FEIS 5-1 March 2012

5.0 Cumulative Impacts

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.1 Time Frame

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

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

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

to 50 years.

5.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

resources. 

5.2.1 Oil and Gas

5.2.1.1 Exploration and Production

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

completed.

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

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

outside of the GNBPA is calculated on Table 5.2-2.
FEIS 5-2 March 2012

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

Resource Cumulative Impacts Study Area Study Area Rationale/Interrelated Projects

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

as identified at the direction of the BLM

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

results in similar climate and dispersion conditions for pollutants.

Projects: All human and natural activities within the Uinta Basin 

that inject pollutants into the air.

Cultural 

Resources 

GNBPA boundary Archaeological sites generally are located in discrete areas and 

effects on these sites are a consequence of implementing 

surface disturbance activities associated with a development 

proposal.

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

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

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

Greater Chapita Wells Infill EIS.

Native American 

Traditional 

Cultural 

Properties

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

a consequence of implementing a development proposal. 

However, traditional use areas, religious sites, and certain 

archaeological sites have to be considered in an expanded 

landscape context. This area encompasses major regional 

landscape and cultural features (Green River corridor and major 

Green River tributaries) as well as intensive oil and gas 

development.

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

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

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

Greater Chapita Wells Infill EIS.

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

within the GNBPA. For all other geologic and mineral 

resources, the study area is the GNBPA.

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

potential for development near the GNBPA. For other resources, 

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

sands deposits with similar extraction methods and similar 

potential for geologic hazards.

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

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

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

Greater Chapita Wells Infill EIS.

Land Use GNBPA and the immediate surrounding area as defined by 

the management objectives for visibility, noise, and wildlife 

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

Vernal RMP.

These environmentally sensitive areas require the most planning 

regarding potential impacts and also may provide the most 

constraints for development within their boundaries.

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

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

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

Greater Chapita Wells Infill EIS, Southam Canyon EA, RDG 

Uinta Basin EIS, and Greater Deadman Bench EIS.

White River SMRA: Bonanza EA and Rock House EA.

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

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

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

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

Greater Chapita Wells Infill EIS.

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

the GNBPA

Grazing allotments define the type and level of livestock use, 

and use boundaries by individual permitees. Ute Tribe grazing 

allotments do not overlap those of the BLM.

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

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

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

Chapita Wells Infill EIS, and Southam Canyon EA. 
FEIS 5-3 March 2012

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

Resource Cumulative Impacts Study Area Study Area Rationale/Interrelated Projects

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

corridors that intersect the GNBPA. The OHV designations 

provide specific management guidance on certain areas within 

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

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

hear industrial noise resulting from oil and gas operations.

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

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

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

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

EIS, and Southam Canyon EA.

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

and gas field service companies supporting this and other 

projects across the Uinta Basin and nearby areas of Colorado 

and Wyoming.

Fiscal benefits and costs would be felt at the county and 

municipal levels. Communities that house labor, as well as 

provide goods and services are located within these counties. 

This area is the proper regional scale for consideration of these 

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

state, and private).

Projects: All major natural resource and construction activities in 

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

other economic activities.

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

and invasive species affect erosion and sedimentation rates 

within the oil and gas development area. Land uses, 

revegetation success, and the potential introduction and/or 

spread of noxious weeds and invasive species are comparable 

throughout this area.

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

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

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

Greater Chapita Wells Infill EIS. 

Transportation GNBPA and primary 

transportation

access roads to the area for This is the area within which the public and oil and gas 

developers would see the potential changes and impacts on the 

transportation network (Figure 2.4-1).

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

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

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

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

and Greater Chapita Wells Infill EIS.

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

and invasive species affect erosion and sedimentation rates 

within the oil and gas development area. Land uses, 

revegetation success, and the potential introduction and/or 

spread of noxious weeds and invasive species are comparable 

throughout this area.

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

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

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

Greater Chapita Wells Infill EIS. Existing and proposed pipeline 

and seismic projects that intersect the GNBPA. 
FEIS 5-4 March 2012

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

Resource Cumulative Impacts Study Area Study Area Rationale/Interrelated Projects

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

well as the viewshed of the proposed project, particularly for 

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

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

recreational campers and hikers, and boaters on the Duchesne, 

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

landscape resulting from oil and gas development.

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

Monument Butte EIS, Gasco Uinta Basin EIS, Gasco Riverbend 

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

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

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

Greater Deadman Bench EIS, Newfield Gusher EA, Little 

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

Ridge EA, Greater Chapita Wells Infill EIS, Southam Canyon 

EA, and ANF South Unit EIS.

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

basins: Duchesne River, Pelican Lake-Green River, 

Cottonwood Wash-White River, Coyote Wash, Lower 

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

Desolation Canyon.

For groundwater: GNBPA boundary.

Ongoing oil and gas development within the GNBPA may 

adversely impact hydrologic watersheds and groundwater, 

including water quantity and quality, wetlands, floodplains, and 

Waters of the U.S. 

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

Monument Butte EIS, Gasco Uinta Basin EIS, Gasco Riverbend 

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

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

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

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

Deadman Bench EIS, West Tavaputs Plateau EIS, Wilkin Ridge 

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

ANF South Unit EIS.

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

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

area.

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

Monument Butte EIS, Gasco Uinta Basin EIS, Gasco Riverbend 

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

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

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

Greater Deadman Bench EIS, Newfield Gusher EA, Little 

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

Ridge EA, Greater Chapita Wells Infill EIS, Southam Canyon 

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

projects within the BLM Vernal Field Office Management Area.

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

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

Resources habitat for the Colorado River endangered fish. This cumulative 

study area encompasses areas included within the USFWS 

Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program for 

which surface water depletions above a certain threshold are 

compensated for by payments to USFWS.

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

Monument Butte EIS, Gasco Uinta Basin EIS, Gasco Riverbend 

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

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

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

Greater Deadman Bench EIS, Newfield Gusher EA, Little 

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

Ridge EA, Greater Chapita Wells Infill EIS, Southam Canyon 

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

projects within the BLM Vernal Field Office Management Area.




FEIS 5-9 March 2012

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

Effects Area

Total per Project Outside the GNBPA

Project Name1

Wells 

(#)

Well Pads 

(#)2

Disturbance 

(acres)3

Fraction 

(%)

Wells 

(#)

Well Pads 

(#)

Disturbance 

(acres)

KMG Bonanza EA 95 95 877 0 0 0 0

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

Gasco Riverbend EA 49 49 245 100 49 49 245

KMG Love Unit EA 125 125 706 5 6 6 35

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

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

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

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

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

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

Newfield Gusher EA 75 75 375 100 75 75 375

Gasco Wilkin Ridge EA 54 54 270 100 54 54 270

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

1 Information in this table was compiled from various notices and NEPA documents for each project. 2 Number of well pads includes development of new pad locations and expansion of existing pads. If number of pads was not stated, all were assumed to be 

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

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

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

Cumulative Effects Area

Total per Project Inside the GNBPA

Project Name1

Wells 

(#)

Well Pads 

(#)2

Disturbance 

(acres)3

Fraction 

(%)

Wells 

(#)

Well Pads 

(#)

Disturbance 

(acres)

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

EOG North Alger EA 44 44 220 0 0 0 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

XTO Hill Creek EA 144 108 287 0 0 0 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 Where disturbance estimates were not available, total project-related disturbance was estimated by assuming 5 acres of disturbance per well pad. 4 Of the 5,750 total wells, up to 3,250 would be oil wells and 2,500 would be deep gas wells.
FEIS 5-10 March 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

listed in Table 5.2-1.

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

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

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

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

GNBPA in addition to the Proposed Action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

anticipated over the next 5 years. The majority of the oil and gas development activity is anticipated to occur in 

the Monument Butte-Red Wash exploration and development area. Most coalbed natural gas activity is 

expected to occur in the East and West Tavaputs Plateau areas.

5.2.1.2 Pipelines

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

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

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

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

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

the southern Uinta Basin. The project was placed in-service on November 1, 2007. 
FEIS 5-11 March 2012

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

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

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

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

no major transportation projects that could be considered reasonably foreseeable. 

5.2.2 Oil Shale 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.2.3 Gilsonite

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mining is occurring only at the Cottonwood mine. 
FEIS 5-12 March 2012

Table 5.2-4 Permitted Gilsonite Mines, Uinta Basin

Name Operator

Location

(SectionTownship-Range)

Within 

GNBPA Type of Mine Status

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

Cottonwood Mine American Gilsonite Co. 34-10-21 Yes Underground Active

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

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

ITM Mine American Gilsonite Co. 25-10-20 Yes Underground Inactive

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

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

Sources: Bon and Wakefield (2008, 2006)

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

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

disturbance due to gilsonite mining is not known.

5.2.4 Tar Sands

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

resource in the next 10 years. 

5.2.5 Sand and Gravel

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

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

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

amount of disturbance cannot be estimated at this time. 

5.2.6 Other Activities

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

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

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

the general vicinity of the GNBPA. However, the impacts from these projects are not quantifiable.
FEIS 5-13 March 2012

5.3 Cumulative Impacts by Resource

5.3.1 Air Quality

5.3.1.1 Cumulative Impacts of Criteria Pollutants

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uinta Basin for the year 2006.

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

County

NOX

(tpy)

CO

(tpy)

SOX

(tpy)

PM

(tpy)

VOC

(tpy)

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

Carbon 995 814 22 40 2,747

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

Grand 337 207 16 22 2,360

Emery 273 199 9 14 453

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

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

near-field dispersion modeling results. The Proposed Action maximum predicted impact in the table 

represents the highest of any of the modeled impacts that were separately determined for drilling, 

production, and operation sources. Cumulative impacts from criteria pollutants to ambient air quality are 

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

Table 5.3-2 Cumulative Impacts Compared to NAAQS

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time

Proposed Action 

Maximum 

Predicted Impact

(μg/m3)

Background and 

Existing Source 

Impacts

(μg/m3)

Proposed Action plus 

Cumulative Sources 

Maximum Predicted Impact 

plus Background (μg/m3)

Proposed 

Action as 

Percent of 

Cumulative NAAQS (μg/m3)

NO2 1-hour 137.2 20.01 157.2 87.3 188

Annual 7.7 9.0 16.7 46.1 100

CO 1-hour 399 6,325 6,724 5.9 40,000

8-hour 251 3,910 4,161 6.0 10,000

SO2 1-hour 2.6 21.7 24.3 10.7 197

3-hour 1.9 16.7 18.6 10.2 1,300

24-hour 0.9 5.9 6.8 13.2 365

Annual 0.1 1.5 1.6 6.3 80

PM10 24-hour 4.5 18.0 22.5 20.0 150

PM2.5 24-hour 4.5 21.6 26.1 17.2 35

Annual 0.8 12.3 13.1 6.1 15

1 The 1-hour NO2 background is based on USEPA policy using hour-of-day average background by season. This background 

applies to the maximum impact. 
FEIS 5-14 March 2012

5.3.1.2 Cumulative Impacts on Visibility

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

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

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

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

A 1.0 deciview change is considered potentially significant as described in the USEPA Regional Haze 

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

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

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

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

viewing scenes in mandatory federal PSD Class I areas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

predicted impacts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Monument. 
FEIS 5-15 March 2012

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

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

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

provide visibility thresholds of concern for Class II areas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

these impacts.

5.3.1.4 Cumulative Impacts on Ambient Ozone Levels

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NAAQS for ozone.

5.3.2 Cultural Resources and Native American Traditional Values

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

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

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

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

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

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

water source. 

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

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

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

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

construction activities would be mitigated in accordance with this EIS. 

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

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

It is anticipated that there would be a cumulative increase in vandalism, illegal collection, and dust due to the 
FEIS 5-16 March 2012

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

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

5.3.3 Geology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

development from oil and gas extraction.

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

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

5.3.4 Land Use

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

implemented, cumulative impacts would be minimal.

5.3.5 Paleontology

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

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

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

Section 5.2.1.1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

knowledge base.
FEIS 5-17 March 2012

5.3.6 Range Resources

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

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

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

interrelated actions within the CISA. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nature for the majority of the project disturbance area.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

native vegetative communities and decrease available forage.

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

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

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

until such time that reclamation is deemed successful.
FEIS 5-18 March 2012

Table 5.3-3 Cumulative Carrying Capacity Impacts per Allotment for the Proposed Action Alternative

Grazing Allotment 

Name

Total Allotment 

Acreage

Total Allotment 

Active AUMs1

Impacts Without Proposed 

Project

Impacts from Proposed 

Action Alternative2

Cumulative Impacts Including Proposed 

Action Alternative

Acreage 

Disturbed

Active AUMs 

Lost3

Acreage 

Disturbed

Active 

AUMs Lost3

Acreage 

Disturbed

Active 

AUMs Lost3

Percent Active 

AUMs Lost3

BLM

Antelope Draw 61,530 3,976 3,923 253 232 15 4,155 268 6.7

Coyote Wash 99,290 9,554 4,942 476 1,681 162 6,623 638 6.7

Olsen AMP 134,306 12,144 5,388 487 2,859 259 8,247 746 6.1

Sand Wash 75,136 7,974 4,397 467 3,988 423 8,385 890 11.2

Seven Sisters 19,285 2,348 2,469 300 669 81 3,138 381 16.2

Southam Canyon 13,827 1,357 264 26 29 3 293 29 2.1

Thorne-Ute Broome 5,436 400 197 12 6 1 203 13 3.3

White River Bottoms 12,900 885 97 7 42 3 139 10 1.1

BLM Total 421,710 38,638 21,677 2,028 9,506 947 31,183 2,975 --

BIA

Cottonwood Wash 7,486 168 573 13 582 14 1,155 27 16.1

Molly's Nipple 10,742 400 872 32 818 30 1,690 62 15.5

Capita Grove 11,330 311 1,345 37 220 6 1,565 43 13.8

North White River 18,960 485 828 21 840 21 1,668 42 8.7

BIA Total 48,518 1,364 3,618 103 2,460 71 6,078 174 --

Grand Total 470,228 40,002 25,2954 2,131 11,966 1,018 37,2614 3,149 --

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

rate as a whole.

4 Formal grazing allotments do not exist for 9,313 acres within the GNBPA; therefore, this value does not equal the total number of acres of new surface disturbance within the CISA for range resources.
FEIS 5-19 March 2012

Table 5.3-4 Cumulative Carrying Capacity Impacts per Allotment for the Resource Recovery Alternative

Grazing Allotment 

Name

Total 

Allotment 

Acreage

Total Allotment 

Active AUMs1

Impacts Without Proposed 

Project

Impacts from Resource 

Protection Alternative2

Cumulative Impacts Including Resource 

Protection Alternative

Acreage 

Disturbed

Active 

AUMs Lost3

Acreage 

Disturbed

Active 

AUMs Lost3

Acreage 

Disturbed

Active 

AUMs Lost3

Percent 

Active 

AUMs Lost3

BLM

Antelope Draw 61,530 3,976 3,923 253 149 10 4,072 263 6.6

Coyote Wash 99,290 9,554 4,942 476 1,082 104 6,024 580 6.1

Olsen AMP 134,306 12,144 5,388 487 1,840 166 7,228 653 5.4

Sand Wash 75,136 7,974 4,397 467 2,567 272 6,964 739 9.3

Seven Sisters 19,285 2,348 2,469 300 430 53 2,899 353 15.0

Southam Canyon 13,827 1,357 264 26 20 2 284 28 2.1

Thorne-Ute Broome 5,436 400 197 12 4 ≤1 201 12 3.0

White River Bottoms 12,900 885 97 7 27 2 124 9 1.0

BLM Total 421,710 38,638 21,677 2,028 6,119 609 27,796 2,637 --

BIA

Cottonwood Wash 7,486 168 573 13 374 8 947 21 12.5

Molly's Nipple 10,742 400 872 32 526 20 1,398 52 13.0

Capita Grove 11,330 311 1,345 37 142 4 1,487 41 13.2

North White River 18,960 485 828 21 541 14 1,369 35 7.2

BIA Total 48,518 1364 3,618 103 1,583 46 5,201 149 --

Grand Total 470,228 40,002 25,2954 2,131 7,702 655 32,9974 2,787 --

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

rate as a whole.

