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.