the primary recharge source), the dissolved solids concentration 

is almost 1,000 mg/L and is slightly saline (Lindskov and Kimball 1984). In general, alluvial aquifer 

groundwater is not suitable for public supply, but may have value for other uses, such as irrigation, stock 

water, and limited domestic supply.

O3.0 Sampling Parameters

All water samples collected under this monitoring plan would be analyzed for the parameters presented in 

Table O-1. In addition, field parameters would be collected at all locations where samples are collected. All

reference points for the stations would be surveyed to a reference elevation and location, and survey data 

would be entered into the database. All field equipment (electrodes and meters) would be checked for function 

and calibrated to known reference solutions at the start of each day of sampling and checked again at the end 

of the day. The detection limit for all parameters would be reported and entered in a project database.

The list of parameters would be reviewed as part of the annual review process and modified as necessary to 

collect the required data to address site-specific knowledge gained during the monitoring program. Flows or 

water levels at each site would be directly measured at the time each sample is collected. Depending on the 

magnitude of flow or the depth of water, measurements would be taken using the most appropriate method.

Table O-1 Parameters and Water Quality Constituents for Long-Term Monitoring

Field and General Water 

Quality Parameters

Major Cations 

and Anions Trace Elements1 Organics2 Others

• Total Alkalinity

• Temperature (oC)

• Specific Conductance

• pH

• Dissolved Oxygen

• Turbidity3

• Hardness

• Total Dissolved Solids

• Suspended Sediment3

• Water Level (for wells)4

• Flow Rate (for streams 

and springs)

• Bicarbonate

• Calcium

• Carbonate

• Chloride

• Magnesium

• Potassium

• Sodium

• Sulfate

• Aluminum

• Arsenic

• Barium

• Boron

• Cadmium

• Chromium

• Iron 

• Lead

• Manganese

• Mercury

• Nickel

• Selenium

• Silver

• Zinc

• Radionuclides

• Volatile Organic 

Compounds (VOCs) by 

USEPA Method 8260 

(Method includes 

benzene, toluene, 

ethylbenzene, xylenes)

• Semi-volatile organic 

compounds (SVOCs) by 

USEPA Method 8270 

• Total Petroleum 

Hydrocarbons - EPA 

Method 8015 Modified

• Ammonia

• Nitrate+nitrite, 

total

• Phosphorus

1 As total concentrations.

2 Additional spill response monitoring and reporting would be conducted according to SPCC plans developed for the project and as required by 

agency with spill oversight authority. 3 For surface water samples. 4 Water levels will be measured prior to sampling the well and recorded to the nearest one hundredth of a foot.
FEIS O-7 March 2012

O4.0 Surface Water Monitoring

Ten stream stations are recommended as potential monitoring locations along perennial and ephemeral 

stream reaches, as listed in Table O-2 and shown in Figure O-1. Monitoring locations, sampling methods, and 

sampling procedures would be defined in the QAPP to be submitted by the operators and approved by the 

BLM (see Section O1.3). Monitoring would be conducted quarterly. Flow and water quality data for the White 

River near Watson, Utah (SW-1) would be retrieved as part of the program and incorporated into the 

monitoring plan database. As mentioned in Section O2.2, there are two historical STORET database sites in or 

adjacent to the GNBPA. The USGS site on the lower White River (SW-3) has been selected as the proposed 

monitoring location because it has more continuous data available. Outside of the GNBPA, the proposed 

station on lower Willow Creek is at or near the UDEQ sampling location (4933500).

Table O-2 Proposed Surface Water Monitoring Locations

Station Name 

Map 

Identifier1 Access

Characteristics 

Relative to GNBPA Monitoring Rationale 

White River near 

Watson, Utah

SW-1 Utah State Route 

45

Upstream perennial Upstream of the GNBPA on the major perennial waterbody; 

at an existing USGS monitoring site with historical upstream 

data

White River at Glen 

Bench Road

SW-2 Glen Bench Road Central perennial Location central to the GNBPA; would help distinguish inputs 

from Sand Wash, Bitter Creek, Asphalt Wash, and activities 

outside the GNBPA

White River at mouth 

near Ouray

SW-3 White River South 

Road and/or Utah 

State Route 88

Downstream 

perennial

Downstream of the GNBPA on major perennial waterbody; 

former USGS monitoring site with historical data; would help 

distinguish inputs from Coyote Wash, Cottonwood Wash, and 

activities outside the GNBPA

Upper Bitter Creek SW-4 East Bench Road 

to local road

Upstream perennial Upstream of the GNBPA on a cold-water stream known for 

large salinity contributions to the White River.

Lower Bitter Creek2 SW-5 Bitter Creek Road Downstream 

perennial

Downstream of the only spring within the GNBPA; 

downstream station on a cold-water perennial known for large 

salinity contributions to the White River.

Upper Willow Creek SW-6 Utah State Route 

88 to local ranch 

road along creek

Upstream perennial Upstream on an impaired cold water stream; would help 

provide background data on salinity, turbidity, and sediment 

contributed by the Green River formation

Lower Willow Creek SW-7 Utah State Route 

88 to improved 

gravel road

Downstream 

perennial 

Downstream on impaired cold-water stream 

Middle Cottonwood 

Wash

SW-8 Glen Bench Cutoff 

Road

“Upstream” 

ephemeral

Most extensively disturbed sub-basin in the GNBPA; would

serve as an upstream location, although other developments 

exist further upstream of the GNBPA; even less flow is likely 

further upstream

Lower Cottonwood 

Wash

SW-9 White River South 

Road

Downstream 

ephemeral

Most extensively disturbed sub-basin in the GNBPA; would

track any contributions to the White River from Cottonwood 

Wash

Lower Coyote Wash SW-10 Glen Bench Road Downstream 

ephemeral

Downstream of existing developments both within and 

outside of the GNBPA; major background contributor of 

salinity and sediment to the lower White River

1 See Figure O-1. 2 See the text discussion regarding the spring on lower Bitter Creek

Three candidate stream monitoring stations have been identified on ephemeral stream reaches within the 

GNBPA: an upstream and downstream station on Cottonwood Wash and a downstream station on Coyote 

Wash (Figure O-1). These stations initially would be inspected for their suitability as monitoring locations and 
FEIS O-8 March 2012

integrated into the program on a trial basis. If other locations along the washes are found to be more suited to 

flow and water quality monitoring, the stations could be moved provided suitable representation on each 

stream is maintained.

The Cottonwood Wash sub-basin would undergo the most extensive disturbance of any of the White River 

tributaries from the proposed development. Monitoring of this sub-basin would give useful information for other 

ephemeral tributaries. Extensive industrial disturbance exists outside the GNBPA on Coyote Wash, and a 

relatively small amount of disturbance would occur in that basin from the proposed development. However, 

due to extensive badlands terrain, Coyote Wash is a major contributor of background sediment concentrations 

in the lower White River (Seiler and Tooley 1982); hence, Coyote Wash is recommended as a surface water 

monitoring location. Both of these tributaries enter the White River downstream of the proposed river 

monitoring site at Glen Bench Road. Sampling these two washes would help explain any water quality 

differences in the river between the Glen Bench site (SW-2 on Figure O-1) and the proposed monitoring site 

near the river mouth (SW-3). If monitoring were to indicate the need for additional sampling locations on these

streams or others, they could be added through the review process.

Because of the data gaps in existing monitoring data, additional baseline monitoring would precede the onset 

of construction activities in the GNBPA that would include the monitoring locations in Table O-2 and 

parameters discussed in Chapter 3.0. On perennial streams, data collection for baseline monitoring would 

occur in at least two quarters (up to four quarters if project timing allows), and all water quality constituents 

(Table O-1) would be analyzed during each quarter. The monitoring staff would consult with the USEPA and 

the BLM prior to undertaking data collection to further verify the data to be collected, particularly for the list of 

organic constituents that may be expanded for baseline purposes. Two baseline sampling events also would 

be attempted at ephemeral stream stations as identified in Table O-2. These efforts would be opportunistically 

timed for data retrieval at upstream and downstream pairs on each stream. Parameters and water quality 

constituents to be analyzed would include those determined for the perennial streams.

O5.0 Spring Monitoring

Only one spring has been documented in the GNBPA, located in the bed of Bitter Creek approximately 2 miles 

upstream from the confluence with the White River. This feature has been identified through a USGS 

investigation in the 1980s (Holmes and Kimball 1987). At the time of the USGS investigation, flow in this spring 

was approximately 360 gallons per minute; no other data are known from this feature. Additional searches for 

spring occurrences using aerial photos, queries to the BLM, and searches in the Utah Division of Water Rights 

database did not reveal additional spring features in the GNBPA. 

The present approach for obtaining flow and water quality information for this spring would be to assume that 

stream data collected approximately 1.5 miles downstream (the lower Bitter Creek station identified in 

Table O-2) is dominated by flow from the spring. Further field inspections would be conducted during both the 

baseline and long-term monitoring to verify this assumption. If investigations indicate that separate data are 

needed for the spring, then an additional monitoring station would be added at its location.

O6.0 Groundwater Monitoring

Groundwater monitoring would be conducted at locations within aquifers that are likely to yield freshwater 

resources in the GNBPA. As noted in Section O2.1, eight aquifers were identified as underlying the GNBPA. 

The following discussion provides the rationale for selection of aquifers that would be monitored based on the 

potential for development of groundwater resources.
FEIS O-9 March 2012

O6.1 Alluvial Aquifer Monitoring

Alluvial aquifers within the GNBPA consist of shallow, unconsolidated water-bearing deposits of limited aerial 

extent that occur along major drainages. Depth to water generally ranges from about 5 feet along the White 

River to approximately 20 feet along Bitter Creek (Holmes and Kimball 1987). These alluvial deposits and 

aquifers primarily occur along the larger streams in or near the GNBPA, such as the Green River, White River, 

Bitter Creek, and Willow Creek. Smaller areas of alluvial aquifers also occur along lesser streams such as 

Cottonwood Creek and Coyote Wash. The average thickness of alluvial fill in the Bitter Creek and Willow 

Creek drainages is on the order of 100 feet, whereas the average thickness along the White River is 

approximately 30 feet (Holmes and Kimball 1987).

The Bonanza Public Water Supply obtains water from several shallow alluvial wells less than 50 feet deep 

drilled into the alluvium adjacent to the White River. The wells originally were drilled in the 1940s to provide 

water to gilsonite mining operations. Since the water diversion is in the alluvium of the White River, the water 

quality in the wells is overwhelmingly dominated by the White River. As shown on Figure O-1, the wells are 

located next to the river upstream of the GNBPA. A 2-mile radius drinking water source protection zone 

(DWSPZ) has been established around the wells under the UDEQ, Division of Drinking Water, Source 

Protection Program. The DWSPZ extends into the GNBPA, although the lateral extent of the alluvial aquifer 

from which water is drawn is limited to the valley bottom within close proximity to the river and does not extend

into the GNBPA.

Although the shallow alluvial aquifers are limited in aerial extent and have varying water quality, wells within

these aquifers would be the most likely candidates for monitoring in the GNBPA, especially those associated 

with the Green and White rivers. Monitoring of these aquifers would help identify contamination impacts due to 

gas well drilling and production that would require mitigation measures to protect the resource. Therefore, 

water level and water quality data from alluvial wells within the GNBPA would be gathered for monitoring from 

the list of potential wells provided in Table O-3. Monitoring locations and sampling procedures would be 

defined in the QAPP as described in Section O1.3. Monitoring would be conducted on a quarterly basis.

Table O-3 Potential Monitoring Wells in the GNBPA 

Utah Right 

Number or USGS 

ID Number

Map 1 Identifier Approximate Location Permit Holder

Well Depth or Water 

Zone Interval

(feet) Aquifer

Shallow Alluvial Aquifers

49-173 UG-1 Various Locations NE 

T10S, R24E

Sec 2, Barber Asphalt <50 White River Alluvium

49-222 UG-2 Various Locations Sec 2, T10S, 

R24E (Bonanza Water Supply

sample at tap) 

American Gilsonite <50 White River Alluvium

395554109172701 UG-3 SWNWSE Sec 23, T10S, R23E USGS 38 White River Alluvium

395554109172702 UG-4 SWNWSE Sec 23, T10S, R23E USGS 17 White River Alluvium 

395554109172703 UG-5 SWNWSE Sec 23, T10S, R23E USGS 18 White River Alluvium

49-2325 UG-6 NE Sec 33, T8S, R20E Buggsy’s Water 

Service

40 Green River Alluvium

49-2324 UG-7 NE Sec 33, T8S, R20E Buggsy’s Water 

Service

48 Green River Alluvium

49-2231 UG-8 NW Sec 33,T8S, R20E Nile Chapman 75 Green River Alluvium

395628109162901 UG-9 NWNENE Sec 24, T10S, R23E USGS 44 Asphalt Wash Alluvium

49-266 UG-10 NE, Sec 10, T9S, R 23E Mark M. Hall 15 Coyote Wash Alluvium 

49-2266 UG-11 NW Sec 17, T9S, R23E Questar 50 Coyote Wash Alluvium

395801109245802 UG-12 NESENE Sec 10, T10S, R22E USGS 15 Bitter Creek Alluvium
FEIS O-10 March 2012

Table O-3 Potential Monitoring Wells in the GNBPA 

Utah Right 

Number or USGS 

ID Number

Map 

Identifier1 Approximate Location Permit Holder

Well Depth or Water 

Zone Interval

(feet) Aquifer

395801109245801 UG-13 NESENE Sec 10, T10S, R22E USGS 36 Bitter Creek Alluvium

395722109344902 UG-14 SWSESW Sec 8, T10S, R21E USGS 38 Cottonwood Wash 

Alluvium

395722109344901 UG-15 SWSESW Sec 8, T10S, R21E USGS 21 Cottonwood Wash 

Alluvium

395633109384602 UG-16 SESWNW Sec 15, T10S, R20E USGS 42 Willow Creek Alluvium

395633109384601 UG-17 SESWNW Sec 15, T10S, R20E USGS 76 Willow Creek Alluvium

Green River Aquifer

395034109342501 UG-18 SWNESW Sec 24, T10S, R23E USGS 4852 Green River Formation

49-252 UG-19 NE Sec 17, T10S, R22E BLM 1560-1850 Green River Formation

49-990 UG-20 NE Sec 23, T10S, R21E Target Trucking 1570-2000 Green River Formation

49-3 UG-21 NE Sec 2, T10S, R21E Dekalb AG 2460-2540 Green River Formation

Not Determined UG-22 SENE Sec 16, T10S, R21E Not Identified 1342, 1900, 2530-

2650, 3300-3520

Green River Formation

49-234 UG-23 NW Sec 35, T10S, R20E (Seep 

Ridge)

BLM 1700-2500 Green River Formation

1 See Figure O-1.

In addition to shallow alluvial aquifers, the Uinta Formation, of Tertiary age, is exposed at the surface within the 

GNBPA and the surrounding region (Price and Miller 1975). This formation consists of thinly bedded shale, 

siltstone, and fine-grained sandstone with interbedded claystone and limestone. The formation generally is not 

water-bearing in most locations due to drainage by deeply incised streams. For this reason, the Uinta 

Formation aquifers are not proposed for monitoring in this plan.

The wells in Table O-3 were identified from the Utah Division of Water Rights database and from a USGS 

monitoring well network in the GNBPA. It currently is not known if access would be granted to the wells for 

sampling or if the wells are in suitable condition to be sampled; however, a suitable subset of these wells 

would be selected to adequately monitor the alluvial aquifers upgradient and downgradient of proposed 

development activities. If a suitable number of existing alluvial wells cannot be identified for monitoring, new 

monitoring wells would be installed.

O6.2 Consolidated Aquifer Monitoring

Seven of the eight aquifers underlying the GNBPA are located within consolidated sedimentary formations.

Birds Nest Aquifer; Green River Formation

Monitoring of the Birds Nest Aquifer is being conducted under the USEPA UIC program to observe the effects 

of ongoing and future injection of produced water into the aquifer. Major points of the SWD monitoring plan 

include the following:

• Construction of five monitoring wells;

• Collection of water samples for chemical analysis on an annual basis to differentiate between injection 

water (>800 mg/L sulfate) and natural Birds Nest aquifer formation water (<50 mg/L sulfate) and to 

document any potential changes in water chemistry caused by the injection wells in this area;
FEIS O-11 March 2012

• Measurement of static fluid levels using a tapeline water level meter on a quarterly basis to evaluate 

potential pressure influences from the injection wells;

• Measurement of bottom hole temperature on an annual basis to evaluate potential temperature affects 

caused by the injection wells; and

• Definition of a compliance boundary based on stabilized, isolated, and representative Birds Nest 

Aquifer water samples collected during the completion of all SWD wells, the five monitor wells, and 

during the plugging and abandonment operations of inactive producing wells located in the immediate 

area.

The area of the Birds Nest Aquifer outside of the area identified in the monitoring plan required for the salt 

water disposal (SWD) well permits approved under the USEPA UIC program would be monitored under this 

Plan by coordinating with the ongoing Utah Geological Survey (UGS) basin-wide study of the aquifer. If 

appropriate, portions of the UGS study pertinent to the GNBPA would be continued under this Plan through 

the life of the project.

Douglas Creek Aquifer, Green River Formation

In the GNBPA, water-bearing zones in the Douglas Creek Aquifer generally occur at depths greater than 

1,500 feet below ground surface, depending on the structural position of the well. The water-bearing units 

within the aquifer are of limited lateral and vertical extent and have not been developed for beneficial use 

within the GNBPA. In addition to the aquifer being located deeper than is practical to drill a typical water supply 

well, the Green River Formation may contain appreciable amounts of hydrocarbons. Numerous fields in the 

Uinta Basin produce oil and natural gas from this formation, including possible production zones within the 

GNBPA. Therefore, it is unlikely that this aquifer will be developed as a source of water.

However, a few wells previously drilled for natural gas have been converted to water wells. One source of 

water (likely from the Douglas Creek Aquifer) is a water well at Seep Ridge in the northwest quarter of 

Section 35, T10S, R20E (UG-23 on Figure O-1). According to data collected from the Utah Division of Oil, 

Gas, and Mining (UDOGM) database, this well was converted to a water well in 1960 and produces water from 

a perforated interval from 2,500 to 2,510 feet below ground surface. The well has been sampled for water 

quality analysis as part the Utah Geological Survey Uinta Basin Baseline Water Quality Study (Wallace 2011). 

A review of UDOGM oil and gas data files and the Utah Division of Water Rights database indicated several 

wells drilled for oil and gas in the 1950s and 1960s that identified water-bearing intervals, but it is not known 

whether wells other than the Seep Ridge well (originally the Uintah #2) were ever converted to water wells,

and if converted, are still operable. Recent water quality data indicates that TDS of water from the Seep Ridge 

well is 3,056 milligrams per liter (Wallace 2011).

Given the potential for converted gas wells in the Douglas Creek Aquifer to become water supply wells within 

the GNBPA, this aquifer would be monitored as part of this overall Plan. Existing wells in the aquifer would be 

monitored, including baseline monitoring, and additional monitoring would be included, as appropriate, in the 

event that wells are opportunistically converted from gas wells to water supply wells. Baseline water quality 

and water level measurements would be obtained, followed by long-term monitoring that would continue 

through the life of the project. The existing wells in the Douglas Creek Aquifer that would be included in this 

Plan are identified in Table O-3.

Mesaverde Aquifer and Dakota – Glen Canyon Aquifer System

The Mesaverde Aquifer and the Dakota – Glen Canyon aquifer system (consisting of the Morrison, Entrada, 

and Glen Canyon aquifers) generally consist of deeper sandstones interbedded with shales and siltstones. 

The Mesaverde Aquifer and portions of the Dakota – Glen Canyon aquifer system are targets of the 

development proposed in the GNBPA. In addition, these aquifers provide little to no discharge to streams and 

no withdrawals are made from them for beneficial uses in the GNBPA or the surrounding region. Also, these 

deeper aquifers regularly have TDS values exceeding 25,000 mg/L (Cashion 1967). For these reasons,

monitoring of these deeper aquifers is not proposed under this Plan.
FEIS O-12 March 2012

O7.0 Data Reporting

All water resources monitoring by the operators would be conducted under the supervision of a qualified 

hydrologist. Quarterly monitoring results would be entered into a database and summarized quarterly. Data 

and quarterly summaries would be delivered to the BLM Vernal Field Office, the Utah Division of Water 

Quality, and UDOGM. In addition, the operators prepare and submit an annual monitoring report of monitoring 

activities to the BLM and other agency stakeholders. At a minimum, this report would contain a description of 

the monitoring results that identifies (by location) observed trends in water quality, any identified potential 

impacts to water quality, flow conditions, changes in depth to groundwater, recommendations for changes to

the Plan, and recommendations for mitigation measures to reduce any impacts observed.

The hydrologist for the operators responsible for implementation of the Plan may recommend changes based 

on the data collected, the locations of active construction, and other project-specific variables. However, these 

changes should meet the monitoring objectives described in Section O1.1 and defined in the QAPP. These 

changes could include relocation, addition, or substitutions of monitoring locations; addition of monitoring 

parameters; and an increase of monitoring frequency if evidence suggests this is necessary. All recommended 

changes and an explanation for the requested change would be submitted to the BLM and approved prior to 

implementation.

A final report would be completed at the conclusion of the project. This report would summarize the entire 

monitoring program and include a final assessment of all sites monitored throughout the project. All monitoring 

reports would be submitted to the BLM, Utah Division of Water Quality, and UDOGM, and would be made 

available to the public upon request.

O8.0 Mitigation

The Plan would identify the extent and magnitude of impacts to water resources that actually may result from 

construction and operation of the proposed development. As stated in the Introduction, the major potential 

impacts to surface water and groundwater would include water quality degradation from leaks or accidental 

spills; increased sedimentation, turbidity, or salinity in surface waters; and reduced spring flows or groundwater 

levels. A number of established programs and measures are in place to reduce or mitigate these anticipated 

impacts; however, if unforeseen incidents generated impacts, the BLM or other agencies (with appropriate 

jurisdiction on private and/or state lands) would work with the operators to further remedy effects on water

resources. Mitigation would be directly undertaken in some cases, while in other cases it may be preceded by 

additional diagnostic monitoring and/or inspection at a greater level of detail, leading to implementation of 

more focused mitigation actions or requirements. 

During the development of the QAPP, interpretive approaches would be identified that would activate 

mitigation or additional monitoring. For example, measures of water quality “exceedances” could include 

drinking water standards if applicable, constituent levels guided by statistical tests (Sanders et al. 1987; 

MacDonald et al. 1991; USEPA 1997; Griffith et al. 2001; Helsel and Hirsch 2002), or other significant 

departures from values or trends known to characterize background conditions within the GNBPA (Boyle et 

al. 1984; Lindskov and Kimball 1984; Liebermann et al. 1989; Seiler and Tooley 1982). Similarly, any changes 

in streamflows, spring flow, or groundwater levels would be examined through established, documented 

approaches to data interpretations.

If any of the water quality constituents or flow-related parameters listed in Table O-1 were found to depart 

beyond established “action” levels, the operators would inform the BLM, UDEQ, and UDOGM in writing. Upon 

agency review, additional means of identifying the source(s) of any effects would be undertaken as necessary. 

Mitigation measures would be identified for implementation by the operator, as appropriate. Additional 

monitoring provisions may be required under such circumstances. 
FEIS O-13 March 2012

The following examples present impacts on water resources that may be identified through the Plan, and the 

corresponding monitoring or mitigation measures that could be implemented in response. More specific 

monitoring and mitigation responses would be identified by agencies on a case-by-case basis for 

implementation by the operator.

• Increased Concentrations of Turbidity, Suspended Sediment, or Salinity Concentrations

− Review and modify best management practices (BMPs) used during road, well pad, and pipeline 

construction to control runoff and erosion, and reduce sediment delivery to streams.

− Employ more intensive erosion and sediment controls and enact more frequent inspection and 

maintenance activities at well pads, along access roads, and at stream crossings during 

operations.

− Identify and increase road treatments (paving, stabilizing, or surface treating) at critical sections of 

main trunk roads and other access roads.

− Improve the selection, implementation, and maintenance of road drainage practices such as 

ditches, culverts, reinforced shallow crossings, and drainage turnouts.

− Enact more conservative slope limits, greater stream/riparian zone buffer distances, and more 

stringent revegetation standards for proposed well pads, roads, and/or pipelines.

− Perform a geomorphic reconnaissance and stabilize accelerated erosion of streambanks, 

nickpoints, headcuts, piping, and/or rills.

• Increased Concentrations of Inorganic Constituents, including Metals

− Review the dust suppression program, including the types of chemical agents used, and modify it 

if necessary.

− Review and modify BMPs used during road, well pad, and pipeline construction to control runoff 

and erosion, and reduce sediment delivery to streams.

− Employ more intensive erosion and sediment controls and enact more frequent inspection and 

maintenance activities at well pads, along access roads, and at stream crossings during 

operations.

− Identify and increase road treatments (paving, stabilizing, or surface treating) at critical sections of 

main trunk roads and other access roads.

− Improve the selection, implementation, and maintenance of road drainage practices such as 

ditches, culverts, reinforced shallow crossings, and drainage turnouts.

− Enact more stringent slope limits and greater stream/riparian zone buffer distances for proposed 

well pads, roads, and/or pipelines.

− In cases of increased concentrations of selenium, boron, TDS, or other inorganic chemical 

constituents in surface water or groundwater, collaborate with the Utah Division of Water Quality

and the UDOGM to determine the source of the increase and whether oil and gas development 

has contributed to the increase. If there is reasonable indication that project-related activities have 

contributed to increased concentrations, implement appropriate BMPs and response measures to 

mitigate the identified source and/or pathway.

• Contamination with Petroleum and other Organic Constituents

− Review the cementing program for well completion, including audits of cement bond records for 

wells near the impacted streams.

− Conduct inspections of facilities that may be leaking, including reserve pits, storage tanks, 

evaporation ponds, aboveground piping, and process units.
FEIS O-14 March 2012

− Require complete remediation of any observed spills or leaks encountered during the inspections

at well pads, storage tanks, evaporation ponds, aboveground piping, and process units.

− Review truck loading procedures for produced water and petroleum products.

− Require compensation to the well owner/water user and disclose the contamination of the 

impacted well, spring, or surface water to the USEPA, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and UDEQ.

• Reduced Flow in Bitter Creek Spring 

− Assess whether a reduction in spring flow is from seasonal fluctuation, drought, or the possible 

result of drilling activities.

− Identify source area of the spring using appropriate methods (e.g., tracer study), when feasible.

− Review the cementing program for well completion, including review of cement bond logs for wells 

drilled near the spring.

− Require compensation be made to users of the impacted spring.

• Reduced Water Levels in Wells

− Identify whether the reduced water levels are substantial and affect the availability of water (e.g., 

significantly increased pumping costs or a water level decline below the pump intake).

− Review the cementing program for well completion, including review of cement bond logs for wells 

drilled near the impacted water sources.

− Evaluate the effects of water supply wells on existing water sources.

− Require that compensation be made to users of impacted wells.

− Implement further conservation or water re-use procedures to reduce withdrawals from water 

supply wells near, or hydrologically connected to, impacted wells.

− Use alternate approved sources of water (e.g., use a different supply well or access an approved 

surface water supply).

O9.0 References

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.

Cashion, W. B. 1967. Geology and Fuel Resources of the Green River Formation Southeastern Uinta Basin, 

Utah and Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 548. 48 p.

Griffith, L. M., R. C. Ward, G. B. McBride, and J. C. Loftis. 2001. Data Analysis Considerations in Producing 

“Comparable” Information for Water Quality Management Purposes. Available through the Advisory 

Committee on Water Information, National Water Monitoring Council. Internet website: 

http://acwi.gov/monitoring/pubs/tr/nwqmc0101.pdf. Accessed April 8, 2011.

Helsel, D. R., and R. M. Hirsch. 2002. Statistical Methods in Water Resources. Techniques of WaterResources Investigations of the United States Geological Survey, Book 4, Hydrologic Analysis and 

Interpretation, Chapter A3. Internet website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/twri/twri4a3/.

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.
FEIS O-15 March 2012

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. 1984. Water Resources and Potential Hydrologic Effects of Oil-Shale 

Development in the Southeastern Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado. US Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 1307, 32 p.

MacDonald, L. H., A. W. Smart, and R. C. Wissmar. 1991. Monitoring Guidelines to Evaluate Effects of 

Forestry Activities on Streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. EPA 910/9-91-001. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, in cooperation with the University of Washington. USEPA, 

Seattle, Washington. 

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.

Sanders, T. G., R. C. Ward, T. D. Steele, D. D. Adrian, and V. Yevjevich. 1987. Design of Networks for 

Monitoring Water Quality. 2nd edition. ISBN 0-918334-51-9. Water Resources Publications, Littleton, CO.

Seiler, R.L., and J. E. Tooley. 1982. Erosion and Sediment Characteristics of the Southeastern Uinta Basin, 

Utah and Colorado. USGS Water Resources Investigations Open-File Report 82-428. U.S. Geological 

Survey, Salt Lake City, Utah.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2001. EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project 

Plans, EPA QA/R-5. EPA/240/B-01/003; March 2001. Office of Environmental Information, 

Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1997. Monitoring Guidance for Determining the Effectiveness of Nonpoint Source Controls. EPA/841-

B-96-004, Final, September 1997. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Nonpoint Source Control 

Branch, Washington, DC.

Utah Administrative Code. 2007. Rule R317-2, Standards of Quality for Waters of the State, as in effect 

November 1, 2007.

Wallace, J. 2011. Uinta Basin Baseline Water-Quality Study. January 2011 Update – Year 2 Review Meeting 

Presentations, Uinta Basin Water Study. Utah Geological Survey. Internet website: 

http://geology.utah.gov/emp/UBwater_study/pdf/yr2review_task4.pdf. Accessed July 5, 2011.
March 2012

FEIS

Appendix P

Draft EIS and SDEIS Public Comments and Responses
FEIS P-1 March 2012

Appendix P

Draft EIS and SDEIS Public Comments and Responses

Table P-1 Letter Identifiers for Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Category / Letter ID Author / Affiliation

Federal Agencies

F01 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8

- Larry Svoboda, Director - NEPA Compliance and Review

F02 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

- Utah Field Supervisor - Ecological Services

F03 National Park Service

- Michael George, Air Resources - Intermountain Region

F04 U.S. Geological Survey

- Environmental Management Branch

State Agencies

S01 State of Utah, Office of the Governor

- John Harja, Director – Public Land and Policy Coordination

Local Agencies

L01 Uintah County Commission

Non-governmental Organizations

N01 Stephen Block – Energy Program Director/Attorney representing Southern Utah Wilderness 

Alliance, The Wilderness Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Utah Chapter 

of the Sierra Club

Private Individuals or Industries

P001 Brooke Bell – Project Manager, Anadarko

P002 Heath N. Smith – NEPA Coordinator, EOG Resources, Inc.

P003 Bill and Lori Robinson - Whitbeck Investments

P004 Justin Anderson

P005 David J. Fair

P006 Tony L. White

P007 Jamie Carlile

P008 Chris Jerez - Operations Manager-Cement, Halliburton

P009 Bryan McCurdy - Asst. General Manager, BHI

P010 Michael Caldwell - Christofferson Welding, Inc.

P011 Jason Durbin

P012 Kevin Crofts

P013 Jake Willer

P014 Shawn Remington

P015 Joseph W. Nold

P016 Shawn W. Jackson

P017 Patrick K. Harris

P018 Quinn Trajillo

P019 Patricia H. Hancock

P020 Mark Stewart
FEIS P-2 March 2012

Table P-1 Letter Identifiers for Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Category / Letter ID Author / Affiliation

P021 Kevin Devall

P022 Paul Padgett

P023 Mark G. (last name not legible)

P024 D. Brad Hancock

P025 Dona Allred

P026 Harold Marshall

P027 David Kay

P028 Chris Gardiner

P029 Chris Calder

P030 Tracy Herrine

P031 Jason Peatross

P032 Miranda Rosenlof

P033 Mason Duncan

P034 Troy Rohvor

P035 Jim Justice

P036 John Slaugh

P037 Brock Slaugh

P038 Mitch Baker

P039 Dennis Garcia

P040 Sherry Washburn

P041 Jacob Royster

P042 J.C. Brewer

P043 Jolene Wallace

P044 Wayne Dunbar

P045 Michael J. McKee – Uintah County

P046 Lloyd Dean

P047 Tommy K. Olsen

P048 A. Kent Olsen

P049 Jessica Kissling

P050 Robert L. Foley

P051 Theda Scholes

P052 June Crowell

P053 Michelle Williams

P054 Kevin Williams – KW Trucking

P055 Amber Williams – Williams Painting, Inc.

P056 Lincoln Brown

P057 Marilyn Wallis

P058 Travis Hansell

P059 Jeff Duncan

P060 Jimmy Lewis – Lewis Family

P061 Joshua Justice

P062 Dale E. Massey
FEIS P-3 March 2012

Table P-1 Letter Identifiers for Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Category / Letter ID Author / Affiliation

P063 Lonnie Williams – BuySell4U Realty

P064 Mark Raymond – Uintah County Commissioner

P065 Michael D. Merrill – Anadarko

P066 John R. Hatch

P067 Ellen Brown

P068 Duane Shepherd – Savage Services

P069 Randy L. Vincent – Randy Vincent Trucking, Inc.

P070 Larry Hall

P071 Travis Hansell

P072 Justin Parker

P073 Ken Crookston

P074 Branden Morgen

P075 Brady Peterson

P076 Andrew Sessions

P077 Steve Cochran

P078 Jerrael Tolbert

P079 (name not legible)

P080 Zack Sessions

P081 Billy Parrack 

P082 Morgan Vonasck

P083 Jimmy Glenn

P084 Larry Gale

P085 Quinn Miles

P086 Judd Larsen

P087 Mike Dofelmire 

P088 Brandin Dybell

P089 Dustin Byrd

P090 James Willis

P091 Trent Seadle

P092 Rachel Trim

P093 Brett Bascom

P094 Dennis Anderson

P095 Danny George

P096 Jason Trim

P097 Casey Blackburn

P098 Bill Johnson

P099 Emily Duffey

P100 Dan Sims

P101 Tammy Dietz

P102 John Slaugh

P103 Killian Griffin

P104 Linda Donaldson
FEIS P-4 March 2012

Table P-1 Letter Identifiers for Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Category / Letter ID Author / Affiliation

P105 Mark R. Dennis

P106 C. Abeggler

P107 Ben Smiley

P108 Tracy Perry

P109 Bo Shaheen

P110 Kris Maylett

P111 Keith Sprouse

P112 Brock Slaugh

P113 Mitch Batty

P114 Frank Anderson

P115 Myrna Cobbs

P116 Carl Cobbs

P117 Joe Fieldsted

P118 Casey Harrison

P119 D. J. Bower

P120 Michael A. Manwaring

P121 Gary E. (last name not legible)

P122 Bill Johnson

P123 Casey Blackburn

P124 Judy Johnson

P125 Brandon C. Smith

P126 Jeff Stevenson

P127 Mark Matele

P128 M. Paul

P129 Jose R. Lozano

P130 David F. Harper

P131 (name not legible)

P132 Jerry Clegg

P133 Daren L. (last name not legible)

P134 James Ward

P135 Jerry Kawa

P136 James L. (last name not legible)

P137 J. Lloyd Dean

P138 Shane Pierce

P139 Kirk Schulthies

P140 M. J. (name not legible)

P141 Robert Eric Thomas

P142 Christopher Lakeferd

P143 Patrick E. Font

P144 Brenda Cairchi

P145 Robert Yoder

P146 Josey Slaugh
FEIS P-5 March 2012

Table P-1 Letter Identifiers for Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Category / Letter ID Author / Affiliation

P147 (name not legible)

P148 Daniel B. Allred

P149 Jeff Nagrant

P150 R. James Mitch

P151 Clifton Southam

P152 Ashley Bowden

P153 George B. Burnett

P154 Travis Ramsey

P155 (name not legible)

P156 Wesley Chestnut

P157 (name not legible)

P158 Richard Wigen

P159 Gary Scholes – Gary’s Insulation, Inc.

P160 Charilyn Scholes – Gary’s Insulation, Inc.

P161 Tony Harper

P162 Robert B. Browen

P163 Andrew Taylor – JRH

P164 JRB Contracting, Inc.

P165 Scott Clement – JRH Contracting, Inc.

P166 Ken Oaks
FEIS P-6 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

USEPA

F01-01 EPA's review is based on the Resource Protection Alternative; if BLM selects 

a different alternative as the Preferred Alternative, we may have additional 

comments.

Comment noted.

F01-02 EPA believes that groundwater and surface water protection is a significant 

issue associated with the GNB oil and gas development. The potential for 

significant impacts to water resources exists during all project stages, 

including drilling, well pad construction production, hydraulic fracturing, 

produced water disposal, and freshwater withdrawal. A complete monitoring 

plan and program to track any surface water or groundwater impacts as 

drilling or production operations occur should be included in the EIS.