4 Formal grazing allotments do not exist for 9,313 acres within the GNBPA; therefore, this value does not equal the total number of acres of new surface disturbance within the CISA for range resources.
FEIS 5-20 March 2012

Table 5.3-5 Cumulative Carrying Capacity Impacts per Allotment for the Optimal Recovery Alternative

Grazing Allotment 

Name

Total 

Allotment 

Acreage

Total 

Allotment 

Active AUMs1

Impacts Without 

Proposed Project

Impacts from Optimal 

Recovery Alternative2

Cumulative Impacts Including

Optimal Recovery Alternative

Acreage 

Disturbed

Active 

AUMs 

Lost3

Acreage 

Disturbed

Active 

AUMs 

Lost3

Acreage 

Disturbed

Active 

AUMs 

Lost3

Percent 

Active 

AUMs 

Lost3

BLM

Antelope Draw 61,530 3,976 3,923 253 779 50 4,702 303 7.6

Coyote Wash 99,290 9,554 4,942 476 5,660 545 10,602 1,021 10.7

Olsen AMP 134,306 12,144 5,388 487 9,626 870 15,014 1,357 11.2

Sand Wash 75,136 7,974 4,397 467 13,429 1,425 17,826 1,892 23.7

Seven Sisters 19,285 2,348 2,469 300 2,252 274 4,721 574 24.4

Southam Canyon 13,827 1,357 264 26 98 10 362 36 2.7

Thorne-Ute Broome 5,436 400 197 12 21 2 218 14 3.5

White River Bottoms 12,900 885 97 7 142 10 239 17 1.9

BLM Total 421,710 38,638 21,677 2,028 32,007 3,186 53,684 5,214 --

BIA

Cottonwood Wash 7,486 168 573 13 1,958 44 2,531 57 33.9

Molly's Nipple 10,742 400 872 32 2,754 102 3,626 134 33.5

Capita Grove 11,330 311 1,345 37 744 21 2,089 58 18.6

North White River 18,960 485 828 21 2,827 72 3,655 94 19.2

BIA Total 48,518 1,364 3,618 103 8,283 239 11,901 342 --

Grand Total 470,228 40,002 25,2954 2,131 40,290 3,425 65,5854 5,556 --

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

rate as a whole.

4 Formal grazing allotments do not exist for 9,313 acres within the GNBPA; therefore, this value does not equal the total number of acres of new surface disturbance within the CISA for range resources.

FEIS 5-22 March 2012

5.3.7 Recreation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.3.8 Socioeconomics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

be much less developed and populated than it is today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

experiences.

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

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

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

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

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

lower commodity prices in 2008 and 2009 contributed to dramatic slowdowns in the rate of exploration and 
FEIS 5-23 March 2012

development; the number of new wells spudded in the 2 counties was less than half the levels in the preceding 

3 years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

capacity to move the production to market.

Source: USDOE 2009.

Figure 5.3-2 Projected Natural Gas Production in the Mountain Region 

Economic and demographic forecasts periodically prepared by the UGOPB, which considers future energy 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cumulative actions. 
FEIS 5-24 March 2012

Source: UGOPB 2008.

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

Following the absorption of vacant housing, commercial and industrial development, and available capacities 

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

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

conjunction with infrastructure expansion and increases in staffing and services to meet higher demands. The 

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

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

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

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

responsible for increasing shares of future growth. 

The taxes, royalties and other public sector revenues associated with the Proposed Action would combine with 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

directly and indirectly, through the households and incomes supported by development and production.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 

5,000 

10,000 

15,000 

20,000 

25,000 

30,000 

35,000 

40,000 

45,000 

2007 2011 2015 2019 2023 2027 2031 2035

Uintah

Duchesne
FEIS 5-25 March 2012

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

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

several other state agencies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.3.9 Soils

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

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

reasonably foreseeable future actions would cumulatively and incrementally increase disturbed soil acreages 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

disturbance anticipated under the Proposed Action. 

Implementation of the Resource Protection Alternative would reduce the acres of cumulative disturbance and 

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

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

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

anticipated under the Resource Protection Alternative. 
FEIS 5-26 March 2012

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

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

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

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

Recovery Alternative.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

enhancing potentials for successful re-establishment of protective vegetative and BSC cover as part of the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

stability or higher plant and BSC cover re-establishment.

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

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

clean-up process would be employed.

5.3.10 Transportation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

roads.

5.3.11 Vegetation

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

reasonably foreseeable future actions within the CISA would result in the loss of 7,766 acres for existing 
FEIS 5-27 March 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

habitat, and available forage for livestock grazing operations. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

noxious weed invasions. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

woodlands would require 75 to 100 years.

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

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

noxious weeds and invasive species to spread into the CISA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

spread of noxious weed and invasive species (USEPA 2008b; USFWS 2008b). 
FEIS 5-28 March 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of seeds from outside the CISA. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

proportionately to the amount of disturbance. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

areas.

5.3.11.1 Special Status Plant Species

Cumulative impacts to special status plant species would be increased due to the number of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable oil and gas development projects, pipelines, and seismic surveys in the 

CISA, and the associated direct and indirect impacts discussed above for general vegetation. Only the clayreed mustard and the Uinta Basin hookless cactus were identified as having potential to occur within the CISA 

based on habitat requirements and known distribution.

Graham’s beardtongue

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

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

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

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

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

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

foreseeable development activities.

Clay-reed Mustard

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

minimal potential for overlap with most, if not all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development 
FEIS 5-29 March 2012

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

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

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

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

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development activities.

Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus

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

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

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

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

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

Habitat1

Total Habitat 

Within CISA 

(acres)2

Estimated Cumulative Habitat Disturbed3

Proposed Action

Alternative

Resource Protection

Alternative

Optimal Recovery

Alternative

Acres4 Percent Acres4 Percent Acres4 Percent

Uinta Basin hookless cactus 53,330 4,266 8 2,667 5 13,866 26

1 Habitat identified based on modeling as described in Section 3.11.3.2, Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus. 2 The CISA for vegetation resources is defined as the GNBPA boundary.

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

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

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

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

associated with that project.

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

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

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

construction and operation activities, grazing, and recreational use.

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

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

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

construction, seismic surveys, well staking, cultural resources surveys, biological surveys, and other human 

activities.

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

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

reclamation conditions (e.g., drought).

5.3.12 Visual Resources

The CISA for visual resources (Table 5.2-1) consists of the VRM Class II areas within the GNBPA and the 

background distance zone viewshed (approximately 1,382,613 acres) of the proposed project (including views 

from the Duchesne, Green, and White rivers). The management directive for visual resources for the 

BLM-managed lands in the CISA is to comply with designated VRM class objectives. This directive does not 

apply to private lands, lands under the jurisdiction of the State of Utah, or lands owned by the Northern Ute 

Tribe. There are no visual resource management objectives or aesthetic protections for lands in the Uinta 

Basin not managed by the BLM. Views to and from the Green River and White River are of particularly high 

sensitivity to visual intrusions and related contrasts.
FEIS 5-30 March 2012

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future oil and gas development in the CISA would have both direct 

and indirect cumulative impacts to visual resources. The addition of 12,658 acres of disturbance (22 percent of 

the total cumulative disturbance), fugitive dust, combustion emissions, drilling rigs, storage tanks, other 

ancillary structures, roads, pipelines, overhead electrical lines, OHV activities, and general upsurge of human 

use under the Proposed Action Alternative would increase the extent and magnification of visual contrasts and 

associated impacts. Cumulative impacts to VRM Class II lands would be minimal due to the exclusion of new 

well pads in the viewshed of the White River up to 0.5 mile from the river. 

The Resource Protection Alternative would result in less disturbance, and therefore less cumulative visual 

impact, than the Proposed Action Alternative. The Optimal Recovery Alternative would result in more 

disturbance, and therefore more cumulative visual impact, than the Proposed Action Alternative.

5.3.13 Water Resources

The CISA for surface water consists of the Duchesne River, Pelican Lake – Green River, Cottonwood Wash – 

White River, Coyote Wash, Lower Pariette Draw, Agency Draw – Willow Creek, Sheep Wash – Green River, 

Asphalt Wash, White River, Bitter Creek, and Desolation Canyon hydrographic basins. Cumulative impacts to 

water resources and associated wetlands and floodplains would result from ongoing oil and gas 

developments, irrigated agriculture, livestock grazing, vehicular traffic, and other mining and industrial activities

within the water resources CISA (Figure 5.3-4). 

Surface water flows in the CISA are dominated by the Green River, which has an overall watershed area of 

approximately 35,500 square miles at Ouray, Utah. Contributions from the White River range from 

approximately 12 to 15 percent of the flows in the Green River at their confluence. High flows from the White 

River have become more important to the Green River system and related Colorado pikeminnow populations 

since flood control and withdrawals began at Flaming Gorge (Lentsch et al. 2000). 

Smaller streams such as Pariette Draw Creek, Willow Creek, and Ninemile Creek likely contribute less than 

5 percent overall to Green River flows through the CISA (Utah Board of Water Resources 1999). Based on 

these estimates, roughly 15 to 20 percent of the flow in the Green River through the CISA is contributed by the 

White River and these smaller watersheds where large areas of existing, ongoing, or proposed oil and gas 

projects are located. Additional cumulative impacts to water resources would occur from water uses and water 

quality constituent loads in runoff associated with oil and gas developments. The water demands by existing 

and reasonably foreseeable oil and gas development, and the population it supports form a large portion of 

overall water use in the CISA. However, it is substantially less than agricultural and other demands in the wider 

Uintah County region. The majority of water withdrawals for actual field development would create limited, 

short-term impacts to water quantities. With the estimate that approximately 15 to 20 percent of flows in the 

Green River through the CISA are contributed by study area watersheds where oil and gas development is 

concentrated, the cumulative impacts to water quantities in the river would be minor.

Investigations in the area indicate that water quality varies significantly. No stream or waterbody in the CISA is 

classified as a High Quality Water by the state. Beneficial uses for major streams in the region are similar to 

those identified for waterbodies in the GNBPA. Impaired waterbodies in the CISA, and the identified water 

quality constituents or factors that impair their designated beneficial uses, are shown in Table 5.3-7. 

Table 5.3-7 Summary of Impaired Waterbodies Within the CISA

Watershed Waterbody Impaired Constituent(s)

Duchesne Duchesne River Salinity/total dissolved solids/chlorides

Lower Green – Desolation Canyon Ninemile Creek Temperature

Pariette Draw Creek Boron, salinity/total dissolved solids/ chlorides, selenium
FEIS 5-31 March 2012

Table 5.3-7 Summary of Impaired Waterbodies Within the CISA

Watershed Waterbody Impaired Constituent(s)

Lower Green – Diamond Pelican Lake Temperature, pH

Lower White None None

Willow Willow Creek Total dissolved solids

Source: Utah Division of Water Quality 2006.

The White River, along with the Yampa River, Red Creek, Vermillion Creek, and other streams in the CISA,

contributes a substantial amount of sediment and other water quality constituents to the Green River below 

Flaming Gorge Dam. Based on existing information (BLM 2008d,e,h), it appears that cumulative increases in 

sediment yield from oil and gas disturbance would represent less than 10 percent, and possibly less than 

5 percent, of the average sediment load in the Green River upstream of Desolation Canyon. This would 

represent a noticeable but minor impact to water quality. Reviews of historical water quality data along the 

lower White River (Section 3.13.1.3) indicate that suspended sediment concentrations (as TSS) increase 

between Bonanza and Ouray, but there is no apparent relationship to increasing oil and gas disturbance in the 

CISA. This is likely to hold true for other watersheds in the CISA since it is more likely that changes in water 

quality from one sampling location to another in these semi-arid to arid watersheds result from natural geologic 

and geomorphic conditions, flows evaporating or seeping into the channel beds, and overall land use patterns. 

Historical data indicate negligible to slight decreases in salinity (as TDS) in the lower White River over several 

decades of increasing oil and gas activity in the region. Similar to the suspended sediment concentrations, 

changes in reported salinity data may be more closely related to overall background conditions rather than 

strictly oil and gas disturbance. In addition, more extensive, long-term programs (e.g., the Colorado River 

Basin Salinity Control Program or implementation of Gold Book practices) may limit or reduce cumulative 

water quality impacts resulting from surface disturbance.

Increases in salinity and other water quality parameters also could occur as a result of spills, leaks, and 

seepage or “weeping” from abandoned wells. Most impacts from such incidents would be avoided or mitigated 

by compliance with environmental guidelines and prevention or cleanup programs. Without adequate plugging 

and abandonment, the potential for long-term seepage of saline groundwater from wells would represent a 

substantial potential impact to surface water quality within the CISA. The potential for this is discussed in an 

historical context in Chapter 3, Section 3.13.1.3. Plugging and abandonment of wells in accordance with Utah 

Oil and Gas Conservation General Rules R649-3-24 would avoid these impacts or reduce them to less than 

significant levels. Assuming that regulatory and operating programs are implemented properly, and that 

catastrophic failure of the produced water system or a storage facility does not occur, cumulative impacts to 

water quality in the CISA would be minor.

The CISA for groundwater is the GNBPA boundary. Cumulative impacts to groundwater could result from the 

continued injection of produced water under the No Action Alternative in combination with one of the action 

alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, produced water would be managed primarily through 

evaporation, with approximately 15 percent being injected into the subsurface. As discussed in 

Section 4.13.1.3, most produced water is being injected into the Birds Nest aquifer, with minor amounts 

injected into deeper saline aquifers. Under both the Proposed Action and the Resource Protection Alternative,

approximately 10,744,000 bbls of produced water would be generated per year by proposed project activities. 

A major portion (greater than 75 percent) of this produced water would be disposed of by injection into new 

disposal wells permitted by the USEPA, which is the authorizing regulatory agency for the UIC program on 

lands in the GNBPA.

As noted in Section 2.6.2.6, the proposed expansion of water disposal capacity would be more than adequate 

to accommodate the volume of produced water from the Proposed Action. The cumulative volume of produced 

water that would be injected includes the volume injected under the No Action Alternative, which currently is 

FEIS 5-33 March 2012

being accommodated by the existing injection capacity. Hence, the injection capacity within the CISA is 

anticipated to be adequate to handle the cumulative injection volumes. Under the Optimal Recovery

Alternative, more produced water would be generated, requiring the installation of additional injection wells 

over and above that required by the Proposed Action.

Disposal of produced water under the UIC program is a highly regulated activity that provides for the protection 

of USDWs. Assuming compliance with UIC program regulatory requirements, cumulative injection of produced 

water within the CISA is not anticipated to impact other USDWs. This is due, in part, to the fact that injection 

activity can only take place where pre-existing groundwater quality (TDS greater than 10,000 mg/l) precludes 

other uses of the water. Due to the increased volume of produced water to be injected relative to the No Action 

Alternative, the injection plume within saline aquifers would be expected to increase in size due the increase in 

groundwater storage.