The potential impacts of project alternatives on surface water and groundwater are 

disclosed in Chapters 4 and 5 of the EIS. Text in Sections 3.13 and 4.13 has been 

modified to expand the surface water and ground water analysis, and additional 

mitigation has been recommended to include implementation of recommendations 

from BLM IM No. UT 2010-155 during the APD process and implementation of a 

water resources monitoring plan. The water resources monitoring plan has been 

added as an appendix to the Final EIS.

Additionally, text has been added to Section 2.5.5.1 to describe the existing 

permitted USEPA UIC program. Other monitoring has been ongoing under current 

conditions under the UIC program and would continue for the proposed project.

F01-03 Mitigation measures should also be developed and implemented for this 

project to protect both surface and ground water. For example, we note that

the characteristics of the Birds Nest Aquifer may lead to difficulties in 

adequate casing construction for production and disposal wells and may 

require specific mitigation measures.

Mitigation measures for surface water resources are presented in Section 4.13 of 

the Draft EIS. There is no need to propose additional mitigation measures as 

disposal well construction and casing problems are addressed through the USEPA 

UIC Program. Text has been modified in Section 2.5.5.1 to state that the salt water 

disposal drilling and construction process as described in the permit application 

requires that corrective actions needed prior to completion of the well be 

determined through the USEPA UIC program. See response to Comment F01-02. 
FEIS P-7 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

F01-04 Characterization of the location and quality of groundwater resources present 

in the project area is critical to understanding potential for impact; however, 

the Draft EIS presents only a general discussion of project area aquifers. 

Substantially more detail characterizing groundwater resources should be 

provided in the final EIS. EPA does not believe that deferring a detailed 

groundwater evaluation to site-specific well reviews provides a complete 

analysis of cumulative environmental impacts to the aquifers. Further details 

and clarification on the proposed produced water management is also 

needed in the Final EIS.

Text has been modified to provide more information on the Birds Nest and 

Douglas Creek aquifers. Information available from USGS reports is included in 

the discussion in Section 3.13.3.2. 

Comments from other agencies requested that information be included from the 

ongoing Utah Geological Survey (UGS) study regarding the Birds Nest Aquifer 

(UGS 2011). This is a water quality study in the Uinta Basin that includes sampling 

of groundwater and surface water, an assessment of the Birds Nest Aquifer, and 

reevaluation of the mapping of the base of the moderately saline aquifer that was 

conducted by Howells et al. (1987). In the water quality assessment portion of the 

UGS study, many potential locations to collect water samples were identified 

including wells and springs in and adjacent to the GNBPA (Wallace 2011). 

However, most of the sites were not available for sampling, including all of the 

sites within the GNBPA. The water quality data being generated is limited to 

approximately 20 sites; none of these are within the GNBPA boundary. 

The current UGS study does not provide the information being requested by other 

agencies; however, the text in Section 3.13.3.2 was amended to provide additional 

information on the Douglas Creek aquifer including transmissivity, salinity, and 

flow direction that was presented in the old USGS reports (Lindskov and Kimball 

1984b; Holmes and Kimball 1987). A new figure and table have been added 

showing the permitted underground water right diversions present in and within 1-

mile of the GNBPA.

Produced water management is addressed in Section 2.5.5; most of the produced 

water will be injected into disposal wells.
FEIS P-8 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

F01-05 The Draft EIS indicates that produced water would be disposed of via 

underground injection wells, but also includes the possibility of trucking lowquality produced water that is ineligible for injection to existing water disposal 

and treatment facilities or recycling of produced water. The Final EIS should 

assess potential impacts from disposal wells and alternative disposal 

methods. The associated environmental impacts of fresh water use should 

also be evaluated in the Final EIS. 

The major impact from underground disposal, as stated in Sections 4.13.1.3 and 

4.13.2.3 of the Draft EIS, would be an increase of storage in the injected aquifers. 

The Douglas Creek aquifer of the Green River Formation, the Wasatch Formation, 

and the Mesaverde Group are hydrocarbon producing zones and their potential as 

drinking water sources is limited. These formations are more likely potential 

candidates for aquifer exemption under the UIC program because of their status 

as hydrocarbon producers in the Uinta Basin. KMG is conducting monitoring of its 

disposal wells as part of the permitting requirements under the UIC program, 

administered by the USEPA in the GNBPA.

The text in Sections 4.13.1.3 and 4.13.2.3 has been revised to state that the Birds 

Nest Aquifer is generally the best suitable injection candidate from the standpoint 

of injectability and water quality (where TDS exceeds 10,000 mg/L). Potential 

impacts from underground disposal are discussed as well as why the risks from 

such impacts would be lessened by conditions in the Birds Nest Aquifer and UIC 

permit requirements.

Impacts to shallow aquifers due to leakage of drilling reserve pits and fracturing 

pits are described in Section 4.13.1.3. The impacts of the leakage of evaporation 

pits would be similar to impacts to alluvial aquifers. The text has been modified to 

indicate the impacts of leaking evaporation pits would be similar to impacts from 

reserve pits or fracturing water pits, and that UDOGM rule R649-9-3 provides for 

standards in the construction of evaporation pits, thereby reducing the risk of 

leakage from such pits. 

The text in Section 2.5.3.4 has been revised to indicate that fresh water use is 

dependent on how much fracturing water can be recycled. KMG has indicated that 

water recycling has been successful in some areas in the field, but the amount of 

water recycled is highly dependent on site-specific conditions. KMG would 

endeavor to conduct recycling where feasible in order to reduce impacts to other 

resource water use. 

Text in Section 4.13 already addresses the environmental impacts to surface 

water from fresh water use; however, revisions have been made in the respective 

subsections “Surface Water Uses and Flows” for each alternative to expand and 

clarify the assessment of this topic.
FEIS P-9 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

F01-06 EPA additionally considers impacts to surface water from runoff as a 

significant issue for the proposed project. Runoff of sediment and salts is 

noted in the Draft EIS as a concern in the GNBPA, and we believe that salt 

and sediment impacts to surface water in the project area should be given 

significant attention during planning and construction for GNB.

Please see the response to Comment F01-02. In response to resource 

considerations and input during the scoping period, the impact to surface water 

from run-off has been recognized in the Draft EIS as an important issue for the 

proposed project. A considerable description of existing water quality 

characteristics is presented in Section 13.1.3, including an analysis of these 

characteristics with respect to ongoing oil and gas activities in and near the 

GNBPA. UDEQ data were used in the analysis for existing conditions of ongoing 

oil and gas activities, as cited in the Draft EIS. The surface water quality 

assessments in Chapter 4 were based on physical reasoning along with the water 

quality review and analysis presented in Chapter 3. Text has been added to the 

surface water narrative in Sections 3.13 and 4.13 to provide further detail and 

broaden the previous discussion to include the Green River and its tributaries 

within and beyond the White River watershed.

F01-07 The Draft EIS presents only a general discussion of project area aquifers, and 

does not clearly describe whether any drinking water wells are in the project 

area. Significantly more detail characterizing groundwater resources is need 

and should be provided in the Final EIS, including the location of any wells in 

the project area, and chemistry and well yield data for water bearing 

formations. Including information on aquifer transmissivity and flow rates and 

directions throughout the project area will better identify potential areas for 

implementation of mitigation activities.

Please see the response to Comment F01-04. The locations of springs are 

described in Section 3.13 and shown on Figure 3.13-1 of the Draft EIS. No seeps 

have been documented in the GNBPA. A table of water supply wells on or within 

one mile of the GNBPA has been included as an appendix to the Final EIS 

referenced from Section 3.13.

F01-08 Although the Draft EIS does briefly reference water quality monitoring to be 

performed for produced water injection operations, a complete monitoring 

plan and program to track any groundwater impacts as drilling and production 

operations occur should be included in the Final EIS.

Please see the response to Comment F01-02. A plan to monitor the disposal wells 

has been drafted and the USEPA UIC program is expected to approve the plan as 

soon as baseline water quality monitoring is complete. The approved plan will be 

available to BLM. Text in Section 2.5.5.1 has been revised to provide more 

information regarding the monitoring required under the UIC permits. 
FEIS P-10 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

F01-09 EPA appreciates that the Draft EIS identifies the Bonanza, Utah, Drinking 

Water Source Protection Zone (DWSPZ), and that the DWSPZ will be

protected in accordance with the requirements for the public water system. 

EPA recommends that the Final EIS address all requirements of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA) related to water quality protection. EPA 

additionally recommends that No Surface Occupancy be required in 

DWSPZs. We would further appreciate disclosure of the location of Public 

Water Reserves (PWR), and the commitment to water quality protection 

through site-specific construction. Disclosure should include whether the 

PWRs are surface water, groundwater wells, or springs as well as list 

mitigation measures that will be required during site-specific permit reviews.

The Safe Drinking Water Act is listed in Table 1.5-1 as a key regulatory authority 

under which the Proposed Action would be conducted. SSAs and DWSPZs would 

be protected by the BLM according to Utah BLM IM 2010-055. The BLM 

appreciates the USEPA’s recommendation regarding the NSO stipulation; 

however, an NSO stipulation is a leasing decision, and the subject EIS is a 

development decision only. No leasing actions are proposed and all lands 

proposed for development are already leased. Therefore, DWSPZs would be 

protected and avoided through the site-specific environmental review process. 

PWRs are disclosed in Section 3.13.2.3 of the Draft EIS and shown on Figure 

3.13-3. The text notes that all PWRs are wells, and that they would be identified 

and avoided through the site-specific environmental review process.

Text has been added to Section 4.13.1.3 describing the APD review process and 

how potential drinking water sources would be protected through the 

implementation of BLM IM No. UT-2010-55. Due to the programmatic nature of 

this EIS, it is not possible to speculate about specific mitigation measures that may 

be appropriate on a site-specific basis; however, possible mitigation measures are 

proposed in the monitoring plan now included as an appendix. The protection of 

SSA and DWSPZs is discussed in Section 2.3 as part of the APD process.

F01-10 The Draft EIS does not identify other existing or potential public or private 

drinking water supplies in the GNBPA, nor does it identify aquifer zones that 

are "underground sources of drinking water" under the SDWA. The document 

indicated that this information will be collected during site-specific reviews at 

the Application for Permit to Drill (APD) stage. The Final EIS should include a 

discussion of the viability of water bearing formations as underground 

sources of drinking water, which should include formation name, depth of 

formation, local outcrop of aquifer, chemistry of the formation water (including 

total dissolved solids, TDS), and well yield data for water bearing formations. 

A list and characterization of domestic and stock wells and springs within the 

project area and within one mile of the project boundary should be included in 

the Final EIS as well. The description of groundwater resources should 

identify the depth of the wells and what formations they are producing from.

Please see the response to Comment F01-04.

F01-11 Deferring the evaluation of potential or existing drinking water supplies to the 

review of each well in the APD does not provide the opportunity for public 

comment nor does it provide analysis of cumulative environmental impacts to 

the aquifers.

Groundwater protection measures are summarized in Section 3.13.3.3, as well as 

a short description of the review process under BLM IM No. UT-2010-055. Each 

APD is posted for a minimum 30-day public review period as required by BLM 

regulations, providing an opportunity for public review.
FEIS P-11 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

F01-12 BLM Utah has developed an excellent policy for the protection of groundwater 

associated with oil and gas leasing, exploration and development (BLM 

Instruction Memorandum No. UT-2010-055.) The purpose of the 

Memorandum is to enhance the existing process for the continued protection 

of all usable groundwater zones (< 10,000 mg/L as defined in Onshore Oil 

and Gas Order No. 2) associated with oil and gas exploration and 

development. We recommend that the Final EIS incorporate the UT 2010-055 

policy.

Text has been revised to incorporate by reference the policies and procedures as 

set forth in Utah BLM IM 2010-055. The IM has been added to the guidelines 

listed in Table 2.3-1, Key Oil and Gas Development and Production Guidelines 

Applicable to all Alternatives.

F01-13 A monitoring plan and program should be in place to track any groundwater 

impacts as drilling and production operations occur. Monitoring should be 

conducted during all project phases, including: background conditions before 

construction begins; during project implementation, including construction, 

production, and produced water disposal; and after project termination. We 

recommend that the "Long-Term Plan for Monitoring of Water Resources" 

developed for the West Tavaputs Plateau Natural Gas Full Field 

Development Plan (West Tavaputs) Final EIS be used as a guide in 

developing a monitoring plan for GNB. Particularly critical components of the 

plan include baseline monitoring, inclusion of organic parameters in the 

monitoring suite, public disclosure of monitoring data, and discussion of 

mitigation measures to be employed if monitoring results in identification of 

impacts.

Please see the responses to Comments F01-02 and F01-11. 
FEIS P-12 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

F01-14 The protection of groundwater and surface waters is a key issue to address in 

oil and gas development. It is EPA's understanding based upon field visits to 

the GNBPA that many groundwater protection mitigation measures are being 

implemented by industry in current oil and gas development operations. 

However, the extent to which such practices will be employed in the proposed 

GNB project is unclear from the Draft EIS. Mitigation measures should also 

be developed and implemented for this project to protect surface and ground 

water. Some recommended mitigation measures include:

• All pits should contain synthetic liners and be padded as necessary to 

prevent tearing or puncturing of the liner and fluid migration to the 

subsurface. Reclamation of pits to prevent spillage or leaching of waste to 

the surface or subsurface is also important. 

• Closed-loop drilling should also be considered, particularly for sites in 

sensitive areas such as those overlying aquifers or near stream channels.

• Surface casing should be installed below all fresh water zones 

(underground sources of drinking water) especially if there are springs or 

groundwater wells nearby. Given the unique properties of the Birds Nest 

Aquifer, a drilling plan should be developed to ensure that all newly drilled 

production wells have adequate cement behind pipe across all 

underground sources of drinking water (USDW).

• Production casing and cement with downhole bonding evaluation should 

be adequate to prevent fluid movement between formations with fluids 

(including gas) of different quality.

• BLM should conduct an area of review for existing production wells or 

plugged and abandoned wells within the GNBPA to assess whether these 

structures possess adequate construction to prevent fluid movement within 

the casing/well bore annulus.

The items recommended for mitigation are already addressed by drilling rules (US 

DOI Onshore Oil and Gas Orders and UDOGM Rule 649-3, Drilling and Operating 

Practices) and Utah BLM IM No. UT 2010-55. The drilling rules are cited in the 

Draft EIS in Section 2.5.3.2. The text has been modified to add Utah BLM IM No. 

UT 2010-55, which was issued after the Draft EIS had been printed. Because of 

the rules and policy cited above, no additional mitigation is proposed. It is outside 

the scope of analysis for this EIS to review the adequacy of construction in 

existing production wells or plugged and abandoned wells within the GNBPA. 
FEIS P-13 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

F01-15 The characteristics of the Birds Nest Aquifer (BNA), which underlies 

approximately one-quarter of the GNBPA and is the proposed target for 

produced water disposal, may lead to difficulties in adequate casing 

construction for production and disposal wells. Additional mitigation measures 

beyond those suggested here may be appropriate for the proposed project; 

the Final EIS should identify all relevant and reasonable mitigation measures 

- both procedural and structural, and including specific measures for the BNA 

- to protect groundwater sources. We recommend that the "BLM Utah Oil and 

Gas Development Ground Water Protection Measures" included in the West 

Tavaputs Final EIS be added to the Final EIS for GNB as well.

The engineering review in BLM IM UT 2010-055 provides for the identification and 

mitigation of potential cementing and casing issues with regard to new proposed 

wells. The Birds Nest Aquifer underlies all of the GNBPA. Injection wells are 

regulated by the USEPA UIC program, which would be responsible for identifying 

measures that would need to be taken regarding well integrity and operation under 

the permits. This would be done on a site-specific basis at the time of application. 

Accordingly, no additional mitigation measures need to be recommended in the 

EIS. Also see responses to Comments F01-02, F01-03, and F01-08.

F01-16 In its discussion of groundwater impacts, the Draft EIS cites the results of the 

2004 study conducted by EPA (pg. 4-123). In that study, EPA concluded that, 

based on information available at the time, there was little to no risk of 

fracturing fluid directly contaminating USDWs during hydraulic fracturing of 

coalbed methane production wells except where diesel was used. The 

activities discusses in this Draft EIS go beyond the scope of the 2004 study 

and so the study is not sufficient to support the Draft EIS assessment of risks 

to ground water. There are currently serious questions about whether the 

process of hydraulic fracturing could potentially result in groundwater impacts. 

Additionally, some hydraulic fracturing compounds contain materials that 

could be harmful if released to fresh water sources. The Final EIS should 

acknowledge this potential for impact. An analysis of the management of the 

fracturing fluids should be provided in the Final EIs, including the toxicity and 

fate of these fluids, with a focus on avoiding surface spills or leaks of these 

fluids from the reserve pits. Hydraulic fracturing of any production zones near 

fresh water zones should not be considered. This includes fracturing 

production zones that are not adequately separated from freshwater aquifers 

with zones of low permeability that would prevent fluid and gas mitigation.

KMG has indicated that they began disclosing on a well-by-well basis the content 

of materials used in hydraulic fracturing in 2011. Text in Section 2.5.6 has been 

modified to describe KMG's participation in the fracturing fluid constituent registry 

to be jointly developed by the Ground Water Protection Council and the Interstate 

Oil and Gas Compact Commission. Text in Section 2.5.3.3 has been modified to 

include an engineering analysis of vertical fracture containment based on tracer 

surveys during fracturing jobs.
FEIS P-14 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

F01-17 EPA also recommends the Final EIS include further detail and clarification on 

the proposed produced water management. Options for disposal of produced 

water were identified in section 2.4.2.5 on the Draft EIS but not evaluated 

within the alternatives assessment for the potential environmental impacts or 

benefits. The Draft EIS indicates that 15 new injection wells would be 

completed into the BNA to be used for produced water disposal, in addition to 

five existing disposal wells. EPA generally considers properly constructed and 

permitted disposal wells as an environmentally safe method for disposing of 

produced water. The information provided in the Final EIS, however, does not 

provide for an assessment of potential impact from disposal wells. The Final 

EIS should indicate where disposal wells are proposed, including a 

discussion of any aquifers in the northern portion of the GNBPA that could 

accept produced water, to prevent the need for transporting all water to the 

southeast portion of the project area overlying the BNA. The assessment of 

the potential disposal well locations should include the flow regime in the 

area, which varies widely across the BNA. 

Please see the response to Comment F01-05. A figure has been added to Section 

3.13 showing the locations of injection wells within the GNBPA. Text in Section 

4.13.2.3 has been modified to state that a total of 15 injection wells would be 

sufficient to handle disposal needs in the future, not 15 new wells.

Text has been added to Section 4.13.1.3 to indicate that, if needed, future injection 

wells would be placed into the Birds Nest Aquifer where salinities exceed 10,000 

mg/L. However, the precise locations are not known at this time.

F01-18 We further recommend that the BLM reassess the data used to describe

water quality of GNBPA aquifers in the Draft EIS; updated information exists 

regarding the quality of water in the BNA. Areas of the BNA may be above 

the 10,000 mg/L TDS cutoff for consideration as an USDW but still have an 

opportunity for degradation with the anticipated 25,000 - 30,000 mg/L TDS 

concentrations anticipated in the Draft EIS for produced water in the GNBPA. 

Areas where the BNA transitions from a non-USDW to a USDW should be 

identified. Finally, the Final EIS should acknowledge the complexities 

associated with constructing permittable disposal wells in the BNA, as 

described above, and discuss means for assuring adequate protection behind 

the pipe.

A new figure has been added to Section 3.13 to show the 10,000 TDS limit, 

location of current disposal wells, and likely areas for new disposal wells. The 

requirements for UIC permit applications are discussed in Section 2.5.5.1 of the 

Draft EIS. With salinities in the Birds Nest Aquifer commonly exceeding 30,000 

(and up to more than 100,000 mg/L) where injection occurs, further degradation of 

the aquifer by injection of produced water with salinity commonly ranging from 

25,000 to 30,000 mg/L would not be expected. Also see the response to Comment 

F01-15. 
FEIS P-15 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

F01-19 The Preferred Alternative also includes the possibility of trucking low-quality 

produced water that is ineligible for injection to existing water disposal and 

treatment facilities. The Final EIS should make clear what existing facilities 

will be used, what volume of water is anticipated to be disposed of in this 

manner, and the amount of hydrocarbons to be released from the evaporation 

basins. The decision to avoid surface evaporation pits may resolve many of 

EPA's concerns regarding potential impacts to air quality, water quality, and 

aquatic wildlife from onsite produced water surface impoundments and 

associated trucking activities.

Text in Section 2.4.2.5 of the EIS states that produced water would be placed into 

existing evaporation pond facilities with a capacity of 7,500 barrels of water per 

day, and existing injection wells with a capacity of 18,200 barrels of water per day. 

The use of additional evaporation pit capacity is not anticipated. Emissions from 

these ponds are conservatively estimated to be 45 tpy VOC and 39 tpy HAP. 

These VOC levels are less than 0.1 percent of the VOC emissions for the 

projected baseline emissions used in ozone modeling (see Appendix G). 

Evaporation pond emissions would be included in future updates to the emissions 

inventories developed to inform future modeling and adaptive management of air 

quality in the Uinta Basin. The text in Section 4.1 of the EIS has been revised to 

include this information.

F01-20 In addition, the Preferred Alternative indicates a potential for produced water 

to be used for hydraulic fracturing. EPA supports the idea of water recycling 

in oil and gas fields into producing zones, as it reduces the impacts of fresh 

water consumption. To fully disclose the potential for positive environmental 

impacts from water conservation through recycling of produced water, 

additional information is needed in the Final EIS, including the volume of 

water that may be recycled, whether this water will be used within the GNBPA 

or elsewhere in the Uinta Basin, how water will be transported, spill and leak 

prevention plans, and what alternatives for reuse in enhanced recovery 

processes are proposed.

Please see the response to Comment F01-05.

F01-21 Each of the 3,675 proposed wells in the Preferred Alternative will require 

approximately 16,000 bbls (2.06 acre feet) of water (2.5.3.4). It is proposed 

that fresh water from other sources be obtained from commercial water 

supply sources, including both groundwater and surface withdrawals from the 

Green River. The associated environmental impacts of the use of this fresh 

water should be evaluated in the Final EIS (see the following section related 

to Special Status Species).

Please see the response to Comment F01-05 with regard to water re-cycling. 

Based on additional information from the proponent about recycling of water 

volumes for development activities, text has been revised in the “Surface Water 

Uses and Flows” subsections of Sections 4.13.1.1, 4.13.2.1, 4.13.3-1, and 

4.13.4.1. This issue has been addressed in these subsections because the 

primary potential impacts of water withdrawals would be from existing permitted 

surface sources, and potential impacts of such stream depletions was identified as 

a concern during the scoping process, particularly to the USFWS.
FEIS P-16 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

F01-22 EPA considers impacts to surface water from runoff a substantial concern for 

the proposed project. Runoff of sediment and salts has been noted as a 

concern in the GNBPA. Willow Creek is already noted as impaired for TDS. 

Elevated TDS concentrations have been noted in other streams in the 

GNBPA as well. Salinity in the Colorado River watershed continues to be a 

concern, as evidenced by the Colorado River Salinity Control Act passed in 

1974. EPA appreciates the historical analysis of water quality impacts in the 

GNBPA that was performed for the Draft EIS. Based upon the information 

presented in the Draft EIS, we believe that salt and sediment concerns for 

surface water in the project area should be given significant attention during 

planning and construction for GNB. The surface water quality analysis in the 

Draft EIS presents a strong case that surface disturbances associated with oil 

and gas in the GNBPA, when combined with natural conditions of the area, 

will likely contribute to total suspended solids (TSS) and TDS in the 

watershed. 

Please see the response to Comment F01-02. Data and analysis of historical 

conditions are discussed in the Draft EIS in Section 3.13, and impact assessments 

in Section 4.13. Text in these sections has been expanded to provide greater 

detail regarding the characterization and assessment of water resources.

F01-23 EPA is pleased with the selection of the Resource Protection Alternative as 

the Preferred Alternative due to its reduced surface disturbance. We 

additionally appreciate the inclusion of Applicant Committed Environmental 

Protection Measures (ACEPMs) in Appendix A, particularly KMG's 

commitment to employ best management practices (BMP's) to control 

stormwater runoff and prevent sediments from reaching the drainages. 

However, due to known TSS and TDS concerns in the GNBPA, EPA believes 

that these BMPs should be described in the Final EIS in adequate detail for 

the reader to assess their potential effectiveness.

Text has been modified to address this issue. Further discussion of the RAPPS 

approach and associated BMPs has been added to Section 4.13.

F01-24 The Draft EIS states that increases in turbidity, sediment, and salinity from 

GNB are anticipated to occur in the White River and its major tributaries, and 

potentially downstream into the Green River. The magnitude of impacts will 

depend on "the implementation, success, and maintenance of control 

measures" (pg. 4-115). Therefore, the Final EIS should disclose how these 

three factors will be managed to ensure success of the BMPs.

Text has been modified to clarify this statement and expand the discussion in 

Section 4.13.1.1, under Surface Water Uses and Flows.
FEIS P-17 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

F01-25 EPA recommends that BLM implement a comprehensive water monitoring 

plan to ensure that the BMPs are successfully minimizing and mitigating the 

impacts from increased salt and sediment runoff. At a minimum, we 

recommend that BLM establish a monitoring program in White River and 

Willow Creek. The "Long-Term Monitoring Plan for Water Resources" 

developed by BLM for West Tavaputs Final EIS is a good example of a 

comprehensive monitoring program, as discussed in greater detail above. 

A groundwater monitoring plan has been added as an appendix to the EIS similar 

to plans developed for the West Tavaputs and Gasco EISs. Text in Section 

3.13.1.3 has been expanded to provide clarification and detail of the analysis of 

historical water quality conditions from a broader regional perspective. Also see 

response to Comment F01-22.

F01-26 EPA understands from the Draft EIS that a compilation of sources have been 

used to piece together wetland information across the project area, however 

wetland resources have not been fully characterized within the GNBPA. EPA 

therefore questions the reliability of the conclusion that there are no known 

occurrences of isolated wetlands in the project area. Based upon our 

knowledge of the area and similar areas adjacent to the proposed 

development, we believe that isolated wetlands are likely to be present. We 

recommend that BLM further assess whether isolated may be present in the 

GNBPA. If this is not possible, the Final EIS should address protective 

measures in the case of encountering an isolated wetland or near surface 

perched aquifers during project construction. Isolated wetlands may also be 

impacted by water withdrawals from shallow aquifers. The Final EIS should 

clearly address whether this potential impact is a concern for GNB.

Wetlands (riparian areas) have been fully mapped on BLM-administered land in 

Uintah County and unknown isolated riparian areas are not anticipated. 

Regardless, when working in or near riparian areas, BLM-permitted activities 

would abide by the BLM riparian policy (UT-IM-2005X091) and Executive Order 

11990 to avoid impacts to wetlands.

F01-27 EPA notes that section 3.13.2.2 - Regulatory Coordination should describe 

regulation and permitting processes in Indian country according to Clean 

Water Act (CWA) section 401 in addition to CWA Section 404 which applies 

to activity on all (or nearly all - see Jurisdiction discussion below) of the lands 

within the GNBPA. Further, the Final EIS should reference Executive Order 

(EO) 11990 - Protection of Wetlands and describe how actions authorized 

through the GNB NEPA process will comply with the EO.

Text has been modified to include a discussion of the Sections 401 and 404 of the 

CWA on Tribal Lands, and EO 11990. 

F01-28 EPA recommends that further information regarding commitment to 

avoidance of wetlands be included in the Final EIS. While we are pleased the 

BLM restricts surface disturbance in riparian habitats on BLM-administered 

lands, this restriction should be extended to all lands that may be disturbed by 

the proposed project, regardless of surface ownership; and should include 

isolated wetlands and springs as well. We recommend that such a 

commitment be secured from the operator, and included in the Final EIS.

Should any work be proposed in riparian or wetland areas, the applicant is 

required by law to contact the Army Corps of Engineers for an appropriate permit. 

Protection of lands outside of the BLM’s jurisdiction would be effected through that 

process. The BLM cannot impose restrictions on development that does not have 

a BLM-nexus (BLM approval, whether surface or mineral related).
FEIS P-18 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

F01-29 The Final EIS should further include information regarding mitigation for any 

unavoidable impacts to wetlands or other waters of the U.S. from 

construction, particularly during water body crossings. As the Draft EIS states 

that mitigation in the GNBPA will be difficult due to the arid climate and 

presence of invasive species, it is critical that impacts be avoided if possible, 

then minimized to the maximum extent practicable. If impacts are 

unavoidable, an appropriate mitigation plan will be necessary to ensure that 

successful compensation occurs. 

Surveys and permitting for Wetland and Waters of the US would be conducted as 

part of the APD process. During the APD process, if a wetland or Water of the US 

is identified that could be impacted by the site-specific disturbance, consultation 

with the USACE would be initiated and mitigation measures would be determined 

including avoidance and reclamation. In addition, these areas would be avoided in 

accordance with BLM policy.

F01-30 As the CEQ guidance on considering Environmental Justice (EJ) under NEPA 

notes, Executive Order 12898 requires federal agencies to consider "whether 

there may be disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, or 

Indian tribes" from a proposed action. In accordance with CEQ guidance on 

identifying minority or low-income communities, EPA believes that the 

communities within the Uintah and Ouray Indian (U&O) Reservation that were 

enumerated by the 2000 U.S. Census (Fort Duchesne, Randlett, and 

Whiterocks), all of which have greater than 50% of residents in poverty and 

greater than 90% minority residents, should be treated as EJ communities for 

the purpose of the NEPA analysis. 

Consequently, EPA does not agree with the statement in the Draft EIS that 

the GNBPA itself and the associated well field development "would not be in 

proximity to any low-income, minority, or Tribal communities" (pg. 4-60). This 

assertion does not account for the acknowledged impacts on both dispersed 

populations and the communities affected by the proposed project. The 

community of Ouray is located less than 1 mile from the GNBPA. Although 

this small community was not enumerated in the 2000 U.S. Census, it likely

possesses similar population characteristics to nearby Randlett. EPA's 

opinion, therefore, is that the area affected by the proposed project will 

contain EJ communities, and so the human health, economic, and social 

effects of the proposed action on potential EJ communities should be 

thoroughly evaluated in the Final EIS for GNB.

The BLM stands by the underlying conclusion in the Draft EIS that a more 

thorough evaluation of Environmental Justice is not necessary. However, text 

summarizing the rationale that is the basis for that conclusion has been included in 

the Final EIS. The narrative in Section 4.8.1.1 under Environmental Justice has 

been revised to provide more detail on how potential environmental justice 

communities in proximity to the GNBPA have been identified.

Although some adverse, project-related environmental effects are identified in the 

Draft EIS, none were deemed to pose human health effects. The absence of 

defined risks to human health and lack of geographic concentration of those 

effects foreseen outside the project boundary falls short of the standard to trigger 

detailed Environmental Justice analysis and supports the conclusion in the 

document.

With respect to the comment regarding travel and access to shopping, access to 

the regional trade and service centers from these communities is via direct 

highway travel connections that would not proceed through the GBNPA. 

Therefore, travel to those communities for shopping, school, work or other 

purposes would not be affected by approval of the project.

Additionally, further discussion of near-field modeling results from the SDEIS has 

been incorporated into the Final EIS. 
FEIS P-19 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

F01-30 (Continued) Additionally, the EJ analysis should define the affected area based on the 

location of environmental impacts, not merely on proximity, and the analysis 

should take into account where EJ communities use subsistence or cultural 

resources that may be affected by the proposed project. The nature of the 

project's rural setting should also be considered. For example, the simple act 

of shopping for groceries may involve a twenty or thirty mile drive. Fort 

Duchesne and Randlett are approximately 18 miles and 13 miles away, 

respectively, from the GNBPA. EPA is willing to assist BLM in identifying 

minority, low-income, or tribal communities that may be impacted by the 

proposed project.

EPA also does not believe that the analysis presented in the Draft EIS 

supports the conclusion that "no adverse environmental justice impacts would 

result under the Resource Protection Alternative" (pg. 4-69). The document 

does not discuss the potential for disproportionately high adverse human 

health and environmental impacts from the proposed project. We recommend 

that potential human health and environmental impacts on minority, low

income, or tribal communities be added to the discussion in the Final EIS. 

According to the CEQ guidance, the identification of an adverse impact to EJ 

populations should heighten attention to alternatives, mitigation strategies, 

monitoring needs, and preferences expressed by the affected community. 

Therefore, we also recommend that BLM implement a public participation 

process that allows these communities an opportunity to identify potential 

impacts.

The BLM has conducted public scoping and public comment for this and other 

development proposals in the Vernal FO, providing the Ute Indian Tribe and 

communities near the GNBPA an opportunity to identify potential concerns. Tribes 

also were contacted directly (see Chapter 6). No concerns were raised regarding 

the potential or past occurrence of disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects to Environmental Justice communities. 

Furthermore, the proposed project is an in-fill project, in an area with substantial 

past and ongoing development. Consequently, the BLM still supports the 

conclusion contained in the Draft EIS that there would be no disproportionately 

high adverse impacts to minority or low income populations.
FEIS P-20 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

F01-31 Oil and gas development frequently results in environmental impacts that 

could be of particular concern to the health of local residents, particularly with 

regards to air quality and water quality. Since potential air and water quality 

impacts from this project have been identified, BLM's EJ analysis should 

evaluate whether the proposed project may result in environmental or human 

health impacts to minority, low-income, or tribal communities in the area. If 

impacts to these communities are identified, BLM should explore whether 

additional mitigation strategies will be sufficient to reduce those impacts (e.g. 

mitigation strategies should reduce incremental increases in ozone to 

acceptable levels).

EPA has several recommendations for additional discussion that should be 

added to the EIS regarding potential air quality impacts to EJ populations. We 

will discuss these issues with BLM during development of the air quality 

supplement to the Draft EIS.

Please see the response to Comment F01-30. Text regarding the potential for 

water resources impacts in the Ouray area has been added to Section 4.13.

F01-32 EPA recommends that the following additional discussion be added to the 

Final EIS regarding potential water quality impacts to EJ populations. 

1. A list of domestic and stock wells within one mile of the project area.

2. A list of public water supply wells within 5 miles of the project area.

3. The discussion of where disposal wells are proposed to be located 

should include an evaluation of surrounding communities and possible 

impacts to those communities from the proposed disposal wells.

Please see the responses to Comments F01-02, F01-04, and F01-11.

F01-33 EPA does not believe that the analysis presented in the Draft EIS supports 

the conclusion that "no adverse environmental justice impacts would result 

under the Resource Protection Alternative" (pg. 4-69) for other important 

reasons. For example, the Draft EIS acknowledges and discusses the 

adverse impacts of its project on hunting, grazing, housing prices and quality 

of life. Added demand for housing will drive up prices and make it more 

difficult for low income persons to find affordable housing. Potential adverse 

effects to the quality of life of residents of the region would include "declines 

in personal feelings of satisfaction with the community as a place to live 

during the most rapids periods of growth... related to perceptions of the 

friendliness, neighborliness, and trustworthiness of other residents; security, 

safety and risk of victimization by crime; and how satisfying community life is 

in general" (pg. 4-68). The issues identified here are highly important to a 

community and put particular pressures on already vulnerable populations.

The comment does not consider the past and present social and economic 

conditions in the region or the dynamics associated with overall natural resource 

development in the region. The proposed project is an in-fill project, in an area 

with substantial past and ongoing development. The pre-existing level of 

development activity and production provided a basis for dismissing human health 

effects as a topic of analysis.

Text revisions have been made to Section 4.8 to clarify the general nature of these 

statements, that they apply primarily to Vernal and Naples, and that they were 

associated with past and ongoing activity.
FEIS P-21 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

F01-34 EPA recognizes that the proposed action would likely bring royalty revenues 

from production from Tribal mineral interests to Tribal members, and that 

GNB may therefore be beneficial to EJ populations from an economic 

standpoint. However, the Draft EIS has recognized social and economic 

impacts and potential adverse effects to the quality of life. Examples of 

mitigation for these social and economic impacts may include outreach to low 

income and tribal persons to provide counseling on finding affordable 

housing, consultation with those who use land for recreational and spiritual 

purposes, and provide job training for local residents to take advantage of the 

project's employment opportunities. To address the quality of life issues, the 

company might consider sponsoring activities with local groups to increase 

the feeling of community. A community meeting to identify and discuss 

mitigation opportunities could be very productive.

No additional mitigation is required for the reasons listed below; therefore, the 

proposed development is not seen as a discrete cause of such effects, but 

contributing to the potential continuation of such effects.

• The established existence of job training programs in Vernal and Roosevelt.

• The indirect effect of natural resource development in creating job 

opportunities in many different sectors for skilled and unskilled workers. This 

was reflected in local unemployment rates that were below 2.5 percent, which 

fostered labor immigration. Such conditions effectively reflect full employment 

(i.e., those seeking employment can find it).

• The infill nature of this action and the level of existing and previously 

approved, but not yet completed, development (see Figures 2.4-1 and 2.6-1).

• The types of quality of life effects described are commonly associated with 

rapid growth and had already been evident in the region, in conjunction with 

ongoing development.

F01-35 With regard to the greenhouse gas (GHG) and climate change Draft EIS 

discussion, we found the GHG emission information contained in Table 4.1-8 

Detailed Summary of GHG Emissions by Source for the Proposed Action 

Alternative to be particularly informative. It is unclear from the text of the Draft 

EIS, however, whether these are annual or total GHG emissions expected 

over the lifetime of the proposed action.

The GHG emissions quantified in this analysis are presented as maximum 

potential emissions in metric tons per year in the peak year of production and 

drilling. Tables 4.1-8 and 4.1-11 of the Draft EIS and Tables 6-25 and 6-26 of 

Appendix G have been revised to indicate "Annual GHG emissions" for clarity.

F01-36 To fully inform the decision makers and the public of the proposal's GHG 

emissions and potential climate change impacts, we believe the Final EIS 

should quantify the expected aggregate GHG emissions from the proposed 

project; translate the emissions into equivalencies that are easily understood 

from the public standpoint (e.g. annual GHG emissions from x number of 

motor vehicles, see http://www.epa.gov/RDEE/energyresources/calculator.html) and qualitatively discuss the link between the 

proposal's GHG emissions and climate change. We also note that the Draft 

EIS does not include discussion of end use GHG emissions. Because they 

are easily calculated and may be of interest to the public in obtaining a 

complete picture of the GHG emissions associated with the proposed project, 

it may be helpful to provide a quantitative estimate of these emissions.

The BLM believes that annual GHG emissions from the project provide useful 

information to the reader or policy makers because GHG inventories, including 

emissions reduction goals, are based on annual GHG emissions. The BLM has 

provided annual potential changes to regional GHG inventories from the project 

alternatives, which are compared to current annual emission inventories and 

Western Climate Initiative annual reduction goals (see tables added to Sections 

4.1.1.5, 4.1.2.5, and 4.1.4.5). In addition, footnotes have been added to Tables 

4.1-9 and 4.1-13 with the annual GHG emissions for the project translated into 

equivalent emissions from a given number of passenger vehicles.

Estimates of end use GHG emissions or emissions associated with downstream 

refining and/or processing of natural gas have not been included because these 

emissions are not easily quantifiable without extensive assumption or speculation 

about end use conditions.
FEIS P-22 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

F01-37 In addition, we recommend that the proposal's estimated annual GHGs be put 

in a relevant context by comparing them to statewide annual emissions and 

describing how the project's emissions may affect any Regional, Tribal or 

State climate change initiatives, such as the Governor's Blue Ribbon Advisory 

Council on Climate Change, 2007 Final Report, 

(http://www.deq.utah.gov/BRAC_Climate/final_report.htm). Utah's GHG 

reduction goals (to reduce GHG emissions to 2005 levels by 2020), 

(http://www.deq.utah.gov/Climate_Change/GHG_goals.htm) and the Western 

Climate Initiative (http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org).

The BLM has reviewed the Governor's Blue Ribbon Advisory Council (BRAC) 

Report on Climate, which is the state of Utah's climate action plan under the 

Western Climate Initiative. Tables in Sections 4.1.1.5, 4.1.2.5, and 4.1.4.5 

compare the estimated GHG emissions of the proposed project to the BRAC 

estimates of future GHGs.

F01-38 The Final EIS should analyze in detail potential means to mitigate the 

proposal's GHG emissions and disclose an estimated GHG reductions 

associated with such measures. EPA recommends that BLM's ROD commit 

to implementation of reasonable mitigation measures that would reduce or 

eliminate project-related GHG emissions.

Implementation of the applicant-committed mitigation measures presented in 

Table 1-1 of Appendix G was assumed in the calculation of GHG emissions for the 

proposed project and alternatives. Some of these mitigation measures (e.g., lowemission dehydrators, low-bleed pneumatics, vapor recovery units) also would 

reduce GHG emissions. Installation of approximately 50 percent electric driven (as 

opposed to on-site, gas driven) compression would increase GHG emissions due 

to the use of coal-fired electricity sources in the basin. Section 6.9 of Appendix G 

has been revised to disclose the change in GHG emissions by alternative if these 

mitigation measures were not implemented. The BLM is not aware of additional 

mitigation measures that reasonably would be considered to reduce GHG 

emissions.
FEIS P-23 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

F01-39 Finally, we recommend adding a summary discussion of ongoing and 

projected regional climate change impacts relevant to the action area based 

on U.S. Global Change Research Program assessments. Similarly, EPA 

recommends that the Final EIS identify any potential need to adapt the 

proposed action to these effects, as well as any potential impacts from the 

proposed action that may be exacerbated by climate change.

Given the uncertainty regarding the effects of climate change, there is not a clear 

basis for making adaptation recommendations for the proposed action and 

alternatives, nor is there a clear basis for determining potential impact 

exacerbation. The Regional Climate Impacts, prepared by the U.S. Global Change 

Research Program, provides speculations regarding the potential changes in 

regional climate resulting from the increased buildup of GHGs. Past records and 

future projections predict an overall increase in regional temperatures, which 

would cover the GNBPA. As has been observed at many sites to date, the 

observed increase is largely the result of warmer nights, and effectively higher 

average daily minimum temperatures at many of the sites in the region. The 

document also projects a region-wide decrease in precipitation, although with 

substantial variability in interannual conditions. For eastern Utah, the projections 

range from about 5 percent decrease in annual precipitation to decreases as high 

as 40 percent. The effect of these changes on air quality is further difficult to 

evaluate, but it is possible that with a less stable (warmer) atmosphere, with 

lowered biogenic emissions in the region, and with less wintertime snow cover, the 

overall trend for air quality conditions may lead to improvement in air quality levels 

in the region. While recognizing these ongoing changes, the analysis does not 

provide a formal projection of changes in air quality related to the projected 

changes in climate. 
FEIS P-24 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

F01-40 The Draft EIS predicts that GNB may have population-level impacts on the 

greater sage-grouse, which is listed as a federal Candidate species as well as 

a wildlife species of concern by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

(UDWR).CEQ regulations require that the "environmental consequences" 

section of an EIS address "[possible conflicts between the proposed action 

and the objectives of federal, regional, state and local...land use plans, 

policies and controls for the area concerned" (40 C.F.R. sec. 1502.16(c)]. 

Consistent with these requirements, the Final EIS should fully explore 

possible conflicts and inconsistencies between the proposed action and sagegrouse-related plans and policies. UDWR has published a "Greater SageGrouse Management Plan" (UDWR, 2009, 

http://wildlife.utah.gov/uplandgame/sagegrouse/pdf/management_plan_2009.pdf) to "protect, maintain, and improve 

sage-grouse populations and habitats "for the greater sage-grouse within 

Utah. The Uinta Basin Adaptive Resource Management Local Working Group 

has also developed a Uinta Basin Greater Sage-Grouse Local Conservation 

Plan (http://utahcbcp.org/files/uploads/uintahubarmsagrplan.pdf). BLM should 

ensure that the proposed project does not conflict with either of these plans.

Based on evidence showing that the East Bench population of greater sagegrouse is declining, the BLM, USFWS, and UDWR developed mitigation measures 

that would not allow the proposed project to further the decline of the population. 

The plans referred to in this comment have been reviewed and cited within the 

EIS. Furthermore, mitigation within these plans was reviewed by the BLM, 

USFWS, and UDWR to develop appropriate mitigation for the proposed. These 

mitigation measures are presented in Section 4.15.3.3. However, due to the 

current decline of the East Bench population of greater sage-grouse, which was 

occurring prior to extensive oil and gas development in the area, mitigation as a 

result of the proposed project may not be sufficient to stop the decline/restore the 

population.
FEIS P-25 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

F01-41 EPA appreciates the mitigation measures that have been proposed in the 

Draft EIS to protect leks and brooding habitat during critical seasons. 

However, according to the Draft EIS, the proposed measures "would not be 

sufficient to protect the East Bench population: (pg. 4-157). For the West 

Tavaputs project, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has 

recommended that "no new surface disturbance associated with [the] EIS be 

allowed within greater sage grouse brooding and wintering habitats." EPA 

believes that BLM should consider following this recommendation for GNB as 

well. Additionally, if development in these habitats is allowed to proceed for 

GNB, we recommend implementing the following conservation measures 

developed by FWS for West Tavaputs: 

1. Topography and the latest muffling technology should be used to ensure 

that noise levels do not exceed 45 dB within 5 km (3.1 miles) of a lek;

2. No surface disturbing activities should occur within identified crucial 

wintering habitat between December 1 and March 15 (Figure 3.10-2 

within EIS);

3. No permanent structures or facilities should be developed within 

identified crucial wintering habitat; and

4. Well density should not exceed 1 well pad per square mile within sagegrouse brooding habitat.

While UDWR mapping indicates that brooding habitat occurs within the GNBPA, 

research on the Seep Ridge (aka East Bench) population of greater sage-grouse 

indicates that most brood-rearing occurs in habitats west of the GNBPA along 

Willow Creek. Therefore, protection buffers and timing stipulations for brooding 

habitat within the GNBPA are not appropriate.

F01-42 Seven special status fish species have the potential to occur within the 

GNBPA, and may be affected by water withdrawals from the Green and 

White Rivers. The proposed action would result in an estimated consumption 

of 757 acre-feet per year from the Colorado River Basin during the 

construction phase (7,571 acre-feet total). The amount of fresh water to be 

purchased for use as part of the GNB project and the cumulative impacts of 

other projects in the area may be significant and may have the potential to 

impact aquatic special status species by reduction in water flow. EPA 

recommends that additional emphasis be placed on reuse of produced water 

to reduce water consumption impacts on Colorado River endangered fish 

species.

Information has been added to Section 4.15 to better illustrate the commitment of 

KMG to use produced water where appropriate and practical; thereby reducing 

water consumption from the Green and White rivers. However, the impact analysis 

continues to be based on the number provided in the Draft EIS.
FEIS P-26 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

F01-43 Regarding special status plant species, EPA is pleased that BLM has worked 

with FWS to develop Conservation Measures to protect the Clay Reedmustard, Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus, and Graham's Beardtongue. We 

appreciate the inclusion of the Conservation Measures as Appendices to the 

Draft EIS

Thank you for your comment. In addition, text has been added to the affected 

environment discussion of the Uinta Basin hookless cactus discussing a distinct 

population of the cactus recently identified in the GNBPA. Text also has been 

added clarifying that if the list of special status species is modified in the future, 

site-specific avoidance and mitigation would be determined during the APD 

process.

F01-44 It appears that the project is entirely (or very nearly so) within the 

southeastern portion of the U&O Reservation, which is known as the 

Uncompahgre Reservation. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has 

determined that all lands within the Uncompahgre Reservation are Indian 

country as defined at 18 U.S.C. Section 1151, Ute Indian Tribe vs. Utah, 773 

F.2d 1087(10th Cir. 1985) (en banc) cert denied, 479 U.S. 994 (1986); Ute

Indian Tribe vs. Utah, 114 F.3d 1513 (10th Cir. 1997), cert denied, 522 U.S. 

1107 (1998). EPA has not approved the State of Utah or the Ute Indian Tribe 

to implement federal environmental programs in Indian country. Therefore, 

under the relevant case law, within the Uncompahgre Reservation (as well as 

all other Indian country lands within the U&O Reservation) EPA is the 

appropriate governmental authority to issue federal environmental permits, 

conduct inspections, take enforcement actions, and take any other actions 

pursuant to our statutes and authorities. The Final EIS should be revised to 

correctly identify the appropriate permitting agencies. For instance, Table 1.5-

1 states that the Utah Department of Environmental Quality will be 

responsible for issuing various permits under federal environmental laws. 

Instead, to the extent the project is in Indian country, EPA would be the 

agency responsible for these permits. EPA has this responsibility regardless 

of the surface ownership of the land. In addition, relevant Tribal 

environmental laws should be referenced in the Final EIS along with BLM 

regulations as applicable. We note that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has 

particular expertise as to Indian country questions. You may wish to consult 

with BIA on the status of the project location.

Table 1.5-1 has been revised to indicate that the GNBPA is located in "Indian 

Country" and that the USEPA is the regulatory agency responsible for all federal 

permitting. 
FEIS P-27 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

F01-45 EPA recommends that BLM perform the following coordination with the Ute 

Indian Tribe, and reference relevant authorities where appropriate in the Final 

EIS: 

• Cultural Resources consultation should include the Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officer.

• The Ute Indian Tribe Energy and Minerals Department regulates oil and 

gas development within the U&O Reservation, and should be contacted 

regarding resource protection measures on Tribal lands.

• The Tribal Wetland program is implementing wetland mitigation projects.

• The Tribal Environmental Program of the Ute Indian Tribe should also be 

contacted regarding environmental regulations on Tribal lands.

The BIA is a cooperating agency for this EIS and has had opportunity to comment 

on the document prior to release for public comment. The Ute Indian Tribe has 

had opportunity to provide input to the EIS process as discussed in the response 

to Comment F01-30. Furthermore, the BIA and the Tribe will have opportunity to 

comment on the Final EIS when it is released for public review. 

F01-46 EPA is concerned that the discussion of applicable regulations or restrictions 

to protect resources within the GNBPA is generally limited to those that apply 

on lands administered by the BLM. As lead agency for this project, is it BLM's 

responsibility to analyze and disclose all impacts associated with the 

proposed action, including those that will occur on Tribal, state, or private 

lands. EPA notes with concern that the Environmental Consequences 

discussion for Water Resources (Section 4.13) in particular focuses only on 

resource protection measures that will be implemented on BLM-administered 

land, stating "The selection and implementation of resource protection 

measures by the BLM might not extend to Tribal, state, or private surfaces 

within the GNBPA" (pg. 4-111). The Draft later states, "For all project 

alternatives, any existing or additional water resources measures would 

reflect applicable guidelines and programs of the agencies (e.g., BLM, BIA, 

UDOGM, USEPA) based on surface ownership, agency resource 

management roles, and interagency agreements." While EPA is pleased that 

BLM has recognized the need to comply with all applicable regulations, we 

believe that the implications of these regulations need to be considered in the 

Final EIS to ensure accurate representation of potential environmental 

impacts, Additionally, the Final EIS should make clear whether measures 

WATER-1 through WATER-7 (Section 4.13.2.4) Mitigation and Mitigation 

Effectiveness, pg. 4-124) apply to development throughout the GNBPA or on 

BLM-administered land only.

The text does disclose all impacts on all lands and the implication of the 

regulations has been considered. However, the cited text has been revised to 

indicate an assumption of the EIS analysis was that water resource mitigation 

measures apply to all lands within the GNBPA. The text also indicates that the 

BLM will only be able to enforce these measures on lands administered by the 

BLM. 
FEIS P-28 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

F01-47 Recent events have led EPA to become acutely aware of the risks inherent in 

oil and gas development operations. We believe that NEPA analysis should 

address reasonably foreseeable impacts from low probability catastrophic 

spills, and spill prevention measures that are in place to prevent these 

impacts. EPA is pleased that the implementation of a Spill Prevention, 

Control, and Countermeasures Plan (SPCCP) will reduce the potential for 

direct and indirect impacts to sensitive resources from spills or accidental 

releases of hazardous substances. KMG has committed to develop and 

maintain site-specific SPCCPs for each GNBPA production facility. We 

appreciate that an example SPCCP has been included in the Draft EIS as 

Appendix D, however, we believe that it is critical that all SPCCPs are 

appropriately designed given local geology and the level of risk associated 

with local conditions. We recommend that BLM describe in the Final EIS how 

site-specific SPCCPs will address low probability catastrophic spills.

As noted in Section 2.5.6, a site-specific SPCC Plan would be developed by KMG 

for each production facility. As part of this plan a facility diagram and site map 

would be developed (see Appendix D, page D-5 of the Draft EIS). Plans would 

require that spills be addressed immediately by containing, removing, and 

disposing of released material according to applicable regulations. Text 

summarizing these requirements has been added to Section 2.5.6.

F01-48 Further, EPA is concerned that 95% of the soil disturbance associated with 

the Preferred Alternative will take place in soils that have been identified as 

highly constrained for reclamation potential due to nutrient status, elevated 

salinity and sodicity, and coarse fragment content. 

Comment noted.

F01-49 Biological soil crusts also occur within the GNBPA on undisturbed soils, and 

the Preferred Alternative would potentially disturb 8,147 acres of these crusts. 

Biological soil crusts serve several critical ecosystem functions, including 

stabilizing soils.

Impacts to biological soil crusts (BSCs) are discussed in Section 4.9.3.1 and a 

mitigation measure focused on BSCs is presented in Section 4.9.3.2.
FEIS P-29 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

F01-50 According to the Draft EIS, successful reclamation is difficult in the Uinta 

Basin, particularly for desert shrubs, perennial grasslands/sagebrush 

communities, and pinyon-juniper communities. Reestablishment of plant 

communities can take as long as 100 years for pinyon-juniper woodlands. 

Such an extended reclamation for soil disturbance leads to high susceptibility 

to noxious plant invasion, and increased potential for soil erosion and 

associated impacts including sedimentation and airborne dust. The airborne 

dust poses potential health concerns, particularly for residents of nearby 

communities. In addition, long distance transport of fugitive dust out of the 

basin may contribute to dust-on-snow events in the mountains. Dust on snow 

can accelerate snowmelt, resulting in reduction in stream flow during the later 

part of the season.

The BLM believes that the selection of the Resource Protection Alternative, which 

reduces the amount of surface disturbance associated with the proposed project, 

and the development of site-specific reclamation plans during the APD process 

adequately address the issues of reducing surface disturbance through project 

design and achieving successful reclamation. As site specific reclamation plans 

would be developed during the APD permitting process, a project-specific 

reclamation plan will not be developed as part of this programmatic EIS. A general 

reclamation plan specific to this project is located in Appendix E of the Draft EIS.

In regard to airborne dust, the assertion that dust poses a health concern is only 

an issue if there is an exceedance of the NAAQS for particulate matter, as these 

standards are health-based. The modeled particulate matter impacts from the 

proposed project (see Appendix G of the Draft EIS, Section 5.1.1, Table 5-1) show 

that the project-specific impacts would be negligible relative to the background, 

and the total impacts would be substantially below the NAAQS. In addition, the 

impacts from dust generated by vehicular traffic and other surface disturbance 

would be localized and would not be expected to cause impacts at a distance.

F01-51 Due to the large amount of surface disturbance associated with the proposed 

project and the sensitivity of the soil resource, EPA believes that further 

efforts to reduce surface disturbance and promote successful reclamation are 

warranted for GNB. Travel management in the project area should be 

designed for maximum reduction in soil and vegetation impacts. Access 

roads and well pads should be sited to avoid highly constrained areas and 

biological soil crusts whenever possible. Impacts associated with access 

roads should be reduced to the maximum extent practicable, by utilizing 

transportation planning to establish proper road location and design, and 

using primitive two-track roads where possible. We further recommend that a

project-specific Reclamation Plan be developed and included in the Final EIS. 

The BLM believes that the selection of the Resource Protection Alternative, which 

reduces the amount of surface disturbance associated with the proposed project, 

and the development of site-specific reclamation plans during the APD process 

adequately address the issues of reducing surface disturbance through project 

design and achieving successful reclamation. As site specific reclamation plans 

would be developed during the APD permitting process, a project-specific 

reclamation plan will not be developed as part of this programmatic EIS. A general 

reclamation plan specific to this project is located in Appendix E of the Draft EIS.

Please see the response to comment F01-49 for more discussion on the biological 

soil crusts.
FEIS P-30 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

USFWS

F02-01 We have coordinated closely with BLM, BIA, and Kerr McGee since 2007 to 

assist with development of this Draft EIS. As you are aware, one of our 

primary recommendations was to avoid new surface disturbances within the 

100-year floodplain of the White and Green Rivers. These are designated 

critical habitats for the four federally endangered Colorado River fish.

...In fact, all of the action alternatives propose drilling and production of 

natural gas well within the 100-year floodplains of the White and Green rivers. 

For example, a bulleted list item on page 2-27 specifies that drilling would not 

be allowed in "Areas within 600 feet of the White River with the Indian Trust 

Lands". The floodplain of the White River is over 0.5 miles wide in this area. 

Limiting the buffer to only 600 feet is not adequate to protect floodplain 

habitats or the endangered fish species. 

Based on earlier discussions we anticipate that you will be requesting section 

7 consultation for the proposed action under authority of the Endangered 

Species Act. The effects to the endangered fish species of drilling wells within 

the 100-year floodplain, as described above, will require further evaluation 

within the EIS if it is to serve as the biological assessment. At this time, we 

are concerned that the effects of the proposed action, particularly when 

evaluated in light of the environmental baseline, will impact our ability to 

conserve and recover the four federally endangered fish species present in 

the project area. Again, we strongly recommend no new development be 

allowed in these environmentally sensitive areas, regardless of land 

ownership or management.

The cover letter to the EIS was incorrect in stating that the BLM’s agency 

preferred alternative was the Proposed Action Alternative. As described in the 

introduction to Section 2.0, the BLM preferred alternative is the Resource 

Protection Alternative. The comment appears to pertain to the Proposed Action 

Alternative rather than the Resource Protection Alternative.

Stipulations regarding drilling under the preferred alternative include no drilling, 

regardless of surface ownership, within the 100-year floodplains of the White River 

(Section 2.7.2.2), which also includes the Green River floodplain in the northwest 

corner of the GNBPA (see Figure 3.13-3). Under the Resource Protection 

Alternative discussion presented in Section 4.13.3.2, it states that “no incremental 

disturbance would occur to 100-year floodplains, riparian or wetland areas, and 

Waters of the U.S.” Therefore, impacts to the four endangered Colorado River fish 

species would not occur because there would be no surface disturbance within 

designated critical habitat (also see summary of impacts on Table 2.10-2 under 

Water Resources). Additional discussion regarding potential impacts to the four 

endangered Colorado River fish species is presented in Section 4.15.
FEIS P-31 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

F02-02 Oil and gas development can negatively affect sage-grouse populations and 

their habitat. Lek persistence is positively influenced by the proportion of 

sagebrush habitat within 6.4 km (4 miles) of the lek (Walker et al. 2007). 

Sage-grouse avoid suitable wintering habitats once they are developed for 

energy production (Doherty et al. 2008). For these reasons, we recommend 

no new surface disturbance associated with this EIS be allowed within greater 

sage grouse brooding and wintering habitats. If development in these habitats 

is allowed to proceed, we recommend the following conservation measures 

be implemented: 

1) No surface disturbing activities (roads, pipelines, power lines, facility 

construction etc.) within a 6.4 km buffer (4 miles) of an active sage-grouse

lek year round;

2) Use topography and/or the latest muffling technology to ensure noise 

levels do not exceed 45dB within 5 km (3.1 miles) of a lek;

3) No surface disturbing activities within identified crucial wintering habitat 

between December 1 and March 15; and

4) No permanent structures or facilities within identified crucial wintering 

habitat. 

While UDWR mapping indicates that brooding habitat occurs within the GNBPA, 

Leah Smith's graduate work on the Seep Ridge (aka East Bench) population of 

greater sage-grouse indicates that most brood-rearing occurs in habitats west of 

the GNBPA along Willow Creek. Therefore, protection buffers and timing 

stipulations for brooding habitat within the GNBPA are not appropriate. 

For items 1 and 4, the BLM and UDWR determined that implementing a "4-mile 

NSO" year-round would not be legally implementable due to the valid existing 

leases with few or no surface restricting stipulations within 4 miles of the active 

greater sage-grouse leks. Rather, as described in mitigation measure SSS-3, a 

0.5 mile NSO would be implemented to prevent new well locations within close 

proximity to the greater sage-grouse leks.

For item 2, as described in mitigation measure SSS-7, appropriate noise-reducing 

technology would be implemented within 2-miles of an active lek. Noise would be 

reduced to the lowest levels technically feasible or established in ongoing and 

future scientific studies on the effects of noise on greater sage-grouse (e.g., UCDavis research in the Powder River basin in Wyoming).

For item 3, this timing restriction has been added to the document as mitigation 

under the Resource Protection Alternative (SSS-12).
FEIS P-32 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

F02-03 The Bureau of Land Management should evaluate and minimize impacts to 

migratory bird habitat focusing on species on the Service's 2008 List of Birds 

of Conservation Concern and species that are listed among the Partner's in 

Flight Priority Species. To help meet responsibilities under Executive Order 

13186 (Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds), and 

the recently signed "Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. 

Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service To Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds" we 

recommend conducting activities outside of critical breeding seasons for 

migratory birds; minimizing temporary and long-term habitat losses; and 

mitigating unavoidable habitat losses. If activities occur in the spring or 

summer, we recommend conducting surveys for migratory birds and their 

nests prior to ground disturbing activities.

The USFWS BCC and PIF species lists were reviewed and presented in Section 

3.15.1.2 and Appendix I. Text regarding impacts to these species is presented in 

Section 4.15.3. Text regarding EO 13186 was updated to reflect the change from 

a DRAFT MOU to a FINAL MOU. Mitigation measures to reduce impacts to 

migratory birds is presented in Section 4.15.3.3, including a new mitigation 

measure that would require netting of reserve pits filled with water and open for 

longer than 30 days. Also, the proponent has implemented measures to reduce 

impacts to migratory birds by screening fired vessel exhaust stacks and has 

committed to conducting surveys and taking avoidance measures in accordance 

with the Raptor BMPs. 

In addition, the agency preferred alternative has been designed to reduce surface 

disturbance, which would minimize impacts to migratory bird habitats. Through 

these measures, BLM believes the negative effects to migratory bird populations 

are in compliance with the MOU regarding the Conservation of Migratory Birds. 

Surveys for other migratory birds are not anticipated to be necessary at this time, 

but will be considered on a site specific basis.

F02-04 Page ES-1: We recommend clarifying how this EIS will apply to other 

operators within the GNBPA. This will provide a fuller understanding of the 

analysis, impacts and mitigation being presented.

The EIS analysis applies to all operators within the GNBPA.

F02-05 Pages: ES-4 and 2-7: We recommend clarifying the number of existing wells 

in the project area. Based on UDOGM data there are approximately 3,000 

existing wells within the GNB Project area as opposed to the 1,562 reported 

in the DEIS.

The existing well number reported in the Draft EIS is a snapshot in time, and will 

not be updated. All wells are accounted for in the cumulative impacts section. In 

addition, UDOGM data is based on UDOGM approved APDs and does not 

accurately reflect the number of BLM approved APDs, which is a much lower 

number due to longer average review times and processing periods.

F02-06 Pages ES-4 and 2-22: We recommend that no new development occur 

within the 100 year floodplain on the White and Green Rivers regardless of 

land ownership.

The stipulations for drilling within the 100-year floodplains of the Green and White 

rivers proposed in this EIS under the Resource Protection Alternative are 

assumed to apply to all lands within the GNBPA. However, the BLM can 

implement this mitigation only on lands administered by the BLM or with a BLM 

nexus (federal minerals approval or federal access). If other federal agencies wish 

to approve development by tiering off of this EIS, they will need to abide by the 

BLM's mitigation measures. The proponent also will have to abide by the 

Endangered Species Act (which protects portions of this river as critical habitat for 

endangered fish) and the Clean Water Act (which gives the USACE permitting 

authority regarding proposed disturbance of Waters of the U.S. and wetland 

areas).
FEIS P-33 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

F02-07 Pages ES-5 and 2-27: Please clarify if the sentence "Areas within the 100-

year floodplain of the White River and 5 miles up major tributaries" includes 

Tribal Trust Lands

This statement means that development is to be avoided in the 100-year 

floodplain of the White River and in the 100-year floodplain of major tributaries up 

to five miles from the White River. It applies to all lands within the GNBPA.

F02-08 Pages ES-5 and 2-33: We recommend a phase approach to development be 

reconsidered as a viable alternative (e.g., concentrating new development in 

one area instead of spreading drilling rigs throughout the project area). A 

phased approach can be a tool to protect sensitive resources and should still 

be analyzed within the EIS.

Comment noted. However, the agency preferred alternative includes many 

protections for sensitive resources. Because the comment did not clarify what 

other ideas are comprehended in a “phased approach”, no further analysis of this 

comment is possible.

F02-09 Page 2-8: We recommend that the word "valid" be added to the sentence 

concerning existing water rights. We also recommend that water rights listed 

in this section meet the requirements of being valid (i.e. appropriate use 

designation, not expired...).

Text has been revised as suggested.

F02-10 Page 2-13: Timber matting and other construction methods should be used 

to reduce disturbance to vegetation and top soil.

The use of timber matting or other matting materials has been added as a 

mitigation measure to reduce disturbance impacts to soils in Section 4.9.3.2. This 

mitigation measure also is referenced in the vegetation mitigation section (Section 

4.11.2.2).

F02-11 Page 2-14: Closed-loop drilling should be required to reduce the risk of 

contaminated drilling fluids impacting soil and water resources, especially in 

floodplain areas.

Closed-loop drilling is addressed as a mitigation measure in Section 4.13.2.4.

F02-12 Page 2-15: If known, please provide the proposed location of the man camp 

that will be located on state land.

The information on man camp locations is provided in Section 2.5.3.5.

F02-13 Page 2-17: We recommend the use of raptor perch avoidance measures for 

all proposed overhead powerlines as described in Suggested Practices for 

Avian Protection On Power Lines: State of the Art in 2006.

Please refer to the ACEPM in Appendix A (under Wildlife) describing the use of 

raptor perch deterrents and limiting electrocution potential as a result of overhead 

powerlines.

F02-14 Figures 2.6-1, 2.7-1, and 2.8-1: Please use a color scheme that is consistent 

between maps. For example, the proposed alternative maps has red for 0 

wells yellow for 1 well and green for 2 wells per 40 acres. By changing Figure 

2.6.1 to red = 0 green = 1 and yellow = 2, the other two maps will be 

consistent with this scheme.

The color scheme for the figures depicting each action alternative has been 

revised to use consistent colors.

F02-15 Page 2-27: Please provide clarification to the differences between "Indian 

Trust Lands" and "Tribal Lands" and why protective buffers for the 100-year 

floodplains are different between the two. We recommend no new 

development in the 100-year floodplains of the White and Green Rivers 

regardless of land ownership or management.

The language defining tribal lands has been revised to be consistent throughout 

the document. Please see the response to Comment F02-01 in regard to 

development in the floodplain for the preferred alternative.
FEIS P-34 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

F02-16 Page 2-33: We believe you should consider a "total surface disturbance cap" 

alternative within the project area, similar to what was developed with the 

West Tavaputs. If necessary, the cap can be tied to a specific resource (e.g., 

sage grouse habitat, Sclerocactus wetlandicus habitat).

Comment noted. However, the agency preferred alternative includes many 

protections for surface resources. In addition, surface disturbance has been 

minimized to the extent possible, and a reclamation plan has been developed for 

the project; therefore, a separate alternative for capping surface disturbance was 

not created for the Final EIS.

F02-17 Page 3-122: We recommend moving the discussion regarding buffers to 

chapter 4. Chapter 3 should focus on the current status of the species in the 

project area (e.g., the number of historic leks in or near the GNBPA, the 

number of active leks).

In order to properly address the current conditions within the GNBPA, the text 

regarding the current protection buffers for greater sage-grouse is appropriate in 

this location because current mitigation measures and protection buffers for this 

area are inadequate to protect greater sage-grouse populations. This text sets up 

the impacts discussion for greater sage-grouse in Section 4.15.

F02-18 Page 4-100: We are in the process of developing a monitoring and mitigation 

program for impacts to Sclerocactus species in the Uinta Basin. As part of 

this program, operators will be asked to contribute to a fund to help with longterm research and mitigation measures for the species. We recommend 

adding this program as a mitigation measure for this project.

The mitigation measures from the Natural Buttes Unit EA and Bonanza Area EA 

have been incorporated as appropriate into the proposed mitigation for the GNB 

EIS. This includes the monitoring and mitigation program developed under the BA, 

which will be incorporated as a part of the long-term monitoring and mitigation 

program being developed by the USFWS for the Sclerocactus species.

F02-19 Page 4-124: During development of this Draft EIS, we worked with the BLM, 

BIA, and Kerr McGee to commit to no new surface disturbance within the 

100-year floodplain of the White and Green rivers. These areas are 

designated critical habitat for the four federally endangered Colorado River 

fish. As proposed, well development could still occur in the 100-year 

floodplain of the White and Green rivers. We strongly recommend no new 

development be allowed in these environmentally sensitive areas, regardless 

of land ownership/management (see General Comments, above).

As described in Section 2.0, the BLM’s agency preferred alternative is the 

Resource Protection Alternative. Under this alternative, no development in the 

100-year floodplain would occur regardless of surface ownership (see Section 

2.7.2.2).

F02-20 Page 4-135: We recommend removing the language "precipitous or treed 

areas". Surveys should include ground and shrub nesting raptors.

This discussion is in regard to the No Action Alternative and this mitigation 

measure was taken directly from existing NEPA documents (Love Unit EA and 

Bonanza EA). Text remains unchanged.

F02-21 Page 4-138: We recommend the discussion include historical use by 

Ferruginous Hawks. There are historical nests of this species within the 

GNBPA.

Additional information on the historical use of the GNBPA by ferruginous hawks 

has been added to both Sections 3.15 and 4.15.

F02-22 Page 4-139: We recommend conducting surface disturbing activities outside 

of critical breeding seasons for migratory birds (April 15 through August 15); 

minimizing temporary and long-term habitat losses; and mitigating

unavoidable habitat losses. If activities occur in the spring or summer, we 

recommend conducting surveys for migratory birds and their nests prior to 

ground disturbing activities. This recommendation applies to all alternatives.

Please see the response to Comment F02-03.
FEIS P-35 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

F02-23 Page 4-147: We recommend the use of "Utah Field Office Guidelines for 

Raptor Protection from Human and Land Use Disturbances (Romin and 

Muck, 2002)" to determine appropriate spatial buffers for raptor nests.

As presented in Appendix A under Raptors, KMG has committed to using the 

USFWS and UDWR guidelines for protecting raptor nests within the GNBPA. 

Additionally, the use of BLM's BMPs for Raptors and Their Associated Habitats in 

Utah (August 2006) is described in Section 4.15.2.1. These guidelines incorporate 

the Romin and Muck (2002) document and demonstrate how the BLM interprets 

this document.

F02-24 Page 4-149: We recommend, at a minimum, the mitigation measures for 

sage grouse described in the West Tavaputs Plateau Natural Gas Full Field 

Development EIS are used for this project.

Mitigation measures for this EIS were developed specifically for the Seep Ridge 

(aka East Bench) population of greater sage-grouse. The BLM, USFWS, and 

UDWR took into account the graduate work of Leah Smith and the history of 

greater sage-grouse in the East Bench area to develop appropriate mitigation 

measures. These measures focus on protecting and reducing impacts to the 

greater sage-grouse population as a result of the proposed development. Several 

mitigation measures specific to the West Tavaputs Plateau Natural Gas Full Field 

Development EIS are not entirely appropriate for the GNB area (e.g., realignment 

of roads, pinyon-juniper removal, brooding habitat enhancement, etc.). However, 

other mitigation measures (e.g., avoiding surface disturbance within crucial winter 

habitat from November 15 to March 14, and reclamation designed for greater 

sage-grouse habitat enhancement) are included in this EIS as recommended.

F02-25 Tables 4.15-2, 4.15-4, 4.15-6, and 4.15-8: We recommend clarifying the 

extent of the impacts within two miles of sage grouse leks. For example, the 

DEIS should document the number of leks that will be impacted by the 

proposed action, and the distances between proposed well locations and 

known lek sites. The proposed disturbance of almost 1,200 acres within two 

miles of known leks will have a high impact to sage grouse populations within 

2 miles of a lek (WGFD 2004, Hollaran 2005). 

Text regarding the number of leks impacted by the proposed development has 

been added. Because of the programmatic nature of this EIS, exact distances 

from proposed well locations to leks cannot be calculated; therefore, estimated 

habitat disturbance within 2-miles of the leks is presented in Table 4.15-4.

F02-26 Page 4-151: If this document will also serve as a BA, a determination of 

impact to the species and their critical habitat should be included.

The determination statements for the federally listed species potentially impacted 

by the proposed development are presented under the Resource Protection 

Alternative, which is the BLM preferred alternative, as identified in the introduction 

to Chapter 2.0.

F02-27 Page 4-152: Effects of the proposed action to the endangered fish species 

should include the effects of water use from the Upper Colorado River 

system. Please provide a table identifying water rights that will be used for the 

proposed action, and the dates on which they were validated. These water 

rights also need to be designated for industrial purposes if not exempt.

This information is presented in further detail in Section 2.4.2.4 Water 

Requirements.
FEIS P-36 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

F02-28 Page 4-152: We recommend, at a minimum, that the mitigation measures for 

sage grouse described in the West Tavaputs Plateau for Natural Gas Full 

Field Development EIS be committed to for this project.

Please see the response to Comment F02-24.

F02-29 Page 4-152: We recommend the use of bird exclusion netting on all reserve 

pits and water treatment facilities to minimize mortality of migrating birds. We 

also recommend closed loop drilling within any 100 year floodplain.

The use of bird exclusion netting on reserve pits open and containing water for 

longer than 30 days has been added as a mitigation measure in Section 4.15, 

Wildlife and Fisheries Resources. Also, no new water treatment pits are proposed; 

only existing facilities would be used.