5.3.14 Wilderness Characteristics

The CISA for wilderness characteristics is the entire Vernal Field Office management area. Included in the 

cumulative impact analysis are all lands within the CISA found by the BLM to possess wilderness 

characteristics. These areas possess all of the values needed for wilderness including size, naturalness, and 

opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. 

Of the 277,596 acres found to have wilderness characteristics within the CISA, 106,178 acres (38 percent) are 

protected, preserved, and maintained for their wilderness values as BLM natural areas (BLM 2008b). In 

accordance with management prescriptions in the Vernal RMP, these areas would remain in their current 

state. The remaining 171,418 acres (62 percent) do not have prescribed management to protect the 

wilderness values, and allows for uses that could degrade the wilderness characteristics of these areas.

Impacts to lands with wilderness characteristics could result from the past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions discussed in Section 5.2. Figure 5.3-5 illustrates how these cumulative actions 

would overlap non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics within the CISA.

5.3.14.1 BLM White River Natural Area

No cumulative effects would occur to BLM natural areas because no surface disturbance would occur within 

the BLM White River natural area under any of the proposed alternatives.

5.3.14.2 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would result in direct impacts to three areas of nonWSA lands with wilderness characteristics within the CISA (Figure 5.3-5). Excluding the proposed project, 

approximately 64,450 acres of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would overlap with past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects outside of the GNBPA. This disturbance would impact the 

ability of the BLM to manage wilderness characteristics in these areas. The three areas that would be 

impacted and the projects that would impact them are as follows:

• White River non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be impacted by projects

including Enduring Resource’s West Bonanza project, the RDG Uinta Basin project, and Enduring 

Resources Rock House Project.

• Lower Bitter Creek non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be impacted by 

projects including Enduring Resources Big Pack project and the RDG Uinta Basin project.

• Desolation Canyon non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics would be impacted by 

projects including the BBC West Tavaputs Plateau project and Gasco’s Uinta Basin, Riverbend, and 

Wilkin Ridge projects.
FEIS 5-34 March 2012

Each of the proposed alternatives would impact the BLM’s ability to preserve the wilderness values of the 

White River non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics due to surface disturbance associated with the 

proposed activities impacting up to 2,786 acres. Therefore, the direct cumulative impact to non-WSA lands 

with wilderness characteristics would total 67,236 acres, of which the proposed project would represent 

approximately 4 percent. These lands would no longer retain wilderness characteristics due to the additive and 

cumulative effects of oil and gas development. 

As discussed in the Vernal RMP (BLM 2008b), 171,418 acres of inventoried lands with wilderness 

characteristics would not be managed to protect wilderness values. Based on levels of past 

production, existing leases, and ongoing exploration and development activities, approximately 

150,421 acres of these lands would lose their wilderness characteristics due to oil and gas 

development. This would include the three areas of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics 

discussed above, as well as areas to the south and southeast of the GNBPA (see Figure 5.3-5). Less 

than 2 percent (2,786 acres) of this 150,421 acres would result in the loss of wilderness characteristics due to 

the proposed development in the GNBPA.

5.3.15 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

The CISA for wildlife, fisheries, and special status species encompasses the entire BLM Vernal Field Office 

management area. The CISA extends from the Book Cliffs in the south, east to the Utah/Colorado border, 

north to the eastern Uinta Mountains (Utah/Wyoming border), and west to the edge of the Wasatch Mountain

Range.

For wildlife, fisheries, and special status species, the cumulative analysis focuses on past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable oil and gas development projects (Tables 5.2-2 and 5.2-3) and pipelines

(Figure 5.2-4). The cumulative impact analysis focuses on the regional wildlife resources and how they may 

be susceptible to the cumulative actions identified for the proposed project assuming that: 1) human use of the

CISA would increase with the implementation of the proposed project, 2) wildlife habitats currently are at their 

respective carrying capacities in and adjacent to the GNBPA, and 3) the overall region has been previously 

affected by historic and current oil and gas development activities.

5.3.15.1 Wildlife Resources

Cumulative impacts to wildlife resources primarily would be directly related to habitat loss, habitat 

fragmentation, and animal displacement. Long-term surface disturbance incrementally adds to wildlife habitat 

losses, overall habitat fragmentation, and animal displacement. In areas where oil and gas development has 

occurred, habitat fragmentation may have resulted in the disruption of seasonal patterns or migration routes.

Historic, current, and future developments in the vicinity of the GNBPA have resulted, or would result, in the 

reduction of carrying capacities as characterized by the amount of available cover, forage, and breeding areas 

for wildlife species. Surface disturbance in the CISA primarily results from oil and gas development, including 

pipelines and seismic exploration. However, other activities such as livestock grazing, development of 

recreational facilities, and growth of Uinta Basin communities also contribute to cumulative impacts on wildlife 

and their habitats. Big game, especially pronghorn, would be most susceptible to these impacts since 

encroaching human activities associated with oil and gas development have resulted, or would result, in 

habitat loss and fragmentation and animal displacement in areas designated as crucial habitat (e.g., crucial 

winter habitat, fawning habitat). Figures 5.3-6 through 5.3-10 display big game habitat within the CISA. Other 

wildlife species, such as raptor species, also would be susceptible to these cumulative impacts since 

encroaching human activities in the region resulted, or would result, in habitat loss and fragmentation and 

animal displacement in areas that may be at their relative carrying capacity for these resident species. Many of 

the local wildlife populations (e.g., small game, migratory birds) that occur in the CISA likely would continue to

occupy their respective ranges and breed successfully, although population numbers may decrease relative to 

the amount of cumulative habitat loss and disturbance from incremental development. 






FEIS 5-41 March 2012

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable oil and gas development projects identified for the CISA, including 

the Proposed Action Alternative, have resulted, or would result, in the direct disturbance of approximately 

82,833 acres. Approximately 15 percent of this cumulative impact would be attributable to the Proposed 

Action. Cumulative impacts under the Resource Protection Alternative would be approximately 4,511 acres 

less than under the Proposed Action Alternative and therefore, reduce impacts to wildlife. Cumulative impacts 

under the Optimal Recovery Alternative would be approximately 29,962 acres more than under the Proposed 

Action Alternative and therefore, would result in an increase in wildlife-related impacts. The Resource 

Protection Alternative and the Optimal Recovery Alternative would represent 10 percent and 38 percent, 

respectively, of the total cumulative surface disturbance in the CISA. Table 5.3-8 presents cumulative 

long-term surface disturbance acreages for big game species under each alternative. A portion of the 

cumulative disturbance area has been, or would be, reclaimed or has recovered materially (i.e., wildfire areas). 

The reclaimed areas and areas associated with habitat conversion would be capable of supporting wildlife use

(including big game); however, species composition and densities likely would change.

Table 5.3-8 Cumulative Long-term Surface Disturbance of Big Game Habitat

Total Estimated Cumulative Habitat Disturbed3

Habitat Within 

CISA

Proposed Action 

Alternative

Resource Protection 

Alternative

Optimal Recovery 

Alternative

Species Habitat1 (acres)2 Acres4 Percent Acres4 Percent Acres4 Percent

Pronghorn Year-long Crucial 873,475 50,611 5.8 46,954 5.4 74,909 8.6

Year-long Substantial 314,127 3,192 1.0 3,129 1.0 3,617 1.2

Mule Deer Year-long Crucial 328,573 3,608 1.1 3,078 <1.0 7,131 2.2

Winter Substantial 712,216 10,805 1.5 10,740 1.5 11,237 1.6

Elk Winter Substantial 525,875 7,618 1.4 7,610 1.4 7,676 1.5

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Year-long Crucial 1,115,392 8,279 <1.0 7,530 <1.0 13,258 1.2

Bison Year-long Crucial 1,081,016 18,347 1.7 15,080 1.4 40,048 3.7 1 Habitat designated by UDWR. Elk and mule deer data taken from the Final Vernal RMP. 2 The Wildlife and Fisheries CISA encompasses the entire BLM Vernal Field Office Management Area and is approximately 5,518,859 acres. 3 Values include impacts associated with the project alternatives as well as other oil and gas development and pipeline projects in the cumulative effects area 

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

the acres of habitat impacted within the CISA by each project in the general cumulative effects area. The acres of habitat impacted in the CISA for each 

project was calculated as a percentage of habitat type within the project boundary multiplied by the actual surface disturbance associated with that project.

While surface disturbance generally corresponds to associated wildlife habitat loss, accurate calculations of 

cumulative wildlife habitat loss cannot be determined because the direct impacts of habitat disturbance are 

species-specific and dependent upon: 1) the status and condition of the population(s) or individual animals 

being affected; 2) seasonal timing of the disturbances; 3) value or quality of the disturbed sites; 4) physical 

parameters of the affected and nearby habitats (e.g., extent of topographical relief and vegetative cover); 

5) value or quality of adjacent habitats; 6) the type of surface disturbance; and 7) other variables that are 

difficult to quantify (e.g., increased noise and human presence). However, surface disturbance calculations are 

still a useful indicator of habitat loss because as forage, foraging and/or hunting habitats, and breeding, 

nesting, and rearing habitats are removed, overall quality of wildlife habitat also will decrease. 

Indirect impacts associated with human presence and noise incrementally would increase in the CISA during 

the life of the proposed project. Indirect cumulative impacts from oil and gas development and other activities 

within the CISA would include:

• Animal displacement. Displaced individuals could be forced into less suitable habitats possibly 

resulting in subsequent effects of deteriorated physical condition, reproductive failure, mortality, and 

general distress as important habitat is reduced and animals are displaced. Loss of habitat/forage 

consequently could result in increased competition between and among species for available 

resources.
FEIS 5-42 March 2012

• Decreased reproduction success. A decrease in reproductive success and physical condition from 

increased energy expenditure due to physical responses to disturbance, which may lead to mortality.

• Increased traffic levels. An increase in traffic levels (associated with oil and gas development) on 

roadways has the potential to increase the risk of vehicle/wildlife collisions and increased human 

utilization of resources through hunting and other recreational activities that would expose wildlife to 

potential human harassment, either inadvertent or purposeful.

Based on these direct and indirect cumulative impacts, ongoing and future well development in the CISA 

would cumulatively and incrementally reduce the ability of wildlife habitats in the CISA to support wildlife and 

special status species at their current levels for the lifetime of oil and gas development and production 

(potentially 50 years). Cumulative impacts would continue until such time that reclamation is deemed 

successful (approximately 10 to 100 years depending on the vegetation cover type).

5.3.15.2 Fisheries Resources

Cumulative impacts to fisheries resources include erosion and sedimentation from surface disturbance, water 

depletion of the Green and White rivers from oil and gas activities and other land uses, and the potential for 

leaks or spills of contaminants from facilities or development activities within the Green River and White River 

watersheds. 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the CISA could result in some level of erosion and 

sedimentation, which in turn may impact aquatic habitats in localized areas. An increase of fine inorganic 

sediment in rivers and streams may impact fish spawning, fish rearing, and feeding behavior (USEPA 2003). 

Due to existing surface disturbance, ongoing projects, and poor reclamation success of previously disturbed 

areas, increased erosion and subsequent sediment yield are likely to occur locally within the Green River and 

White River watersheds. 

Water depletions also may impact fisheries resources, including aquatic habitats, within the Green River and 

White River watersheds. Water requirements for drilling, hydrostatic testing, dust abatement, and other project 

activities have been or would be acquired from permitted sources. These sources may include direct 

withdrawals from the Green and White rivers, municipal sources, and local supply wells. Existing authorized 

water usage would directly and indirectly consume water from the Green and White Rivers and would

ultimately cause reductions in flow within the Colorado River Basin. Many fish species are sensitive to water 

depletions and a reduction in surface flow, especially during the spawning period (USFWS 2002b,c,d,e). 

Activities within or adjacent to the 100-year floodplains of the Green and White rivers or within drainages 

leading to these rivers may increase the potential for a release of contaminants into these drainages. Leaks or 

spills of contaminants may lead to habitat degradation and mortality of fish (Crist 2007). These potential 

cumulative impacts are discussed further in relation to special status fish species.

5.3.15.3 Special Status Species

Special status wildlife species also would be cumulatively affected by reasonably foreseeable oil and gas 

development and the resulting direct impacts discussed above for wildlife resources and fisheries resources; 

however, on BLM-managed lands, surveys typically are required in potential or known habitats of threatened, 

endangered, or otherwise special status species. These surveys would help determine the presence of any 

special status wildlife species or extent of habitat, and protective measures generally would be taken to avoid 

or minimize direct disturbance in these important areas. Given the status of the Uinta Basin greater 

sage-grouse population and the Colorado River endangered fish, cumulative impacts for greater sage-grouse, 

Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, humpback chub, and bonytail may be more pronounced than for 

other special status species. 
FEIS 5-43 March 2012

Greater Sage-grouse

Cumulative impacts to greater sage-grouse and their habitat would occur due primarily to disturbance 

associated with other nearby developments (oil and gas field development and pipelines) within the CISA, as 

well as overgrazing due to reduced acreages in the allotments (Section 5.3.6). The CISA for greater 

sage-grouse is presented in Figure 5.3-11. Table 5.3-9 presents the cumulative long-term surface 

disturbance of greater sage-grouse habitat within the CISA.

Table 5.3-9 Cumulative Long-term Surface Disturbance of Greater Sage-grouse Habitat

Total Estimated Cumulative Habitat Disturbed3

Habitat Within

CISA

Proposed Action 

Alternative

Resource Protection 

Alternative

Optimal Recovery 

Alternative

Habitat1 (acres)2 Acres4 Percent Acres4 Percent Acres4 Percent

Nesting 108,267 4,029 3.7 3,381 3.1 8,329 7.7

Brooding 821,544 34,669 4.2 32,960 4.0 46,025 5.6

Wintering 225,453 14,628 6.5 13,328 5.9 23,267 10.3

1 Habitat designated by UDWR. 

2 The Wildlife and Fisheries CISA encompasses the entire BLM Vernal Field Office Management Area and is approximately 5,518,859 acres. 3 Values include impacts associated with the project alternatives as well as other oil and gas development and pipeline projects in the cumulative 

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

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

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

associated with that project.

Similar to the East Bench population, other populations of greater sage-grouse within the CISA have declined 

over the past 10 years (e.g., Deadman Bench, Halfway Hollow/12 Mile, Myton Bench). Most of these 

populations have experienced some level of habitat loss and fragmentation due to disturbance associated with 

oil and gas development, prolonged drought, overgrazing, and spread of noxious weeds. Based on the 

historic, existing, and proposed level of development that would occur within habitats occupied by greater 

sage-grouse within the CISA, it is likely that these populations would continue to experience habitat loss and 

fragmentation and, therefore, may exhibit further population declines.

Colorado River Endangered Fish

The Colorado River endangered fish species (i.e., Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, humpback chub, 

and bonytail) may be impacted by activities that deplete or degrade the flow of downstream waters of the 

Upper Colorado River Basin. Portions of the Green and White rivers that occur within the CISA provide habitat 

elements required by the Colorado River endangered fish. Cumulative impacts to these species include the 

erosion and sedimentation associated with nearby surface disturbance, the potential for spills or release of 

contaminants, entrainment in pumping devices (i.e., hoses, pumps, etc.), and consumptive water use. 

The direct withdrawal of water from the Green and White rivers for development activities likely would increase 

the potential to impinge fish on intake screens. These potential impacts are similar to those outlined above for 

fisheries. In addition, the increased potential for release of natural gas condensate, hydrocarbons, or other 

toxic substances into the Green or White rivers or into tributary streams or drainages may cause direct 

mortality of individuals. Development activities in proximity to these aquatic resources within the CISA require 

special construction practices and spill prevention measures for projects that have the potential to impact the 

Green and White rivers.