Please see the response to Comment F02-11, regarding closed-loop drilling within 

the 100-year floodplain.

F02-30 Page 4-158: Due to the amount of existing disturbance within the project 

area, we recommend additional off-site mitigation measures be incorporated 

to promote habitat enhancement and protection of other more stable sage 

grouse populations in the region.

Off-site mitigation for greater sage-grouse was considered during the development 

of the Draft EIS; however, according to the BLM policy outlined in WO IM 2008-

204, KMG would have to "offer-up" any type of off-site mitigation. At this time, 

KMG is providing funds to Utah State University and UDWR for continued 

research on the East Bench population of greater sage-grouse. The opportunity 

for off-site habitat enhancement may be available in the future once researchers 

gain a better understanding of the greater sage-grouse populations within and 

near the GNBPA.

F02-31 Page 5-43: Based on our comment on Table 4.15-4 above, we recommend a 

more thorough analysis of cumulative impacts. The analysis presented in the 

EIS does not address habitat fragmentation (See Vernal RMP, 2008) or 

secondary impacts associated with livestock grazing (same AUMs in a 

smaller area).

The fragmentation analysis in the Vernal RMP was based upon road locations and 

road lengths. Due to the programmatic nature of this EIS (e.g., exact well and road 

locations are unknown), a more thorough analysis is not possible. 

As requested, additional detail on the cumulative impacts from livestock grazing 

on wildlife species within the GNBPA was added to the EIS in Section 5.3.15.

F02-32 Appendix A, Page A-4: The pumping guidelines for the endangered Colorado 

River fish have changed. Please change "c" to "limit the amount of pumping, 

to the greatest extent possible, during the midnight hours (10pm to 2 am), as 

larval drift studies indicate that this is a period of greatest daily activity. Dusk 

is the preferred pumping time, as larval drift abundance is lowest during this 

time."

BLM cannot change applicant committed measures; however, the requested text 

is included already as part of mitigation measure WFM-6 (see Section 4.15.2.3).
FEIS P-37 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

NPS

F03-01 The National Park Service...would like to work with you to ensure proper 

consideration of air quality in this document, especially as it relates to air 

quality related values (AQRV) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

ozone at nearby National Park Service units like Dinosaur National 

Monument and a bit more distant ones like Arches National Park.

The National Park Service can provide input to the BLM regarding air quality 

issues at nearby National Park units through participation in the Utah Air Resource 

Technical Advisory Group and the BLM's Air Resource Management Strategy 

(ARMS).

This analysis has considered Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs) and ambient air 

concentrations of criteria air pollutants at all Class I and sensitive Class II areas 

within the modeling domain as described in Section 5.1.2 of Appendix G. This 

included Dinosaur National Monument and Arches National Park. This analysis 

was conducted in accordance with USEPA and FLAG guidance, and the BLM 

believes these parameters have been properly considered.

F03-02 Dinosaur National Monument has a number of vistas that provide spectacular 

views within and near the park that need to be protected and oil and gas 

development, both nearby and regional, can and will degrade visibility in the 

park.

See response to F03-01.

F03-03 In addition, [Dinosaur National Monument] possesses plant species that are 

sensitive to ozone while ozone precursors and likely ozone concentrations 

increase in areas of oil and gas development like the Uinta Basin.

See response to F03-01.

F03-04 Arches National Park as a Class I area has been afforded more rigorous air 

quality protection under the Clean Air Act for air quality related values. 

Visibility is a significant resource at Arches that is to be protected.

See response to F03-01.

F03-05 Ozone concentration in the area of Arches National Park and Dinosaur 

National Monument are already near the current National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard and will likely be over revised primary and secondary standards that 

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently working toward.

Because there is no ozone monitor at Arches National Park, it is unclear what the 

basis is for the assertion that it is near the NAAQS. As shown in Table 5-10 of 

Appendix G, the baseline DVc for Dinosaur National Monument is 65 ppb, which is 

below the 75 ppb standard. This same table shows the predicted DVf for this 

monitor to be 60 ppb, with a 0.4 ppb change above the baseline DVf. Figures 5-6 

and 5-7 show the predicted DVf at Arches National Park to be below 70 ppb for 

both project alternatives. Figures 5-12 and 5-13 show 4th highest 8-hour values 

also are predicted to be at or below 70 ppb at Arches. These values are below the 

current NAAQS standards. BLM cannot speculate what standards the USEPA will 

promulgate as part of this analysis.
FEIS P-38 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

F03-06 Nitrogen deposition is also of concern and significant increases of nitrogen 

oxides can result in increased deposition in the park. In this vein, BLM is 

encouraged to use deposition analysis thresholds (DATs) from the recent 

report by the Federal Land Managers Air Quality Related Values Work Group 

for sulfur and nitrogen deposition throughout this and other NEPA analyses. 

DATs should be used for National Park Service lands instead of dated 

screening procedures developed for U.S. Forest Service Class I areas in 

1989 that BLM has often opted for.

The BLM is not a proponent of the Deposition Analysis Thresholds (DATs) cited in 

the FLAG 2010 document (0.005 kg/ha/yr for both S and N in the West) and does 

not support the use of these numbers for NEPA analysis for the following reasons:

1. The DATs are based on natural background while the NEPA study addresses 

changes to existing conditions.

2. The BLM is not confident of the defensibility of the science used to develop the 

variability factor and the cumulative factor.

3. The DATs may be applicable for a single source but not for multi-source 

projects or cumulative analysis as stated in the FLAG 2010 document: "While 

DATs are a tool to assess the impact of a single new source, these levels may 

not be protective in areas that are already impaired or where there are multiple 

new sources impacting a single area."

Furthermore, the analysis in the EIS does not provide sufficient data for 

comparison to DATs.

Please see the response to Comment F03-01. The NPS can provide further input 

and discussion of the appropriateness of DATs for regional multi-source analyses 

as a member of the ARMS technical advisory group.

F03-07 The CMAQ ozone modeling for the GNB DEIS appears to be largely based 

on the 2009 Uinta Basin Air Quality Study (UBAQS), and both studies use 

similar model configurations, emission inventories, boundary conditions and 

meteorological fields. There appears, however, to be a significant 

discrepancy in the model’s response to future-year emissions with respect to 

the two studies.

While certain components of the modeling for this EIS are based on the UBAQS 

modeling (e.g., model configurations, boundary conditions, meteorological fields, 

photolysis rates), the future year emissions inventories are quite different. The 

future forecast year for the UBAQS study was 2012, while the future forecast year 

for this EIS was 2018. The 2018 future year regional inventory is based on the 

WRAP PRP18b inventory; the most current forecast inventory in the west. This 

inventory includes federally mandated regional ozone precursor controls that are 

to be implemented between 2012 and 2018. Although there are increases in local 

emissions from the project, there are lower emissions from regional sources in the 

modeling domain. As such, the assertion that there are “significant” increases in 

emissions is incorrect as it pertains to the total modeled inventory. The lower 

predicted ozone concentrations relative to both the 2006 base year and the 2012 

UBAQS model reflect this regional decrease in emissions. The methodology for 

forecasting the emissions to 2018 is documented in Section 3.1 of Appendix G of 

the EIS.
FEIS P-39 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

F03-08 Referring to the relative response factors (RRFs) in Tables 5-9 and 5-10 of 

the GNB DEIS and Tables ES-10a and ES-10b of the UBAQS report, it is 

clear that the CMAQ simulations for the GNB DEIS predict substantially lower 

future ozone concentration at regional monitoring sites as compared to 

UBAQS. This would appear to be a misapplication of the RRFs. For example, 

the 2006 RRF for Vernal from the GNB DEIS was approximately 0.93 

(representing a 7% decline in peak future ozone) versus 1.01 from the 

UBAQS report (representing a 1% increase in peak future ozone.) There are 

substantial increases in emissions for the future year scenarios that result in 

ambient ozone decreases. This clearly indicates a significant problem with 

the analysis.

Please see the response to Comment F03-07.

F03-09 Both the GNB DEIS and UBAQS model simulations show ozone 

concentrations at or very near the existing federal ozone standard, and hence 

even what appears to a relatively small disagreement between the two 

studies could have significant implications with regard to meeting current and 

future ozone air quality standards. If there is additional information not 

contained within in the GNB DEIS that would support the lower future ozone 

concentrations that are simulated by CMAQ that needs to be clearly 

presented.

Please see the response to Comment F03-07.

F03-10 Another concern that has not been addressed in this work is the ability of 

CMAQ to model wintertime ozone concentration in the Uinta Basin. It is 

plausible that the same meteorological conditions that gave rise to the high 

ozone concentration in Wyoming’s Upper Green River Basin are also evident 

in the Uinta Basin; preliminary data collected in the Uinta Basin would confirm 

this possibility. It is likely that CMAQ in its current configuration would not 

adequately simulate these episodes of high wintertime ozone.

The BLM recognizes that wintertime ozone is a potential issue in the Uinta Basin 

based on the 2010 monitoring data. However, the use of photochemical grid 

models to simulate wintertime ozone is an evolving research area, and the models 

as currently configured will not be able to replicate this phenomenon. This 

limitation is discussed in Sections 3.1.2, 4.1.1.4, and 4.1.2.6.

F03-11 We urge BLM to take the time to work with National Park Service modelers 

and EPA to address significant questions with the work supporting this draft 

environmental impact statement. This work would include assessment of 

emissions mitigation measures.

Although the model for this EIS will not be revisited at this time, coordination with 

the National Park Service air quality modelers, among others, is ongoing in Utah 

through the Utah Air Resource Technical Advisory Group and the BLM's Air 

Resource Management Strategy (ARMS). Future strategies and mitigations for 

dealing with and mitigating impacts to Utah's air resource are anticipated to be 

developed by this group through the ARMS strategy.
FEIS P-40 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

F03-12 NPS encourages BLM to mitigate emissions from oil and gas activities, 

especially of ozone precursors, from the beginning of this project. With recent 

preliminary measurements in the area being in excess of the current ozone 

standard, not to mention a soon-to-be revised one, coupled with increasing oil 

and gas development, controlling emissions of ozone precursors is critical to 

providing healthy air to visitors to National Park Service units and to 

mitigating the effects of ozone on plants in those units.

The BLM has revised Section 4.1.2.6 to include additional mitigation measures to 

reduce emissions of ozone precursors that the proponent will be required to 

implement from the beginning of the project.

State of Utah

S01-01 The State of Utah considers this proposed development of natural gas wells 

to be a fundamental cornerstone of economic value derived from the oil and 

gas industry in Utah, which can be developed with respect for the 

environment.

...The proposed natural gas field development for federal, state and private 

minerals, with an estimated ultimate recovery of 6.07 TCF of gas from this 

project over the next 30-50 years, is crucial for both short and long-term 

energy needs of the country.

Comment noted.

S01-02 The state is encouraged by the project proponent's willingness to implement 

an adaptive management strategy for the emissions caused by its 

development and appreciates the use of best available technology for 

dehydrators and pneumatic devices in existing and future compressors and 

production wells. The state certainly recommends that the project incorporate 

best available technologies as they become available.

Although the model for this EIS will not be revisited at this time, coordination with 

the National Park Service air quality modelers, among others, is ongoing in Utah 

through the Utah Air Resource Technical Advisory Group and the BLM's Air 

Resource Management Strategy (ARMS). Future strategies and mitigations for 

dealing with and mitigating impacts to Utah's air resource are anticipated to be 

developed by this group through the ARMS strategy. It is anticipated that any new 

strategies and mitigations will be incorporated as applicable into future approvals 

through adaptive management and future NEPA processes.

S01-03 These projects offer good jobs for the citizens of Utah. For example, each 

drilling rig keeps around 125 persons employed at various tasks. It is 

important that the BLM keep the pipeline of approved locations open, so 

these rigs can continue to work. I understand the project proponent may have 

to lay down up to four rigs by July 2011 if the BLM locations are not 

forthcoming. Therefore, I would again urge the BLM to complete this 

additional analysis as completely and efficiently as possible.

Comment noted. The BLM is committed to completing this EIS as efficiently as 

possible.
FEIS P-41 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

S01-04 In addition to air quality, water disposal is a concern of the state, especially in 

the Uinta Basin. The state would prefer permitting and drilling of additional 

disposal wells and a conversion of depleted natural gas wells to disposal 

wells to handle the anticipated daily increase of produced water as the field 

develops in lieu of using evaporative ponds.

Comment noted. 

S01-05 The state further suggests reducing transfer of produced water by truck to 

disposal wells and evaporation ponds through the installation of pipelines. 

Recycling facilities for produced water and re-use of the water for drilling and 

completion operations are also management practices the proponent should 

consider.

KMG proposes to install pipelines for the transfer of produced water from tank 

batteries and evaporation ponds to injection wells. In addition, KMG is already 

implementing water recycling activities in the GNBPA.

S01-06 The state promotes balanced development whenever possible. The state 

considers the proposed alternative a balanced development plan that does 

not significantly encumber opportunities for the proponent, conserves current 

economic benefits from grazing and recreation, and has a minimal impact on 

the natural resources of animal habitat and air and water quality. Therefore, 

the state recommends the Bureau of Land Management select the proposed 

alternative as the preferred alternative for the project because it distributes 

optimal opportunities between competing multiple uses.

Comment noted. Please note that the BLM preferred alternative for this EIS is the 

Resource Protection Alternative rather than the Proposed Action (see the 

introduction to Chapter 2.0).

Anadarko

P001-01 DEIS at 2-33. KMG fully supports BLM’s decision to eliminate these two 

alternatives from further analysis.

Comment noted.

P001-02 KMG now generally supports the Resource Protection Alternative. Under this 

alternative, more wells would be directionally drilled from fewer pads than 

under the Proposed Action.

Comment noted. The BLM appreciates your support of the Resource Protection 

Alternative.

P001-03 Although KMG’s pilot projects on infill directional drilling indicate that it [the 

Resource Protection Alternative] can be employed successfully, it also has 

limitations. Over the last eighteen months KMG has drilled approximately 300 

directional wells from shared pads. The average lateral drilling reach is 

approximately 800 feet with the majority of the wellbores (60%) having less 

than 1000 feet lateral reach. KMG has drilled only five wellbores with 

reaches greater than 2000 feet (with a maximum reach of approximately 2300 

feet). Because of the technological difficulties associated with producing from 

wells with a longer reach, extending the reach to these lengths has been 

reserved to address the most complex surface land management issues, 

such as steep terrain combined with plant and wildlife concerns.

Comment noted. The BLM estimates that an average lateral reach of 800 feet 

should enable KMG to drill multiple wells from a single well pad consistent with the 

analysis under the Resource Protection Alternative.
FEIS P-42 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

P001-04 While KMG continues to support the use of existing disturbance and 

infrastructure to minimize surface impacts, it may not always be feasible to do 

so. For example, we are finding that not all existing pads can be expanded to 

accommodate multiple wellbores due to the significant number of threatened 

Hookless cactus and the wide variation in topography in the GNBPA. As a 

result multi-well pad configurations may range in size from a few wells to 

sixteen or more in order to minimize impacts to overlapping resource 

concerns such as cactus, topography, view shed, wilderness, floodplains, etc. 

To date many of the multi-well pads include an average 4 to 8 well bores with 

the largest having 16 wells. The large pad was located to mitigate view shed 

resource impacts along the White River. While KMG has the ability to drill to 

the longer distances, the longer reach well bores remain under evaluation as 

to whether wellbores of such length can be used to economically produce 

gas. In particular, the information gathered to date does not yet demonstrate 

that the gas from wells with a longer (in excess of 2,000’) can be produced in 

the later stages of their life with the current plunger lift systems.

Comment noted. The information regarding the limitations of drilling multiple wells 

from a single surface pad is appreciated; however, the BLM does not believe that 

these limitations preclude the successful implementation of KMG’s drilling 

objectives (i.e., 3,675 new well completions) within the GNBPA under the 

preferred alternative.

P001-05 No monitor exists in the Uinta Basin that has operated long enough to be 

utilized for purposes of model performance evaluation. [The closest monitor is 

located over 150 km (90 miles) away. Additionally, the model predicted higher 

values than were observed at the monitoring sites, documenting an overprediction bias. DEIS Appendix G at 5-21.] Therefore, the modeling 

information provides a basis for evaluating potential impacts as required 

under the NEPA, but should not be used other than as an analytical tool.

This limitation of the modeling is documented in Section 5.2.2 of Appendix G of 

the Draft EIS. As discussed in this section, the lack of robust monitoring data to 

perform a model performance evaluation makes the absolute modeling results 

suspect. However, the model can evaluate the change in ambient ozone between 

alternatives.

P001-06 Ozone is a regional issue and can only fully be addressed on a regional 

basis.

The BLM concurs with Anadarko that ozone is a regional issue that must be

quantified on a regional basis. 

P001-07 [Wintertime ozone] is less well understood and has only recently been 

recognized, most notably in the Upper Green River Basin area of Wyoming.

The BLM recognizes that wintertime ozone is a potential issue in the Uinta Basin 

based on the 2010 monitoring data. This is discussed in Sections 3.1.2, 4.1.1.4, 

and 4.1.2.6 of the Final EIS.
FEIS P-43 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

P001-08 Because of the elevated ozone values, KMG hired Golder Associates to 

analyze the data and the prevailing climate conditions in an effort to better 

understand potential causes of these elevated levels.

...The [Golder] report notes that two strongly distinct weather patterns came 

in to play during the winter of 2009 - 2010 – El Nino Southern Oscillation and 

a negative Arctic Oscillation. Extremes of both of these weather patterns 

converged during the winter of 2009 - 2010. From the data gathered and 

analyzed by Golder, it appears that these extremes coincide rarely. Strong 

Arctic Oscillations and strong El Nino patterns have been observed about 

every eight years. Although KMG does not believe BLM should wholly 

discount the ozone levels observed during the winter of 2009, neither does 

KMG believe BLM can assume winter time ozone will be an annual event in 

the GNB project area, especially in light of the information set forth in the 

Golder Report.

The Golder Report provided with your comments has been reviewed. The analysis 

points out the rarity of persistent periods of cold and snow conditions over the 

Intermountain West. The fact that El Nino year effects lead to colder conditions 

and more persistent snow is accepted by most meteorologists and is consistent 

with data shown in the Golder Report. Subsequent review of snow depth data at 

Vernal Utah showed several recent years, out of the past 25 years, with persistent 

snow cover at Vernal (2009/10 [consistent with the Golder Report], 2007/08, 

2006/07, 2003/04, January 1993, and January / February 1985). This persistent 

snow cover is a crucial aspect of high wintertime ozone levels that can apparently 

occur during six seasons out of 25. While it is important to note that compliance 

with the ozone standard is based on a three-year running average of the fourth 

highest daily 8-hour maximum, with recorded levels in a single year well above 

100 ppb, it is possible that these single year high readings would still lead to a 

three-year average above the standard. 

P001-09 In the discussion of impacts from the Resource Protection Alternative, BLM 

states that “impacts on ambient air ozone levels would be the same under the 

Resource Protection Alternatives as under the Proposed Action.” DEIS at 4-

13. This statement is incorrect and should be revised in the final document. 

Under the Resource Protection Alternative, although the well count would 

remain the same, there would be an 18% reduction in miles of pipeline, 21% 

reduction in miles of road and 51% fewer wells pads. Based on these 

reductions, the ozone levels under the Resource Protection Alternative would 

be less than those modeled for the Proposed Action.

As stated in Section 3.3 of Appendix G, this analysis specifically excluded 

construction of roads, pipelines, and pads because these emissions are uncertain 

and variable in both location and magnitude. Road traffic and tailpipe emissions 

were determined on a per well basis for both drilling and production. The amount 

of roads, pipelines, and number of well pads were not a factor in the determination 

of project-related emissions of NOX and VOC. Instead, the emissions were based 

on the number of wells drilled and producing wells. Therefore, for the purposes of 

the EIS analysis, the project emissions from the Resource Protection Alternative 

are equivalent to those for the Proposed Action alternative.
FEIS P-44 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

P001-10 KMG has some concerns regarding the accuracy of the 2.4 ppb [for ozone]. 

We have carefully reviewed the information contained in the Technical 

Support Document for the air analysis and have some questions regarding 

how, at a grid cell level, the baseline inventory was allocated across the 

modeling domain resulting in the 2.4 ppb. We have requested additional 

information from the BLM to complete this review. Our concerns are centered 

on how the WRAP Phase III inventory was extrapolated as outlined in Section 

3.1 of the Technical Support Document. It appears BLM evaluated all 

proposed projects as outlined in Table 3-4, and then included gas production, 

condensate production and spuds based on historic activity forecast to 2018. 

These emissions were then spatially allocated across the five counties within 

the Uinta Basin.

However, when BLM spatially allocated the emissions across the five 

counties, it doesn’t appear that the analysis took into account the existing 

geographic location of the individual projects listed in Table 3-4. By allocating 

the 2018 baseline emissions in this fashion, some of the oil and gas 

emissions for these existing projects are erroneously allocated within the 

GNBPA, essentially making modeled emissions within the noted grid cell (2.4 

ppb) larger than expected.

This is especially important in the context of evaluating ozone. When CMAQ 

modeling platform calculates ozone impacts not only are the total NOx and 

VOC emission rates important but also the ratio of NOx to VOC emissions. 

Figure 5-9 of the TSD illustrates that the 2.4 ppb modeling increase in ozone 

associated with the proposed action is associated with a single grid cell. All 

surrounding grid cells show ozone impacts associated with the proposed 

action well below 1.6 ppb. The requested additional information will bring 

clarity to the potential impact of the 2018 baseline emission allocation on both 

the magnitude of the NOx and VOC emission but more importantly to the 

NOx/VOC ratio.

Non-project Uinta Basin emissions for the base modeling year (2006) were 

spatially allocated based on production parameters and SCC code using 

methodology developed for WRAP III. Consistent with the generally accepted 

photochemical grid modeling approach, the 2018 future year emissions were 

spatially allocated using the same distribution as the base year. Because activity 

data was assigned to grid cells encompassing the GNBPA in the base year 

inventory, non-project emissions were allocated to these grid cells for 2018. If 

there is no oil and gas activity in these grid cells other than the Greater Natural 

Buttes project emissions in 2018, this indicated that some emissions may be 

spatially misallocated, and excess emissions may be added into the grid cells 

encompassing the GNBPA. Even though it may overestimate emissions within the 

GNBPA and, therefore, the estimated ozone impacts, in the absence of a 

defensible alternative basis for allocating non-project sources, the BLM believes 

the allocation process used is the best approach for this modeling effort.

P001-11 Because the additional information will not be received prior to the 

submission of these comments, KMG reserves the right to submit additional 

comments once this additional information can be properly evaluated.

Additional comments on the Draft EIS will be accepted, but the BLM cannot

commit to addressing them in the Final EIS.

P001-12 BLM’s use of the slightly conservative [PM2.5] value of 27 μg/m3 is 

completely appropriate for this level of analysis.

Comment noted.
FEIS P-45 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

P001-13 During the preparation of the Draft EIS, KMG committed to several ACEPM’s 

to minimize the potential impacts from the proposed project to air quality. 

Appendix A of the DEIS does not appear to capture all of those commitments. 

Therefore, KMG believes it will be helpful to set those measures out here. [It 

might be helpful in the final EIS for BLM to list these measures together in 

Chapter 4 at the outset of the discussion of overall air impacts.]

Appendix A and other applicable sections of EIS text have been revised, as 

appropriate to accurately capture KMG’s committed environmental protection 

measures based on specific comments supplied in later portions of KMG’s 

comment letter.

P001-14 In this DEIS, BLM has fully discharged its obligations under NEPA to analyze 

potential impacts to air quality. However, BLM has gone a step further and 

has included an Adaptive Management Strategy to address potential impacts 

to air quality as the project is developed. Specifically, the draft EIS sets out an 

adaptive management strategy requiring the BLM, EPA and KMG to 

cooperate on refining the NOx and VOC emissions inventory for the project. 

DEIS at 4-11. Depending on the results, BLM, again in cooperation with 

federal, state and tribal entities would evaluate whether additional modeling 

or emission reduction measures would be required. The DEIS contains a list 

of potential emission reduction measures that could be employed should the 

need arise. DEIS at 4-12. KMG fully supports adaptive management strategy 

outlined in Section 4.1.2.6 of the DEIS. This strategy provides the flexibility 

necessary to obtain the additional information critical for the development of 

an effective ozone mitigation strategy.

Comment noted.

P001-15 This adaptive management strategy concept has been followed by every 

urban area which has prepared an ozone non-attainment SIP (State 

Implementation Plan). Additionally, the State of Wyoming has been following 

this same conceptual model to characterize the winter time ozone events 

associated with the Upper Green River Basin. Only once this detailed 

scientific information has been collected and fully analyzed can a region 

effectively develop basin wide mitigation strategies to comply with any future 

ozone NAAQS standard or to mitigate any future ozone events. However, it is 

important to keep in mind that BLM has no authority to develop or implement 

such a strategy under NEPA.

CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.14) require that agencies such as the BLM 

discuss possible mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate the effects of a 

proposed action or alternative. This provides the BLM the authority under NEPA to 

develop mitigation plans, such as the adaptive management strategy referred to in 

your comment, while the implementation of such a strategy would be done in 

consultation with cooperating agencies.
FEIS P-46 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

P001-16 As stated above, BLM has complied with the requirements of NEPA by fully 

analyzing the potential air impacts associated with the proposed project and 

has gone a step further in proposing an adaptive management strategy. It is 

well settled that NEPA’s requirements are “essentially procedural.” Vermont 

Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 435 U.S. 519, 558 

(citing 42 U.S.C. § 4332). Specifically, NEPA does not require an agency to 

mitigate adverse effects and does not require a detailed explanation of the 

mitigation measures that will actually be employed.

It is acknowledges that NEPA does not require an agency to mitigate adverse 

effects. However, as noted in the response to Comment P001-15, CEQ 

regulations require discussion of possible mitigation measures under NEPA.

P001-17 Ultimately, nothing in NEPA requires an agency to develop a mitigation plan 

in an EIS. N. Alaska Envtl. Ctr. V. Kempthorne, 475 F.3d 969, 979 (9th Cir. 

2006). When as here, the potential extent of those impacts is uncertain, 

courts have upheld an adaptive management proposal as “amply fulfill[ing] 

NEPA’s mandate to discuss mitigation measures” and have found that a 

Court “can require no more.” Theodore Roosevelt Conservation P’ship v. 

Salazar, --- F.3d ---, 2010 WL 2869778, at *14 -16 (D.C. Cir. 2010). To the 

extent emission controls are necessary, the Clean Air Act is the governing 

statutory mechanism, and BLM has no authority to enforce the Clean Air Act.

Please see the response to Comment P001-15. The BLM recognizes that 

development of a mitigation plan is not required under NEPA. The BLM also 

recognizes that it has no authority to enforce the Clean Air Act.

P001-18 The GNBPA is located within the Uinta Basin, which is currently in attainment 

for ozone. Therefore, the conformity requirements of section 176 of the Clean 

Air Act do not apply. See 42 U.S.C. § 7506(c)(5) (Section 176 applies only in 

non-attainment and maintenance areas); see also DEIS, Appendix G, Air 

Quality Technical Support Document at ES-1, 7-1. Nor is a prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) increment analysis required.

Comment noted. It is already disclosed in the Draft EIS that a PSD increment 

analysis is not required (see introduction to Section 4.1 and Appendix G, Section 

1.2).

P001-19 The DEIS does analyze the potential cumulative impacts of the project, which 

is all that is required under NEPA. To the extent compliance with the Clean 

Air Act is required, Utah’s Department of Air Quality (UDAQ), is the agency 

with the requisite statutory authority. In the case of minor source permitting, 

UDAQ has authority for approximately three quarters of the project area. The 

remaining one quarter is Ute Indian Tribal Lands, and the Environmental 

Protection Agency has primary permitting authority in that instance. BLM has 

no permitting or regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act.

Please see the response to Comment P001-15. The BLM recognizes that it has no 

permitting or regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act. Table 1.5-1 in the Final 

EIS clarifies that the GNBPA is located within the restored boundary of the Indian 

Reservation, otherwise known as "Indian Country," and that USEPA is the 

regulatory agency responsible for air quality permitting.
FEIS P-47 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

P001-20 The Federal Land Policy & Management Act (FLPMA) provides BLM with 

authority to manage the public lands. 43 U.S.C. § 1712(a). FLPMA does not 

apply to private or state lands nor does it apply to Indian Lands. 43 U.S.C. § 

1702(e)(2) (defines “public lands” to exclude “lands held for the benefit of 

Indians.”) More importantly for purposes of this discussion, FLPMA does not 

contain any authority that would allow BLM to impose substantive 

requirements to address air quality issues – that authority lies solely with the 

State of Utah and EPA for Tribal lands.

Please see the response to Comment P001-15.

P001-21 Section 202(c)(8) of FLPMA provides that “[i]n the development and revision 

of land use plans, the Secretary shall -...provide for compliance with 

applicable pollution control laws, including State and Federal air, water, noise, 

or other pollution standards or implementation plans.” 43 U.S.C. § 1712. This 

provision is not applicable in this context. By its very terms, section 202(c)(8) 

only requires BLM to provide for compliance with pollution laws when 

developing and revising its land use plans. The plain text of the provision 

does not restrict BLM’s actions, such as this, where BLM is reviewing an oil 

and gas development project.

Comment noted. Also, please see the response to Comment P001-15.
FEIS P-48 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

P001-22 Even if section 202(c)(8) applied, it would still not provide BLM with any 

authority to impose substantive conditions. At most, it would only require 

BLM to “provide for compliance” with air pollution standards. Neither FLPMA, 

NEPA, nor the Clean Air Act require or authorize BLM to regulate air quality. 

Nor do BLM’s regulations require BLM to regulate air quality. The only 

regulation that speaks to this point is found in BLM’s regulations governing 

authorization of the use of public lands under FLPMA. The regulatory 

language mirrors the statutory and states – “each land use authorization shall 

contain terms and conditions which shall...[r]equire compliance with air and 

water quality standards established pursuant to applicable Federal or State 

law.” 43 C.F.R. § 2920.7(b)(3). Like FLPMA itself, the regulation simply 

requires compliance with air and water quality standards established pursuant 

to federal or state law. It does not provide BLM with any independent 

authority to regulate. Here, the applicable federal and state regulatory 

authorities are the UDAQ and EPA. UDAQ has authority to achieve and 

maintain federal air quality standards in Utah through its state implementation 

plan. 40 C.F.R. §§ 52.2320 – 53.2352. EPA, on the other hand, has 

authority to achieve and maintain federal air quality standards on Indian 

lands. However, EPA has yet to promulgate a minor source permitting 

program that would apply to the GNB project. 71 Fed. Reg. at 48,699; see 

also, EPA Region 8, Air Permitting, http://www.epa.gov/region8/airpermtting 

(“There is currently no minor NSR program for sources proposing to operate 

in Indian Country.”). [At least one court has rejected claims that section 

202(c)(8) and the implementing regulations are violated in the absence of 

specific control measures being imposed by BLM. See Order, Southern Utah 

Wilderness Alliance v. Kempthorne, No. 08-411 (D.D.C. Dec. 1, 2008) 

(Docket #49) (holding that plaintiffs claims that BLM violated Section 

202(c)(8) of FLPMA and 43 C.F.R. 2920.7(b)(3) by failing to ensure 

compliance with federal air quality standards were without merit.)]

As noted in the response to Comment P001-15, NEPA guidelines require that 

agencies discuss possible mitigation measures in their NEPA documents.
FEIS P-49 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

P001-23 KMG understands a portion of the lands have been leased for grazing, and 

KMG believes both activities can co-exist; however, we question the need 

and scientific support for imposition of a 0.5 mile buffer around active lambing 

areas during the lambing season. DEIS at 4-39. First, the extent of an “active 

lambing area” is not defined in the document making it difficult to determine 

the true extent of the proposed mitigation measures. Second, BLM provides 

no scientific support for its decision to impose a “no development” seasonal 

(April 1 to June 1) timing limitation within one half-mile of lambing areas. As 

an alternative, in order to reduce potential conflicts and impacts between 

grazing interests and oil and gas development, KMG proposes to meet on an 

annual basis with grazers holding existing leases and to work cooperatively 

with individual grazers to determine the best method to reduce impacts during 

lambing season.

The proposed mitigation measures are the best estimate of the appropriate 

limitations to off-set projected impacts. As lambing is an important economic 

activity to the range permittee, any disruption to ewes and lambs during lambing 

can result in significant loses to a lamb crop and/or the ewe. Recent consultation 

with the BLM Vernal FO livestock permittees in the areas that would be affected 

by field development has indicated strong support for Range-2, (an annual 

meeting with KMG, the BLM, and the livestock operators which can include 

discussions of various issues including open range lambing locations) and Range5 (suspend drilling activities in open range lambing locations during the lambing 

season). As these areas may change on an annual basis, it is important for both 

KMG and livestock permittees to address this topic in the annual fall meetings. In 

addition, the timing limitation would coincide with other timing limitations, 

specifically those related to sage grouse leks that will require no surface 

disturbance in a 2-mile radius around sage grouse leks from February 15th to 

June 15th. If staged development is proposed for an area, the BLM Authorized 

Officer has the ability to waive timing restrictions for an identified need and 

purpose. Text remains unchanged.

P001-24 Early in our project planning KMG recognized that visual impacts from the 

gas development project would be of concern to those who utilize public 

lands within the GNBPA for recreational use. As such KMG committed to 

avoid developing new pads within the line of sight of the river centerline up to 

0.5 mile along both sides of the river, outside of Indian Trust lands. This 

applicant-committed measure does not appear in Appendix A as noted in 

DEIS 4-45.

The visual protection measure referred to is captured as a constraining factor for 

all action alternatives in the Draft EIS (see Sections 2.6.2.2, 2.7.2.2, and 2.8.2.2).
FEIS P-50 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

P001-25 KMG believes a figure illustrating the extent of the line of sight up to one-half 

mile should be included in the Final EIS to fully illustrate the extent of this 

measure. KMG recommends the inclusion of some discussion along with the 

figure to note it is based on modeling the view shed and is not based on sitespecific information. KMG believes BLM should revise the document to state 

that if a pad is proposed in an area, that based on modeling would result in 

potential impacts to the view shed, KMG will have the opportunity through the 

site specific NEPA process for permitting the location to demonstrate that 

such impacts do not exist.

...At a minimum, the FEIS should be revised to note the tank heights used in 

the visibility modeling. KMG recommends that the aforementioned figure 

include modeling runs for 15-feet standard tank height and 8-feet low profile 

tank height to indicate the change if low-profile tanks are used. The use of 

low profile tanks and other measures can be effective in mitigating visual 

impacts.

As noted in the document, hiking and rafting are the dominant recreational 

uses. DEIS at 3-40. However, the rafting period is extremely short lasting 

from approximately mid-May to mid-June. DEIS at 3-41. Because of the short 

duration, KMG believes view shed analysis in the document should provide 

more flexibility in calculating the line of sight distance from the center line of 

the river for temporary activities associated with drilling and completions. Line 

of sight restrictions that are calculated using the tallest equipment can be 

overly restrictive for times in the year when there is little public use of the 

river. Therefore, KMG proposes an alternative measure that would allow for a 

waiver of this restriction in the event site-specific data demonstrates a well 

and associated facilities cannot be seen from the White River, and drilling and 

completion related equipment is not viewable within line of sight of the 

centerline of the White River up to one-half mile during the prime rafting 

season between May 1 and June 15.

Figure 3.12-2 has been revised to show the line-of-sight viewshed from the White 

River in addition to the visibility areas already shown on the map. The text in 

Section 3.12 has been revised to include an explanation of how the viewshed was 

determined. Adjustments can be made to the viewshed at the site-specific level for 

the following two scenarios: 1) the model indicates the project is out of the 

viewshed, but site-specific review determines the project is in the viewshed; and 2) 

the model indicates the project is in the viewshed, but site-specific review 

determines the project is out of the viewshed.
FEIS P-51 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

P001-26 Of the special plant species found within the GNBPA, the largest amount of 

potential habitat is associated with the Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus. In order 

to mitigate potential impacts to the cactus, BLM, in coordination with the 

United States Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) developed a series of measures 

set out in Appendix L of the DEIS. DEIS at Appendix L-3. As further 

protection and as a result of on-going development within the GNBPA the 

USFWS re-initiated formal consultation associated with the Natural Buttes 

Unit EA and the Bonanza Area EA. As part of this, process KMG, BLM, BIA 

(Bureau of Indian Affairs), and the FWS developed a field-wide cactus 

monitoring program along with additional mitigation measures to ensure 

protection of the Uinta Basin Hookless cactus. KMG supports incorporation of 

the additional measures into the Final EIS for the GNBPA.

The mitigation measures from the Natural Buttes Unit Programmatic BA, for which 

consultation was reinitiated on both of the pre-existing NEPA documents, have 

been incorporated as appropriate into the proposed mitigation. This includes the 

monitoring and mitigation program developed under the BA, which will be 

incorporated as part of the long term monitoring and mitigation program the 

USFWS is developing for Sclerocactus species.

In addition, a paragraph has been added to the affected environment discussion of 

the Uinta Basin hookless cactus discussing a distinct population of the cactus 

recently identified in the study area. Additionally, mitigation measure SSS-1 has 

been revised to incorporate the text from the Land Use Plan 

Amendment/Maintenance Sheet No. 2009-13, which amends cactus survey 

buffers to 300 feet. 

P001-27 These mitigations place an emphasis on avoidance up to 300 feet of a cacti, 

and sets out additional mitigations to ensure the plant remains protected 

when surface disturbing activity cannot be avoided within the 300 feet buffer. 

In light of this new consultation currently in progress, KMG believes the 

proposed mitigation SSS-1 (DEIS at 4-100) stating that surface disturbance 

would not occur within 300 feet of the Uinta Basin Hookless cactus maybe 

inconsistent with the most recent mitigations set forth in the above mention 

re-initiated consultation and should be revised in light of the consultation.

Mitigation measure SSS-1 has been revised to incorporate the text from the Land 

Use Plan Amendment/Maintenance Sheet No. 2009-13, which amends cactus 

survey buffers to 300 feet.

P001-28 DEIS at 2-15. The document states that an average of 2.06 acre-feet of water 

would be required for each well and notes that KMG began an evaluation of 

the use of recycled water for completion operations. The original 2.06 acrefeet of water per well was based on the drilling and completion technology 

employed by KMG at the time of scoping (October 2007). During the 

development of the Draft EIS, KMG has determined that it can more fully 

utilize recycled water for completion operations. Drilling operations still 

require the use of fresh water. KMG believes the 2.06 acre-feet amount now 

essentially represents a worst case analysis. KMG supports the current 

analysis knowing it is overly conservative in its analysis of the potential 

impact of the proposed project in this context.

This information has been added in Chapter 2 and in Sections 4.13.1 and 4.13.2 

to add context to the estimates of water use.
FEIS P-52 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

P001-29 The document lists a number of companies and permits as sources of 

groundwater. DEIS at 2-8, 2-11. As with any other business endeavor, 

suppliers and companies can often change. Such is the case here with 

respect to those companies supplying groundwater to KMG for its GNB 

Project. Instead of listing specific companies and permit numbers, KMG 

believes the document should be revised to more generally describe these 

sources. For example, the document could state that water for drilling and 

completion operations would be purchased from commercial water supply 

sources. The suppliers would obtain the water from both groundwater wells 

and surface withdrawals from the Green River and White River in accordance 

with the beneficial use water permits issued by the Utah Division of Water 

Rights.

The USFWS prefers that the proposed sources be identified in the EIS. The 

proposed water sources need to be identified to the USFWS in order to complete 

the consultation process.

P001-30 KMG committed to protect threatened and endangered fish by ensuring water 

withdrawal from the river meets the guidelines of the USFWS (Appendix A). 

In addition, as noted above KMG obtains fresh water from multiple vendors 

who have obtained beneficial water use permits from the Utah State 

Engineer’s Office. KMG has concern for the proposed mitigation WFM-5 

requiring the construction of an infiltration gallery for off-channel pumping 

activities and the potential of additional NEPA analysis. KMG is unable to 

determine the feasibility of this concept and it’s potential to have significant 

other impacts by concentrating water withdrawals from one locations. In 

addition, suggesting another layer of NEPA over and above the GNBPA DEIS 

programmatic document and the subsequent site specific development 

analysis appears excessive. BLM and the USFWS should disclose the 

science that supports the mitigation recommendation for WFM-5 and further 

more why the applicant-committed measure in Appendix A does not fulfill the 

mitigation need.

KMG’s commitment is noted. However, should water be taken directly from low 

flow sections of the river, there is still a possibility for impingement of larval fish on 

the intake screen. Creating an infiltration gallery, as suggested in the mitigation 

measure, would reduce this potential. Due to the programmatic nature of this EIS, 

further NEPA analyses would be conducted in the future for site-specific field 

development activities; therefore, additional NEPA analyses for the infiltration 

gallery could be conducted at that time.
FEIS P-53 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

P001-31 As noted in the document, water disposal is highly regulated with both the 

state of Utah and the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA) as regulators depending on the location of the well. DEIS at 2-18. In 

the area of the GNBPA, the USEPA retains primacy for the underground 

injection control (UIC) program. The primary zone for water disposal is the 

Birds Nest Aquifer. KMG has obtained and will continue to obtain and comply 

with all UIC permitting requirements to ensure protection of the aquifer. KMG 

has done an exhaustive engineering and geologic analysis under the 

direction of the USEPA Region 8 to provide evidence in support of our UIC 

permit applications.

...In issuing the UIC permits, the USEPA has concluded that the Birds Nest 

Formation in the area of the disposal wells:

• Has sufficient storage capacity to handle all anticipated future produced 

water disposal needs;

• Has upper and lower confining zones that are laterally continuous and 

present throughout the study area; and

• Is hydro dynamically isolated from surrounding zones throughout the study 

area.

KMG in compliance with the terms of the USEPA UIC permits has installed 

several monitoring wells in the Birds Nest Formation to monitor the movement 

of injection fluid over time. In addition, KMG continues to collect water 

analyses from the Birds Nests Formation to further refine the water quality 

mapping for the area.

This information has been summarized and the text has been revised in response

to USEPA Comment F01-05. A summary of the major aspects of the injection well 

monitoring plan has been added to the text in response to USEPA Comment F01-

08.

P001-32 Wildlife, including game species, exists within the GNB Project Area, and 

both the DEIS and previous NEPA documents contain numerous mitigation 

measures to minimize impacts. KMG fully supports the vast majority of these 

measures. For example, under the Resource Protection Alternative, BLM 

proposes habitat mapping in the event a well is to be sited within 2 miles of 

an active sage-grouse nest. DEIS at 4-158, SSS-4. Based on this data, BLM 

and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources would “determine an appropriate 

surface development pattern that would result in no net population-level 

impacts from the proposed project.” KMG has already committed financial 

support to the habitat mapping effort recently initiated by Utah State 

University in the area.

Comment noted.
FEIS P-54 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

P001-33 Furthermore, KMG agrees that along with other conservation measures, the

implementation of SSS-4 and SSS-5, DEIS at 4-158, will contribute 

significantly to reduce potential threats to Greater Sage-grouse populations. 

However, the stated target of “no net population-level impacts” is 

unquantifiable in relation to specific impacts directly associated with the GNB 

project versus other threats. It is also inconsistent with the analysis. While 

SSS-4 will facilitate the spatial arrangement of wells and attendant facilities, 

such as access roads and pipelines, to benefit sage-grouse persistence, the 

goal of “no net population-level impacts” fails to consider that fact that other 

forces, beyond oil and gas development, could be contributing to or even be 

responsible for population level impacts. Further complications arise when 

populations, such as the sage-grouse within the GNBPA, are migratory. The 

sage-grouse migrate for seasonal habitat use and utilize an extensive 

landscape possibly containing an even larger array of threats. The document 

and the “no-net impact” requirement, fail to take this fact into consideration.

...KMG requests that the statement that “no net population-level impacts” 

from the proposed project be removed. In the alternative, BLM should 

recognize that SSS-4 and SSS-5 are appropriate conservation measures that 

will facilitate management of surface disturbances and facility siting and 

would result in sage-grouse persistence when combined with reduction or 

removal of other threats within the seasonal habitats of the East Bench Sagegrouse population.

Text has been revised to delete the wording "no net population-level impacts from 

the proposed project." Additional text has been added to clarify that the approved 

surface development pattern would be the least impacting to greater sage-grouse, 

which would allow a viable population of greater sage-grouse to continue to persist 

in the East Bench area until total reclamation has been achieved.

Regarding a description of the existing conditions within the GNBPA for greater 

sage-grouse, additional text to clarify existing conditions and threats to greater 

sage-grouse has been added to Section 3.15.3. This will help clarify the existing 

impacts and threats to the population as well as to explain what the expected 

impacts are from the proposed project.
FEIS P-55 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

P001-34 The recent Utah State University study (Smith 2009) provided documentation 

concerning mortality rates, the seasonal distribution and location for the Seep 

Ridge (aka East Bench) sage-grouse population.

...The data set forth [in Smith 2009] supports KMG’s concern that significant 

mortalities occur in seasonal habitats primarily removed (Willow Creek) from 

the project area and are not tied to oil and gas development within the 

GNBPA. Overall, habitat conditions, apart from the presence of natural gas 

infrastructure, appear to constitute a continuing threat causing negative 

population level impacts. The EIS does not identify or discuss the current 

habitat conditions in the upland breeding and brood rearing sites (i.e. less 

shrub, forb, grass cover and canopy cover than guidelines) as well as the 

seasonal habitats in Willow Creek (i.e. previously cultivated alfalfa fields that 

were dominated by kochia and poverty weed) relative to their role in the 

declining lek attendance since 1983. Additionally, it is unclear if these 

conditions are expected to continue, improve or further degrade. KMG brings 

to BLM’s attention the existing habitat conditions as an example of a threat 

that may cause population declines that need to be quantified in order to 

tease out impacts solely attributable to development in the GNB project area.

Please see the response to Comment P001-33.
FEIS P-56 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

P001-35 On page 4-157, the document states that “implementation of the Resource 

Protection Alternative likely would have population level impacts and may 

contribute to the further decline of the East Bench population of greater sagegrouse. This finding of the possibility of further population declines is 

inconsistent with the requirement of no net population loss. Furthermore, the 

document states that energy development is the biggest threat to local sagegrouse populations while also acknowledging that “Other threats to greater 

sage-grouse within the Uinta Basin include the spread of invasive weeds, 

overgrazing, pinyon-juniper encroachment into sagebrush habitat, and poor 

reclamation due to drought.” (Page 3-125) BLM concludes in the following 

sentence with an apparent summation that all of the threats identified “result 

in greater sage-grouse habitat quality and quantity that has declined 

throughout Utah, which coincides with reduced greater sage-grouse 

populations (Connelly et al. 2004; UDWR 2009b).” Again, while other threats 

are mentioned, the document does not disclose current habitat conditions 

relative to long term declines in sage-grouse populations or that the 

population may suffer other threats as a result of migrates to areas outside 

the GNBPA.

Please see the response to Comment P001-33.

P001-36 As an additional clarification, KMG request BLM note the specific document 

referencing “No permanent facilities would be allowed within 1000 feet of a 

new or known lek/nesting area. DEIS at 4-142. KMG is concerned that the 

terms “lek” and “nesting area” may be used interchanged in the DEIS, and 

they should not be as the two are completely distinct. KMG fully supports the 

need to keep permanent facilities setback from leks. However, the nesting 

area is much broader as shown in Figure 3.15-7 (DEIS at 3-124). 

Text has been revised to state "No permanent facilities would be allowed within 

1,000 feet of any identified greater sage-grouse leks. This text is directly from 

existing NEPA documents (e.g., Bonanza and Love Unit EAs).

P001-37 The requirement to site permanent facilities 1000 feet from a nest area (which 

covers approximately 30 sections or 19,200 acres) is inconsistent with the 

mitigation measures set out under the Resource Protection Alternative, SSS -

4 (DEIS at 4-158), to map the habitat and determine a development pattern 

and SSS-7 and SSS-8 (DEIS at 4-158) to use mufflers and locate tanks out of 

line of sight for facilities and tanks located within 2-miles of the lek.

Please see the response to Comment P001-36. In addition, requirements set forth 

under the No Action Alternative (i.e., no permanent facilities would be allowed 

within 1,000 feet of any identified greater sage-grouse leks) does not have to 

match or compliment mitigation measures described under the Resource 

Protection Alternative. This is mainly due to discrepancies between older guidance 

on greater sage-grouse and the development of new scientific evidence regarding 

energy related impacts to greater sage-grouse.
FEIS P-57 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

P001-38 KMG has a history of working with the local grazers in the area to supplement 

natural water containment areas as appropriate and is now making a similar 

commitment for the benefit of area wildlife. Following consultation with Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), which has evaluated the need for 

supplemental water containment, KMG will fund the installation of 

approximately 12 wildlife water guzzlers. UDWR will be responsible for 

equipment purchase. UDWR will consult with KMG prior to locating the 

guzzlers to provide a benefit of the area wildlife while minimizing impacts to 

KMG’s ability to fully develop the natural gas resources near the specific 

locations. KMG recognizes that the guzzlers are a mitigation measure to 

reduce impacts on the area wildlife and final location of the equipment is at 

the discretion of UDWR. In order to provide KMG and UDWR the opportunity 

to further consult on specific locations in regards to wildlife water systems, 

KMG request that BLM modify Range-1 mitigation measure (DEIS at 4-38) to 

include the UDWR as an agency with the ability to approve relocation of 

wildlife systems to an alternate location.

UDWR cannot approve specific locations of range improvements. They can 

approve the concept and locations in general, but final approval is provided by the 

surface management agency. Text has been added to the end of mitigation 

measure RANGE-1 to state that alternate locations would be approved by BLM on 

BLM lands, and by the appropriate surface manager on all other lands.

P001-39 KMG now generally supports the Resource Protection Alternative and 

believes the additional measures set out here will work to minimize potential 

impacts. These measures should not require analysis of a new alternative as 

the measures proposed are wholly in keeping with the Resource Protection 

Alternative.

Comment noted. These measures are within the scope of the Resource Protection 

Alternative.

P001-40 KMG strongly urges BLM to recognize no further modeling or analysis of 

potential air impacts is required prior to BLM’s finalizing the EIS, nor is there a 

need to consider any additional alternatives that would focus solely on 

reducing air impacts. [BLM should keep in mind that BLM need not consider 

every available alternative. Moreover, under NEPA, BLM is not required to 

separately analyze alternatives that are not significantly distinguishable from 

alternatives already considered. (Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Serv., 

408 F. Supp. 2d 866, 874 (D. Ariz. 2006)). Given the range of alternatives 

analyzed in this document, any additional alternatives would not be 

significantly different and would likely only be variations. Thus, we urge BLM 

to refrain from revising the document to include any additional alternatives.]

The BLM agrees that there is no need to analyze an additional alternative in the 

EIS. However, additional modeling to determine compliance with the 1-hr NO2 and 

SO2 NAAQS has been added to Section 4.1.1.1.
FEIS P-58 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

P001-41 Appendix A, Page A-2: “KMG would use zero emission dehydrators at 

existing and future compressor stations and production wells.” The specific 

wording of this Applicant-Committed Measure differs from that approved by 

KMG through an email to the 3rd party contractor (AECOM) on January 21, 

2009. KMG further re-enforced our commitment to reduce our emissions of 

ozone precursors by providing a list of Air Quality Applicant-Committed 

Measures in a letter to the BLM, March 2010. Correct the ApplicantCommitted Measure to read as follows: “KMG would use low emissions 

dehydration units.” The correct terminology should be “low” as there is a 

natural gas fired burner in the dehydration units which does have minimal 

exhausted emissions. Also note that there are several locations throughout 

the document where the words “no emission” has been incorrectly substituted 

for “low emission” when referring to dehydration units.

The nomenclature from "zero emission dehydrators" to "low emission dehydrators" 

has been changed throughout the document. Emissions from separator heaters 

are included in the analysis; therefore, this change has no impact on the project 

emissions inventory.

P001-42 Appendix A, Page A-2: “KMG would utilize electricity to power at least 50 

percent of its compressor stations.” The specific wording of this ApplicantCommitted Measure differs from that approved by KMG through an email to 

the 3rd party contractor (AECOM) on January 21, 2009. KMG further reenforced our commitment to reduce our emissions of ozone precursors by 

providing a list of Air Quality Applicant-Committed Measures in a letter to the 

BLM, March 2010. Correct the Applicant-Committed Measure to read as 

follows: “KMG would install electric compression, where feasible 

(approximately 50 percent of the compression HP to be electrically driven).” 

In section 2.5.4.4, Page 2-17, Paragraph 1, “KMG anticipates an 

approximately 50/50 split between electric powered and natural gas powered 

compressor engines.” KMG’s intent is to utilize electricity to meet 

approximately 50 percent of our compression needs. Due to infrastructure 

limitations, it is not possible to install electric compression at a significant 

portion of existing and proposed compressor stations. The KMG proposed 

language achieves the environmental benefit while allowing for practical 

operational flexibility.

Text describing the applicant-committed measure regarding percentage of 

electrically-driven compressor stations has been revised as requested.
FEIS P-59 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

P001-43 Appendix A, Page A-2: “KMG would use an oxidation catalyst on all natural 

gas fired engines to reduce the emission of CO and VOCs.” This 

commitment is directly tied to an additional commitment: “For engines greater 

than 500 hp, install lean-burn engines or engines equipped to achieve 

comparable emission reductions.” Oxidation catalyst is a specific technology 

that is applied only to lean-burn engines. KMG’s goal is to deliver the 

significant emission reductions associated with gas compression. It is 

necessary to retain the flexibility to utilize any future technology which 

achieves “comparable emission reductions.” The flexibility to install the 

appropriate catalyst for any future engine type is necessary to allow for 

technological advancement in the future under a programmatic document. 

The specific wording of this Applicant-Committed Measure was provided in a 

list of Air Quality Applicant-Committed Measures in a letter to the BLM, March 

2010. Correct the Applicant-Committed Measure to read as follows: “Install 

catalyst on all natural gas fired compression.”

Table 1-1 of Appendix G states that the ACEPM is to Install catalyst on all natural 

gas fired compression. As stated in this table, the use of oxidation catalyst on 

lean-burn engines to estimate CO and VOC emissions was considered in the 

analysis. Oxidation catalysts were assumed because all engines considered were 

greater than 500 hp, lean-burn. This does not preclude Anadarko from using 

equivalent technology. Appendix A has been revised to be consistent with Table 1-

1 in Appendix G.

P001-44 Page 4-2: “In addition, volatile organic compounds (VOC) are a typical 

source of emissions associated with oil and gas exploration and production. 

Under specific environmental conditions, NOx and VOCs form ozone, which 

also is considered a GHG.” Please clarify or remove last two sentences as 

ozone and VOCs are not GHGs.

The text has been revised for clarification.

P001-45 Page 4-5: “The CAA lists HAPs that could be emitted during project 

operations: primarily BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene) 

from the well dehydrators and...”. KMG does not have well dehydrators.

The reference to well dehydrators has been deleted.

P001-46 Page 3-2: “As related to the mixing heights, the atmosphere is more stable in 

the afternoon hours ...”Replace “stable” with “unstable”.

The text has been revised.

P001-47 Appendix G, Page 3-32, Footnote 1: “Emissions Factors for NOx, CO, and 

VOC for CAT Model G3516 LE, See Appendix B.” The reference to the 

“Model G3516 LE” should be corrected to “G3608 LE”. 

The reference to the CAT G3516LE engine was in error. Table 3-42 has been 

revised to reference a CAT Model G3608 LE and an emissions specification sheet 

has been added to Appendix B. Emissions were calculated using the emissions 

specification for the CAT G3608 LE.
FEIS P-60 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

P001-48 Page 2-16: “Each well pad in the Natural Buttes or Love Units within the 

GNBPA would contain a single 300-bbl combination tank...” and “Outside of 

the federal units but within the GNBPA, each location would contain two 300-

bbl tanks...” As noted in text of the comment letter, KMG has implemented 

many pilot programs since this document was originally scoped. As a result of 

the initial success surrounding directional drilling, there are many situations 

where multiple wells on a single pad and the one 300 –bbl tank per well 

correlation may not be correct. However this estimate delivers conservative 

assumptions for developing any cumulative impacts.

Comment noted.

P001-49 Page 4-111: “In addition, KMG would develop site-specific stormwater 

pollution prevention plans for all construction locations that exceed 5 acres in 

size.” KMG committed to SWPP plans for new construction sites associated 

with compressor stations, processing plants, and pipeline projects greater 

than 5 acres (DEIS at Appendix A). This commitment did not include all new 

construction greater than 5 acres. As KMG increases the number of 

directional wells from a single pad location the potential for well pads greater 

than 5 acres will increase. At this time EPA under the Energy Policy Act 

exempted oil and gas operations from requiring stormwater permits.

The text has been revised to be consistent with KMG's commitment regarding 

stormwater plans in Appendix A.

P001-50 Page 2-18: “KMG would install 4- to 12-inch buried polyproplylene 

pipelines....” KMG now uses a pipeline product called Flexsteel for water 

trunk-line construction. Flexsteel pipe combines polyproplylene and steel 

band construction to provide a higher pressure rating at the smaller pipeline 

diameters. The higher pressure rating allows KMG the ability to transport 

larger volumes of water over greater distance and more efficiently 

interconnect water disposal systems in the GNBPA. KMG will continue to 

strive to optimize operations and as a result construction materials may 

change over time as technology and vendor products change. 

The text has been revised to delete the word "polypropylene."

P001-51 Page 4-108, VIS-2: “Permeon would be used to dye landform cuts and fills in 

VRM Class II areas.” KMG assumes this would apply to pipeline ROW 

projects and would suggest that the cost of applying to a large linear feature 

may be prohibitive and/or the product incompatible with seeding or other 

reclamation efforts. As an alternative we request less prescriptive language 

that does not identify a specific product and allows for more flexibility for the 

BLM to consider other products or screening techniques as technology and 

vendor products change.

Mitigation measure VIS-2 has been revised to remove reference to a specific 

product and more generically require the use of dye or other screening techniques 

on landform cuts and fills.
FEIS P-61 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

P001-52 Page 2-19: “KMG would develop and maintain site-specific Spill Prevention 

Control and Countermeasure plans...for each production facility in the 

GNBA.” KMG suggest inserting language at the end of the sentence that 

states “for each facility subject to 40 CFR Part 112.” Rules promulgated in the 

Code of Federal Regulations can be revised over the life of a programmatic 

document like the DEIS. By incorporating the proposed language, this 

document will ensure development is consistent with the latest requirements.

The text has been revised.

P001-53 Page 2-19: “Chemicals subject to reporting under Title III of the Superfund 

Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) in quantities of 10,000 pounds 

or more would not be used, produced, stored, transported, or disposed of 

annually while drilling or completing wells in the GNBPA.” KMG complies with 

SARA Title III reporting requirements and does use reportable materials in 

quantities greater than 10,000 pounds during drilling and completion 

operations. For example, cement used in the drilling operations to isolate the 

steel casing from the surrounding wellbore is a reportable SARA Title III 

material. KMG suggest this phase be modify to reflect the activity and 

potential use of materials reportable under SARA Title III.

The text has been revised to incorporate the information provided.

P001-54 Appendix J, Page J-2, Education bullet 1: “The Company will provide 

periodic weed education and awareness programs for its employees and 

contractors through the county weed districts, state and federal agencies and 

educational institutions.”

Since this document was scoped KGM has hired several regional reclamation 

and weed management experts. The bullet should be revised to read: “The 

Company will provide periodic weed education and awareness programs for 

its employees and contractors through the county weed districts, state and 

federal agencies, educational institutions and internal experts.”

The text has been revised as requested.
FEIS P-62 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

P001-55 Page 4-96, 4-98, and 4-100: “Surveying for special status plant species 

before treating an area...”, “Using drift reduction agents...”, and “Using 

selective herbicide...” KMG recommends changing this to: “Commercial 

applicators will be made aware of local threatened and endangered species 

through the use of maps in order to avoid an improper herbicide application. 

Herbicide-free buffer zones around threatened and endangered species will 

be adhered to as defined in Appendix J.” KMG is concerned that surveys for 

special status plant species are becoming excessive and add little additional 

value in protecting the plants. KMG has already committed to surveying up 

300 feet surrounding all new surface disturbing activities and 50 feet 

surrounding surface pipelines in cooperation with the USFWS consultation on 

going in the GNB area. 

The BLM Vernal FO has committed to incorporating the standard operating 

procedures outlined in the BLM Vegetation Treatment Using Herbicides 

Programmatic EIS. For those areas where surveying has already been completed 

or is going to be conducted as part of the APD process, maps of areas with the 

appropriate herbicide buffers will be acceptable. For those areas where there is no 

survey information, surveys would be required as directed in the Pesticide Use 

Permit (PUP) before herbicide spraying could be conducted. Appropriate survey 

buffer distances would be determined by the BLM during the PUP approval

process. Factors that would determine the survey distance would include the 

herbicide to be used and the history of surveys in the immediate area. The text 

has been updated to reflect these changes.

P001-56 Page 4-100, VEG-2: “Plateau herbicide would be used for the control of 

cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) in the GNBPA. KMG asks that this mitigation 

include additional flexibility to allow for the evaluation of the Plateau herbicide 

with regard to use in the GNBPA, and/or to allow other BLM approved 

herbicide treatment or reclamation efforts to control cheatgrass. The 

programmatic nature of this document should allow for flexibility to account 

for changes in effective reclamation practices and product changes over the 

course of time. 

The mitigation has been revised to incorporate additional flexibility into the 

mitigation measure.

P001-57 Page 2-20: “Surface disturbance associate with electric power lines, surface 

pipelines... would be reclaimed as soon as construction is complete. . .” KMG 

requests additional language clarifying as soon as practicable with regard to 

weather related limitations.

The text has been revised as requested.

P001-58 Page 4-152, WFM-4: “ Reserve pit would be closed ... no more than 90 days 

after well completion..” KMG has made significant strides in reducing trucking 

of completion water through the use of the ACTS (Anadarko Completion 

Transfer System), a temporary aluminum water transfer system that utilizes 

the reserve pits. KMG requires the flexibility to maintain reserve pits open 

longer than 90 days to accommodate the transfer of completion fluids from 

one well pad to another in the area. BLM Onshore Order No.1 (XII B. 

Reclamation) allows for pit reclamation within 6 months of well completion. 

KMG request the elimination of this mitigation, or at a minimum, modify the 

mitigation to allow the continued benefit of reduced truck traffic through the 

temporary use of reserve pits.

Mitigation measure WFM-4 was originally developed by the BLM and USFWS to 

reduce exposure impacts to wildlife, particularly migratory birds. This measure has 

been replaced with a mitigation measure that requires netting of reserve pits with 

water that are open for longer than 30 days.
FEIS P-63 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

EOG Resources

P002-01 EOG supports the Proposed Action Alternative analyzed in the DEIS, which is 

also named as the Agency Preferred Alternative in the cover letter 

accompanying publication of the DEIS, for the following reasons:

• The Proposed Action is primarily an infill development project in an area of 

the Uinta Basin wherein the oil and gas resources have been leased and 

developed for approximately sixty years and significant quantities of cleanburning natural gas can still be recovered for years to come with relatively 

minimal new surface disturbance.

• The Proposed Action conforms to the management prescriptions outlined in 

the Vernal Resource Management Plan, EIS, and Record of Decision 

(2008), which states:

"The following principles will be applied: Encourage and facilitate the 

development by private industry of public land mineral resources in a 

manner that satisfies national and local needs and provides for 

economical and environmentally sound exploration, extraction, and 

reclamation practices." See Vernal RMP, 2008, pg. 96.

Comment noted. Please note that the BLM preferred alternative for this EIS is the 

Resource Protection Alternative rather than the Proposed Action (see the 

introduction to Chapter 2.0).

P002-02 Natural gas is an important foundation for a secure energy future for America 

that provides jobs and economic benefits. Natural gas provides a reliable, 

cleaner-burning power source necessary to supply power needs to boost 

renewable energy supplies.

Comment noted.

P002-03 Like the Project Proponent, EOG continues to explore the feasibility of 

directional drilling to further minimize surface disturbance while increasing 

resource recovery; but, efforts to date do not support the economic or 

technical viability of widespread directional drilling from surface pads located 

on greater than 20-acre density pattern in the Project Area. For this reason, 

too, the Proposed Action Alternative or, possibly, the Optimal Recovery 

Alternative should be selected to achieve the maximum recovery of natural 

gas resources from the GNB Project Area under valid existing oil and gas 

leases. Both the Resource Protection Alternative and No Action Alternative 

will unreasonably limit recovery of the extensive known natural gas resources 

within the Project Area.

Comment noted. However, the proponent has reviewed the Resource Protection 

Alternative and has determined that it is generally feasible and environmentally 

preferable.
FEIS P-64 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

Whitbeck Investments

P003-01 Please refer to our BLM grazers permittee file for our opinion on the Greater 

Natural Buttes Area Gas Development Project. We remain opposed to 

development of wells on less than forty acre parcels.

It is our hypothesis that the increased activity in the area has decreased our 

lambing percentages significantly and that, overall, operating in this area has 

become more difficult and costly. Granted, extreme weather conditions during 

two years have also negatively impacted lambing percentages and ewe loss, 

but we have seen a steady decline in lambing percentages and increase in 

ewe loss in the last several years. We feel that even more activity will have an 

even greater negative impact.

The BLM's preferred alternative for the Greater Natural Buttes EIS is the Resource 

Protection Alternative, which would limit oil and gas development to 40-acre 

parcels.

Justin Anderson

P004-01 One of the big obstacles I see to development concerns air quality. Energy 

development does have impacts on air quality. However, these impacts can 

be mitigated and managed. I think Anadarko should put in writing that they 

are going to do some things to make sure these problems are minimized.

The proponent has agreed to Applicant Committed Environmental Protection 

Measures (ACEPMs) as described in Appendix A.

P004-02 Anadarko should install catalysts on all natural gas-fired compressor stations. Please see the response to Comment P004-01.

P004-03 In addition, they should use smart, efficient burning engines when practical. The analysis follows the ACEPMs, which include lean-burn engines equipped with 

oxidation catalysts for control of CO and VOC.

P004-04 ...they should have to use the new condensate storage tanks to reduce 

VOCs and odors.

As shown in Appendix A, the applicant has committed to using vapor recovery 

units on production tanks with emissions greater than 20 tpy. It is unclear what is 

meant by "new" condensate tanks. If additional mitigation is required, all available 

and feasible technology will be considered.

David J. Fair

P005-01 Anadarko recycles about 90% of the water used in their hydraulic fracturing 

activities. In addition, they use the safe mixture of water and sand in their 

fracture stimulation. This poses no threat to area ground or surface water as 

they are drilling into formations 2-miles below the surface.

Thank you for your comment.

Tony L. White

P006-01 When finalizing the air quality section, please take into account the fact that 

the Uinta Basin Air Quality Study (UBAQS) reported that exceedances of the 

average ambient ozone concentration in northwest Utah are not predicted. 

This looked at a six county area that included significant oil and gas activity.

While this analysis uses model configurations from UBAQS, it uses different 

emissions data. The BLM recognizes that the UBAQS study does not predict 

exceedances in 2012.
FEIS P-65 March 2012

Table P-2 Responses to Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Letter Author /

Comment Number Comment Response

P006-02 Ozone monitoring is a recent addition to the Uinta Basin and does not have 

adequate baseline data to be used in assessing air quality. Also, before the 

ozone monitoring data can be used a quality assurance and control test 

should be completed to verify the accuracy of the readings.

Figure 3.1-2 has been added to the Final EIS, which includes a review of the 2010 

Ouray and Redwash monitoring data as reported by the USEPA AQS data 

management system. These data were collected in accordance with the quality 

assurance procedures as required in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix A, Section 2, 

which requires all collected parameters meet strict quality assurance criteria 

described in a site specific Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and meet 

minimum data recovery requirements on a quarterly basis.

P006-03 Also, it should be noted in your analysis that air quality emissions can be 

significantly mitigated through the use of appropriate best management 

practices (BMPs). New technologies should be taken into account such as 

Tier II drilling rigs that significantly mitigate emissions.

As applicable, emissions control from best management practices as described in 

the ACEPMs are included as part of the estimate of project emissions. These 

ACEPMs and the impact to emissions are described in Table 1-1 of Appendix G. 

As stated in Appendix A, the applicant has committed to phasing in Tier 2 drill rig 

engines by 2012.
FEIS P-66 March 2012

Table P-3 Letter Identifiers for Public Comments on the SDEIS

Category / Letter ID Author / Affiliation

Federal Agencies

F201 National Park Service

− Cheryl Eckhardt, Environmental Compliance Specialist – Intermountain Region

F202 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8

− Carol L. Campbell, Assistant Regional Administrator – Office of Ecosystems 

Protection and Remediation

Local Agencies

L201 Uintah County Commission

L202 Uintah County Commission

Non-governmental Organizations

N201 Wild Earth Guardians 

− Jeremy Nichols, Climate and Energy Program Director

Private Individuals or Industries

P201 Brook Bell, Project Manager - Anadarko
FEIS P-67 March 2012

Table P-4 Responses to Public Comments on the SDEIS

Letter Author / 

Comment Number Comment AECOM Response

National Park Service

F201-01 The Mitigation Measures proposed for the air quality in the SDEIS are tied only to 

ozone and the ozone NAAQS. We are concerned about the potential effects to AQRVs 

in National Parks and National Monuments (hereafter referred to as Parks) as a result 

of this action. Accordingly, section 4.1.2.6 should also address protection of Park 

AQRVs. For example, consideration of additional “enhanced” mitigation measures 

based on modeling results should also be tied to protection of AQRVs, including 

visibility and deposition. Incorporating protection of Park AQRVs in the mitigation 

provisions and the adaptive management plan is not only congruent with the provisions 

of the MOU, but it would also target the same precursor pollutants that are responsible 

for ozone formation.

While the mitigation measures in Section 4.1.2.6 primarily are focused on 

reducing ozone precursor emissions due to the monitored exceedences of the 

ozone NAAQS in the GNBPA. The BLM agrees that they also target the same 

pollutants primarily responsible for visibility and disposition impacts in national 

parks and national monuments. Section 4.1.2.6 has been updated to explain 

this linkage and tie protection of park air quality related values (AQRV) to the 

mitigation measures defined in this section. Additionally, protection of park 

AQRVs will be incorporated into the review and potential addition of enhanced 

mitigation under the adaptive management strategy outlined in this section.

F201-02 Previous NPS comments raised concerns over potential visibility impacts in NPS units, 

particularly in Dinosaur NM. Further review of the SDEIS materials, leads us to 

question whether concerns may exist for other NPS units as well. Section 5.1.2 of 

Appendix G states that “The post-processing algorithm, CALPOST Method 6, was used 

with annual average background air quality data from Appendix B of USEPA’s 

“Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule” (USEPA 2003) for 

each Class I area. The Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Work 

Group (FLAG) guidance recommends that changes in visibility in NPS areas be 

calculated using natural background visibility conditions, as reported in the FLAG 

guidance1

, as this approach is consistent with national visibility goals in the CAA. The 

USEPA document referenced in Appendix G of the SDEIS does not actually report 

estimated natural background conditions. Rather, this document provides guidance to 

states for defining baseline visibility conditions, as well as metrics for tracking progress 

under the regional haze program using current monitored visibility conditions. 

Therefore, we question whether current conditions (as opposed to estimated natural) 

were used when completing the visibility assessment. If this is the case, we do not 

have an estimate of visibility impacts, as they related to CAA goals for Class I areas, 

and we may have a greater level of concern regarding visibility impacts in these areas. 

Further the visibility impacts in Dinosaur NM are substantial, regardless of the analysis 

metrics used. For this reason, additional visibility modeling should be included in the 

regional modeling assessment as part of the adaptive management strategy. 

Enhanced mitigation should be considered, in consultation with the NPS, for any 

adverse effects to visibility in NPS units.

1 FLAG 2001 recommended using NAPAP estimates of annual average natural background 

concentrations. FLAG 2010 recommends using the revised EPA estimates of annual average natural or 

20% best natural background visibility conditions.

The visibility assessment presented in the SDEIS was based on estimates of 

natural background conditions. The reference in Section 5.1.2 has been 

revised to show the correct guidance used in the analysis. In regard to 

additional modeling and mitigation of visibility impacts, please refer to the 

response to Comment F201-01.
FEIS P-68 March 2012

Table P-4 Responses to Public Comments on the SDEIS

Letter Author / 

Comment Number Comment AECOM Response

F201-03 Section 4.1.2.3, “Impacts at Class I and II Areas – Acid Deposition” does not consider 

the potentially adverse ecosystem effects of nutrient enrichment from excess nitrogen 

(N) deposition. Research investigating the response of arid ecosystems to N deposition 

has found that it can lead to changes in species composition, increases in biomass of 

exotic plant species and associated decreases in native species. These changes have 

also been linked to increased fire risk in these ecosystems2

.

2 Pardo, L.H.; Robin-Abbott, M.J.; Driscoll, C.T., eds. 2011. Assessment of Nitrogen deposition effects and 

empirical critical loads of Nitrogen for ecoregions of the United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-80. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 291 p.

The BLM recognizes the concern with acid deposition on Class I and II areas, 

and notes that additional deposition modeling will be included in the 

subsequent regional modeling outlined in the adaptive management strategy. 

Enhanced mitigation, where appropriate and as determined through this 

modeling, will be evaluated and included in any subsequent mitigation 

determinations. The BLM will consult with NPS air staff to help inform and 

guide the development of appropriate modeling guidelines and practices in 

conducting the regional modeling.