Water requirements for drilling, hydrostatic testing, dust abatement, and other project activities would be 

acquired from permitted sources. These sources may include direct withdrawals from the Green and White 

rivers, municipal sources, and local supply wells. Water depletions from past, present, and reasonably 
FEIS 5-44 March 2012

foreseeable future actions in the CISA also may impact the Colorado River endangered fish within these 

watersheds. Total water depletions of 757 acre-feet/year under the Proposed Action and Resource Protection 

alternatives and 1,385 acre-feet/year under the Optimal Recovery Alternative would constitute less than 

1 percent of the total water depletions (182,603 acre-feet/year) within the White and Green rivers 

(USFWS 2009b).

FEIS 6-1 March 2012

6.0 Consultation and Coordination

The CEQ regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500–1508) require an early scoping process to determine the issues 

related to the proposed action and alternatives that the EIS should address. The purpose of the scoping 

process is to actively acquire input from all interested parties to identify important issues, concerns, and 

potential impacts that require analysis in the EIS as well as to eliminate insignificant issues and alternatives 

from detailed analysis. The scoping process provides opportunities for the BLM, cooperating agencies, other 

interested parties, and the public to have meaningful involvement early in the decision-making process. 

In coordination with the BLM and cooperating agencies, a Draft EIS is then developed and sent to all 

interested parties for public review and comment. Following a 45-day public comment period, all comments 

received are to be compiled and responses prepared for incorporation as an appendix to the Final EIS. The 

Draft EIS is then modified, clarified, and/or corrected as appropriate in coordination with the BLM and 

cooperating agencies. Once complete, the Final EIS is distributed to all interested parties for one final review. 

Following this 30-day wait period, the BLM develops a ROD and issues a ROW grant.

6.1 Agency Participation/Coordination

The BLM is the Lead Federal Agency for this EIS, which has been prepared by the BLM Vernal Field Office in 

Vernal, Utah. A third-party contractor, AECOM Environment (AECOM), has been used by the BLM to conduct 

studies, gather data, and prepare documents. Uintah County and the BIA have been designated as 

cooperating agencies. The BLM and cooperating agencies have been actively involved in preparing, 

reviewing, and creating the Draft EIS, as well as in developing mitigations to reduce impacts from the 

proposed project. Other federal, state, and local agencies have been consulted throughout the process to 

address specific issues as needed.

The BLM conducted internal inter-disciplinary meetings as well as a public scoping meeting to solicit input and 

identification of environmental issues and concerns associated with the proposed project. A project kick-off 

meeting was held August 27, 2007, at the BLM facilities in Vernal, Utah. The kick-off meeting included the key 

BLM resource specialists, KMG representatives, and the third-party contractor (AECOM) project management 

team. The purpose of the kick-off meeting was to begin development of alternatives, establish the BLM 

interdisciplinary team communication protocol, discuss scheduling, identify preliminary sources of existing 

information, and review the status of the Project Description and other project information. Following this 

meeting, the BLM developed a Preliminary Interdisciplinary Team Analysis Record Checklist to assess the 

potential impact for the various resource areas (Appendix C). This Checklist is a “living” document and may 

be updated throughout the EIS preparation process, which terminates with the issuance of the ROD by the 

BLM.

The following Tribes, agencies, and organizations/individuals were contacted during the scoping process for 

input regarding potential concerns in the project area.

Tribes:

Ute Mountain Ute

Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation

White Mesa Ute Council

Laguna Pueblo

Southern Ute Tribal Council

Ute Indian Tribe
FEIS 6-2 March 2012

Santa Clara Pueblo

Hopi Tribal Council

Zia Pueblo

Navajo Nation

Northwestern Band of Shoshone Nation

Eastern Shoshone Business Council

Federal Agencies:

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Army Corps of Engineers

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Natural Resources Conservation Service

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

State Agencies:

Utah Department of Environmental Quality

Utah Department of Transportation

Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining

Utah Division of Water Resources

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration

Utah State Historic Preservation Office

Local Agencies:

Uintah County Road Department

Organizations:

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance

Utah Natural Heritage Program

Refer to Section 1.5 for further discussion regarding participation and coordination with other agencies during 

development of this EIS and during the permitting process. A summary of the consultations to date for 

Section 7 of the ESA and Section 106 of the NHPA are included in Table 6.1-1.
FEIS 6-3 March 2012

Table 6.1-1 Status of Section 7 and Section 106 Consultation

Agency Consulted Status Summary to Date

USFWS A letter requesting to initiate consultation and requesting information on the project

was sent on October 25, 2007. The USFWS responded on November 30, 2007, 

and it was agreed that the EIS for the project would include adequate information 

and analysis to serve as the Biological Assessment for the project. The USFWS 

reviewed and commented on both the administrative draft and the preliminary draft 

EIS and all comments were taken into consideration in the preparation of the EIS. 

The BLM transmitted the Final EIS to the USFWS on September 16, 2011; the 

USFWS provided a Biological Opinion (Appendix Q) on January 27, 2012.

Utah SHPO Class III block surveys have been completed for the GNBPA. The results of 

the surveys were sent to the Utah SHPO in March of 2011. Concurrences 

were received in April of 2011.

Native American Tribes The BLM initiated government-to-government consultation on January 9, 2008, by 

sending letters to 12 Tribal groups. Three of the contacted Tribes have responded 

to date. The Pueblo of Laguna and Navajo Nation indicated that the proposed 

project would have no significant impact on any traditional cultural properties or 

historic properties of importance to the Tribes. The Navajo Nation requested 

notification of any unanticipated discoveries unearthed during the course of the 

project, and the Pueblo of Laguna requested notification in the event any new 

archaeological sites are discovered and artifacts are recovered. The Hopi Tribe 

expressed concern with stone cairn sites previously documented in the GNBPA. At 

the request of the Hopi, the BLM and Director of the Hopi Office of Cultural 

Preservation visited several of the stone cairn sites in the GNBPA. In August 2009, 

the BLM prepared a report summarizing the site visit results. No written 

responses were received from the Hopi. The BLM met with the Hope in April 

of 2011. No further concerns were expressed.

The following Tribes, agencies, and organizations/individuals received a copy of the Draft EIS or were notified 

that the public Draft EIS was available for review and comment.

Federal Agencies:

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Washington Office – Reston, Virginia

Uintah and Ouray Agency – Fort Duchesne, Utah

Bureau of Land Management

Washington Office – Washington, D.C.

Utah State Office – Salt Lake City, Utah

Colorado State Office – Denver, Colorado

Vernal Field Office – Vernal, Utah

Bureau of Reclamation

Denver, Colorado

Provo, Utah
FEIS 6-4 March 2012

Federal Depository Library System – Washington, D.C.

Federal Highway Administration – Salt Lake City, Utah

Minerals Management Service

Herndon, Virginia

Denver, Colorado

National Park Service

Washington Office – Washington, D.C.

Utah Office – Salt Lake City, Utah

Dinosaur National Monument – Dinosaur, Colorado

Natural Resources Conservation Service – Provo, Utah

Office of Surface Mining – Washington, D.C.

U.S. Air Force – Washington, D.C.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District

Sacramento, California

Grand Junction, Colorado

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Compliance

Washington, D.C.

Grand Junction, Colorado

U.S. Department of Interior

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

Washington, D.C.

Denver, Colorado

Natural Resources Library – Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Federal Activities – Washington, D.C.

Region 8, NEPA Compliance Division – Denver, Colorado

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Division of Environmental Quality – Arlington, Virginia

Colorado Field Office – Denver, Colorado

Utah Field Office Ecological Services - West Valley City, Utah

U.S. Forest Service, Ashley National Forest – Vernal, Utah

U.S. Geological Survey

Environmental Affairs Program – Reston, Virginia

Region 8 – Denver, Colorado
FEIS 6-5 March 2012

State and Regional Agencies:

Public Land and Policy Coordination Office – Salt Lake City, Utah

Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources – Vernal, Utah

Utah Division of State History – Salt Lake City, Utah

Antiquities Section

State Historic Preservation Office

Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration – Salt Lake City, Utah

Counties:

Daggett County Commissioners – Manila, Utah

Duchesne County – Duchesne, Utah

Commissioners

Planning & Zoning

Uintah County – Vernal, Utah

Commissioners

Planning Office

Public Lands Committee

Municipalities:

Vernal Area Chamber of Commerce – Vernal, Utah

Media:

Deseret News – Salt Lake City, Utah

High Country News – Paonia, Colorado

KNEU Radio – Roosevelt, Utah

KVEL Radio – Vernal, Utah

The Salt Lake Tribune – Salt Lake City, Utah

Uintah Basin Standard – Roosevelt, Utah

Vernal Express – Vernal, Utah

Libraries:

Brigham Young University – Provo, Utah

Colorado State University Library – Fort Collins, Colorado

Harold B. Lee Library – Provo, Utah

J. Willard Marriott Library – Salt Lake City, Utah

Uintah County Library – Vernal, Utah

Utah State University Library – Logan, Utah
FEIS 6-6 March 2012

Elected Officials:

Senator Bob Bennett 

Salt Lake City, Utah

Washington, D.C.

Senator Orrin Hatch

Salt Lake City, Utah

Washington, D.C.

Representative Jim Matheson

Salt Lake City, Utah

Washington, D.C.

Governor Gary Herbert – Salt Lake City, Utah

Utah State Senator Kevin Van Tassell – Vernal, Utah

State Representative John Mathis – Vernal, Utah

Mayor Gary Showalter – Vernal, Utah

Tribes:

Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation – Ibapah, Utah

Eastern Shoshone Business Council – Fort Washakie, Wyoming

Hopi Tribal Council – Kykotsmovi, Arizona

Laguna Pueblo – Laguna, New Mexico

Navajo Nation – Window Rock, Arizona

Northwestern Band of Shoshone Nation – Brigham City, Utah

Santa Clara Pueblo – Espanola, New Mexico

Southern Ute Tribal Council – Ignacio, Colorado

Ute Indian Tribe – Fort Duchesne, Utah

Ute Mountain Ute – Towaoc, Colorado

White Mesa Ute Council – White Mesa, Utah

Zia Pueblo – Zia Pueblo, New Mexico

Organizations:

Center for Native Ecosystems – Denver, Colorado

Colorado Plateau Archaeological Alliance – Ogden, Utah

Earth Justice – Denver, Colorado

Oil & Gas Accountability Project – Durango, Colorado

Western Land Exchange Project – Seattle, Washington

Environmental Preservation Fund – Salt Lake City, Utah
FEIS 6-7 March 2012

Forest Guardians – Santa Fe, New Mexico

National Trust for Historic Preservation – Washington, D.C.

Natural Resource Defense Council – Washington, D.C.

Nine Mile Canyon Coalition – Price, Utah

Sierra Club – Salt Lake City, Utah

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance – Salt Lake City, Utah

The Nature Conservancy – Salt Lake City, Utah

The Wilderness Society – Denver, Colorado

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

Boulder, Colorado

Jackson, Wyoming

Uintah Mountain Club – Vernal, Utah

Utah Cattlemen’s Association – Salt Lake City, Utah

Utah Environmental Congress – Salt Lake City, Utah

Utah Heritage Foundation – Salt Lake City, Utah

Utah Historic Trails Consortium – Taylorsville, Utah

Utah Professional Archaeological Council – Salt Lake City, Utah

Utah Rivers Council – Salt Lake City, Utah

Utah Rock Art Research Association – Salt Lake City, Utah

Businesses:

AECOM Environment

Golden, Colorado

Fort Collins, Colorado

Alameda Corp. – Book Cliffs Ranch – Roosevelt, Utah

American Gilsonite Company – Bonanza, Utah

Bjork, Lindley, & Little – Denver, Colorado

Budd-Falen Law Offices, LLC – Cheyenne, Wyoming

Buys & Associates – Littleton, Colorado

Elcan and Associates, Inc. – Mobile, Alabama

EOG Resources, Inc. – Denver, Colorado

Hiko Bell Mining & Oil Company – Vernal, Utah

LEXCO, Inc. – Vernal, Utah

OSO Energy Resources Corporation – Durango, Colorado

Petros Environmental Group, Inc. – Littleton, Colorado

Piney Valley Ranches Trust – Craig, Colorado
FEIS 6-8 March 2012

QEP Uinta Basin, Inc. – Vernal, Utah

R.W. McKamy – Billings, Montana

Smiling Lake Consulting – Evergreen, Colorado

TRC Mariah Association, Inc. – Laramie, Wyoming

Ziegler Chemical & Mineral Corp.

Bonanza, Utah

Jericho, New York

Individuals:

Cindy MacDonald – North Las Vegas, Nevada

Donald L. Morgan – Palo Alto, California

John Hunting – Vernal, Utah

Lane Lasrich – Sandy, Utah

Larry H. and Susan K. Robinson – Rifle, Colorado

Larry Q. Hutchins – Knoxville, Pennsylvania

Lenora & Clifford Smith – Maybelle, Colorado

Mike Kouris – Kinnear, Wyoming

Pablo Geronimo – Vernal, Utah

Wm. R. Robinson – Vernal, Utah

William R. Robinson – Jensen, Utah

6.2 Public Involvement

NEPA requires full disclosure and open public participation in the federal decision making process, including 

those projects proposed by non-federal proponents that require federal approval. There are two key points 

during the development of an EIS when the general public is invited to participate in the process: 1) during the 

scoping period, and 2) during the review period of the Draft EIS.

6.2.1 Public Scoping

The NOI for the Greater Natural Buttes Project EIS was published in the Federal Register on October 5, 2007. 

This NOI included a project description and BLM contact information. On this same date, the BLM issued a 

press release containing a description of the proposed project; information about the public scoping meeting 

date, time, and location; and BLM contact information. Additionally, a card providing notice of the 30-day public 

scoping period was mailed to the interested parties on the BLM Vernal Field Office’s NEPA mailing list. This 

mailing list included a total of 93 individuals representing federal agencies, state agencies, local agencies, 

elected officials, tribes, the media and libraries in the vicinity, as well as other interested stakeholders.
FEIS 6-9 March 2012

The public scoping meeting held in Vernal, Utah on October 24, 2007, was attended by 7 individuals not 

affiliated with the BLM, KMG, or the third party NEPA contractor (AECOM). The official scoping period ended 

November 5, 2007. Nine written responses were received during the scoping period in response to this project. 

These include responses from:

• Bjork, Lindley, and Little Lawyers, PC on behalf of a number of oil and gas producers that explore and 

operate on public lands in Utah;

• Budd-Falen Law Offices, L.L.C. on behalf of William Robinson;

• EOG Resources, Inc.;

• State of Utah, Office of the Governor;

• Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership;

• Uintah County Commission;

• USEPA, Region VIII;

• BIA, Western Region; and

• Mr. Larry Hutchins.

The issues and concerns identified by the public during the scoping period are summarized in Section 1.6.

6.2.2 Public Comments on the Draft EIS and SDEIS

The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on July 16, 

2010. The BLM mailed postcards notifying the public of the availability of the Draft EIS on the BLM 

website or at the BLM Vernal Field Office to 124 interested parties, including federal, state, and local 

officials and agencies; special interest groups; parties to the proceeding; area libraries and 

newspapers; and individuals and affected permittees. An open house style public meeting was held in 

Vernal, Utah on August 10, 2010; 150 people were in attendance. A 45-day comment period following 

the notice in the Federal Register was scheduled to end on August 27, 2010; however, due to requests 

from the public, the BLM extended the comment period to September 27, 2010. The BLM received 

comments on the Draft EIS from a total of 173 parties.