F201-04 To address the issues identified above, many of the enhanced mitigations should be 

effective immediately. If the modeling analysis will be completed outside of the NEPA 

process, a more detailed adaptive management strategy, including a more timely 

process and committed schedule for completing the regional modeling assessment, 

should be approved and in place prior to project implementation. Because the modeling 

study will be conducted outside of a NEPA action, the adaptive management strategy 

should specify that the study will follow the recommendations and provisions for 

interagency collaboration outlined in the MOU. Further, the adaptive management 

strategy should include monitored ozone level “trigger points” set at levels below the 

NAAQS. These ozone concentration trigger points should be identified in the SDEIS 

and ROD, and be tied directly to implementation of the more restrictive enhanced 

mitigation measures, such as phased development. The monitored ozone level trigger 

points should consider proposed revisions to the 8-hour ozone standard. The adaptive 

management strategy should also list ozone monitoring sites that would be used for 

implementing the strategy, and discuss how BLM would coordinate with the TAG in

implementing the enhanced mitigation measures.

The BLM appreciates the NPS recommendation that all enhanced mitigation 

measures outlined in the Draft EIS be implemented immediately. However, due 

to the complex nature of photochemical ozone reactions and the nonlinear 

nature of ozone formation related to precursor emissions, it cannot be 

determined at this time whether implementation of these enhanced mitigation 

measures would have a positive or negative effect on ambient ozone 

concentrations. Further research, which the BLM has committed to and is 

outlined in the SDEIS, is needed to develop a scientifically defensible and 

comprehensive control strategy for the region that looks at the issue of ozone 

formation in the Uinta Basin holistically. The regional modeling study outlined 

in the SDEIS adaptive management strategy will follow the recommendations 

and provisions for interagency collaboration as outlined in the National MOU. It 

is anticipated that this regional modeling will be completed by spring of 2012.

Ozone trigger points are identified in the adaptive management strategy 

(Section 4.1.2.6) and will be adjusted based on USEPA promulgation of a 

more restrictive ozone NAAQS. Given the monitored ozone concentrations 

currently being measured in the Uinta Basin during winter inversion events, it is 

unlikely that setting trigger points below the NAAQS would make the adaptive 

management strategy for this project more protective. The BLM is and has 

been working collaboratively with Utah Department of Air Quality, USEPA, and 

many other partners in identifying, funding, and operating air monitoring 

stations in the Uinta Basin. Taking into consideration the dynamic nature of this 

activity and the likelihood for substantial changes both in the location and level 

of effort related to this effort, providing current monitoring locations in the 

SDEIS would be of limited value. The BLM will examine whether including air 

monitoring locations on the BLM air resource web page would be feasible and 

informative. The BLM will utilize the Air Resource Technical Advisory Group 

both in reviewing and guiding the development of the regional modeling and in 

determining appropriate mitigation for air quality issues identified through this 

modeling.
FEIS P-69 March 2012

Table P-4 Responses to Public Comments on the SDEIS

Letter Author / 

Comment Number Comment AECOM Response

F201-05 We believe that in order for the adaptive management strategy to adequately address 

the ongoing ozone concerns in the Uinta Basin it should rely on a combined approach 

using monitoring data and modeling results. Again, the modeling analysis should be 

completed sooner than suggested, and on a schedule committed to in the SDEIS, in 

order to incorporate the modeling results into the final strategy. Finally, as 

acknowledged in section 4.1.2.5, this adaptive management approach / ozone action 

plan should be developed more comprehensively and regionally rather than project-byproject. The ozone action plan should be implemented for all NEPA decisions within 

the region. This approach allows the BLM to better address the cumulative effects of oil 

and gas development on air quality in the region and NPS resources.

The BLM agrees that the ongoing adaptive management of air resources in the 

Uinta Basin should rely on a combined monitoring/modeling approach, and the 

recently completed Utah Air Resource Management Strategy (ARMS) is based 

on that approach. The regional modeling component of the ARMS is currently 

underway with development of a comprehensive emission inventory. The 

modeling analysis is anticipated to occur in early 2012. The ARMS is also 

predicated on a comprehensive and collaborative approach to airshed 

management that is regional in scope and relies on sound science and public 

policy. The ARMS will be applied to all future NEPA actions as suggested, and 

is envisioned as an adaptive strategy that will be modified and improved as we 

gain knowledge and experience with airshed management in the Uinta Basin. 

We encourage and expect active participation by the NPS in air resource 

management on all public lands in Utah and are confident that, with this 

collaborative approach, both current and future air resource issues can be 

examined, addressed and solved. Please also refer to Comment F202-02 from 

USEPA.

USEPA

F202-01 1. Ozone – Wintertime Concentrations:

The EPA appreciates and supports that the Draft Supplement presents the measured 

wintertime ozone concentrations, including time plots showing the measured ozone 

concentrations at two monitoring stations in the Uinta Basin for a one-year period from 

August 2009 to August 2010. We agree that current modeling capabilities do not allow 

for prediction of wintertime ozone concentrations and are pleased to see that the Draft 

Supplement addresses qualitatively the wintertime ozone issues, based on anticipated 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions.

Measured ambient concentrations of ozone during the past two winters in the Uinta 

Basin have reached levels that are considerably above the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) of 75 ppb for an eight-hour average, which was 

promulgated by the EPA in 2008. The EPA has proposed to lower the primary 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS to a level between 60 – 70 ppb and to establish a distinct cumulative, 

season “secondary” standard; regardless of the outcome of this decision, it is clear that 

the measured values are a concern for public health.

Thank you for your comment.
FEIS P-70 March 2012

Table P-4 Responses to Public Comments on the SDEIS

Letter Author / 

Comment Number Comment AECOM Response

F202-02 2. Ozone – Future Air Quality Modeling:

The EPA is also pleased to see, and supports, the BLM’s commitment to remodel 

project-specific ozone impacts within two years of signing the Greater Natural Buttes 

Record of Decision, using an updated emission inventory, as well as updated 

monitoring and mitigation data. This change ensures current air quality conditions and 

potential air quality are both evaluated and disclosed; and is particularly important 

given recent ozone conditions in the vicinity of the project area. EPA understands from 

the Draft Supplement that this effort will likely be accomplished by isolated the projectspecific emissions contribution from the BLM’s Air Resources Management Strategy, 

which is also important in order to better understand cumulative air quality conditions in 

the Uintah Basin.

Through this future modeling study, the BLM may also be able to determine whether 

additional mitigation measured committed to by the applicant would be able to reduce 

the predicted project increment of 2.4 ppb ozone presented in the Draft EIS and 

whether additional mitigation is needed. If modeling advances allow, this future 

modeling effort may also quantitatively address the potential for project impacts to 

wintertime ozone conditions.

Thank you for your comment.

F202-03 3. Ozone – Impacts and Applicant Committed Mitigation Measures:

During review of the Draft EIS, EPA considered the predicted 2.4 ppb direct project 

impact for the Preferred Alternative to be a substantial adverse incremental increase in 

ozone. When this was added to an already measured adverse ambient ozone 

condition, the EPA determined the impact to be unacceptable from the standpoint of 

public health. Subsequently, the EPA has worked closely with the BLM during 

preparation of this Draft Supplement to develop a mutually agreeable approach 

addressing this concern. Specifically, EPA and BLM developed a comprehensive list of 

applicant-committed mitigation measures to decrease emissions of ozone precursors 

that will reduce emissions further than what was proposed and modeled in the Draft 

EIS. A further critical component of this agreed upon mitigation approach is an adaptive 

management strategy that includes additional mitigation measures to be triggered if 

certain conditions exist. Although the predicted incremental ozone reductions that will 

be achieved by implementation of the mitigation measures cannot be known until the 

future analysis and modeling is conducted, the EPA believes this overall mitigation 

approach will substantially reduce project air quality impacts through implementation of 

the agreed upon emission controls. Further, through the use of the adaptive 

management strategy, future modeling work and the ozone action plan will inform 

additional mitigation needs in the future to reduce adverse air quality impacts as the 

project progresses.

Thank you for your comment.
FEIS P-71 March 2012

Table P-4 Responses to Public Comments on the SDEIS

Letter Author / 

Comment Number Comment AECOM Response

F202-04 4. Near-Field HAPs and NO2 Air Quality:

BLM has made substantial updates to the near-field air quality assessment in the Draft 

Supplement. The EPA commends the BLM for performing air quality modeling for 

concentrations of six hazardous air pollutants, particularly to ensure protection of 

residents of nearby communities. We are pleased to see that hazardous air pollutant 

concentrations will not exceed toxic screening levels or reference concentrations, and 

therefore that no adverse impacts are predicted from these pollutants.

Near-field modeling conducted for the Draft Supplement also included an assessment 

of impacts to 1-hour NO2 levels from drilling and production scenarios. The modeling 

showed exceedances of the 1-hour NO2 standard for drilling scenarios with four rigs on 

adjacent pads spaced 400 to 800 meters apart. Although the EPA is concerned any 

time a model predicts exceedances of a health-based ambient air quality standard, 

impacts to 1-hour NO2 will be very localized, with exceedances predicted to occur less 

than 200 meters from the drill rig locations. As such, the EPA supports the mitigation 

measures presented in Section 4.1.2.6 of the Draft Supplement to protect public health 

using an effective public health buffer zone or alternative mitigation to reduce NO2

concentrations.

EPA is also particularly interested in the natural gas fired drill rig pilot project, and the 

subsequent NOX emissions reductions that may result from more natural gas or liquid 

natural gas engine use in the Uintah Basin.

Thank you for your comment. Please refer to the response to Comments

P201-01 through P201-05 for an explanation of revision to the 1-hour NO2

modeling. The revised modeling shows compliance of the drilling scenarios 

with the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.

F202-05 5. Far Field Air Quality:

The ozone emission reduction strategy presented in the Draft Supplement contains 

several provisions to reduce emissions of pollutants that have a may have a secondary 

affect to Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs), such as visibility impairment. We are 

encouraged that this emissions reduction strategy may ensure the direct project AQRV 

impacts from the Greater Natural Buttes Project to Class I and Sensitive Class II areas 

are minimized.

Thank you for your comment.

F202-06 6. Environmental Justice:

The EPA appreciates that Chapter 3 of the Draft Supplement includes an enhanced 

consideration of potential environmental justice communities in proximity to the 

proposed project area. We are also pleased to see that the Draft Supplement considers 

the potential for air quality impacts to EJ communities.

Thank you for your comment.
FEIS P-72 March 2012

Table P-4 Responses to Public Comments on the SDEIS

Letter Author / 

Comment Number Comment AECOM Response

Wild Earth Guardians

N201-01 In this case however, it does not appear as if the BLM will comply with the air quality 

mandates of FLPMA and its implementing regulations if it authorizes the Greater 

Natural Buttes project as proposed.

To begin with, it does not appear that the 2008 Vernal Resource Management Plan 

(“RMP”) is in compliance with FLPMA. As noted, FLPMA explicitly mandates that land 

use plans must provide for compliance with applicable federal air quality standards. 

See 43 U.S.C. § 1712(c)(8). Here, it does not appear that the Vernal RMP explicitly 

provides for compliance with federal air standards. In particular, the Air Quality 

Management Decisions in the 2008 RMP do not explicitly state that the BLM shall 

ensure compliance with federal air standards. See 2008 BMP at 70. This is of 

significant concern because it allows the BLM to flout compliance with the national 

ambient air quality standards (“NAAQS”) for ozone and other pollutants. Because the 

NAAQS are federal air standards, the failure of the RMP to require compliance is 

contrary to FLPMA.

Compliance of the Vernal RMP with FLPMA is not under consideration with the 

SDEIS. Regardless, it is not correct to assert that the Vernal RMP does not 

require compliance with federal air quality regulations. In the BLM Vernal RMP, 

under Management Concerns To The Proposed RMP And All Alternatives

(Page 2-16, Table 2.1.3), it is explicitly stated that, “The BLM is required to be 

in compliance with all local, state, federal and tribal air quality regulations and 

will do so with Utah regulations, including Utah Administrative Code (UAC) 

Regulations as determined applicable by the State of Utah.”

N201-02 That the RMP is likely flawed is evidenced by the fact that the BLM is proposing to 

approve the Greater Natural Buttes project even though the Agency freely admits not 

only that there have been “several occurrences of 8-hour ozone levels above [the 

NAAQS of] 75 ppb [parts per billion] during the winter months,” but that “there likely 

would be an incremental increase in regional ozone levels resulting from the Proposed 

Action.” SDEIS at 4-10 and 4-12. In other words, the Greater Natural Buttes project will 

simply make a bad situation worse. It appears that the RMP, in failing to require 

compliance with federal air quality standards, has emboldened the BLM to dismiss the 

impacts of the project to the NAAQS.

Disclosure of air quality impacts in the SDEIS as required by NEPA is neither 

evidence of a flawed RMP nor a “dismissal” of project impacts. The SDEIS 

clearly discloses and states that there will be increases in ozone precursor 

emissions. In addition, the SDEIS identifies controls and mitigation to address 

project emissions consistent with existing federal and state regulations and 

authority.
FEIS P-73 March 2012

Table P-4 Responses to Public Comments on the SDEIS

Letter Author / 

Comment Number Comment AECOM Response

N201-03 In addition to the apparent failure of the Vernal RMP to assure compliance with federal 

air quality standards, it also appears that BLM is violating it project-level obligations to 

ensure that all land use authorizations comply with federal air quality standards. The 

BLM clearly states in its SDEIS that under all action alternatives, the ozone problem in 

the Uinta Basin will be made worse, and this is even after the proposed mitigation 

measures are implemented. This is due to the fact that emissions will continue to 

increase in the project area, even after mitigation measures are implemented. As the 

BLM notes, emissions of nitrogen oxides (“NOx”) and volatile organic compounds 

(“VOCs”), the primary precursors to ozone, will increase by 22 percent and 4 percent, 

respectively, under the proposed action. See SDEIS at 4-10 and 4-12. This can hardly 

be said to comply with FLPMA’s requirement that the BLM comply with federal air 

standards in implementing the Greater Natural Buttes project.

The BLM may claim that it is only obligated to ensure the operator complies with state 

and federal air quality regulations, but such a claim flies in the face of FLPMA’s plain 

and unambiguous language and also appears flatly contrary to its own regulations. 

FLPMA and applicable regulations require compliance with federal air quality 

standards. Although reliance on federal and state air quality regulations may be 

appropriate where such standards are clearly protecting the NAAQS, where such 

standards are not protecting the NAAQS—such as in the Uinta Basin—the BLM has an 

affirmative and independent duty to protect air standards and ensure compliance with 

the NAAQS. This duty cannot be ignored simply because the BLM believes protecting 

air quality is not its job.

This comment appears to be making the argument that the BLM, by 

authorizing projects with air emissions in an area that has monitored 

exceedences of the NAAQS, is not complying with “federal air standards” and 

by extension, FLPMA. It is assumed that “federal air standards” is referring to 

the NAAQS. The NAAQS are ambient concentrations of specific air pollutants 

that USEPA has established by regulation that trigger specific regulatory 

responses by state, tribal, and/or federal agencies. The NAAQS is not intended 

to define how sources of air pollution will be controlled or regulated to achieve 

these standards. The Clean Air Act defines the process by which an area is 

first classified as nonattainment (or not meeting the standards) and also 

defines how approvable and enforceable plans (i.e., State Implementation 

Plans [SIPs]) will be developed to address nonattainment. As the GNBPA is 

still considered to be in attainment and no relevant SIP is in place to guide 

control of new sources of air emissions, the assertion that the BLM is not 

complying with federal air standards is not correct. There currently are no 

federal air standards being violated in the GNBPA or by the BLM’s 

authorization of new sources of air emissions in the GNBPA. 

FLPMA contains a requirement that “the public lands be managed in a manner 

that will protect the quality of ...air and atmospheric, ...values.” The BLM 

recognizes this affirmative responsibility, and through this analysis, the use of 

applicant committed control measures and identified mitigation, and the 

proactive adaptive management strategy outlined in the SDEIS, is pursuing 

both the aggressive application of presumptive best available control 

technologies and the ongoing and comprehensive analysis of the existing air 

resource issues identified in the GNBPA. To that end, the BLM is conducting a 

regional modeling exercise to evaluate air quality conditions in the Uinta Basin 

and to identify concrete and scientifically defensible control strategies. The 

BLM has evaluated this project using the best available science, has applied 

controls and mitigation consistent with existing regulatory and management 

practices, and is undertaking and directing subsequent analysis to further 

refine and improve air quality management in the GNBPA to fulfill its 

commitment under FLPMA related to both this specific project and to its overall 

public lands responsibilities. The BLM firmly believes these actions are 

managing the public lands in a manner that will protect their air resource 

values while ensuring continued and responsible multiple use on these lands. 
FEIS P-74 March 2012

Table P-4 Responses to Public Comments on the SDEIS

Letter Author / 

Comment Number Comment AECOM Response

N201-03

(continued)

Finally, this comment is making the argument that it is the BLM’s independent 

duty to ensure the NAAQS are met in the project area if both the USEPA and 

State of Utah regulatory structure is not clearly protecting the NAAQS. The 

BLM cannot assume responsibility for ensuring compliance with the NAAQS in 

the GNBPA because the BLM does not have permitting or regulatory authority 

under the Clean Air Act.

N201-04 a. The BLM Must Analyze and Assess Impacts to the Soon to be Finalized 

Revised Ozone Standards

As BLM notes, ozone is a harmful gas for which the EPA has established NAAQS in 

order to protect health. See 40 C.F.R. § 50.15. Ozone forms when NOx and VOCs 

react with sunlight. Although normally ozone is a problem in the summertime, 

increasingly wintertime ozone is becoming a problem in the Rocky Mountain West. 

Scientists believe that such wintertime ozone occurs where reflective snow cover and 

inversions allows NOx and VOCs to react to form ozone even in the winter. Currently, 

the NAAQS limit ozone concentrations to no more than 0.075 parts per million over an 

eight hour period (often referred to as the “8-hour ozone NAAQS”). According to the 

EPA, an exceedance of the standard occurs whenever ambient ozone concentrations 

reach 0.076 parts per million or higher and a violation occurs whenever the three year 

average of the fourth highest annual 8-hour ozone concentrations if 0.076 parts per 

million or higher. See 40 C.F.R. § 50.15.1 However, the EPA has proposed to 

strengthen the ozone NAAQS by setting a limit of no more than 0.060-0.070 parts per 

million over an 8-hour period. See 75 Fed. Reg. 2938-3052 (Jan. 19, 2010). The EPA 

expects to finalize the new ozone NAAQS between 0.060 and 0.070 parts per million in 

July of 2011. See U.S. EPA, Declaration of Regina McCarthy (Dec. 8, 2010), available 

at http://www.epa.gov/glo/pdfs/20101208declaration.pdf (last visited July 25, 2011).

In this case, because any decision on the Greater Natural Buttes project will occur after 

the EPA finalizes the revised ozone NAAQS, the BLM must address the impacts of the 

project to these new standards before issuing any record of decision. Such an analysis 

is necessary to ensure the BLM and the public fully understand the impacts of the 

proposed project to the correct NAAQS, to ensure the effectiveness of any mitigation 

strategy, to ensure that a full range of alternatives are fully analyzed and assessed, 

and to ensure compliance with FLPMA’s substantive requirements to protect federal air 

quality standards.

1 An exceedance of the ozone NAAQS does not occur only when the fourth highest daily maximum value 

is above the standard. Anytime the NAAQS are exceeded is considered an exceedance. An exceedance 

of the NAAQS is considered to reflect poor air quality and as such, EPA requires that health warning be 

issued to the general public whenever an exceedance occurs or is projected to occur. See 40 C.F.R. § 58, 

Appendix G, disclosing that an exceedance of the ozone NAAQS should lead to a categorization of 

“unhealthy.”

NEPA does not require the analysis of impacts based on speculative potential 

future regulations. The project’s impacts will be analyzed relative to any new 

ozone NAAQS applicable when the subsequent analysis outlined in the SDEIS 

is conducted, if USEPA has promulgated a new ozone NAAQS at that time.
FEIS P-75 March 2012

Table P-4 Responses to Public Comments on the SDEIS

Letter Author / 

Comment Number Comment AECOM Response

N201-05 b. The SDEIS Does not Analyze and Assess Impacts to PM2.5 Increment 

Standards

The SDEIS fails to analyze and assess the potentially significant impacts to the current 

Class I increments for 24-hour PM2.5. Increments are similar to the NAAQS, although 

they apply based on whether an area is designated as Class I or Class II. In this case, 

the EPA adopted Class I increments for 24-hour PM2.5 in October of 2010, limiting 

concentrations to no more than 2 micrograms/cubic meter. See 75 Fed. Reg. 64864-

64907 (Oct. 20, 2010).

Despite this, there is no analysis or assessment of the impacts of the Greater Natural 

Buttes project to the 24-hour PM2.5 increment. The SDEIS does not identify the PM2.5

increments as an applicable standard on page 3-7 and contains no analysis or 

assessment of how the project will influence concentrations in neighboring Class I 

areas. The SDEIS must contain an analysis of impacts to the PM2.5 increments in order 

to assure compliance with FLPMA and meet NEPA.

The PM2.5 impacts to Class I and Class II areas were presented in the Draft 

EIS, which was published in July 2010 prior to the October 2010 adoption of 

the Class I/Class II increments. Since this analysis was not updated in the 

SDEIS, the information was not presented in the document. Tables 5-1 and 5-2 

of the TSD and Table 3.1-5 of the EIS have been revised to include the 

recently adopted Class I increments. Note that PSD increments are presented 

in the EIS solely for informational purposes and the analysis does not 

represent a regulatory PSD increment consumption analysis.

N201-06 c. The SDEIS Does not Analyze and Assess a Number of Reasonable Alternatives 

to Better Address Air Quality Impacts

Even after the proposed mitigation strategy is implemented, the BLM discloses that 

emissions of NOx and VOCs will increase, that existing ozone problems will likely be 

worsened, and that exceedances and violations of the NAAQS are likely to continue. 

Although we appreciate the BLM’s efforts to develop a comprehensive mitiation 

strategy, we would submit that the proposed strategy is fundamentally flawed because 

it does not fully address the air quality impacts of the proposed action. To this end, 

together with the proposed mitigation strategy, including the emission control strategies 

and future ozone planning efforts, we request the BLM analyze in detail and fully 

consider the following alternatives, either individually or in combination:

• An alternative that requires no net emission increases in the Greater Natural 

Buttes project area. Such an alternative would spur the use of emission 

offsets, phased development, and/or scaling back of the proposed action to 

ensure that emissions do not increase above current levels. Although such an 

alternative may allow exceedances and/or violations of the ozone NAAQS to 

occur, it appears that, based on the SDEIS, that the ozone problem will not 

get worse. We are not enthused by such an outcome, but in the interest of at 

least preventing the air pollution from getting worse in the area, this 

alternative seems extremely reasonable.

The BLM, in consultation with USEPA, considered those alternatives that were 

both feasible and within the ability and authority of BLM to implement and/or 

enforce. This comment suggests three additional alternatives that either 

require the offsetting of any new emissions, the reduction of existing 

emissions, or a restriction on ozone precursor emitting activities during periods 

when ozone concentrations are projected to be elevated. It is recognized and 

acknowledged in the SDEIS that additional mitigation and/or control strategies 

may be required once additional analysis has been completed (see adaptive 

management strategy, Section 4.2.1.6). Whether offsets and/or existing source 

emission reductions will be required to avoid future exceedences of the ozone 

NAAQS during winter inversion events has yet to be determined. If through 

subsequent analysis this is found to be needed, a collaborative, multijurisdictional approach will be required to adequately implement and enforce 

these reductions. Requiring these emission reduction efforts prior to presenting 

a scientific justification on both their applicability and effectiveness is not 

defensible based on the current understanding of ozone issues in the GNBPA. 

Seasonal restrictions are specifically recognized as a potential enhanced 

mitigation measure in the SDEIS, although as with the offset/reduction 

strategies, this requires an understanding of precursor ratios and reactivity that 

currently is not available.
FEIS P-76 March 2012

Table P-4 Responses to Public Comments on the SDEIS

Letter Author / 

Comment Number Comment AECOM Response

N201-06 

(continued)

• An alternative that requires an actual reduction in emission in the Greater 

Natural Buttes project area. We request the BLM consider alternatives that 

reduce emissions from current levels by 75% and 50% within three years. 

The BLM should allow the operator to decide the best means of reducing 

emissions, but require at least semi-annual reporting of emissions to ensure 

that progress is made to meet the reductions with the required timeframe. We 

also request that as part of this alternative, the BLM develop a contingency 

plan to implement if adequate progress is not made within three years.

An alternative that requires the operator to limit development and production activities 

when ozone concentrations are elevated or are projected to be elevated, either in the 

winter or the summer. This alternative is likely to aid in directly limiting emissions when 

the conditions that form ozone are occurring or are most likely to occur, thus providing 

a greater chance of reducing the frequency and severity of ozone exceedances.

Anadarko

P201-01 The modeling inputs do not accurately reflect KMG’s proposed operations. KMG 

intends to drill all the wells on a pad, move drilling equipment from the pad location, 

then reoccupy the pad location with completions equipment. KMG modified the nearfield modeling files to reflect this operational methodology and evaluated the results.

The BLM concurs that the modeling input files were conservative and 

considered simultaneous operation of a drill rig and completion rig on a single 

pad. The BLM has revised the modeling to consider the operation of drilling 

equipment (two drill rig engines and a rig boiler) separate from completions. 

P201-02 To demonstrate compliance with the standard, KMG ran all years presented in the 

SDEIS (2003 to 2007) and obtained the eighth first high. Compliance with the 1-hour 

NO2 NAAQS of 188 μg/m3 is confirmed if the average of the modeled years is below 

the NAAQS. Table 1 below shows the results from each meteorological year modeled.

The model scenario for Tier 2 and Tier 4 drilling and completion engines was 

conducted as described in the response to Comment P201-01, and somewhat 

different results from those provided by KMG were independently obtained. 

Model inputs and results have been revised and are presented in the Final EIS 

(see Table 4.1-4 in Section 4.1.1 of the Final EIS, and Tables 5-11, 5-12, and 

5-13 in the TSD).
FEIS P-77 March 2012

Table P-4 Responses to Public Comments on the SDEIS

Letter Author / 

Comment Number Comment AECOM Response

P201-03 Maximum 1-hour impact as a factor of rig spacing was then evaluated. KMG selected 

the 2003 meteorological data year, 400-meter, 600-meter and 800-meter rig spacing to 

evaluate impacts. Figure 1 below depicts the 8th highest high for all sources modeled 

for each rig spacing evaluated.

As noted in the response to Comment P201-02, the impact analysis to 

represent KMG’s operational methodology has been revised. As a result, rig 

spacing variation is no longer considered because impacts from the 400-meter 

drilling scenario are predicted to be in compliance with the 1-hour NO2

NAAQS.
FEIS P-78 March 2012

Table P-4 Responses to Public Comments on the SDEIS

Letter Author / 

Comment Number Comment AECOM Response

P201-04 Table 3.1-2 of the SDEIS updates the ambient air quality back ground concentrations. 

Table footnotes explain that the background concentrations for the 1-hr NO2 standards 

were determined from 2010 data collected at the Redwash and Ouray sites located in 

Uintah County, Utah. KMG pulled this data directly from the USEPA Air Quality System 

(AQS) and determined the 98th percentile was 17 ppb and 20 ppb (32 μg/m3 and 37 

μg/m3

), respectively. This data suggests that the 1-hour background data reported in 

Table 3.1-2 of the SDEIS is off by a factor of two.

The BLM conferred with KMG and their consultants and determined the value 

reported in this comment was the 98th percentile of all hourly values for 

calendar year 2010. This is not in accordance with USEPA guidance for 

establishing background concentrations for 1-hour NO2 modeling. Guidance in 

the USEPA memorandum titled Additional Clarification Regarding Application 

of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hour NO2 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (dated March 1, 2011) was followed. 

In the section titled Combining Modeled Results and Monitored Background to 

Determine Compliance, the method that calls for adding the 98th percentile of 

the annual distribution of daily maximum 1-hour values averaged across the 

most recent three years of monitored data to the modeled design value was 

used. While 3 years of data are not available from the USEPA’s Air Quality 

System (AQS), the data currently available (approximately 23 months or 2 

years of data) was downloaded and used to revise the background 

concentrations in Table 3.1-2 of the Final EIS and Table 2-2 of the TSD. The 

text in the Final EIS (Section 4.1.1 in the EIS text and Section 5.3 of the TSD) 

has been revised to describe how background NO2 concentrations were 

incorporated into the modeling results.

P201-05 Modeling should be based on operations that would be undertaken. Given that the 

removal of the completion rig, representing normal operations, demonstrates 

compliance with the 1-hour NO2 standard, KMG recommends BLM bifurcate the 

discussion summarizing this operating scenario from the impacts associated with 

simultaneous operations in Section 4.1.1.1.

“Near-field modeling was conducted to determine the impacts from both normal 

and simultaneous operation of the drill rigs/completion rigs on adjacent pads 

spaced at intervals from 400 meters to 800 meters. This modeling showed that 

normal operations demonstrated compliance with the 1-hour NO2 standard, 

but simultaneous operations of both the drill rig and completion rig could cause 

an exceedance of the NAAQS for 1-hour.”

The 1-hour NO2 modeling has been revised to reflect KMG’s operational

methodology. The text has been revised to include the revised modeling 

results based on this operational approach. If the need for simultaneous 

operation of drill rigs and completion rigs on two or more pads arises in the 

future, additional modeling can be completed by KMG to demonstrate 

compliance.

P201-06 Based on this analysis, KMG proposes the following modification to AIR-1 in Section 

4.1.2.6:

“The proponent would employ measures to mitigate the modeled exceedance of 

the 1-hour NO2 standard during simultaneous operations by employing a public 

health buffer zone out to 200 meters from the nearest emission source.”

The mitigation in the Final EIS has been revised to reflect modeling results 

based on KMG’s operational methodology, which assumes drilling and 

completion rigs would not operate simultaneously on the same pad.
FEIS P-79 March 2012

Table P-4 Responses to Public Comments on the SDEIS

Letter Author / 

Comment Number Comment AECOM Response

P201-07 Based on the fact that a violation is unlikely combined with the challenges of employing 

a physical buffer in complex terrain and within potential habitat for the Uinta Basin 

Hookless cactus KMG proposes the following modification to AIR-1:

“An example of an effective public health protection buffer zone is demarcation 

of a public access exclusion zone by signage at intervals of 250 feet that is 

visible from a distance of 125 feet during daylight hours.”

Mitigation measure AIR-1 has been eliminated based on the revised 1-hour 

NO2 modeling, which shows compliance with the NAAQS.

P201-08 Future Air Quality Modeling Analysis

Section 4.1.2.6 outlines the concept of adaptive management and how that process will 

be facilitated as a Utah-wide program through the Utah Air Resources Technical 

Advisory Group (UTAG) and the BLM’s ARMS group. The SDEIS establishes a 

schedule for completion of future emission inventories and modeling runs.

“The updated air quality modeling analysis utilizing the new inventory and 

monitored data would be performed within 2 years of signing the ROD.”

KMG is fully participating in and supporting the regional efforts of the BLM’s ARMS 

group; however we are concerned that this language is inconsistent with the recently 

published Errata Notification for the SDEIS.

“KMG would jointly support (with other active oil and gas industry operators, oil 

and gas vendors, and non-industry emission sources contributors) activities 

undertaken by a BLM/Industry Work Group that may include:

• Model Calibration with monitored and meteorological data;

• Source apportionment sensitivities;

• Ozone precursor sensitivities; and

• Mitigation control sensitivities”

KMG requests that the BLM clarify the language on page 4-14 of the SDEIS to 

confirm that active participation meets the expectations of the agency and does not 

imply that KMG is responsible for completion of updated modeling within the twoyear time frame.

Text has been revised to clarify that KMG will be responsible for completing 

the updated modeling within the 2-year timeframe. 
March 2012

FEIS

Appendix Q

Biological Opinion
United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

UTAH FIELD OFFICE

2369 WEST ORTON CIRCLE, SUITE 50

WEST VALLEY CITY, UTAH 84119

April 5, 2012 

In Reply Refer To:

FWS/R6

ES/UT

08-F-0018 

6-UT-11-F-015 

Memorandum 

To: Field Office Manager, Vernal Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, Vernal, 

Utah 

From: Utah Field Supervisor, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, West 

Valley City, Utah

Subject: Final Biological Opinion for the Kerr McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP’s Proposed 

Greater Natural Buttes Environmental Impact Statement/Biological Assessment. 

In accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the Interagency Cooperation Regulations (50 CFR 402), this transmits 

our final biological opinion for impacts to the threatened Sclerocactus wetlandicus (Uinta Basin 

hookless cactus) and the endangered Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), razorback 

sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), humpback chub (Gila cypha), and bonytail (Gila elegans); 

including their designated critical habitat. Reference is made to your correspondence and 

environmental impact statement/biological assessment (EIS/BA) received by this office on 

September 19, 2011 in which you requested formal consultation for this project. 

Impacts to Schoenocrambe argillacea (clay reed-mustard) and Penstemon grahamii (Graham’s 

beardtongue) were also discussed in the EIS/BA. We concur that this action may affect, but is 

not likely to adversely affect S. argillacea. We also conclude that this action is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of or adversely modify proposed critical habitat of P. 

grahamii. We reached these conclusions based on the extremely limited distribution of these 

two species within the project area and adherence to the applicant-committed conservation 

measures included in Appendix L and M in the EIS/BA (see attachment 1).
2

Consultation History

This section summarizes significant steps in the consultation process:

Colorado River Fish Recovery Program

On January 21-22, 1988, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior; the Governors of 

Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah; and the Administrator of the Western Area Power 

Administration were cosigners of a Cooperative Agreement to implement the “Recovery 

Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin” 

(Recovery Program; Service 1987). The Recovery Program has been extended until September 

30, 2013. An objective of the Recovery Program is to recover the listed species while providing 

for new water development in the Upper Colorado River Basin.

In order to further define and clarify processes outlined in sections 4.1.5, 4.1.6, and 5.3.4 of the 

Recovery Program, a section 7 Agreement (Agreement) and a Recovery Implementation 

Program Recovery Action Plan (RIPRAP) was developed. The Agreement establishes a 

framework for conducting all future section 7 consultations on depletion impacts related to new 

projects and all impacts associated with historic (defined as being initiated prior to January 1988) 

projects in the Upper Basin. Procedures outlined in the Agreement are used to determine if 

sufficient progress is being accomplished in the recovery of the endangered fishes to enable the 

Recovery Program to serve as a reasonable and prudent alternative to avoid jeopardy. The 

RIPRAP was finalized on October 15, 1993, and has been reviewed and updated annually.

In accordance with the 1993 Agreement, we assess the impacts of projects that require section 7 

consultation and determine if progress toward recovery has been sufficient for the Recovery 

Program to serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative. As long as the Recovery Program 

achieves sufficient progress, biological opinions are written to identify activities and 

accomplishments of the Recovery Program that support it being used as the reasonable and 

prudent alternative. If sufficient progress in the recovery of the endangered fishes is not 

achieved by the Recovery Program, additional actions from the RIPRAP are identified for the 

project proponent to implement in order to avoid jeopardy to the endangered fishes. For historic 

projects, the Recovery Program serves as the reasonable and prudent alternative as long as 

recovery actions are completed according to the schedule identified in the RIPRAP. For new 

projects, the Recovery Program and/or addition actions identified from the RIPRAP serve as the 

reasonable and prudent alternative so long as they are completed prior to the project being 

implemented. 

After many years of successful implementation of the Recovery Program and Agreement, 

Federal action agencies anticipate recovery activities that must be included in their project 

planning to avoid jeopardy to listed species. Thus, our reasonable and prudent alternative is 

essentially part of the proposed action. The Recovery Program now serves as a conservation 

measure within the proposed action and in many cases minimizes adverse effects to listed species 

or critical habitat. The following excerpts summarize portions of the Recovery Program that 

address depletion impacts, section 7 consultation, and project proponent responsibilities:
3

“All future section 7 consultations completed after approval and implementation of this program 

(establishment of the Implementation Committee, provision of congressional funding, and 

initiation of the elements) will result in a one-time contribution to be paid to the Service by water 

project proponents in the amount of $10.00 per acre-foot based on the average annual depletion 

of the project . . . This figure will be adjusted annually for inflation [the current figure is $19.21

per acre-foot] . . . Concurrently with the completion of the Federal action which initiated the 

consultation, e.g., . . . issuance of a 404 permit, 10 percent of the total contribution will be 

provided. The balance . . . will be . . . due at the time the construction commences . . . .”

It is important to note that these provisions of the Recovery Program were based on appropriate 

legal protection of the instream flow needs of the endangered Colorado River fishes. The 

Recovery Program further states:

“. . . it is necessary to protect and manage sufficient habitat to support self-sustaining populations 

of these species. One way to accomplish this is to provide long term protection of the habitat by 

acquiring or appropriating water rights to ensure instream flows. Since this program sets in place 

a mechanism and a commitment to assure that the instream flows are protected under State law, 

the [U.S. Fish and Wildlife] Service (Service) will consider these elements under section 7 

consultation as offsetting project depletion impacts.”

On July 8, 1997, we issued an intra-Service biological opinion determining that the depletion fee 

for average annual depletions of 100 acre-feet or less are no longer required because the 

Recovery Program has made sufficient progress to be the reasonable and prudent alternative to 

avoid the likelihood of jeopardy to the endangered fishes and to avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of their critical habitat by these small depletions. The intra-Service biological 

opinion has been reinitiated several times since 1997 to account for additional water depletions. 

The most recent update occurred on June 4, 2010 and increased the cap for small water 

depletions to 12,000 acre-feet. This increase will allow us to continue to exempt small 

depletions of 100 acre-feet or less.

Chronology of recent events and past consultations between the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) with regard to this section 7 consultation:

• 01/09/2012; emails between our office, your office, and Anadarko/Kerr McGee (KMG)

to finalize mitigation measures in core conservation areas for Sclerocactus wetlandicus.

• 01/05/2012; we met with your office, the BLM state office, and KMG to discuss and 

finalize mitigation measures in core conservation areas for Sclerocactus wetlandicus.

• 12/9 through 12/19/2011; phone conversation with KMG to discuss additional mitigation 

measures in core conservation areas for Sclerocactus wetlandicus.

• 11/17/2011; conference call with KMG to discuss avoiding development in core 

conservation areas for Sclerocactus wetlandicus.
4

• 10/18/2011; we met with your office to discuss additional conservation measures for

Sclerocactus wetlandicus.

• 09/19/2011; we received your final biological assessment.

• 08/15/2011; email exchange between us and your office concerning adaptive 

management strategies.

• 08/02/2011; we sent comments to your office on the final EIS.

• 07/25/2011; we received request to comment on preliminary final EIS.

• 08/30/2010; we sent comments to your office on the draft EIS.

• 07/16/2010; we received a request from your office to provide comments on preliminary 

draft EIS.

• 12/22/2009; we attended a teleconference regarding greater sage grouse mitigation 

measures.

• 01/09/2009; Email exchange between ENSR (now AECOM, the contractor and NEPA 

preparer for this project) and our office regarding water depletion calculations.

• 08/08/2008; we sent an email to Grasslands Consulting with references to use for 

assessing impacts of the proposed action to greater sage grouse and dust effects on 

vegetation.

• 11/30/2007; we sent comments to ENSR on the proposed EIS.

• 10/28/2007; we received a request to comment on the proposed EIS.

A complete administrative record for this project is on file in our office.

Biological Opinion

I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION

The project area is approximately 162,911 acres centered on the White River corridor within 

Uintah County, Utah. Approximately 48 percent of these lands are administered by the BLM, 24

percent are administered by the Northern Ute Tribe, and 28 percent are administered by the State 

of Utah. Under the proposed action (Resource Protection Alternative of the EIS), Kerr McGee 

Oil and Gas Onshore LP (KMG), a wholly owned subsidiary of Anadarko Petroleum 

Corporation, proposes to drill 3,675 wells (1,484 new well pads and an additional 2,191 from 

existing well pads) and build associated access roads and pipelines among previously developed 

areas within the Greater Natural Buttes project area (GNBPA). Additionally, five mancamps
5

may be constructed as a part of the proposed development. New surface disturbance associated 

with the proposed action will be approximately 12,849 acres. The proposed well and mancamp 

development will be focused within the following Townships and Ranges of the project area (See 

Figure 1):

Township 8 south, Range 20-23 east, SLM

Township 9 south, Range 20-24 east, SLM

Township 10 south, Range 20-23 east, SLM

Township 11 south, Range 21, 22 east, SLM

Action Area

The action area is defined in 50 CFR 402 to mean “all areas to be affected directly or indirectly 

by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action.” For the 

purposes of this consultation, we define the action area to encompass all of the project area

proposed for well, road, pipeline and mancamp development; and those portions of waterways 

downstream of these work areas including the White and Green Rivers within and outside of the 

project area. 
6

Figure 1 - Map of GNBPA from EIS/BA
7

Applicant Committed Conservation Measures

Conservation measures are actions that the action agency and applicant agree to implement to 

further the recovery of the species under review. The beneficial effects of conservation measures 

are taken into consideration for determining both jeopardy and incidental take analyses. 

Colorado River Endangered Fish Species

The following applicant-committed conservation measures will help minimize the impacts of the 

Proposed Action to the four Colorado River endangered fish species: 

• For areas of fresh water collection, an infiltration gallery will be constructed in a Serviceapproved location. An infiltration gallery is basically a pit or trench dug within the 

floodplain to a depth below the water table. Water is drawn from the pit rather than from 

the river directly. If this is not possible, limit pumping within the river to off-channel 

locations that do not connect to the river during high spring flows.

• If water cannot be drawn using the measures above and the pump head will be located in 

the river channel where larval fish are known to occur, the following measures apply:

o Avoid pumping from low-flow or no-flow areas as these habitats tend to 

concentrate larval fishes;

o Avoid pumping, to the greatest extent possible, during that period of the year 

when larval fish may be present (see previous bullet); and

o Avoid pumping, to the greatest extent possible, during the midnight hours (10:00

p.m. to 2:00 a.m.) as larval drift studies indicate that this is a period of greatest 

daily activity. Dusk is the preferred pumping time, as larval drift abundance is 

lowest during this time.

• Screen all pump intakes with 3/32-inch mesh material.

• Report any fish impinged on the intake screen to the our office (801.975.3330) and the:

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

Northeastern Region

152 East 100 North

Vernal, UT 84078

Phone: (435) 781-9453

In addition, KMG agreed to have the Upper Colorado River Recovery Program (Recovery 

Program) serve as a conservation measure within the proposed action. The following paragraphs 

further clarify the Recovery Program’s role:

In determining if sufficient progress has been achieved under the Recovery Program, we 

consider--a) actions which result in a measurable population response, a measurable 

improvement in habitat for the fishes, legal protection of flows needed for recovery, or a 

reduction in the threat of immediate extinction; b) status of fish populations; c) adequacy of 

flows; and, d) magnitude of the Project impact. In addition, we consider support activities 

(funding, research, information, and education, etc.) of the Recovery Program if they help 

achieve a measurable population response, a measurable improvement in habitat for the fishes, 

legal protection of flows needed for recovery, or a reduction in the threat of immediate 
8

extinction. We evaluate progress separately for the Colorado River and Green River Subbasins; 

however, it gives due consideration to progress throughout the Upper Basin in evaluating 

progress toward recovery. 

Water depletion impacts can be offset by: a) the water Project proponent’s one-time contribution 

to the Recovery Program in the amount of $19.21per acre-foot of the Project’s average annual 

depletion; b) appropriate legal protection of instream flows pursuant to State law; and, c) 

accomplishment of activities necessary to recover the endangered fishes as specified under the 

RIPRAP. We believe it is essential that protection of instream flows proceed expeditiously, 

before significant additional water depletions occur. As the project's peak annual new depletion 

of 757 acre-feet is below the current sufficient progress threshold of 4,500 acre-feet, Recovery 

Program activities will serve as the conservation measures to minimize adverse effects to the 

Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, humpback chub, and bonytail and destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat caused by the project's new depletion.

With respect to (a) above (i.e., depletion charge), KMG will make a one-time payment which has 

been calculated by multiplying the Project's peak annual depletion (757 acre-feet) by the 

depletion charge in effect at the time payment is made. For Fiscal Year 2012 (October 1, 2011, 

to September 30, 2012), the depletion charge is $19.21 per acre-foot for the average annual 

depletion which equals a total payment of $14,541.97 for this Project. A minimum of 10% of the 

total payment will be provided to the Service's designated agent, the National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation (Foundation), at the time of issuance of the Federal approvals from the BLM, with 

the rest to be paid when construction commences. Fifty percent of the funds will be used for 

acquisition of water rights to meet the instream flow needs of the endangered fishes (unless 

otherwise recommended by the Implementation Committee); the balance will be used to support 

other recovery activities for the Colorado River endangered fishes. All payments should be 

made to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

1133 15th Street, NW

Suite 1100

Washington, DC 20005

Each payment is to be accompanied by a cover letter that identifies the Project and biological 

opinion that requires the payment, the amount of payment enclosed, check number, and any 

special conditions identified in the biological opinion relative to disbursement or use of the funds 

(there are none in this instance). A copy of the cover letter and of the check is to be sent directly 

to our office. The cover letter shall identify the name and address of the payer, the name and 

address of the Federal Agency responsible for authorizing the Project, and the address of the 

Service office issuing the biological opinion. This information will be used by the Foundation to 

notify the payer, the lead Federal Agency, and the Service that payment has been received. The 

Foundation is to send notices of receipt to these entities within 5 working days of its receipt of 

payment.
9

Sclerocactus wetlandicus

The following applicant-committed conservation measures will help minimize the impacts of the 

proposed action to Sclerocactus wetlandicus occupied habitats (for a complete list of applicantcommitted measures, see Appendix L of the BA/EIS also included as attachment 1):

• Pre-project habitat assessments,

• Site inventories within suitable habitat,

• Minimization of surface impacts through project design,

• Adherence to a minimum buffer between the edge of the surface disturbance and 

identified plants and populations,

• Flagging of avoidance areas before and during construction, and

• Avoid concentrating water flows or sediments into occupied habitat

The following measures were instituted in the programmatic Biological Assessment for 

KMG/Anadarko’s Natural Buttes and will be carried forward into the Greater Natural Buttes 

EIS:

• Where populations or individuals of Sclerocactus wetlandicus are located within 300 feet 

of the proposed edge of the ROW, the following actions will be taken to minimize the 

impacts:

o Silt fencing will be used to protect cacti that are within 300 feet and down slope 

or downwind of surface disturbance. Fencing is intended to prevent 

sedimentation or dust deposition and will be evaluated for effectiveness by a 

qualified botanist.

o A qualified botanist will be on site to monitor surface-disturbing activities when 

cacti are within 300 feet of any surface disturbance.

o Dust abatement (consisting of water only) will occur during construction where 

plants are closer than 300 feet from surface disturbing activities. 

o Cacti within 300 feet of a proposed surface disturbance will be flagged 

immediately prior to surface-disturbing activities and flags will be removed 

immediately after surface-disturbing activities are completed. Leaving cacti 

flagged for as short a time as possible will minimize drawing attention to the cacti 

and reduce the potential for theft. 

o Pipelines will be sited to maximize the distance from adjacent Sclerocactus 

wetlandicus.

o Project personnel associated with construction activities will be instructed to drive 

at a speed limit of 15 miles per hour on unpaved roads and to remain on the 

existing roads and ROWs at all times.

• For permanent surface pipelines, KMG will adhere to existing cacti survey/buffer

guidelines of 300 feet or amended guidelines if developed by BLM and the Service. In 

areas where avoidance by 300 feet is not feasible and populations or individuals of 

Sclerocactus wetlandicus are within 50 feet of the proposed alignment of permanent 

surface lines, the following actions will be taken to minimize the impacts:

o Flag individual cacti. Once pipe installation is complete remove the flagging.
10

o Install protective fencing around cacti if they are down gradient of the surface 

pipe. Once pipe installation is complete, remove the protective fencing.

o Have a qualified botanist present to monitor surface line installation.

• As per discussions and email with the BLM on October 18, 2011, KMG will contribute to

the Utah Sclerocactus mitigation fund to further study the effects of development on

Sclerocactus wetlandicus in the Uinta Basin and the effectiveness of current mitigation 

measures (see measure #2 below on page 11 for more details). This contribution will be 

provided over the first 5 years of project development and in lieu of the required 3-year 

monitoring described in the Vernal BLM RMP for cacti found within 300 feet of planned 

surface disturbance that cannot be rerouted. This is consistent with the intent of the RMP 

for the effects of development to be effectively monitored within the project area and to 

better assess conservation measures to avoid or minimize these impacts in the future.

• The following considerations are required for those wells where KMG deems completion 

fluid recycling is appropriate based on new well density and topography:

o Temporary lines associated with recycling of completion water will be sited in existing 

ROWs. The pressure in the lines is less than 50 pounds per square inch (PSI) and the 

lines are constructed of rigid aluminum; therefore, virtually no movement will occur 

during operation. 

o If surface water completion lines are placed within the footprint of a road disturbance 

(i.e., where vegetation does not grow due to continued road use or maintenance 

activities), Sclerocactus wetlandicus surveys will not be necessary.

o A qualified botanist will survey a 50-foot-wide corridor along roads where temporary 

lines are planned to ensure Sclerocactus wetlandicus is not present. 

If cacti are found within this 50-foot-wide survey corridor and avoidance is necessary 

(to ensure the line is more than 50 feet away from identified cactus) the new alignment 

will, if possible, be such that the cacti are topographically higher than the re-aligned 

line so that a potential spill from the line will not impact the identified cacti. 

o If it is not possible to re-align the surface lines to avoid individuals or populations 

of Sclerocactus wetlandicus that are within 50 feet of surface disturbance, the 

following actions will be taken to minimize impacts: 

 Flag individual cacti. Once pipe installation is complete, remove the flagging.

 Install protective fencing around the cacti if they are down gradient of the 

surface pipe. Once pipe installation is complete, remove the protective fencing.

 Have a qualified botanist present to monitor surface line installation.

In addition, through several discussions and meetings in December, 2011, and January, 2012, 

KMG /Anadarko committed to the following conservation measures in core conservation areas for 

Sclerocactus wetlandicus:

1. KMG will continue to abide by mitigation measures outlined in the 2010 Programmatic 

Biological Opinion (BO) (see mitigation measures above on pages 9 and 10). 

2. To help mitigate impacts to cactus that may occur with development, KMG will fund cactus 

studies following approval of a final Greater Natural Buttes Record of Decision at a level of 

$60,000 per year for 5 years in lieu of the cactus study funding commitment outlined in the 

2010 Programmatic BO. KMG will be allowed to review and provide input to cactus study 
11

work plans prior to study implementation and will be given an opportunity to review study 

results prior to submittal of results for publication. KMG will exercise no control over final 

study designs or study results submitted for publication. 

3. Avoidance of cactus by 300 feet will take priority in the expansion of pads within the cactus 

core conservation areas. When the 300-foot buffer cannot be avoided in pad expansions 

KMG will notify the Service and work with the BLM (and the BIA if on tribal surface) to 

determine a pad expansion that places a priority on avoiding cactus impacts.

4. KMG will follow existing ROWs and/or roads in constructing new buried pipelines within 

the cactus core conservation areas. For instances where a new buried pipeline is unable to 

follow an existing ROW and/or road (typically for safety reasons) and exceeds 600 feet in 

length, KMG will notify the Service and work with the BLM (and the BIA if on tribal 

surface) to determine a route that places a priority on avoiding cactus impacts. 

5. KMG retains the right to perform necessary maintenance activities on all existing pipelines 

within the cactus core conservation areas. Maintenance activities will avoid impacts to 

cactus to the extent practicable. 

6. KMG will not create new pads in the cactus core conservation areas without formal Service

consultation, with the exception of 15 quarter-quarter sections within the cactus core 

conservation areas where new pad construction will be allowed as a condition of this 

consultation, with the following conditions:

a. When topographically feasible, expansion of existing well pads will take priority in 

Level 1 cactus core conservation areas. 

b. Where feasible, new pads will be placed on or adjacent to existing disturbance (e.g. 

roads) in the cactus core conservation areas.

c. Where topographically feasible, drill mats or similar devices will be used for new well 

pad development in the cactus core conservation areas.

d. Due to the high value of Level 1 cactus core conservation areas, KMG will notify the 

Service and work with the BLM (and the BIA if on tribal surface) to determine new pad 

placement that places a priority on avoiding cactus impacts when in these areas.

e. If feasible, new well pad development will not occur in cactus core conservation areas 

located in the northeast corner of the project area (i.e., the population located primarily in 

T8S R23E and the northern portion of T9S R23E).

7. KMG will fund a study in the amount of $100,000, in addition to typical expenditures for pad 

reclamation, to evaluate the technical feasibility of re-planting the Uinta Basin hookless 

cactus during pad reclamation activities. KMG will be allowed to review and provide input 

to the study work plan prior to study implementation and will be given an opportunity to 

review study results prior to submittal of results for publication. KMG will exercise no 

control over final study design or study results submitted for publication.
12

Integrated Weed Management Plan

An integrated weed management plan will be developed, and include the following components:

• Surveying for special status plant species before treating an area,

• Considering effects to special status species when designing herbicide treatment 

programs,

• Using drift reduction agents to reduce the risk of drift hazard, and

• Using selective herbicide and a wick or backpack sprayer to minimize risks to special 

plants

Other Applicant-Committed Measures

KMG has committed to well pad, pipeline and road construction methods that minimize impacts 

while providing protections from erosion, stream scour and other impacts to fish and wildlife. 

These applicant committed measures are outlined below:

• KMG will bury gas pipelines associated with new and future construction within 100-year 

floodplains. 

• KMG will utilize the applicable Service’s BMPs for work in Utah streams where pipelines 

or roads cross a stream. Additionally, KMG will utilize BLM Hydraulic Considerations for 

Pipeline Crossings of Stream Channels (prepared by the Utah State Office BLM, Salt Lake 

City, Utah).

• KMG will employ industry best management practices (BMPs) to control stormwater 

runoff, including appropriate measures to prevent disturbed sediments from reaching the 

White River drainage during precipitation events. New gathering pipelines will be installed 

parallel to and within approximately 10 feet of access road running surfaces unless 

precluded by topography, county prohibitions (where installed adjacent to County 

maintained roads), or other engineering constraints.

• KMG will utilize shared well pads to the extent possible, in consideration of technical, 

environmental, and economic viability, to minimize the amount of total surface disturbance 

in the GNBPA.

• KMG will develop a Transportation Plan that will detail the procedures intended to 

minimize construction of roads needed to implement Project activities. KMG’s 

Transportation Plan will include construction procedures to prevent/minimize 

sedimentation that may result from road and/or pad construction. KMG will submit the 

plan to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) prior to the initiation of Project activities.

• Each new produced water disposal well will be located on existing production locations.

• KMG will evaluate deepening existing wells to accomplish Mesaverde-only completions 

before twinning an existing well.

• KMG will strive to continually improve the development processes in order in minimize 

the surface impact where practical.

• KMG will implement Reasonable and Prudent Practices for Stabilization and develop 

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans for individual new construction sites associated 

with compressor stations, processing plants, and pipeline projects that disturb more than 5 

acres. 
13

• KMG will position two 15-foot emergency response spill trailers in areas in or near the 

GNBPA to respond to accidental spills or releases. At least one of the trailers will be 

located at a drilling site near the White River, if necessary. Each trailer will be equipped 

with 300 feet of 10-inch Techniboom, tow bridles, and anchor sets. In addition, the trailers 

contain sorbent pads, sorbent booms, flash lights, life jackets, Tyvek suits, and other safety 

equipment. KMG has conducted training sessions that included two days of instruction and 

field exercises with 15 field employees. The training was conducted by the Texas 

Engineering Extension Service Emergency Services Training Institute.

• KMG will not construct new mancamps within 0.5 mile of floodplains (including the 

floodplain) of major drainages (Sand Wash, Cottonwood Wash, Bitter Creek, White River, 

Green River); and within occupied Threatened and Endangered Plant habitat. This 

mitigation measure will be applied only if there is a demonstrated need (i.e., only if other 

mitigations do not adequately mitigate impacts).

KMG has committed to reclaim, to the standards established by the appropriate surface 

management agency, any disturbed areas that result from their construction activities. This 

includes aggressive control of noxious and invasive plant species within the project area and to 

re-establish vegetation in disturbed areas as outlined within their reclamation plan. The plan 

includes using a seed mix that can include both native and non-native, non-invasive species. The 

final reclamation should be such that additional noxious weed control will be minimized or 

become unnecessary in the future.

II. STATUS OF THE SPECIES / CRITICAL HABITAT

The purpose of this section is to summarize the best available information regarding the current 

range wide status of the listed fish and plant species. Additional information regarding listed 

species may be obtained from the sources of information cited for these species.

Sclerocactus wetlandicus

Sclerocactus glaucus (Uinta Basin hookless cactus), which included three identified 

subpopulations, was listed as a threatened species in 1979 (44 FR 58870). The decision to 

separate S. glaucus into three species is supported by recent genetic studies (Porter and others 

2000), common garden experiments (Welsh and others 2003), and a reevaluation of 

morphological characteristics (Heil and Porter, 2004). We currently recognize S. glaucus as 

three distinct species: S. brevispinus (Pariette cactus), S. glaucus (Colorado hookless cactus), and 

S. wetlandicus (Uinta Basin hookless cactus). These three species retain their threatened status 

(74 FR 47112, September 15, 2009). 

Below we discuss the status of Sclerocactus wetlandicus and new biological information as it 

pertains to the proposed project. Additional information on this species’ life history, population 

dynamics, status, and distribution is described in detail within the “Recovery Plan for the Uinta 

Basin Hookless Cactus” (Service, 1990c) and the more recent recovery outline (Service, 2010a). 

Sclerocactus wetlandicus is typically found on coarse soils derived from cobble and gravel 

stream terrace deposits, or rocky surfaces on mesa slopes at 1,350 to 1,900 meters (4,400 to 
14

6,200 feet) elevation (Service, 1990c; Heil and Porter, 2004). Other habitat types recognized for 

this species include desert pavement, white or gray shale, and tan shale with near complete 

dominance by Ephedra torreyana (Torrey ephedra) (SWCA 2010; Glisson 2011). 

An as-yet undescribed taxa of the Sclerocactus genus also occurs within the project area. This 

population of S. wetlandicus is morphologically unique and disjunct from other populations of S. 

wetlandicus. Temporarily named S. wetlandicus-var1, individuals of this variant of S. 

wetlandicus can be fertilized with their own pollen. This distinguishes it from other populations 

of S. wetlandicus which are outcrossing and require pollen from flowers of different plants to 

produce viable seeds (Tepedino et al. 2010). 

Flowers of S. wetlandicus typically open in mid-day and close late in the afternoon for three to 

five days (Tepedino et al. 2010). A broad assemblage of native, ground-nesting bees, mostly 

from the family Halictidae (Tepedino et al. 2010), pollinate S. wetlandicus. These bees can 

travel from 0.4 to 1 km between plants (Tepedino pers. comm. 2010). Other insects, including 

ants and beetles, may also pollinate S. wetlandicus (Service 1990). Limiting the amount of 

fragmentation and disturbance within the habitats of S. wetlandicus is important to maintain 

adequate pollinator habitats and healthy cactus populations. 

About four to five weeks after flowering, the fruits of Sclerocactus wetlandicus reach maturity, 

each containing approximately 20 seeds (Tepedino et al., 2010). The fruits open and fall away, 

leaving the seeds on the apex of the plant where they are washed to the ground and dispersed by 

rain (Tepedino et al., 2010). The life history and population dynamics of these species are 

poorly known, but they are thought to be long-lived perennials, usually flowering after 3 or 4 

years. 

In 2010, we developed a potential habitat polygon for Sclerocactus wetlandicus to better 

illustrate the species’ distribution and abundance. Although both Sclerocactus species’ 

populations can be found outside of these areas, they tend to occur in greater numbers and at 

higher densities within the polygons. This polygon is updated annually based on new survey 

information, and was last updated in March 2011 (Service and BLM, 2011).

The total area of potential habitat for Sclerocactus wetlandicus is 442,000 acres and includes 

federal, tribal, state, and private lands. Our most current geographic data for S. wetlandicus

includes over 18,400 points representing approximately 40,528 individual cacti. These numbers 

include living and dead plants, but do not include hybrids of S. wetlandicus and S. brevispinus

which occur outside of the action area where these two species overlap. Based on recent survey 

data (BLM and Service, 2011) and extrapolation to unsurveyed, suitable habitat, we predict the 

total count for S. wetlandicus to be at least 50,000. 

We do not have population trend data for Sclerocactus wetlandicus. However, as described 

below, the high levels of energy development result in the loss and fragmentation of habitat for 

these species across their range. Thus, we conclude it is likely that this species and its available 

habitat are declining. 
15

Habitat loss and fragmentation associated with energy development is a major threat to this 

species across its known range. There are 5,161 oil and gas well locations within the 

Sclerocactus wetlandicus potential habitat polygon (UDOGM 2011). If we estimate 5 acres of 

disturbance per well site (at 40 acre spacing) and associated roads, then at least 25,800 acres (6 

percent) of the S. wetlandicus potential habitat polygon is directly impacted by energy 

development facilities. Indirect disturbances are much greater and can extend 400 meters from 

the disturbance based on impacts to the species’ pollinators and their habitats (Tepedino et al.

2010). We estimate that 35 percent of potential habitat across the range of S. wetlandicus is 

impacted through direct and indirect disturbance due to oil and gas development. 

In addition to existing development, approximately two-thirds of the potential habitat polygon 

for Sclerocactus wetlandicus is leased for oil and gas development. At least 17,000 wells are 

planned for development in the Uinta Basin in the next 15 years, and thus the amount of surface 

disturbance across Sclerocactus habitat will increase substantially. 

There are two levels at which oil and gas development impact Sclerocactus wetlandicus: 1) on a 

localized level within the immediate proximity of known cactus locations, and 2) on a broader 

landscape scale. Loss of individual plants and direct impacts are minimized through the 

incorporation of mitigation measures through the consultation process. For example, we 

recommend that oil and gas development maintain a 300-foot buffer between surface disturbance 

and listed plants on federally-managed lands in order to minimize the direct loss and indirect 

disturbances (e.g., fugitive dust) to individual cacti. However, exceptions to this 300-foot buffer 

are allowed with the additional commitment to continue to monitor plants that fall within the 

buffer. As a result, at least 320 wells are now located within 300 feet of known cactus locations 

(UDOGM, 2011). Some of these well locations are historical or were developed without section 

7 consultation because they were thought to occur outside of the range of the species. We do not 

have an accurate way to estimate how many cacti were lost or disturbed from development of 

these wells.

It is more difficult to implement conservation for the species on a broader landscape scale.

Substantial energy development already exists within the species’ occupied and potential habitat. 

We estimate that at least 9 percent of known occupied habitat for Sclerocactus species is directly 

disturbed by oil and gas development. Indirect effects such as habitat fragmentation, fugitive 

dust, and invasive species extend out beyond 300 feet (see, for example, Walker and Everett, 

1987; Myers-Smith et al., 2006; Farmer, 1993), and the most common pollinators for 

Sclerocactus species can potentially be impacted at a distance of at least 400 meters (1,312 feet) 

from direct surface disturbances (Tepedino et al., 2010; Tepedino pers. comm., 2011). Thus, at 

least 51 percent of the known occupied habitat is directly and indirectly impacted by energy 

development. Conversely, this means less than half of occupied Sclerocactus habitat remains 

undisturbed (including both direct and indirect effects). Overall, the extensive amount of energy 

development projects across the Uinta Basin results in increased habitat fragmentation, fugitive 

dust, invasive species, and hydrologic changes across the landscape, and likely negatively 

impacts Sclerocactus populations. 

We believe it is necessary to avoid and minimize additional surface disturbances in the most 

important Sclerocactus habitats so that we can effectively conserve and recover the species. 
16

Thus, we have established areas that we refer to as “core conservation areas.” Core conservation 

areas contain the densest known occupied habitat of Sclerocactus. Core conservation areas are 

consistent with our recovery plan objectives that recommend establishing formal management 

designations to provide for long-term protection of important populations and habitat (Service 

1990c, Service 2010a).

We established two levels of core conservation areas based on pollinator travel distance and 

designed the areas to provide habitat connectivity between populations and individuals. 

Connectivity between sub-populations is important because Sclerocactus species are outcrossing and require pollen from another plant’s flower to produce viable seed (Tepedino et al., 

2010). The most common Sclerocactus flower visitors are Halictinae bees (a subfamily of bees 

that pollinate Sclerocactus) that can travel from 400 meters to 1,000 meters (Tepedino et al., 

2010). These bees also use other native plants as food sources, and protecting overall native 

plant diversity is important to protect Sclerocactus pollinators (Tepedino et al., 2010). Finally, 

protecting bee nests is critical (Tepedino et al., 2010), but we do not currently have a reliable 

way to identify bee nests in the field. 

Level 1 polygons were developed using a 400-meter buffer around plants to allow for pollinator 

travel and include the densest concentrations of cactus locations and the most restrictive 

management recommendations. Level 2 polygons were developed using a 1,000-meter buffer 

around plants while incorporating less-dense cactus areas and less restrictive management 

recommendations. 

We recommend no additional direct disturbance within level 1 core conservation areas and a

direct disturbance cap of 5 percent within level 2 core conservation areas. The 5 percent 

threshold allows a low to moderate level of disturbance in areas with dense cactus populations 

while limiting additional disturbance in areas that are already highly disturbed. 

Within core conservation areas, we estimate approximately 7 percent of the land surface 

contained within level 1 and level 2 core conservation polygons is already directly disturbed by 

energy development. This direct disturbance exceeds the 5 percent we recommend in the core 

areas indicating a need to avoid and minimize further impacts and develop successful 

reclamation techniques. By applying the same calculations we used for occupied habitat above, 

we estimate that 67 percent of level 1 and level 2 core conservation areas is directly and 

indirectly disturbed by energy development. 

Colorado River Fishes

The Colorado pikeminnow and humpback chub were listed as endangered on March 11, 1967 

(32 FR 4001); the bonytail was listed as endangered on April 23, 1980 (45 FR 27710); and the 

razorback sucker was listed as endangered on October 23, 1991 (56 FR 54957). Critical habitat 

was designated for all four fish species on March 21, 1994 (59 FR 13374). Species descriptions, 

critical habitat information, life history, population dynamics, and the species status, distribution, 

and recovery goals are described in detail within their respective Recovery Plans and 

amendments (Service 1990a and b, 1991, 1997, and 2002a-d). The Colorado pikeminnow and 

razorback sucker have designated critical habitat within the Green and White Rivers in Uintah 
17

County and within the project area. The bonytail and humpback chub have designated critical 

habitat downstream of the project area within the Green River. 

III.ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

Regulations implementing the Act (50 CFR 402.02) define the environmental baseline as

follows:

• The past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions and other human 

activities in the action area;

• The anticipated impacts of all proposed State or Federal projects in the action area that 

have already undergone formal or early section 7 consultation; and

• The impact of State or private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation 

process.

Our evaluation of the environmental baseline is based on the best available information and differs 

in part from the evaluation in the BLM BA because the BA was developed prior to our most recent 

assessments of occupied and suitable Sclerocactus habitats.

Status of the Species within the Action Area

Sclerocactus wetlandicus

As described above, we delineated a potential habitat polygon for Sclerocactus wetlandicus to 

better understand the species distribution and abundance across its range. Although S.

wetlandicus populations can be found outside of these areas, they tend to be more isolated and 

occur in low densities. The total area of potential habitat for S. wetlandicus across its range is 

442,205 acres. Based on this polygon, we estimate that approximately 89,000 acres of S. 

wetlandicus potential habitat (~20 percent) occurs within the action area, and approximately

34,700 acres (~8 percent) of this habitat is on BLM land. The remaining 54,300 acres of 

potential habitat occur on private, state, and tribal lands.

As previously discussed, we estimate approximately 50,000 Sclerocactus wetlandicus rangewide. 

There are at least 5,636 S. wetlandicus individuals within the action area (approximately 11 

percent of the total estimated population) (BLM and Service 2011). Of 1,503 known

Sclerocactus wetlandicus-var1 individuals, 247 (16 percent) fall within the action area. 

Colorado River Endangered Fishes

All four endangered Colorado River endangered species are found in the Green River and the 

Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker are also found in the White River. Additional detail 

of these populations is discussed below:

One of three Colorado pikeminnow populations, the Green River subbasin population, will be 

affected by this project. This population was estimated at 6,000 to 8,000 adults (Nesler et al.
18

2003; Service 2002a) and was determined to be declining in 2001-2003 (Bestgen et al. 2005). 

However, recent research has shown increased recruitment during favorable water years.

The Green River subbasin population of razorback sucker is likely to be impacted by this action, 

and this population is estimated at 500 to 1,000 fish (Modde et al. 1996; Lanigan and Tyus 

1989). Within the White River, razorback suckers are found in low numbers from the 

confluence with the Green River to the Enron boat take out, located approximately 30 miles 

upstream. However, they may potentially occur up to Taylor Draw Dam (Service 2002b). In 

2011, razorback sucker were documented spawning in the White River; thereby increasing the 

importance of this waterway to the species’ recovery. The Green River from the confluence with 

the Yampa River to Sand Wash has the largest existing riverine population of razorback sucker 

(Lanigan and Tyus 1989; Modde et al. 1996). 

The Desolation/Gray Canyon population of humpback chub is likely to be impacted by this 

action, and this population is currently estimated at 1,500 fish (Service 2002c). Each population

of humpback chub consists of a discrete group of fish, geographically separated from the other 

populations, but with some exchange of individuals. Monitoring humpback chub populations is 

ongoing and sampling protocols and reliability of population estimates are being assessed by the 

Service and cooperating entities. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources has monitored the 

fish community in Desolation and Gray Canyons since 1989 and has consistently reported 

captures of age-0, juvenile, and adult Gila, including humpback chub, indicating a reproducing 

population (Chart and Lentsch 1999).

Bonytail were once widespread in the Colorado River Basin (Chamberlain 1904). Surveys from 

1964 to 1966 found large numbers of bonytail in the Green River in Dinosaur National 

Monument downstream of the Yampa River confluence (Vanicek and Kramer 1969). However, 

few bonytail were captured after 1973, and the last recorded capture in the Green River was in 

1985 (Service 2002d). Following this evident decline, large numbers of bonytail were stocked in 

the Green River Basin between 1998 and 2009. In 2009, biologists working on the Green River 

in the Uintah Basin, Utah, captured in excess of 40 bonytail stocked more than a year earlier, 

indicating some success of recent stocking activities. (Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish 

Recovery Program & San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program 2010).

Factors Affecting the Species within the Action Area

Sclerocactus wetlandicus

The action area incorporates at least nine other highly-developed existing oil and gas fields, most 

of which are included in the larger Natural Buttes Field. Approximately 2,281 wells are drilled 

across the action area within the Sclerocactus wetlandicus potential habitat polygon across all 

landowners (Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining [UTDOGM] 2011). Some of these wells are 

plugged and abandoned, shut-in, or the location was abandoned, but they may be reopened for 

future development. We estimate that at least 11,405 acres of land, or ~13 percent of the 

potential habitat polygon in the action area, is directly disturbed by these well locations. Similar 

amounts of development have occurred across the known range of S. wetlandicus-var1. 
19

The action area includes portions of the White River and Bonanza core conservation areas for 

Sclerocactus wetlandicus, where substantial disturbance has already occurred (Table 1). A 

minor portion of the Upper Green River level 2 core conservation area occurs within the action 

area (27 acres, or less than 0.5 percent of the total area). However, no development is proposed

within this conservation area, so we exclude it from further analysis. 

Table 1. Estimated existing disturbance in core conservation areas where they overlap the action

area. Level 2 core conservation areas are inclusive of level 1 areas.

Core Conservation Areas

White River Bonanza

Within action area: Level 1 Level 2 Level 1 Level 2

percent of core area 85% 86% 26% 31%

estimated number of well pads in 

core area 241 744 9 36

estimated acres direct surface 

disturbance in core area 1,205 3,720 45 180

estimated percent direct surface 

disturbance in core area 16% 16% 10% 9%

estimated percent direct plus 

indirect disturbance (1,312 feet 

or 400 meters) in core area 96% 98% 95% 79%

Sclerocactus wetlandicus is experiencing direct and indirect impacts from existing oil and gas 

development within the action area. Direct and indirect impacts include increased mortality, 

increased illegal collection, habitat fragmentation, further introduction and spread of invasive 

species, the possible loss of pollinators, increased fugitive dust, and increased erosion. 

Mortality occurs when a cactus is accidentally kicked, stepped on, or driven over by humans. As 

roads and pipelines increase within occupied habitat, the chance for mortality increases. Other 

factors, such as livestock grazing, may exacerbate this situation by focusing impacts within the 

remaining interspaces between roads and wells, leading to further cactus mortality.

Illegal collection of Sclerocactus wetlandicus historically was one of the primary threats to the 

conservation and recovery of this species (BLM, 2008a). The increase in the number of access 

roads within and near occupied habitats allows greater access to rare plant populations and 

increased illegal collection of the species. 

Habitat fragmentation occurs as a result of the increased number of access roads, pipeline and 

other utility ROWs, and long-term surface disturbance from well pads and associated facilities. 

The anthropogenic fragmentation of plant habitats can decrease species density (Mustajarvi and 

others 2001) and result in isolated, smaller populations that are more prone to extinction (Forman 

and Alexander, 1998). Decreased species density has the potential to adversely impact 

pollination and reproductive success of Sclerocactus wetlandicus (Mustajarvi et al., 2001). 
20

Increased habitat fragmentation from roads can also act as a barrier to plant pollination and seed 

dispersal (Bhattacharya and others 2003; Ness, 2004).

Noxious and invasive plant species directly compete for resources with native species such as

Sclerocactus wetlandicus and alter habitat making it more difficult for the species to survive and 

thrive. Seeds from invasive species are often carried by vehicles and spread via vehicle-caused 

air turbulence (Forman and Alexander, 1998). Within the action area, noxious and invasive 

species are often present in the soil seed bank, and once an area is disturbed, these species can 

quickly establish. In addition, competition from noxious and invasive species can further reduce 

special status species’ population size. Invasive plants spread more easily when other land uses 

such as livestock grazing are concentrated within the remaining interspaces between roads and 

wells. The cumulative pressures of energy development and grazing can lead to more invasive 

plants in Sclerocactus wetlandicus habitat. 