Some comments received on the Draft EIS raised issues regarding new information and additional 

analysis needed for the air quality analysis, which necessitated development of a SDEIS. The NOA for 

the SDEIS was published in the Federal Register on June 10, 2011. The BLM mailed postcards 

notifying the public of the availability of the SDEIS on the BLM website or at the BLM Vernal Field 

Office to 342 interested parties, including the same distribution list used for the Draft EIS, attendees to 

the public meeting on the Draft EIS, and those who submitted comments on the Draft EIS. A 45-day 

comment period following the notice in the Federal Register ended on July 25, 2011. The BLM received

comments on the SDEIS from a total of 6 parties. 

As required by NEPA, the BLM identified all substantive public comments from both the Draft EIS and 

SDEIS and developed formal responses to each. In accordance with CEQ regulations, substantive 

comments include those that question one or more of the following:

• Purpose and need statement;

• Adequacy of the range of alternatives;

• Baseline information;

• Adequacy or accuracy of the analysis;
FEIS 6-10 March 2012

• Methodologies used to determine impacts; and/or

• Compliance with legal and administrative procedures.

To identify and evaluate substantive comments, a systematic process was used to ensure all 

comments were tracked and the content seriously considered. 

1. Each submission (letter, email, etc.) was carefully reviewed to capture all substantive 

comments. 

2. Each submission that contained one or more substantive comment(s) was given a unique 

letter identifier for tracking purposes. 

3. Each comment within a unique submission was assigned a number.

4. Each substantive comment was reviewed by the appropriate resource specialist(s), formal 

responses were developed, and revisions to the EIS were made as warranted. 

Submissions that were determined to be non-substantive have been included as part of the 

administrative record. Non-substantive comments generally include statements of opinions, feelings, 

and/or preferences for one element or one alternative over another. Submissions that included 

comments of a personal and/or philosophical nature were analyzed and considered, but not 

responded to because such comments are not substantive in nature.

As noted previously, substantive document changes made between the Draft EIS and the Final EIS are 

shown in bold italics and are indicated by vertical bars that appear in the left margin. These changes 

were made in response to comments received on the Draft EIS, comments received on the SDEIS, and 

as a result of updated information that became available after issuance of the Draft EIS.

6.2.2.1 Summary of Comments on the Draft EIS

A complete list of all 173 letters received in response to the Draft EIS, along with their commenter 

letter identifiers, can be found in Appendix P, Table P-1. The letter identifiers were listed in one of five 

categories: F-federal agencies or officials (4 letters), S-state agencies or officials (1 letter), L-local 

(county or municipal) agencies or officials (1 letter), N-non-governmental organizations (1 letter), and 

P-private individuals or industries (166 letters). 

Of the 173 parties that commented on the Draft EIS, 10 provided substantive comments requiring 

responses and/or edits to the document. These 10 letters are listed on Table 6.2-1 along with the 

affiliation and name of the commenters, if appropriate. A table of the substantive comments, as well as 

the BLM’s responses to those comments, can be found in Appendix P, Table P-2. Copies of all letters 

received have been included in the administrative record and can be obtained from the BLM Vernal 

Field Office upon request.

Table 6.2-1 Substantive Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Category Letter ID Affiliation Author

Number of 

Substantive 

Comments

Federal Agencies F01 U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency

Larry Svoboda - Director, NEPA 

Compliance and Review, Region 8

51

F02 U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service

Utah Field Supervisor, Ecological 

Services – West Valley City, Utah

32

F03 National Park Service Julie Sharp – Intermountain Region 12
FEIS 6-11 March 2012

Table 6.2-1 Substantive Public Comments on the Draft EIS

Category Letter ID Affiliation Author

Number of 

Substantive 

Comments

State Agencies S01 State of Utah, Office of 

the Governor

John Harja – Director, Public Land 

Coordination

6

Private Individuals or 

Industries

P001 Anadarko Brooke Bell – Project Manager 58

P002 EOG Resources, Inc. Heather N. Smith – NEPA Coordinator 3

P003 Whitbeck Investments Bill and Lori Robinson 1

P004 Justin Anderson 4

P005 David J. Fair 1

P006 Tony L. White 3

In general, substantive comments pertained to the following topics:

Introduction and Background:

• Regulatory authority within the project area and Indian Country

Proposed Action and Alternatives:

• Proposed surface spacing of well pads, utilization of recycled water, disposal of produced 

water, and spill prevention

• Limitations on infill directional drilling

• Selection and analysis of alternatives

Air Quality:

• Existing levels of and estimated incremental additions to the GHG emissions, nitrogen 

deposition, and ozone concentrations (particularly wintertime ozone) in the Uinta Basin

• Correlation between the CMAQ ozone model analysis and the 2009 Uinta Basin Air Quality 

Study 

• Implementation of an adaptive management strategy

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice:

• Potential impacts on minority populations, low-income populations, or Indian tribes, 

particularly with regard to air quality and water quality

• Economic value and jobs derived from the oil and gas industry in Utah

Range Resources:

• Protection of active lambing areas

Soils:

• Surface disturbance to and reclamation potential of sensitive soils 
FEIS 6-12 March 2012

Vegetation:

• Potential impacts to and protection measures for special status plant species

• Weed control

Visual Resources:

• Potential impacts to the view shed from the White River

Water Resources:

• Water consumption, valid water rights, and produced water disposal

• Implementation of a comprehensive water monitoring plan

• Groundwater , surface water, and wetlands protection

Wildlife and Fisheries Resources:

• Potential impacts to and protection of populations and habitat of special status species and 

migratory birds 

Cumulative Impacts:

• Cumulative impacts on wildlife and secondary impacts associated with livestock grazing

6.2.2.2 Summary of Comments on the SDEIS

A complete list of all 6 letters received in response to the SDEIS, along with their letter identifiers, can 

be found in Appendix P, Table P-3. The letter identifiers were listed in one of four categories: F-federal 

agencies or officials (2 letters), L-local (county or municipal) agencies or officials (2 letters), N-nongovernmental organizations (1 letter), and P-private individuals or industries (1 letter).

Of the 6 letters received with comments on the SDEIS, 4 contained substantive comments requiring 

responses and/or edits to the document. These 4 letters are listed on Table 6.2-2 along with the 

affiliation and name of the commenters, if appropriate. A table of the substantive comments, as well as 

the BLM’s responses to those comments can be found in Appendix P, Table P-4. Copies of all letters 

received have been included in the administrative record and can be obtained from the BLM Vernal 

Field Office upon request.

Table 6.2-2 Substantive Public Comments on the SDEIS

Category

Letter 

ID Affiliation Author

Number of Substantive 

Comments

Federal Agencies F201 NPS Cheryl Eckhardt – Environmental 

Compliance Specialists, Intermountain 

Region

5

F202 USEPA Carol L. Campbell – Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Office of Ecosystems 

Protection and Remediation, Region 8

6

Non-governmental

Organizations

N201 Wild Earth 

Guardians

Jeremy Nichols – Climate and Energy 

Program Director, Denver

6
FEIS 6-13 March 2012

Table 6.2-2 Substantive Public Comments on the SDEIS

Category

Letter 

ID Affiliation Author

Number of Substantive 

Comments

Private Individuals or 

Industries

P201 Anadarko Brook Bell – Project Manager 8

In general, substantive comments pertained to the following topics:

• Existing levels of and estimated incremental additions to the GHG emissions, nitrogen 

deposition, HAPs, and ozone concentrations (particularly wintertime ozone) in the Uinta Basin;

• Potential impacts on visibility and deposition in national parks and national monuments;

• Compliance of the BLM’s Vernal RMP with FLPMA and federal air quality standards;

• Modeling inputs as a reflection of proposed operations; and

• Implementation of an adaptive management strategy.

6.3 List of Preparers and Reviewers 

Table 6.3-1 identifies the BLM staff members on the EIS interdisciplinary team. 

Table 6.3-1 BLM Interdisciplinary Team

Resource Name

NEPA Coordinator Stephanie Howard

Geology and Minerals Jerry Kenczka, Betty Gamber

Paleontology Blaine Phillips, Kathy Davies

Water Resources/Flood Plains Stephanie Howard, Stan Olmstead

Air Quality Craig Nicholls, Leonard Herr, Bill Stringer

Soils Steve Strong

Vegetation Clayton Newberry, Aaron Roe

Wetlands/Riparian Areas Stephanie Howard, Stan Olmstead

Areas of Special Designation (ACECs, Natural Areas, etc.) Jason West

Invasive and Non-native Species Jessie Salix, Aaron Roe

Special Status Plants Jessie Salix, Aaron Roe

Wildlife and Fisheries Scott Ackerman, Dan Emmett

Special Status Animals Scott Ackerman, Dan Emmett

Land Use and Access Paul Rodriquez, Cindy McKee

Livestock Management and Grazing/Rangeland Health Mark Wimmer, Michael Cutler

Recreation and BLM Natural Areas Jason West

Wilderness Characteristics Jason West

Visual Resources Chuck Patterson, Jason West

Socioeconomics Stephanie Howard, Bill Stevens

Transportation Paul Rodriquez, Cindy McKee

Cultural Resources Blaine Phillips, Kathy Davies

Native American Concerns Blaine Phillips, Kathy Davies
FEIS 6-14 March 2012

Table 6.3-1 BLM Interdisciplinary Team

Resource Name

Environmental Justice Stephanie Howard

Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste Stephanie Howard

Fuels and Fire Management Steven Strong

AECOM is the third-party environmental contractor responsible for preparing the EIS under the direction of the 

BLM. The responsibilities and experience of the individual team members are summarized in Table 6.3-2.

Table 6.3-2 Preparers/Reviewers for AECOM and Subcontractors

Name / Affiliation Education Responsibility

Mark Degner 

AECOM

B.S. Geology, 1982, University of Kansas Senior Project Advisor, Project 

Description, Alternatives, Review

Dan Gregory 

AECOM

M.S. Geology, 1982, Colorado State University

B.A. Geology, 1974, Colorado College

Project Manager, Project 

Description, Alternatives, 

Cumulative, Review

Molly Giere 

AECOM

M.B.A. Business Administration, 2002, University 

of Dayton

B.S. Biology, 1988, The Ohio State University

Project Coordinator, Project 

Description, Alternatives, Public 

Participation

Richard Bell 

PetrosEnvironmental

Masters studies – Agronomy/Soil Science, 

Colorado State University

B.A. Distributive Major: Biology, Geology, 

Chemistry; 1974, University of Colorado

NEPA Process Advisor, Project 

Description, Alternatives, Soils

Joe Fetzer 

PetrosEnvironmental

M.S. Geology, 1973, The Ohio State University

B.S. Geology, 1970, The Ohio State University

Oil and Gas Technical Advisor, 

Project Description, Alternatives, 

Geology, Paleontology, Hazardous 

Materials and Solid Waste

Vince Scheetz 

AECOM

M.S. Systems Management, 1970, University of 

Southern California

B.S. Mathematics / Meteorology, 1964, Regis 

University, Denver

Air Quality

Bruce MacDonald 

AECOM

Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, 1988, Colorado State 

University

M.S. Atmospheric Science, 1974, Colorado State 

University

B.A. Mathematics, 1967, North Dakota State 

University

Air Quality Technical Support 

Document

Eric Hodek

AECOM

M.B.A. Business Administration, 2008, University 

of Colorado

B.S. Environmental Sciences,1997, University of 

Oklahoma

Air Quality Technical Support 

Document and Air Quality 

Analysis

Dennis McNally

Alpine Geophysics

M.S. Atmospheric Sciences, 1994, University of 

California – Davis

B.S. Chemical Engineering, 1987, University of 

Colorado

Regional Photochemical 

Modeling

Cyndi Loomis

Alpine Geophysics

B.A. Mathematics and Computer Science, 1987, 

California State University

Regional Photochemical 

Modeling
FEIS 6-15 March 2012

Table 6.3-2 Preparers/Reviewers for AECOM and Subcontractors

Name / Affiliation Education Responsibility

Kim Munson 

AECOM

M.A. Anthropology, 1997, Colorado State 

University

B.A. Anthropology, 1994, Colorado

Cultural Resources and Native 

American Concerns

Steven Graber 

AECOM

B.S. Natural Resources Management, 2002, 

Colorado State University

B.A. Economics, 2002, Colorado State University

Land Use, Recreation, 

Transportation

Erin Bergquist

AECOM

M.S. Ecology, 2005, Colorado State University

B.S. Environmental Studies and Economics, 1998, 

University of Colorado 

Range Resources, Vegetation, 

Special Status Plants, Wetlands

Ron Dutton 

Sammons/Dutton, LLC

M.S. Economics, 1976, University of Wyoming

B.S. Economics, 1974, University of Wyoming

Socioeconomics

Merlyn Paulson 

AECOM

MLA II Landscape Architecture and Geographic 

Information Systems, 1975, Harvard University

BLA Landscape Architecture and Environmental 

Planning, 1972, Utah State University

Visual Resources, GIS

Jim Burrell 

AECOM

M.S. Civil Engineering, 1989, Colorado State 

University

B.S. Forest Management, 1974, Colorado State 

University

Water Resources

Bill Berg

AECOM

M.S. Geology, 1980, University of Wyoming

B.S. Geology, 1976, Colorado State University

Groundwater, Cumulative

Matt Brekke 

AECOM

B.S. Wildlife Biology, 2006,Colorado State 

University

Wildlife, Fisheries, Special Status 

Animals

Chris Gayer 

Grasslands Consulting

B.S. Biology, 2001, Metropolitan State College Fisheries, Special Status Species 

(Plants and Animals)

Todd White 

AECOM

MDP Masters in Community Planning, 1999, 

University of Cincinnati

MEn Masters in Environmental Science, 1992, 

Miami University

M.A. Anthropology, 1989, University of Colorado

B.A. Geology, 1989, Miami University

GIS, Qualitative Analysis

Peggy Roberts

AECOM 

M.S. Technical Communications (in progress), 

Colorado State University

B.J. Journalism/Public Relation, 1997, The 

University of Texas at Austin

Public Outreach

Debbie Thompson

AECOM

Colorado State University, coursework

A.A.S. Business Secretary, 1985, Aims Community 

College

Document Production
FEIS 7-1 March 2012

7.0 Glossary

Acre-foot Volume of water required to cover 1 acre to a depth of 1 foot; 

equivalent to a volume of 43,560 cubic feet, approximately 325,829 

gallons, or approximately 7,758 barrels of water.

Alluvial Pertaining to material or processes associated with transportation or 

deposition of soil and rock by flowing water (e.g., streams and rivers).

Alluvium Unconsolidated or poorly consolidated gravel, sands, and clays 

deposited by streams

Ambient noise Total, all-encompassing noise associated with a given environment and 

time.

Aquifer A body of rock that is sufficiently permeable to conduct groundwater 

and to yield economically significant quantities of water to wells and 

springs.

Archaeology The scientific study of material remains (as fossil relics, artifacts, and 

monuments) of past human life and activities.

Barrel Volume of water equivalent to 42 gallons of water; approximately 

7,758 barrels are equivalent to 1 acre-foot of water.

Biological soil crusts The community of organisms living at the surface of desert soils. Major 

components are cyanobacteria, green algae, microfungi, mosses, 

liverworts, and lichens.

Blowout preventer A large valve at the top of a well that may be closed if the drilling crew 

loses control of formation fluids.

Borehole The wellbore itself, including the openhole or uncased portion of the 

well. Borehole may refer to the inside diameter of the wellbore wall, the 

rock face that bounds the drilled hole.

Botany A branch of biology dealing with plant life.

Casing annulus The space between the wellbore and casing where fluid can flow.

Census designated place (CDP) Identified geographic area of concentrated population that lacks a 

separate local government, but which physically resembles an 

incorporated village or town. CDPs are used by the U.S. Census 

Bureau to report demographic and housing data.

Completion A generic term used to describe the assembly of downhole tubulars 

and equipment required to enable safe and efficient production from an 

oil or gas well.
FEIS 7-2 March 2012

Condensate A low-density, high-API gravity liquid hydrocarbon phase that generally 

occurs in association with natural gas. Its presence as a liquid phase 

depends on temperature and pressure conditions in the reservoir 

allowing condensation of liquid from vapor.

Critical habitat Habitat that is present in minimum amounts and is the determining 

factor in the potential for population maintenance and growth.

Crude oil A general term for unrefined petroleum or liquid petroleum.

Cumulative effects The combined environmental impacts that accrue over time and space 

from a series of similar or related individual actions, contaminants, or 

projects. Although each action may seem to have a negligible impact, 

the combined effect can be significant. Included are activities of the 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future; synonymous with 

cumulative impacts.

dBA A-weighting. The most commonly used frequency weighting measure; 

simulates human sound perception and correlates well with human 

perception of the annoying aspects of noise.

Depletion The drop in reservoir pressure or hydrocarbon reserves resulting from 

production of reservoir fluids.

Derrick The structure used to support the crown blocks and the drillstring of a 

drilling rig. Derricks are usually pyramidal in shape, and offer a good 

strength-to-weight ratio.

Direct impacts Impacts that are caused by the action and occur at the same time and 

place (40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.7); synonymous with 

direct effects.

Directional drill A means of subterranean drilling that can be carried out and controlled 

in terms of depth and direction.

Disturbed area An area where natural vegetation and soils have been removed.

Drill cuttings Small pieces of rock that break away due to the action of the bit teeth.

Dry hole A wellbore that has not encountered hydrocarbons in economically 

producible quantities.

Endangered species Any species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. Plant or animal species identified by the Secretary 

of the Interior as endangered in accordance with the 1973 Endangered 

Species Act.

Evapotranspiration The portion of precipitation returned to the air through evaporation and 

plant transpiration.

Fauna Animal life.
FEIS 7-3 March 2012

Floodplain That portion of a river valley, adjacent to the channel, that is built of 

sediments deposited during the present regimen of the stream and that 

is covered with water when the river overflows its banks at flood 

stages. The 100-year floodplain is that portion of the river valley 

adjacent to the channel, which has a 1 in 100 chance of being 

inundated in a given year.

Flora Plant life.

Formation A body of rock that is sufficiently distinctive and continuous that it can 

be mapped. In stratigraphy, a formation is a body of strata of 

predominantly one type or combination of types; multiple formations 

form groups, and subdivisions of formations are members.

Fugitive dust Dust particles suspended randomly in the air from road travel, 

excavation, and rock loading operations.

Gathering pipeline Typically smaller diameter pipelines connecting production wells to 

central gathering locations, such as tank batteries for hydrocarbon 

liquids or compressor stations for natural gas. For natural gas, 

gathering pipelines are upstream of transmission pipelines, which are 

upstream of distribution pipelines.

Hydrocarbon resources Naturally occurring organic compounds comprising hydrogen and 

carbon. The most common hydrocarbons are natural gas, oil, and coal.

Impact A modification in the status of the environment brought about by the 

Proposed Action or an alternative.

Indirect impacts Impacts that are caused by the action and are later in time or farther 

removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable (40 Code of 

Federal Regulations 1508.8); synonymous with indirect effects.

Injection well A well in which fluids are injected rather than produced, the primary 

objective typically being to maintain reservoir pressure. Two main types 

of injection are gas and water.

Intermittent stream A stream that flows only part of the time or during part of the year.

Irretrievable Applies primarily to the lost production of renewable natural resources 

during the life of the project.

Irreversible Applies primarily to the use of nonrenewable resources, such as 

minerals, cultural resources, wetlands, or to those factors that are 

renewable only over long time spans, such as soil productivity. 

Irreversible also includes loss of future options.

Lek An assembly area where grouse conduct display and courtship 

behavior.

Migration The long-distance movement of wildlife, usually between breeding and 

non-breeding areas.
FEIS 7-4 March 2012

Mitigate, Mitigation To cause to become less severe or harmful; actions to avoid, minimize, 

rectify, reduce or eliminate, and compensate for impacts to 

environmental resources.

Mud A term that is generally synonymous with drilling fluid and that 

encompasses most fluids used in hydrocarbon drilling operations, 

especially fluids that contain significant amounts of suspended solids, 

emulsified water, or oil.

National Environmental Policy Act The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969; the national 

charter for protecting the environment. NEPA establishes policy, sets 

goals, and provides means for carrying out the policy. Regulations from 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1500-1508 implement the act.

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES)

A part of the Clean Water Act that requires point source dischargers to 

obtain Elimination System permits. These permits are referred to as 

NPDES permits and are administered by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency.

National Register of Historic Places

(NRHP)

A list, maintained by the National Park Service, of areas that have been 

designated as being of historical significance.

Native species Plants that originated in the area in which they are found (i.e., they 

naturally occur in that area).

Noise Unwanted sound; one that interferes with one’s hearing of something; a 

sound that lacks agreeable musical quality or is noticeably unpleasant.

Paleontology A science dealing with the life of past geological periods as known from 

fossil remains.

Perforation The communication tunnel created from the casing or liner into the 

reservoir formation, through which oil or gas is produced.

Perennial stream A stream or reach of a stream that flows throughout the year.

Plug and abandon To prepare a well to be closed permanently, usually after either logs 

determine there is insufficient hydrocarbon potential to complete the 

well, or after production operations have drained the reservoir.

Primary production or recovery The means by which the initial reservoir production is achieved, such 

as natural production from a gas-drive reservoir. In many cases, a 

secondary recovery method, such as waterflood, is required to 

maintain a viable reservoir production rate.

Produced water Groundwater pumped to the surface during reservoir production.

Production tubing A wellbore tubular used to produce reservoir fluids. Production tubing is 

assembled with other completion components to make up the 

production string.

Raptor Birds of prey, such as hawks, eagles, and owls.
FEIS 7-5 March 2012

Reclamation Rehabilitation of a disturbed area to make it acceptable for designated 

uses. This process consists of two stages, interim and final:

Interim Reclamation – Involves shaping, stabilizing, re-vegetating, or 

otherwise treating disturbed areas in order to provide a self-sustaining 

and productive use of the land during production operations.

Final Reclamation – Involves returning the land to a condition after 

production and operations cease that approximates the condition prior 

to disturbance and maintains a stable and productive condition 

compatible with the land use.

Reserve pit An earthen-bermed storage area for discarded drilling mud.

Reservoir A subsurface body of rock having sufficient porosity and permeability to 

store and transmit fluids.

Rig The machine used to drill a wellbore. The rig includes virtually 

everything except living quarters. Major components of the rig include 

the mud tanks, the mud pumps, the derrick or mast, the drawworks, the 

rotary table or topdrive, the drillstring, the power generation equipment 

and auxiliary equipment.

Right-of-Way (ROW) Strip of land or corridor designated via an administrative grant through 

which a pipeline, power line, access road, or maintenance road would 

pass.

Riparian Situated on or pertaining to the bank of a river, stream, or other body of 

water. Riparian is normally used to refer to plants of all types that grow 

along streams, rivers, or at spring and seep sites.

Roost A place where birds customarily rest.

Runoff That part of precipitation that appears in surface streams; precipitation 

that is not retained on the site where it falls and is not absorbed by the 

soil.

Scoping Discussion with and disclosure to agencies and the public with regard 

to a project or undertaking wherein areas of concern or issues to be 

addressed in a NEPA document are determined.

Sediment Material suspended in or settling to the bottom of a liquid. Sediment 

input comes from natural sources, such as soil erosion and rock 

weathering, as well as construction activities or anthropogenic sources, 

such as forest or agricultural practices.

Sediment yield Quantification of the amount of sediment transported.
FEIS 7-6 March 2012

Seismic Pertaining to waves of elastic energy, such as that transmitted by 

P-waves and S-waves, in the frequency range of approximately 1 to 

100 Hz. Seismic energy is studied by scientists to interpret the 

composition, fluid content, extent and geometry of rocks in the 

subsurface. Also – of, subject to, or caused by an earthquake; of or 

relating to an earth vibration caused by something else.

Seismicity Relative degree to which an area is subject to earth movement caused 

by earthquakes or other seismic activity.

Shale A fine-grained, fissile, detrital sedimentary rock formed by consolidation 

of clay- and silt-sized particles into thin, relatively impermeable layers. 

It is the most abundant sedimentary rock.

Stratigraphy Form, arrangement, geographic distribution, chronological succession, 

classification, and relationships of rock strata.

Tertiary The geologic span of time between 65 and 3 to 2 million years ago.

Threatened species Any species of plant or animal that is likely to become endangered 

within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 

range.

Visual resource The composite of basic terrain, geologic features, water features, 

vegetation patterns, and land use effects that typify a land unit and 

influence the visual appeal the unit may have for viewers.

Water disposal well A well used for disposal or injection of produced water or other fluids.

Watershed A region or area bounded peripherally by a water parting and draining 

ultimately to a particular watercourse or body of water.

Well casing Large-diameter pipe lowered into an openhole and cemented in place. 

The well designer must design casing to withstand a variety of forces, 

such as collapse, burst, and tensile failure, as well as chemically 

aggressive brines. Casing is run to protect fresh-water formations, 

isolate a zone of lost returns or isolate formations with significantly 

different pressure gradients.

Well pad A temporary drilling site, usually constructed of local materials such as 

gravel, shell or even wood. After the drilling operation is over, most of 

the pad is usually removed or contoured.

Wellbore Synonym: borehole.

Wellhead The surface termination of a wellbore that incorporates facilities for 

installing casing hangers during the well construction phase.
FEIS 7-7 March 2012

Wetlands Areas that are inundated by surface or groundwater with a frequency 

sufficient to support (and under normal circumstances do or would 

support) a prevalence of vegetation or aquatic life that requires 

saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and 

reproduction.

Workover The process of performing major maintenance or remedial treatments 

on an oil or gas well. In many cases, workover implies the removal and 

replacement of the production tubing string after the well has been 

killed and a workover rig has been placed on location.

Zone A slab of reservoir rock bounded above and below by impermeable 

rock.
FEIS 8-1 March 2012

8.0 References

Alderks, D. 2006. Paleontological Class I Report: Archy Bench, Asphalt Wash, Big Pack Mountain NW, Ouray, 

Red Wash, Red Wash SE, Red Was SW, and Red Wash NW Topographic Quadrangles, Uintah 

County, Utah. Intermountain Paleo-Consulting, Vernal, Utah. November 18, 2006.

Aldridge, C. L. 2005. Identifying Habitats for Persistence of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) in Alberta, Canada. PhD Dissertation. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.

American Petroleum Institute (API). 2004. Compendium of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Methodologies for the 

Oil and Gas Industry. February 2004.

Andren, H. 1992. Corvid Density and Nest Predation in Relation to Forest Fragmentation: A Landscape 

Perspective. Ecology 73:794-804.

Antonio, J. E. 2008. Governor, Pueblo of Laguna. Response to Bureau of Land Management Vernal Field 

Office Manager dated January 18, 2008.

Avery, M. L. and A. C. Genchi. 2004. Avian Perching Deterrents on Ultrasonic Sensors at Airport Wind-shear 

Alert Systems. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:718-725.

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 2006. Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power 

Lines: The State of the Art in 2006. Edison Electric Institute, APLIC, and the California Energy 

Commission. Washington, D.C. and Sacramento, California.

. 1994. Mitigating Bird Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1994. Edison Electric 

Institute. Washington, D.C. 78 pp.

Baker Hughes Incorporated. 2008. Rig Count Mapping for North America – Uinta Basin. Internet website:

http://gis.bakerhughesdirect.com/RigCounts/default2.aspx. Accessed March 2008.

Baker, W. L. and G. K. Dillon. 2000. Plant and vegetation responses to edges in the southern Rocky 

Mountains. In: Forest Fragmentation in the Southern Rocky Mountains. R. L. Knight, F. W. Smith, 

S. W. Buskirk, W. H. Romme, and W. L. Baker, eds. University Press of Colorado. Boulder, Colorado.

Pp. 221-245.

Bedell, S. 2008. Uintah County Roads Department, Uintah County, Utah. Email correspondence with 

S. Graber, AECOM, dated January 14, 2008.

Behle, W. H. 1981. The Birds of Northeastern Utah. Utah Museum of Natural History Occasional Publication 

No. 2. University of Utah. Salt Lake City, Utah.

Behnke, R. J. 1992. Native Trout of Western North America. American Fisheries Society Monograph 6.

American Fisheries Society Publishing. Bethesda, Maryland.

Belnap, J. and J. S. Gardner. 1993. Soil Microstructure in Soils of the Colorado Plateau: The Role of the 

Cyanobacterium Microcoleus vaginatus. Great Basin Naturalist 53(1): 40-47.

Belnap, J., J. H. Kaltenecker, R. Rosentreter, J. Williams, S. Leonard, and D. Eldridge. 2001. Biological Soil 

Crusts: Ecology and Management. Technical Reference 1730-2. United States Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Geological Survey.
FEIS 8-2 March 2012

Bestgen, K. R., K. A. Zelasko, and C. T. Wilcox. 2007. Non-native Fish Removal in the Green River, Lodore 

and Whirlpool Canyons, 2002-2006, and Fish Community Response to Altered Flow and Temperature 

Regimes, and Non-native Fish Expansion. Final Report. Colorado River Recovery Implementation 

Program Project Number 115, Larval Fish Laboratory Contribution 149. 97 pp.

Black, H. L. and J. Auger. 2004. Black Bears of Utah’s East Tavaputs Plateau. Final Report for Utah Division 

of Wildlife Resources and Brigham Young University. December 2004.

Boeker, E. L. and T. D. Ray. 1971. Golden eagle population studies in the southwest. The Condor 73:463-467.

Bon, R. L. and K. A. Krahulec. 2006. 2005 Summary of Mineral Activity in Utah. Utah Geologic Survey

website: http://ugs.utah.gov/utahgeo/rockmineral/activity/min2005.pdf. Accessed October 2007.

Bon, R. L. and S. Wakefield. 2008. Large Mines in Utah 2008: Open-File Report 515. Utah Geological Survey

website: http://geology.utah.gov/online/ofr/ofr-515.pdf. Accessed March 25, 2008.

. 2006. Small Mines in Utah 2005: Open File Report 405. Utah Geological Survey website:

http://geology.utah.gov/online/ofr/ofr-405/ofr-405txt.pdf. Accessed March 24, 2008.

Bonner, E. 2008. Mineral Resource Specialist, Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands (USITLA). Personal 

communication with J. Burrell, Senior Hydrologist, AECOM, dated December 29, 2008.

Boyle, J. M., K. J. Covay, and D. P. Bauer. 1984. Quantity and Quality of Streamflow in the White River Basin, 

Colorado and Utah. U.S. Geological Survey Water-resources Investigations Report 84-4022. Denver, 

Colorado. 