The spread of noxious and invasive plants may change species composition within native plant 

communities. This may lead to increased livestock grazing on native grasses and shrubs that act 

as "nurse" plants for immature cacti. Nurse plants create an environment that is more favorable 

for successful establishment of immature cacti by providing shade, moisture, and protection from 

trampling. 

Pollinators and their nesting sites are directly disturbed by oil and gas activities. Additionally, 

habitat alteration from invasive species can alter pollinator composition in the area, thereby 

possibly reducing the effectiveness of pollination within the native community. All of these 

connected actions reduce the ability of Sclerocactus wetlandicus to thrive within its native 

habitat.

Surface disturbances can lead to increased dust, erosion and storm water runoff that could impact 

Sclerocactus wetlandicus. Construction activities, increased access roads, and increased 

vehicular traffic within and near occupied habitats will lead to increases in fugitive dust and 

particulates. Dust accumulation is higher near roads, with fugitive dust depositing up to 984 feet 

from the source (Everett, 1980). Dust accumulation may adversely impact photosynthesis, 

respiration, transpiration, water use efficiency, leaf conductance, growth rate, gas exchange, and 

growth (Everett, 1980; Thompson and others 1984; Sharifi and others 1997; Trombulak and 

Frissell, 2000; Hobbs, 2001; Farmer, 1993). Erosion and runoff, though natural events, can have 

direct impacts to cacti from burying to direct removal of individuals. Erosion and runoff can be 

altered by human activities—for example, vegetation removal and alteration of stream courses—

making these events more catastrophic. These augmented events can lead to greater damage to 

native ecosystems through additional scour and burial of soils and plants. Increases in dust, 

erosion, and storm water runoff interact cumulatively with other negative effects to further 

fragment and disturb S. wetlandicus populations. 

Colorado River Endangered Fishes

The primary factors affecting the four endangered Colorado River fish are stream flow regulation 

and habitat modification; competition with and predation by nonnative fishes; and pesticides and 

pollutants (Service 2002a–d). The existing habitat, altered by these threats, is modified to the 
21

extent that it impairs essential behavior patterns, such as breeding, feeding, and sheltering. The 

primary impacts from oil and gas development, which may lead to the factors listed above, are 

water depletion and degradation of water quality through sediments and pollutants released to 

waterways close to or within critical habitat.

IV.EFFECTS OF THE ACTION

The effects of the action refer to the direct and indirect effects of an action on the species or 

critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated and 

interdependent with that action that will be added to the environmental baseline. Interrelated 

actions are those that are part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their 

justification. Interdependent actions are those that have no independent utility apart from the 

action under consideration. Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed action and 

are later in time, but are still reasonably certain to occur.

KMG is proposing to develop up to 3,675 new wells, as well as ancillary roads and pipelines. 

The proposed work action is estimated to directly disturb an additional 8,147 acres through these 

well development and pipeline construction activities. These activities will add approximately 5

percent more direct disturbance to the action area, for a total cumulative disturbance of 12.7 

percent of the action area.

Sclerocactus wetlandicus

As previously described, there are at least 89,000 acres of Sclerocactus wetlandicus potential 

habitat within the action area (using the potential habitat polygon from 2011). Thus, if we 

assume relatively equal distribution of surface disturbance across the action area, and 

approximately 5 percent of the action area is expected to be directly disturbed, we can expect 

that 4,450 acres of S. wetlandicus potential habitat will be lost through this action. This is about 

1 percent of the total potential habitat for S. wetlandicus across its entire range.

We assume that proposed well pads would most likely be placed near the center of quarterquarter sections, which places approximately 451 cacti within 300 feet of proposed well pad

locations. This number does not include plants within 300 feet of planned roads and pipelines 

because we do not know potential locations for these types of disturbances. These areas have not 

been completely surveyed, so it is likely that more plants will be found as more surveys are 

conducted. The effects from roads and other disturbances can extend far beyond 300 feet (see, 

for example, Walker and Everett, 1987; Myers-Smith et al., 2006; Farmer, 1993). 

Sclerocactus wetlandicus plants will be avoided to the extent possible through the applicantcommitted measures described in Appendix L of the BA/EIS (attachment 1), and in the Proposed 

Action section of this biological opinion. Nevertheless, individual plants could be within 300 

feet of a work area under the Agency’s Preferred Alternative. The total estimate of plants that 

may be directly affected represents less than 1% of the total estimated population of 50,000 

individuals. 

We expect additional surface disturbance and habitat fragmentation with the development of new 
22

well pads, well pad expansion, buried pipelines, and roads in core conservation areas (Table 2). 

KMG estimates that up to 15 new well pads may be constructed within the core conservation 

areas. Although we do not know the exact location of the potential 15 new well pads, KMG 

expects these to be developed on the south side of the White River (mostly located in Township 

9S, Range 21 E). Dense sites of cacti occur in this area: we estimate at least 400 plants occur 

within the approximately 31 quarter-quarter sections proposed for development south of the 

White River. 

Table 2. Existing and proposed development in level 2 core conservation areas that overlap with 

action area. Level 2 core conservation areas are inclusive of level 1 core conservation areas.

Core Conservation Areas

White River Bonanza

Number of existing well pads 744 36

Existing surface disturbance, 

percent (acres) 16% (3,720) 9% (180)

Estimated number of 

additional well pads from 

proposed action

15 0

Maxiumum additional surface 

disturbance from proposed 

action, percent (acres)

0.3% (75) 0

Estimated total surface 

disturbance (existing + 

proposed action)

16% 9%

Indirect impacts will occur along approximately 325 miles of new roads (54 percent of the total 

project’s 594 miles of new roads) within potential habitat under the Agency’s Preferred 

Alternative. Deposition of wind-blown soil onto Sclerocactus wetlandicus individuals during 

construction and use of these roads will negatively impact the cactus through reduced 

photosynthesis (BLM, 2008b). The expanded road network and surface disturbance from 

project-related construction will increase sediment delivery to the small ephemeral drainages and 

areas of overland flow associated with S. wetlandicus. S. wetlandicus is not tolerant of heavy 

sedimentation (BLM, 2008b), and increased sedimentation will increase the risk of mortality or 

stress to an unspecified number of S. wetlandicus located near disturbed areas.

Additional indirect impacts to Sclerocactus wetlandicus include an increased risk of crushing by 

off-road vehicles due to an expanded road network in the action area, impacts from herbicides 

used to control invasive plants in the project area, and possible reductions in pollination or seed 

dispersal due to a larger road network and resulting habitat fragmentation and dust. Because S. 

wetlandicus requires insect pollinators for successful reproduction (Tepedino et al. 2010), 

impacts to pollinator nesting and foraging habitats will negatively affect the cactus by reducing 

the diversity and abundance of pollinators and, thereby, the plant's ability to successfully 

reproduce. The expanded road network also will increase the risk of illegal collecting of S. 

wetlandicus.
23

Although the conservation measures described in the BA/EIS and Appendix L of the BA/EIS

will minimize the impacts of the action to Sclerocactus wetlandicus, larger landscape-level 

changes such as increased habitat fragmentation and habitat loss, pollinator disturbance, changes 

in erosion and water runoff, and increased weed invasion cannot be entirely negated. These 

disturbances will continue to negatively impact S. wetlandicus throughout the action area.

Colorado River Endangered Fishes

This project will adversely affect Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, bonytail, and 

humpback chub by reducing the amount of water in the river system upon which they depend by 

up to 757 acre-feet/year. The effects to all four species primarily result from the effects of the 

water depletion upon their habitats. The amount of water removed by the proposed action is 

below the current sufficient progress threshold of 4,500 acre-feet. However, the cumulative 

effect of water depletions, including from this action, adversely affects the four listed fish by 

further reducing the amount of water available to them, increasing the likelihood of water quality 

issues, increasing their vulnerability to predation, and reducing their breeding opportunities by 

shrinking the amount of breeding habitat within their range. Water depletions also reduce the 

ability of the river to create and maintain the primary constituent elements that define critical 

habitats. 

Parts of the action area are located in close proximity of the Green and White Rivers which could 

lead to direct and indirect affects due to proposed work activities. Flow regulation and effects of 

non-native fish species can be increased in part from water depletion as described above, though 

should not be compounded by proposed work activities since water depletion will not occur 

during a single event but over many small events spaced over the life of the project. The same is 

true for habitat modification since no work is being proposed in stream corridors in close 

proximity to the Green and White Rivers. 

There is a greater potential for impacts from pollutants, if a pipeline, well pit, or other source 

were to inadvertently release contaminated fluids into waterways at points near the Green and 

White Rivers. Through direct or indirect discharge, these pollutants could reach the Green and 

White Rivers and negatively impact water quality to the point of affecting native fish 

populations. Direct impacts will result from a discharge from a pipeline or well pit reaching the 

Green and White Rivers in its original form or within a single release event. Indirect effects 

occur when discharges are released to the ground and are later released to the river after being 

carried by an erosion event or carried by rain or snowmelt runoff. As more well and pipeline 

development occurs in the project area the chance of pollutants reaching the White and Green 

Rivers increases, thus increasing the potential of harm to native fish populations.

While applicant-committed measures will reduce the chance for spills or leaks of contaminants, 

accidental releases can and do still occur. According to the National Response Center, there 

have been at least 219 spills and releases within Carbon, Duchesne, and Uintah Counties from

January 1991 through August, 2011 due to oil and gas development and related activities 

affecting water, land and air.
24

Spill incidences reviewed in Utah include corrosion and leakage of surface and buried pipelines, 

broken well rods, valve and gasket failures, wellhead pressure buildups, shutoff alarm 

malfunctions, leakage of trace systems, loss of formation water to the surface during drilling, and 

vehicular related traffic accidents. Releases have included crude oil, natural gas, hydrochloric 

acid, condensate, salt water, ethylene glycol, and produced water in various quantities.

Releases of harmful agents into floodplain habitats could result in significant adverse impacts to 

the endangered fish and their designated critical habitat. One of the constituent elements of the 

designated critical habitat for the four Colorado River fish is contaminant-free water. Any 

release of contaminants into the floodplain will result in degradation of critical habitat and could 

result in take of individual fish, including downstream impacts to larvae and juveniles.

The Green and White Rivers are large to medium-sized rivers with variable dilution factors

based on seasonal flows. However, contaminants are likely to accumulate in 

backwater/depressional areas that have reduced dilution and less flushing capacity (Woodward et 

al. 1985). Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker use these sites downstream, which 

provide cover and a food source, for overwinter survival and rearing areas. The proposed action 

includes applicant committed measures to minimize and reduce the potential for contaminants to 

be released into the natural systems. However, oil and gas related accidents can be severe and 

have serious consequences to fish and wildlife resources.

Although most incidents are relatively small in size, large scale spills do occur. If large-scale 

breaks occur in sensitive resource areas, the results can be catastrophic to fish and wildlife 

resources. The effects of smaller leaks that may cause chronic, sub-lethal effects to fish 

populations may be more prevalent. While the oil and gas industry has a wide variety of 

methods available to detect substantial leaks or integrity breeches, the technology for detection 

of small “pinhole” leaks is not as advanced. This creates a significant problem in that the current 

available methodology may allow small leaks to go undetected for extended periods of time 

often evading detection until they are manifested on the surface sediments or water.

The severity of the impacts from larger spills will be dependent on the time of year, the river 

flows, presence of endangered fish, and the volume of the contaminant plume. Immediate 

effects of small leaks to fish populations are difficult to ascertain but will likely become evident 

in future reproductive or growth issues.

V. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, Tribal, local or private actions that are 

reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this biological opinion. Future 

federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because 

they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA.

Declines in the abundance or range of many special status species are attributable to various 

human activities on Federal, state, and private lands, such as human population expansion and 

associated infrastructure development; construction and operation of dams along major 

waterways; water retention, diversion, or dewatering of springs, wetlands, or streams; recreation, 
25

including off-road vehicle activity; expansion of agricultural or grazing activities, including 

alteration or clearing of native habitats for domestic animals or crops; and introductions of nonnative plant, wildlife, or fish or other aquatic species, which can alter native habitats or outcompete or prey upon native species. Many of these activities are expected to continue on State 

and private lands within the range of various federally protected wildlife, fish, and plant species, 

and could contribute to cumulative effects to the species within the action area. Species with 

small population sizes, endemic locations, or slow reproductive rates will generally be more

susceptible to cumulative effects.

Sclerocactus wetlandicus

Non-federal activities have the potential to cumulatively affect Sclerocactus wetlandicus, as a 

significant portion of this species’ range occurs on state, private, and tribal lands without federal 

mineral leases or federal surface rights. Quantified data on the future extent of these activities 

are difficult to obtain, but we must assume, for the purposes of this assessment, that some level 

of these activities are reasonably certain to occur, particularly energy and mineral exploration 

and development, livestock grazing, stone collecting, off-highway vehicle use, and illegal 

collecting. 

Our data show approximately 541 individual Sclerocactus wetlandicus located on lands with no 

federal nexus, or about 10 percent of the known individual S. wetlandicus within the action area 

(approximately 5,600 plants) and 1 percent of the total estimated population of S. wetlandicus.

This number is an underestimate of the number of individuals on non-federal lands because 

surveys are not always required or conducted on private, state, and tribal lands. S. wetlandicus 

individuals on non-federal lands will be negatively impacted by landscape-scale factors (habitat 

fragmentation, increased dust, and so on) due to cumulative impacts in the action area. 

Colorado Pikeminnow, Razorback Sucker, Humpback Chub, and Bonytail

Reasonably foreseeable future activities that may affect river-related resources in the area 

include oil and gas exploration and development, fire management, irrigation, recreational 

activities, Central Utah Project, Colorado River Salinity Control Project, and activities associated 

with the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. Implementation of these 

projects affects the environment including but not limited to water quality, water rights, 

socioeconomic factors and wildlife resources.

Cumulative effects to this species include the following types of impacts:

• Changes in land use patterns that will further fragment, modify, or destroy potential 

spawning sites or designated critical habitat;

• Shoreline recreational activities and encroachment of human development that will remove 

upland or riparian/wetland vegetation and potentially degrade water quality; 

• Competition with, and predation by, exotic fish species introduced by anglers or other 

sources;

• Additional water depletions to the Upper Colorado River Basin.
26

VI.CONCLUSION

After reviewing the current status of Sclerocactus wetlandicus and the four federally endangered 

fishes of the Upper Colorado River Basin, the environmental baseline for the action area, the 

effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is our biological opinion that this 

project, as described in this biological opinion, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 

of S. wetlandicus or the four endangered fishes. The proposed project is also not likely to 

destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. We base our conclusion on the 

following:

• Although approximately 11 percent of the known population of Sclerocactus wetlandicus

occurs in the action area, we expect minimal additional surface disturbance because 

approximately 60 percent of the proposed new wells will be drilled from existing well 

pads. The remaining wells, 40 percent, will be developed on new well pads (and thus 

new surface disturbance); at most, 15 will be developed across level 1 and level 2 core 

conservation areas. New surface disturbance from these 15 well pads will contribute 0.3

percent to total surface disturbance within the core conservation areas. Although our 

recommended disturbance threshold in core conservation areas is already exceeded, the 

commitment to additional conservation measures will minimize additional impacts from 

these additional well pads (Table 1). 

• Applicant committed conservation measures and mitigation measures previously stated in 

this biological opinion will minimize direct impacts to listed species.

• The existence of the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the 

sufficient progress of recovery activities to date. 

We recognize that the person who depletes and the amount of water they deplete may vary from 

year to year. Consequently, water users assume the risk that the future development of senior 

water rights, including Tribal water rights, may result in shortages of water to junior users. 

Nothing in this biological opinion precludes any new depletion that results from the exercise of 

senior water rights within the project area. 

VII. INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act prohibit the take 

of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined 

as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or attempt to engage 

in any such conduct. Harm is further defined to include significant habitat modification or 

degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential 

behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR § 17.3). Harass is 

defined by the Service as intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to 

listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which 

include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR § 17.3). Incidental take 

is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise 

lawful activity. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to 

and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the 

Act provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Incidental 
27

Take Statement.

The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be undertaken by the BLM so 

that they become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued to KMG for the exemption in 

section 7(o)(2) to apply. The BLM has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this 

incidental take statement. If the BLM (1) fails to assume and implement the terms and 

conditions or (2) fails to require KMG to adhere to the terms and conditions of the incidental 

take statement through enforceable terms that are added to the permit or grant document, the 

protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to monitor the impact of incidental 

take, either BLM or KMG must report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to 

us as specified in the incidental take statement. [50 CFR § 402.14(i)(3)]

We have developed the following incidental take statement based on the premise that the 

applicant-committed conservation measures will be implemented. 

AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE ANTICIPATED

We anticipate that all age classes of Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, razorback sucker, 

and bonytail could be taken from within the Upper Colorado River Basin as result of the

proposed action. However, Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker are more likely to be 

impacted due to their presence in segments of the White River within the project area. Incidental 

take is expected to be in the form of harm (death or injury) due to accidental contamination from 

leaks/spills during project related activities of project area streams and washes that are tributaries 

to the White River. 

Based on estimates from surveys conducted by UDWR and the Service of federally listed fish 

abundance per river segment (Bestgen et al. 2010), we anticipate a combined total of 7 Colorado 

pikeminnow and razorback sucker, could be lethally taken as a result of habitat lost through 

contamination of backwater areas located within 1.0 river mile downstream of the confluence of 

project area washes and White River. Incidental take of actual species numbers may be difficult 

to detect because finding a dead or impaired specimen is unlikely. 

Based on the above information, we authorize: a total combined lethal take of 7 fish for Colorado 

pikeminnow and razorback sucker; take of habitat not to exceed 1.0 river miles from the 

confluence of project area washes and the confluence of the White River; and all take in the form 

of harm that will occur from the removal of 757 acre-feet of water per year during the first 5

years with a peak depletion of 757 acre-feet. 

Sections 7(b)(4) and 7(o)(2) of the Act generally do not apply to listed plant species. However, 

limited protection of listed plants from take is provided to the extent that the Act prohibits the 

removal, reduction or possession of federally listed plants; the malicious damage of such plants 

on areas under Federal jurisdiction; the destruction of federally listed plants on non-Federal areas 

in violation of States law or regulation; or in the course of any violation of a State criminal 

trespass law.

EFFECT OF THE TAKE
28

In the accompanying biological opinion, we determined that this level of anticipated take is not 

likely to result in jeopardy to the species or destruction or adverse modification of critical 

habitat. 

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES 

We believe that the following reasonable and prudent measures are necessary and appropriate to 

minimize impacts of incidental take of the Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, razorback 

sucker, and bonytail:

1. Conduct all proposed actions in a manner that will minimize all impacts to listed 

endangered fish species and their designated critical habitat

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, BLM and KMG must comply 

with the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent measures 

described above and outline required reporting/monitoring requirements. These terms and 

conditions are non-discretionary. 

The following terms and conditions are assumed to include all previously listed applicantcommitted environmental protection measures, but in some cases include more restrictive or 

more detailed measures. Conservation measures include implementing the Recovery Program 

(and relevant RIPRAP measures). 

For Reasonable and Prudent Measure #1:

1. To ensure proper tracking of water depletions from the Upper Colorado River System, 

KMG will notify the BLM and/or our office as to what water resources will be used for 

the project as they are designated, and the amounts that will be withdrawn from each one.

2. Coordinate with our office regarding design and placement of any structures that may 

need to be placed in washes or 100-year floodplains of tributaries to the White River and 

the White River itself.

3. Appropriate erosion control and revegetation measures will be employed. In areas with 

unstable soils where seeding alone may not adequately control erosion, grading will be 

used to minimize slopes and water bars will be installed on disturbed slopes. Erosion 

control efforts will be monitored by the operator and necessary modifications will be 

made to control erosion.

VIII. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the BLM must comply with 

all Recovery Program activities and the monitoring proposed below.
29

The implementing regulations for incidental take require that Federal agencies must report the 

progress of the action and its impact on the species (50 CFR 402.14(i)). To meet this mandate, 

the BLM will monitor and report the progress of their action as follows:

1. The BLM is required to submit to our office an annual report of water depletions 

associated with oil and gas development, including the following information:

• Project name and/or applicant name

• Permit number and/or special use authorization

• General location and legal description 

• Depletion amount in acre-feet

• Timing of depletion

• Identify if new or historic depletion1

• Sub-total water depletion (acre-feet) for each applicant 

• Total depletion for the entire year in acre-feet

• Total number of APDs approved

• Total number of wells spudded

Reports shall be due to our office on a yearly basis by October 31. The address for the Utah Fish 

and Wildlife Service Field Office is:

2369 West Orton Circle, Suite 50

West Valley City, Utah 84119

Any annual cactus monitoring reports associated with the proposed actions must be submitted to 

us and the BLM by January 31 each year following monitoring.

Upon locating dead, injured, or sick listed species, immediate notification must be made to the 

Service’s Salt Lake City Field Office at (801) 975-3330 and the Service’s Division of Law 

Enforcement, Ogden, Utah, at (801) 625-5570. Pertinent information including the date, time, 

location, and possible cause of injury or mortality of each species shall be recorded and provided 

to the Service. Instructions for proper care, handling, transport, and disposition of such 

specimens will be issued by the Service’s Division of Law Enforcement. Care must be taken in 

handling sick or injured animals to ensure effective treatment and in handling dead specimens to 

preserve biological material in the best possible state. 

IX.CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the 

purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and 

threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to 

 1 It is important to include information on whether each depletion is new or historic (occurring prior to January 

1988), because we addresses new and historic depletions differently under the new section 7 agreement of March 11, 

1993. Historic depletions, regardless of size, do not pay a depletion fee.
30

minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to 

help implement recovery plans, or to develop information. 

The applicant-committed measures and proposed mitigation measures address most of the 

impacts associated with water withdrawals from the White River, other impacts to waterways, 

and impacts to Sclerocactus wetlandicus. However, to ensure that Federal agencies can meet 

their requirements under Section 7(a)(1) and work toward recovery of listed species, we 

recommend the following measures in addition to applicant-committed conservation measures. 

The conservation recommendations below for Sclerocactus wetlandicus were adapted from the 

recent recovery outline. 

Because the Recovery Program is already working toward recovery of the four Colorado River 

fish species, the conservation recommendations below are specific to this project and will help 

further the goals of the Recovery Program. 

Sclerocactus wetlandicus

Surveys and Monitoring

• Completion of a comprehensive survey throughout Sclerocactus wetlandicus’ range, 

including areas that are not likely to be disturbed. Survey results will provide an accurate 

population estimate and allow us to refine core population areas so we can more 

effectively protect the species. This effort will require evaluation of habitat components 

likely to support S. wetlandicus.

• More accurately delineate the range and morphology of Sclerocactus wetlandicus and 

potential varieties, especially in relationship to S. brevispinus and particularly in the 

hybrid zone.

• Locate possible connectivity corridors between Sclerocactus populations to better refine 

core conservation areas.

• All Federal agencies and land-owners—including the BIA, Ute Tribe, Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) and our office—should work together to implement and fund the

range-wide monitoring program for Sclerocactus wetlandicus. These data will improve 

our understanding of trends and allow us to adopt more effective conservation measures 

if cacti are being adversely impacted despite current conservation measures.

Threats Abatement

• Specific to this project, KMG, BLM, and BIA should avoid any new surface disturbance 

(including construction of any new wells) in core conservation areas and, if new surface 

disturbance is unavoidable, should work with us to minimize impacts in core 

conservation areas. 

• When results from the enhanced reclamation study become available, KMG, BLM, and 

BIA should work with us to incorporate effective techniques into reclamation activities.

• Follow the same applicant-committed conservation measures across the project area 

regardless of land ownership.
31

• Identify cacti sites in urgent need of habitat protection, set protection priorities, and 

implement protective measures and special management considerations. For example, 

the BLM, BIA, Ute Tribe, and our office should work together to finalize core 

conservation areas where surface disturbance will be limited in order to preserve intact 

populations of cacti and open, unoccupied habitat.

• Oil and gas leasing and other mineral extraction activities should avoid occupied sites 

and other important habitat when possible.

• Implement standard conservation measures to minimize future project and use impacts. 

For example, proposed projects should use existing surface disturbance and rights-of-way 

to minimize additional surface disturbance and habitat fragmentation.

• Coordinate with land management agencies, project proponents, and other partners early 

in the planning process to limit direct and indirect impacts of planned activities.

• Install livestock exclosures for protection and monitoring purposes in locations that will 

not be prone to illegal collection.

• Prevent the collection of Sclerocactus wetlandicus plants from natural populations. With 

respect to this project, KMG employees should notify us or the BLM immediately if they 

observe suspicious behavior—such as non-federal or non-project-related personnel 

looking for plants—in areas with known cactus locations.

• For infrastructure (typically, a pipeline) that crosses through occupied cactus habitat, 

applicants should ensure that future maintenance activities will not impact cacti. This can 

be accomplished by some or all of the following:

o Notify maintenance crews when they will be working in a sensitive cactus area 

and provide them with GPS information or maps of areas to avoid,

o Have a botanist on site prior to and during maintenance activities to flag cacti or 

avoidance areas and remove the flags immediately after work has completed, and

o Install protective fencing (e.g., silt fencing) around cacti that are downslope or 

downwind of surface-disturbing maintenance activities during maintenance, and 

remove the fencing immediately work is completed.

• We recommend that KMG apply the same conservation measures that they practice on 

federal lands across all of their project areas that contain S. wetlandicus habitat.

Research

• Continue research into Sclerocactus wetlandicus life history and ecology, including soil 

requirements and pollinators.

• Study population dynamics and conduct a population viability analysis.

• Encourage investigations that project Sclerocactus wetlandicus’ vulnerability and 

response to climate change.

• Coordinate with Sclerocactus genetic and taxonomic experts to resolve the genetics of S. 

wetlandicus outlier populations and the boundaries between S. brevispinus, S. 

wetlandicus, and S. parviflorus.

• Establish effective, science-based reclamation techniques for disturbed habitat.

• Improve our understanding of livestock and native (e.g., rodent) grazing impacts.

• Monitor Moneilema semipunctatum (cactus borer beetle) infestations, and study the 

relationship of episodic infestations with drought and other environmental factors.
32

• Monitor changes in invasive species prevalence and impacts on Sclerocactus

wetlandicus. Additionally, continue to explore approaches to minimize the risk posed by 

invasives and associated remediation actions.

Four Colorado River Fish Species

Threats Abatement

• Employ closed-loop drilling methods for drilling and completion activities within all 

designated 100-year floodplains. This will apply to both new construction and expansion 

of existing facilities.

• Machinery should be fueled outside of all stream channels to prevent spillage into 

waterways;

Research

Fish sampling surveys in the last 20 years have demonstrated widespread mercury contamination 

(in the form of methyl mercury), especially in the freshwater systems of the northern hemisphere. 

Fish accumulate methyl mercury mostly from their diet; therefore, mercury concentrations in fish 

tissue generally increase with increasing age or body size. Also, mercury biomagnifies in 

aquatic food-chains; therefore, fish at higher trophic levels usually contain greater mercury 

concentrations than coexisting species at lower trophic levels. The effects of mercury 

accumulation on fish species includes lower reproduction (reduced hatching, development, and 

survival of eggs), altered behavior (reduced predator avoidance and forage ability), and altered 

hormone production. 

Large bodied fish species of the White river, including Colorado pikeminnow, are susceptible to 

mercury contamination because they are piscivorous and long-lived. In fact, a 2003 study 

designed to investigate environmental contaminants and their effects on fish in the Colorado 

River Basin demonstrated that mercury concentrations were elevated in some fish collected from 

the Yampa River at Lay, Colorado, and the Green River at Ouray National Wildlife Refuge in 

Utah. 

Recently, researchers have begun testing large-bodied fish in the White river for mercury 

concentrations using muscle biopsies–a non-lethal form of data collection. Increased knowledge 

about mercury content in these fish species will help guide recovery efforts by indicating if 

mercury pollution is an issue of primary importance. Currently, we have muscle plug collections 

in deep freeze storage that have yet to be analyzed for mercury content. 

• We recommend that the project applicant fund the analysis of these muscle plugs, 

assisting our office in a key research component. To analyze our existing samples will

cost approximately $1,500. 

For us to stay informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or benefiting listed 

species or their habitats, we request notification of the implementation of any conservation 

recommendations.
33

X. REINITIATION - CLOSING STATEMENT

This concludes formal consultation on the action outlined in your request. As provided in 50 

CFR §402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency 

involvement or control over the action was retained (or is authorized by law) and if: (1) the 

average annual water withdrawals out of the Upper Colorado River Drainage System exceed the 

estimated 757 acre-feet by more than 10 percent; (2) new information reveals effects of the 

agency action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not 

considered in this opinion; (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that 

causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat not considered in this opinion; or (4) a new 

species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action. If cactus core 

conservation areas are approved and/or modified in the future by the Service, re-initiation of 

consultation for the Greater Natural Buttes project would not be necessary. In instances where 

the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, any operations causing such take must cease 

pending reinitiation. 

We appreciate your commitment in the conservation of endangered species. If the project 

changes or it is later determined that the project affects listed species differently than identified 

above; it may become necessary to reinitiate section 7 consultation. If you require further 

assistance or have any questions, please contact Jessi Brunson at (435) 781-4448 or Scott 

Ackerman, at (435) 781-4437.

bcc: Project file

Reading file

ACKERMAN/cmh:1/27/12

File Location: Energy/BLM/Anadarko

Z:\Finalized Letters\CMH\Romin\GNB EIS final BO.docx
34

XI.LITERATURE CITED

Bestgen, K. R., J. A. Hawkins, G. C. White, K. Christopherson, M. Hudson, M. Fuller, D. C. 

Kitcheyan, R. Brunson, P. Badame, G. B. Haines, J. Jackson, C. D. Walford, T. A. 

Sorensen and T. B. Williams. 2005. Population Status of Colorado pikeminnow in the 

Green River Basin, Utah and Colorado. Final Report to the Colorado River Recovery 

Implementation Program, Project Numbers 22i and 22j. Larval Fish Laboratory 

Contribution 140, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Bhattacharya, M., R. B. Primack and J. Gerwein. 2003. Are roads and railroads barriers to 

bumblebee movement in a temperate suburban conservation area? Biological 

Conservation 109(1):37-45.

BLM. 2008a. Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Vernal, Utah: Vernal Field Office.

BLM. 2008b. Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan. Vernal, Utah: 

Vernal Field Office.

Chamberlain, F. W. 1904. Unpublished field notes on file at Smithsonian Institution. 70. 

Washington, D.C.

Chart, T. E., D. P. Svendson, L. D. Lentsch, Utah. Division of Wildlife Resources. and Recovery 

Program for Endangered Fish of the Upper Colorado River Basin. 1999. Investigation of 

potential Razorback Sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) and Colorado Pikeminnow 

(Ptychocheilus lucius) spawning in the lower Green River, 1994 and 1995: final report. 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Moab Native Fishes Field Office, Moab, Utah 

(1165 S. HWY 191, Suite 4, Moab 84532).

Everett, K. R. 1980. Distribution and properties of road dust along the northern portion of the 

Haul Road. In Environmental engineering and ecological baseline investigations along 

the Yukon River--Prudhoe Bay Haul Road. CRREL Report 80-19., eds. J. Brown & R. 

Berg. Hanover, New Hampshire, USA: U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and 

Engineering Laboratory.

Farmer, A. M. 1993. The effects of dust on vegetation–a review. Environmental Pollution 

(79):63-75.

Forman, R. and L. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review of 

Ecology and Systematics 29:207+.

Glisson, B. 2010. General Vegetation, Sensitive Plant Species, and Weeds Survey Report for 

Questar Pipeline Company’s Mainline 104 Extension to Fidlar Project. Uintah County, 

Utah. 14 pp.

Heil, K. D. & J. M. Porter. 2004. Sclerocactus. In Flora of North America North of Mexico, ed. 

F. o. N. A. E. C. 1993+, 197-207. New York and Oxford.
35

Hobbs, M. L. 2001. Good practice guide for assessing and managing the environmental effects of 

dust emissions., Wellington, New Zealand.

Lanigan, S. H. and H. M. Tyus. 1989. Population size and status of the razorback sucker in the 

Green River Basin, Utah and Colorado. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management 9(1):68-73.

Modde, T., K. Burnham and E. Wick. 1996. Population status of the razorback sucker in the 

middle Green River (USA). Conservation Biology 10(1):110-119.

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(1):80-87.

Myers-Smith, I. H., B. K. Arnesen, R. M. Thompson and F. S. Chapin, III. 2006. Cumulative 

impacts on Alaskan arctic tundra of a quarter century of road dust. Ecoscience 13(4):503-

510.

Nesler, T. P., K. Christopherson, J. M. Hudson, C. W. McAda, F. Pfeifer and T. E. Czapla. 2003. 

An integrated stocking plan for razorback sucker, bonytail, and Colorado pikeminnow for 

the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.

Ness, J. H. 2004. Forest Edges and Fire Ants Alter the Seed Shadow of an Ant-Dispersed Plant. 

Oecologia 138(3):448-454.

Porter, J. M., M. Kinney and K. D. Heil. 2000. Relationships between Sclerocactus and Toumeya

(Cactaceae) based on chloroplast trnl-F sequences. Haseltonia 7:8-23.

Service, U.S.F.&W. 1990a. Bonytail chub recovery plan, Revised. edition. Region 6, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO.

Service, U.S.F.&W. 1990b. Humpback chub recovery plan, 2nd rev. edition. Region 6, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO.

Service, U.S.F.&W. 1990c. Uinta Basin hookless cactus (Sclerocactus glaucus) recovery plan. 

Region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO.

Service, U.S.F.&W. 1991. Colorado squawfish revised recovery plan. Region 6, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Denver, CO.

Service, U.S.F.&W. 1997. Razorback sucker (Syrauchen texanus): draft recovery plan. Region 

6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. 113 p. 

Service, U.S.F.&W. 2002a. Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) Recovery Goals: 

amendment and supplement to the Colorado Pikeminnow Recovery Plan. Region 6, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO.
36

Service, U.S.F.&W. 2002b. Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) Recovery Goals: amendment 

and supplement to the Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan. Region 6, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Denver, CO.

Service, U.S.F.&W. 2002c. Humpback chub (Gila cypha) Recovery Goals: amendment and 

supplement to the Humpback Chub Recovery Plan. Region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Denver, CO.

Service, U.S.F.&W. 2002d. Bonytail (Gila elegans) Recovery Goals: amendment and 

supplement to the Bonytail Recovery Plan. Region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Denver, CO.

Service, U.S.F.&W. 2010a. Recovery Outline for the Sclerocactus wetlandicus (Uinta Basin 

hookless cactus). Region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. 

Service, U U.S.F.&W. 2010b. Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program & San 

Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program. 2009-2010 Highlights.

Service, U.S.F.&W. and V.F.O. BLM. 2011. Occupied Sclerocactus Habitat Polygon.

Sharifi, M. R., A. C. Gibson and P. W. Rundel. 1997. Surface dust impacts on gas exchange in 

Mohave desert shrubs. Journal of Applied Ecology 34:837-846.

SWCA. 2011. “Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus; Sclerocactus wetlandicus.” Powerpoint 

presentation, presented at Uinta Basin Rare and Listed Plant Training, 2011, Vernal, UT. 

35 pp.

Tepedino, V. J. 2010. “RE: the Greenleaf ms.” Email to Jessi Brunson, USFWS UT Field Office, 

Vernal, UT. November 17, 2010. 12:10 PM

Tepedino, V. J., T. L. Griswold and W. R. Bowlin. 2010. Reproductive biology, hybridization, 

and flower visitors of rare Sclerocactus taxa in Utah's Uintah Basin. Western North 

American Naturalist 70(3):377-386.

Thompson, J. R., P. W. Mueller, W. Fluckiger and A. J. Rutter. 1984. The effect of dust on 

photosynthesis and its significance for roadside plants. Environmental Pollutants 34:171-

190.

Trombulak, S. C. and C. A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial 

and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14(1):18-30.

UDOGM. 2011. GIS Dataset from Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining website.

https://fs.ogm.utah.gov/pub/Oil&Gas/Database/. 

Vanicek, C. D. and R. H. Kramer. 1969. Life history of the Colorado squawfish Ptychocheilus

lucius and the Colorado chub Gila robusta in the Green River in Dinosaur National 

Monument, 1964-1966. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 98(2):193.
37

Walker, D. A. and K. R. Everett. 1987. Road dust and its environmental impact on Alaskan taiga 

and tundra. Arctic and Alpine Research 19(4):479-489.

Welsh, S. L., N. D. Atwood, S. Goodrich and L. C. Higgins. 2003. A Utah Flora, 3rd ed., revised 

edition. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

Woodward, D., R. Riley, M. Henry, J. Meyer and T. Garland. 1985. Leaching of retorted oil 

shale: assessing the toxicity to Colorado squawfish, fathead minnows, and two foodchain organisms. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 114(6):887-894.