Braun, C. E. 1986. Changes in sage grouse lek counts with advent of surface coal mining. Proceedings: 

Issues and Technology in the Management of Impacted Western Wildlife. R. D. Comer, T. G. 

Baumann, P. Davis, J. W. Monarch, J. Todd, S. VanGytenbeck, D. Willis, and J. Woodling, eds.

Thorne Ecological Institute. Boulder, Colorado. 2:227-231.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2009a. Green River District Reclamation Guidelines for Reclamation 

Plans. Instruction Memorandum No. GR-2009-002. Green River District, Vernal, Utah. 

. 2009b. Vernal Field Office Surface Disturbing Weed Policy. Instruction Memorandum No. 

UTG010-2010-001. Green River District, Vernal, Utah.

. 2008a. BLM National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Handbook, H-1790-1. Washington, D.C. 

January 2008.

. 2008b. Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan. BLM-UT-PL-09-003-1610. 

Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah. October 2008.

. 2008c. Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Vernal 

Field Office, Vernal, Utah. August 2008.

. 2008d. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Biological Assessment, EOG Resources, Inc. 

Chapita Wells-Stagecoach Area Natural Gas Development. EIS UTU-080-2005-0010. Vernal Field 

Office, Vernal, Utah. Modified January 2008.

. 2008e. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Greater Deadman Bench Oil and Gas Producing 

Region. UT-080-2003-0369V. Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah. January 2008.
FEIS 8-3 March 2012

. 2008f. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments/Record of Decision (ROD) for Oil Shale 

and Tar Sands Resources to Address Land Use Allocations in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming and 

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. BLM-WO-GI-09-001-3900. Washington, C.C. 

November 2008.

. 2008g. Enduring Resources’ Big Pack Environmental Assessment. UT-080-06-488. Vernal Field 

Office, Vernal, Utah. December 2008.

. 2008h. West Tavaputs Plateau Natural Gas Full Field Development Plan, Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement. UT-070-05-055. Price Field Office, Price, Utah. February 2008.

. 2008i. XTO Energy’s River Bend Unit Infill Development Environmental Assessment and Biological 

Assessment. UT-080-07-772. Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah. December 2008.

. 2007a. Oil and Gas and Mining Online Map Information. GeoCommunicator website:

http://www.geocommunicator.gov/GeoComm/index.shtm. Accessed November 12, 2007.

. 2007b. Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) System for Paleontological Resources on Public 

Lands. Instructional Memorandum 2008-009. Washington, D.C.

. 2007c. BLM Utah State Office. Vernal Recreation - White River. Internet website: 

http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/vernal/recreation_/white_river.html. Accessed November 12, 2007.

. 2007d. Environmental Assessment for Oil Shale Research, Development and Demonstration Project, 

White River Mine, Uintah County, Utah. UT-080-06-280. Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah. April 2007.

. 2007e. Habitat Initiative Work Continues in the Unita Basin. News Release. Utah BLM State Office, 

Utah. March 1, 2007. Internet website: http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/info/newsroom/2007/03/

habitat_initiative.html. Accessed July 21, 2009.

. 2007f. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation Treatments Using 

Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States. BLM Nevada State Office. 

June 29, 2007.

. 2006a. Utah NEPA Guidebook. March 2006.

. 2006b. Kerr-McGee’s Bonanza Area Environmental Assessment. UT-080-2006-240. Vernal Field 

Office, Vernal, Utah. October 2006.

. 2006c. Kerr-McGee’s Love Unit Environmental Assessment and Biological Assessment. UT-080-

2006-253. Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah. December 2006.

. 2006d. BLM News, December 15, 2006: Interior Department Issues Oil Shale Research, 

Development and Demonstration Leases for Public Lands in Colorado. Internet website:

http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/BLM_Information/newsroom/2006/OilShaleLeaseIssue.html. Accessed 

November 2006.

. 2006e. BLM News, March 31, 2006: Utah BLM’s May Oil and Gas Lease Sale Set to be Largest 

Ever. Internet website: http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/info/newsroom/2006/03/utah_blm_s_may_oil.html.

Accessed November 2006.

. 2005. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision, Castle Peak and Eightmile Flat 

Oil and Gas Expansion Project, UT-080-2002-168. Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah.
FEIS 8-4 March 2012

. 2002a. Mineral Potential Report for the Vernal Planning Area. Prepared for the Vernal BLM Field 

Office, Vernal, Utah. October 2002. Internet website: http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/vernal/planning/

mineral_potential.html. Accessed March 25, 2008.

. 2002b. Guidance to Address Environmental Justice (EJ) in Land Use Plans and Related National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents. Instruction Memorandum No 2002-164 dated May 2, 

2002. Washington, D.C.

. 1997a. Coastal Oil and Gas Corporation Natural Buttes Unit Environmental Assessment. EA No. 

1997-13. Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah. June 1997.

. 1997b. Bureau of Land Management Utah Public Lands Health Standards.

. 1986. BLM Visual Rating Handbook H-8431-1.

. 1975. Environmental Analysis Record, Oil and Gas Leasing Program, Vernal District, Utah. Signed 

June 23, 1975.

Burke, M.J.W. and Grime, J.P. 1996. An Experimental Study of Plant Community Invasibility. Ecology 77, 

776-790.

Burr, S., D. Blahna, D. Reiter, and M. Butkus. 2001. A Statewide Telephone Survey of Utah Residents’ 

Attitudes toward Recreational Trails. Institute for Outdoor Recreation and Tourism. Utah State 

University. November 2001.

Buys & Associates, Inc. 2006a. Spring 2006 Raptor Survey Report for Kerr McGee’s Love Unit Project Area. 

Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management Vernal Field Office and Kerr McGee Oil & Gas LLC. 

June 2006.

. 2006b. 2006 Raptor Survey Report for Kerr McGee’s Proposed Greater Natural Buttes Pipeline. 

Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management Vernal Field Office and Kerr McGee Oil & Gas LLC. 

October 2006.

. 2000. Final Environmental Assessment of Coastal’s Proposed Development of the Ouray Field, 

Uintah County, Utah. Prepared for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Uintah and Ouray Agency, Fort 

Duchesne, Utah. January 2000.

Cashion, W. B. 1982. Descriptions of Four Stratigraphic Sections of Parts of the Green River and Uinta 

Formations in the Eastern Uinta Basin: Uintah County, Utah, and Rio Blanco County, Colorado. Open 

File Report 83-17. U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, Virginia.

. 1973. Geologic and Structure Map of the Grand Junction Quadrangle, Colorado and Utah, 

Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-736. U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, Virginia.

. 1967. Geology and fuel resources of the Green River Formation southeastern Uinta Basin, Utah and 

Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 548. 

Clark, T. W. T. M. Campbell III, M. H. Schroeder, and L. Richardson. 1988. Handbook of Methods for Locating 

Black-Footed Ferrets. Bureau of Land Management Wildlife Technical Bulletin No. 1. Cheyenne, 

Wyoming. Revised 1988.

Clem, K. 1985. Oil and Gas Production Summary of the Uinta Basin, in M. D. Picard, Editor, Geology and 

Energy Resources, Uinta Basin of Utah, Utah Geological Association, Salt Lake City, Utah.
FEIS 8-5 March 2012

Cole, E. K., M. D. Pope, and R. G. Anthony. 1997. Effects of Road Management on Movement and Survival of 

Roosevelt Elk. Journal of Wildlife Management 61(4):1115-1126.

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). 2007. Colorado 2006 Air Quality Data 

Report. Denver, Colorado. Internet website: http://apcd.state.co.us/documents/techdocs.html. 

Accessed 2007.

Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2008. Colorado Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Plan. Colorado 

Greater Sage-grouse Steering Committee, Denver, Colorado.

Connelly, J. W., S. T. Knick, M. A. Schroeder, and S. J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation Assessment of Greater 

Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

Unpublished Report. Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to Manage Sage Grouse 

Populations and Their Habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):967-985.

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater 

Habitats of the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-79/31. 

December 1979. 

Crist, L. 2007. Utah Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Letter to M. Brekke, AECOM Wildlife 

Biologist dated November 30, 2007.

D’Antonio, C. M., J. M. Levine, and M. Thomsen. 2001. Ecosystem Resistance to Invasion and the Role of 

Propagule Supply: A California Perspective. Journal of Mediterranean Ecology 2, 233-245.

Dinosaurland Travel Board. 2007. Dinosaurland: Lodging - Motels/Guest Ranches. Internet website:

http://www.dinoland.com/motels.html. Accessed March 2007.

Doelling, H. H. and R. L. Bon. 1990. Resource Maps of Utah. In: Energy and Mineral Resources of Utah, 

M. Lee Allison Editor, 1990 Guidebook, Utah Geological Association, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Doherty, K. E., D. E. Naugle, B. L. Walker, and J. M. Graham. 2008. Greater Sage-grouse Winter Habitat 

Selection and Energy Development. Journal of Wildlife Management 72(1):187-195.

Duchesne County. 2006a. Sheriff’s Department Information. Internet website: 

http://www.duchesnegov.net/sheriff/sheriff.html#sheriff’sofficeinformation. Accessed November 2006.

. 2006b. Fire and Emergency Management. Internet website:

http://www.duchesnegov.net/emergency/emergency.html#SERVICE. Accessed November 2006.

. 2005. Duchesne County General Plan: County Policies, Objectives and Action Steps. 1997 

(amended 1998, 2005). Internet website: http://www.duchesnegov.net/planning/ 

generalplandocument.pdf. Accessed March 2007.

Duchesne County Chamber of Commerce. 2007. Recreation and Hospitality – Recreation Facilities. Internet 

website: http://duchesne.net/recreation. Accessed October 5, 2007.

Duchesne County School District. 2006. Financial Statements, Year Ended June 30, 2006. Internet website:

http://www.sao.state.ut.us/lgr/school/2005/05sfdusd.pdf. Accessed October 13, 2006.
FEIS 8-6 March 2012

Duchesne County Special Service District #2. 2004. General Purpose Financial Statements, Year Ending

December 31, 2004. Internet website: http://www.sao.state.ut.us/lgr/special/2004/04dfdsd2.pdf. 

Accessed November 9, 2007.

Farmer, N. 2007. Executive Director, Dinosaurland Travel Board, Vernal, Utah. Personal communication with

L. Levy, Lloyd Levy Consulting, LLC, dated October 4, 2007.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2005. National Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance 

Definitions - Frequently Asked Questions for Engineers, Surveyors, and Architects. Internet website:

http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/fhm/fq_genen.shtm#en14. Accessed January 2009.

. 2001. Emergency Management and Assistance – Definitions. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 44, 

Volume 1, Section 59.1, Revised as of October 1, 2001. U. S. Government Printing Office, 

Washington, DC.

. 1977. Map Service Center, Flood Hazard Zone Maps: Uintah County, Utah unincorporated areas. 

Internet website: http://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/

FemaWelcomeView?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=-1. Accessed November 12, 2007.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2009. Gas – Industry Activities. Internet website:

http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/indus-act/pipelines.asp. Accessed May 2009.

Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Workgroup (FLAG). 2000. Phase I Report. 

December 2000.

Fenneman, N. 1931. Physiography of the Western United States. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Fitzgerald, J. P., C. A. Meaney, and D. M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. University Press of 

Colorado Publishing, Niwot, Colorado.

Forman, R. T. and L. E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and Their Major Ecological Effects. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 

29: 207-231.

Franczyk, K. J., T. D. Fouch, R. C. Johnson, C. M. Molenaar, and W. A. Cobban. 1992. Cretaceous and 

Tertiary Paleogeographic Reconstructions for the Uinta-Piceance Basin Study Area, Colorado and 

Utah. Bulletin 1787-Q. U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, Virginia.

Gelbard, J. L. and J. Belnap. 2003. Roads as Conduits for Exotic Plant Invasions in a Semiarid Landscape. 

Conservation Biology 17(2): 420-432.

Godfrey, E. B. and V. L. Bagley. 1994. Alternative Measures of Livestock Dependency. In: Current Issues in 

Rangeland Economics – 1994, N. R. Rimbey and D. E. Isaak (eds.), 9-16. Idaho Agricultural

Experiment Station, University of Idaho. Moscow, Idaho.

Go-Utah.com. 2007. Vernal - Camping. Internet website: http://www.go-utah.com/Vernal/Camping. Accessed 

October 2007.

Graham, R. T., R. L. Rodriguez, K. M. Paulin, R. L. Player, A. P. Heap, and R. Williams. 1999. The Northern 

Goshawk in Utah: Habitat Assessment and Management Recommendations. General Technical

Report RMRS-GTR-22; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Ogden, Utah.
FEIS 8-7 March 2012

Grasslands Consulting, Inc. (Grasslands). 2008a. Unpublished Wonsits 3D Seismic Uinta Basin Hookless 

Cactus Survey Report. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, Questar Exploration and 

Production, and Bureau of Indian Affairs. Denver, Colorado. June 2008.

. 2008b. Unpublished Ouray 3D Seismic Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus Survey Report. Prepared for 

the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Anadarko Petroleum Corporation.

Denver, Colorado. July 2008.

Gray, J. R., G. D. Glysson, L. M. Turcios, and G. E. Scharz. 2000. Comparability of SuspendedSediment Concentration and Total Suspended Solids Data. USGS Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 00-4191. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

Gunnell, G. and W. Bartels. 1999. Middle Eocene Vertebrates from the Uinta Basin, Utah, and Their 

Relationship with Faunas from the Southern Green River Basin, Wyoming, In: Vertebrate 

Paleontology in Utah, D. Gillette (ed.), 433-437. Miscellaneous Publication 99-1, Utah Geological 

Survey, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Hackford, D. 2008. Field Inspector, Oil and Gas Program, Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining. Personal 

communication with J. Burrell, Senior Hydrologist, AECOM, dated December 30, 2008.

Hail, J. 1987. Chart Showing Intertongued Units of the Eocene Green River and Uinta Formations, 

Northwestern Piceance Creek Basin, Northwestern Colorado. Miscellaneous Investigations Series, 

Map I-1797-B. U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, Virginia.

Hancock, B. 2007. Roosevelt City. Personal communication with L. Levy, Lloyd Levy Consulting, LLC, dated

January 10, 2007.

Harlow, D. L. and P. H. Bloom. 1987. Buteos and the Golden Eagle In: Proceedings of the Western Raptor 

Management Symposium and Workshop. National Wildlife Federation Science and Technology Series 

No. 12. Washington D.C. Pp. 102-110.

Harrison, R. 2008. Chief, Roosevelt, Utah, Police Department. Personal communication with L. Levy, Lloyd 

Levy Consulting, LLC, dated October 29, 2008.

Heil, K. D. and J.M. Porter. 2003. Sclerocactus wetlandicus. In: Flora of North America. Editorial Committee, 

eds. New York, New York. Vol. 4, pp. 197-201. 

Hintze, L. F. 1988. Geologic History of Utah. Brigham Young University Geology Studies Special Publication 7.

Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

Holbrook, H. T. and M. R. Vaughan. 1985. Influence of Roads on Turkey Mortality. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 49(3):611-614.

Holloran, M. J. 2005. Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Population Response to Natural Gas 

Field Development in Western Wyoming. PhD Dissertation, University of Wyoming, Laramie, 

Wyoming. 211 pp.

Holmes, T. L., R. L. Knight, L. Stegall, and G. R. Craig. 1993. Responses of Wintering Grassland Raptors to 

Human Disturbance. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:461-468.

Holmes, W. F., and B. A. Kimball. 1987. Ground Water in the Southeastern Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado. 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2248. U.S. Geological Survey. Denver, Colorado.
FEIS 8-8 March 2012

Holmgren, N. 2007. Penstemon scariousus var. albifluvis. Center for Plant Conservation National Collection 

Plant Profile. Internet website: http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/asp/

CPC_ViewProfile.asp?CPCNum=7051. Accessed November 10, 2007.

Holzworth. 1972. Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds, and Potential for Urban Air Pollution Throughout the 

Contiguous United States. USEPA AP-101. Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina.

Homer, C. G., T. C. Edwards, Jr., R. D. Ramsey, and K. P. Price. 1993. Use of remote sensing methods in 

modeling sage grouse winter habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management 72(1):187-195.

Horizon Environmental Services, Inc. 2004. Guidance Document; Reasonable and Prudent Practices for 

Stabilization (RAPPS) of Oil and Gas Construction Sites. HJN 040027 IM. Austin, Texas. 55 pages.

Hospital-Data.com. 2007a. Ashley Valley Medical Center – Vernal, Utah. Internet website: http://www.hospitaldata.com/hospitals/ASHLEY-VALLEY-MEDICAL-CENTER-VERNAL.html. Accessed October 2007.

. 2007b. Uinta Basin Medical Center – Roosevelt, Utah. Internet website: http://www.hospitaldata.com/hospitals/UINTAH-BASIN-MEDICAL-CENTER-ROOSEVEL733.html. Accessed 

October 2007.

Howells, L., M. S. Longson, and G. L. Hunt. 1987. Base of the Moderately Saline Aquifer in the Uinta 

Basin, Utah, with an Introductory Section Describing the Methods Used in Determining its 

Position. Utah Department of Natural Resources Technical Publication No. 92.

Hunt, G. L. 1996. Environmental Handbook: Environmental Regulations for the Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Production Industry. Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining, Utah Department of Natural Resources, 

Salt Lake City, Utah.

Hyde, M. 2006. Community Development Administrator, Duchesne County. Personal communication with 

L. Levy, Lloyd Levy Consulting, LLC, dated May 23, 2006.

Ingelfinger, F. and S. Anderson. 2004. Passerine Response to Roads Associated with Natural Gas Extraction 

in a Sagebrush Steppe Habitat. Western North American Naturalist 64(3):385-395.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report –

Summary for Policymakers. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, England, and New York, 

New York.

Irving, D., B. Haines, and T. Modde. 2003. White River Base Flow Study, Colorado and Utah, 1995-1996. Draft 

Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Management Assistance Office, Vernal, Utah.

Irving, D. B. and T. Modde. 1994. Assessment of Colorado Squawfish in the White River, Colorado and Utah, 

1992-1994. Final Report. Recovery Implementation Program for the Endangered Fishes of the Upper 

Colorado River Basin. 79 pp.

Irwin, L. L. and J. M. Peek. 1983. Elk Habitat Use Relative to Forest Succession in Idaho. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 47(3):664-672.

Joe, T. 2008. Program Manager, Historic Preservation Department – Traditional Culture Program, Navajo 

Nation. Response to Bureau of Land Management Vernal Field Office Manager dated March 5, 2008.

Johnsgard, P. A. 2002. North American Owls: Biology and Natural History, Second Edition. Smithsonian 

Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 215 pp.
FEIS 8-9 March 2012

. 1990. Hawks, Eagles, and Falcons of North America. Smithsonian Institution Press, 

Washington, D.C. 145 pp.

Johnson, K. 2007. Business Analyst, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Special Tabulation of Resident

Hunting and Fishing licenses in Duchesne and Uintah Counties in 2006. December 21, 2007.

Johnson, W. C. and S. K. Collinge. 2004. Landscape Effects on Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Colonies. Biological 

Conservation 115(2004):487-497.

Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP (KMG). 2010. EPA Underground Injection Control Permit 

Application, UIC Class II Salt Water Disposal Well, Holdaway 922-17A3D SWD Well, NE/4 NE/4 

Section 17, Township 9 South, Range 22 East, Uintah County, Utah, November 22, 2010. KerrMcGee Oil & Gas Onshore, L.P., 1368 South 1200 East, Vernal, Utah 84078.

Kierst, C. 2009. Senior Petroleum Specialist, Oil and Gas Program, Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining. 

Personal communication with J. Burrell, Senior Hydrologist, AECOM, dated January 27, 2009.

Kuhn, D. B. 2006. Highway Freight Traffic Associated with Development of Oil and Gas Wells in the Uinta 

Basin. Utah Department of Transportation. Salt Lake City, Utah

Kuwanwisiwma, L. 2008. Director, Hopi Cultural Preservation Office. Response to Bureau of Land 

Management Vernal Field Office Manager dated January 15, 2008. 

. 2007. Director, Hopi Cultural Preservation Office. Response to Bureau of Land Management Vernal 

Field Office Manager dated September 24, 2007.

LaGory, K. E., Y. S. Chang, K. C. Chun, T. Reeves, R. Liebich, and K. Smith. 2001. A Study of the Effects of 

Gas Well Compressor Noise on Breeding Bird Populations of the Rattlesnake Canyon Habitat 

Management Area, San Juan County, New Mexico. Final Report, May 2001. National Energy 

Technology Laboratory, National Petroleum Technology Office, U.S. Department of Energy, Tulsa, 

Oklahoma. 90 pp.

Lentsch, L. D., B. G. Hoskins, and L. M. Lubomudrov. 2000. The White River and Endangered Fish Recovery: 

A Hydrological, Physical and Biological Synopsis. Publication Number 00-37. Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Liebermann, T. D., D. K. Mueller, J. E. Kircher, and A. F. Choquette. 1989. Characteristics and Trends of 

Streamflow and Dissolved Solids in the Upper Colorado River Basin, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, 

Utah, and Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2358. U.S. Geological Survey.

Denver, Colorado.

Lindskov, K. L. and B. A. Kimball. 1984a. Quantity and Quality of Streamflow in the Southeastern Uinta Basin, 

Utah and Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2224. U.S. Geological Survey.

Washington, D.C.

. 1984b. Water Resources and Potential Hydrologic Effects of Oil-Shale Development in the 

Southeastern Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1307. U.S. 

Geological Survey. Washington, D.C.

Lyon, A. G. and S. H. Anderson. 2003. Potential Gas Development Impacts on Sage Grouse Nest Initiation 

and Movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31(2):486-491.

Lyon, L. J. 1983. Road Density Models Describing Habitat Effectiveness of Elk. Journal of Forestry 

81:592-595.
FEIS 8-10 March 2012

. 1979. Habitat Effectiveness for Elk as Influenced by Roads and Cover. Journal of Forestry,

October 1979, pp. 658-660.

Maxfield, B. 2009. Sensitive Species Biologist, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Email correspondence with 

M. Brekke, AECOM, dated October 6 and 7, 2009.

Menalled, F. 2006. Management of Cheatgrass on Conservation Reserve Program Lands. MSU 

News Service, October 5, 2006. Montana State University. Internet website: http://www.montana.edu/ 

cpa/news/nwiprint.php?article=4111. Accessed February 2009.

Miller, D. 2007. Duchesne City. Personal communication with L. Levy, Lloyd Levy Consulting, LLC, dated 

January 10, 2007.

Miskimins, J. L. 2010. Completions and Stimulation for Geologists. Notes for workshop conducted by 

the Petroleum Technology Transfer Council at the Colorado School of Mines, January 19, 2011. 

Mohammad, N. A, and J. L. Miskimins. 2010. A Comparison of Hydraulic Fracture Modeling with 

Downhole and Surface Microseismic Data in a Stacked Fluvial Pay System. Society of 

Petroleum Engineers paper 134490.

Monroe, L. 2007. Native Fish Biologist, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Email correspondence with

M. Brekke, AECOM, dated November 8, 2007.

Monson B. and J. Parnell. 1992. The Origin of Gilsonite Vein Deposits in the Uinta Basin, Utah. Contract 

Report 92-4, Utah Geological Survey, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Murphey, P. C. and D. Daitch. 2007. Paleontological Overview of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Areas in Colorado, 

Utah, and Wyoming. Argonne National Laboratory.

Muscha, J. M. and A. L. Hild. 2006. Biological Soil Crusts in Grazed and Ungrazed Wyoming Sagebrush 

Steppe. Journal of Arid Environments 67: 195 – 207.

Mustajarvi, K. P. Siikamaki, S. Rytkonen, and A. Lammi. 2001. Consequences of Plant Population Size and 

Density for Plant-pollinator Interactions and Plant Performance. Journal of Ecology. 89:80-87

National Academy of Sciences. 2010. Advancing the Science of Climate Change. National Academic Press, 

500 Fifth Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20001.

National Association of Realtors. 2009. Local Real Estate Listings and Homes for Sale – Roosevelt, Utah and 

Vernal, Utah. Internet website: http://www.realtor.com. Accessed October 2009.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2009. National Weather Service 

Hydrometeorological Design Studies Center Precipitation Frequency Data Server – Utah. Silver 

Spring, Maryland. Internet website: http://dipper.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/sa/ut_pfds.html. Accessed 

February 13 and May 12, 2009.

National Park Service. 1995. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for 

Evaluation. Revised. National Park Service Interagency Resources Division, National Register 

Branch, Washington, D.C.

National Water Information System (NWIS). 2011. Surface Water for Utah. U.S. Geological Survey. 

Internet website: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ut/nwis/sw. Accessed March 14, 2011.
FEIS 8-11 March 2012

. 2009. Surface Water for Utah and Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey. Internet website: 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ut/nwis/sw. Accessed October 21, 2009.

. 2008. Average Monthly Flow Data for: White River at mouth near Ouray, Utah (Station 09306900); 

White River near Watson, Utah (Station 09306500); White River near Colorado State Line, Utah 

(Station 09306395); Green River near Ouray, Utah (Station 09307000); Green River near Jensen, 

Utah (Station 09261000); and Duchesne River near Randlett, Utah (Station 09302000). Internet 

website: http://waterdata usgs.gov/ut/ut/monthly. Accessed July and August 2008.

. 2007. Surface Water for Utah. Internet website: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ut/nwis/sw. Accessed 

November 16, 2007.

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2009. National Soil Survey Handbook, Title 430-VI, Part 622 

Ecological and Interpretative Groups. Internet website: http://soils.usda.gov/technical/handbook/. 

Accessed October 9, 2009.

. 2008a. The Plants Database, National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Internet website: 

http://plants.usda.gov. Accessed December 2008.

. 2008b. Plant Guide: Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.). Internet website: http://plants.nrcs.usda.gov/ 

plantguide/pdf/pg_brte.pdf. Accessed February 2009.

. 2006. Wetland Climate Data by County. Internet website: ftp://ftp.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/support/climate/

wetlands/ut/49047.txt. Accessed November 2, 2007.

. 1997. Utah Natural Resource Inventory 1997 Results. Internet website: 

http://www.ut.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/nri/index.html. Accessed October 9, 2009.

Natural Resources Impact Working Group. 2006. State of Utah: Uintah County Special Service District Project 

List. Internet website: http://www.rural.utah.gov/documents/UintahCOSSDprojectlist.doc. Accessed 

October 2006.

. 2005. Permanent Community Impact Fund Board M/L Receipts and Grant/Loan Distribution by

County. Rural Development Program, Governor’s Office of Economic Development, State of Utah.

Internet website: http://www.rural.utah.gov/documents/PCIFBdistributionbycounty.xls. Accessed 

October 2006.

NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. 

Arlington, Virginia. Internet website: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed May 28, 2009.

Nelson, P. H. 2003. Subsurface Pressures from Drill-Stem Tests, Uinta and Piceance Basins, Utah and 

Colorado in USGS Uinta-Piceance Assessment Team, Petroleum Systems and Geologic 

Assessment of Oil and Gas in the Uinta-Piceance Province, Utah and Colorado., Chapter 14. 

U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS–69–B.

Nelson, P. H. and E. L. Hoffman. 2009. Gas, Water, and Oil Production from the Wasatch Formation, 

Greater Natural Buttes Field, Uinta Basin, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2009-1049. 

Notarianni, P. F. 2008. Utah History Encyclopedia - Mining. Internet website: http://historytogo.utah.gov/

utah_chapters/ mining_and_railroads/mining.html. Accessed March 25, 2008.

Oil Shale Exploration Company. 2007. The White River Oil Shale Mine. Internet website:

http://www.oilshaleexplorationcompany.com/resource.asp. Accessed March 25, 2008.
FEIS 8-12 March 2012

Oliver, G. V. 2000. The Bats of Utah: A Literature Review. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Publication 

00_14. Salt Lake City, Utah.

Oliver, G. V., A. J. Kozlowski, K. S. Day, and K. D. Bunnell. 2009. Proposed Utah Bat Conservation Plan. Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources.

Osmond, J. C. 1992. Greater Natural Buttes Gas Field, Uintah County, Utah. In: Hydrocarbon and Mineral 

Resources of the Uinta Basin. T. Fouch, V. Nuccio, and T. Chidsey (eds.), Guidebook 20, Utah 

Geological Association, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Oviat, J. 2007. Events Coordinator, Vernal Area Chamber of Commerce. Personal communication with 

C. Thornton-Kolbe, Sammons-Dutton. Dated October 29, 2007.

Parker, P. L. and T. F. King. 1998. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties.

National Register Bulletin 38. National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, Department of 

the Interior, Washington, D.C. [Undated publication issued in 1989.]

Parrish, J. R., F. P. Howe, and R. E. Norvell. 2002. Utah Partners in Flight Avian Conservation Strategy 

Version 2.0. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Publication Number 02-27. Salt Lake City, Utah.

Patterson, J. 2009. Montgomery Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Email correspondence with K. Munson, 

AECOM, dated January 22, 2009.

Patterson, J., J. Fritz, K. Lower-Eskelson, R. Stash, and A. Thomas. 2008. NBU Class I Existing Data Review 

for Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP Uintah County, Utah. MOAC Report No. 06-264. January 11, 

2008.

Pavek, D. S. 1992. Index of Species Information: Halogeton glomeratus. In: Fire Effects Information System, 

[Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire 

Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Internet website: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. Accessed 

February 2009.

Pitchford, M. L. and W. C. Malm. 1994. Development and Application of a Standard Visual Index. Atmospheric

Environment 28:1049-1054.

Postovit, H. R. and B. C. Postovit. 1987. Impacts and Mitigation Techniques. In: Raptor Management 

Techniques Manual. National Wildlife Federation, Washington D. C. pp 183-212.

Price, D. and L. L. Miller. 1975. Hydrologic Reconnaissance of the Southern Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado.

Utah Department of Natural Resources Technical Publication 49. Salt Lake City, Utah.

Rasmussen, D. T., G. Conroy, A. Friscia, K. E. Townsend, and M. Kinkel. 1999. Mammals of the Middle 

Eocene Uinta Formation. In: Vertebrate Paleontology in Utah. David D. Gillette (ed.), Utah Geological 

Survey Miscellaneous Publication 99-1. Salt Lake City, Utah.

Reijnen, R. and R. Foppen. 1995. The Effects of Car Traffic on Breeding Bird Populations in Woodland. IV. 

Influence of Population Size on the Reduction of Density Close to a Highway. Journal of Applied 

Ecology 32:481-491.

Reijnen, R., R. Foppen, and G. Veenbaas. 1997. Disturbance by Traffic of Breeding Birds: Evaluation of the 

Effect and Considerations in Planning and Managing Road Corridors. Biodiversity and Conservation 

6:567-581.
FEIS 8-13 March 2012

Reijnen, R., R. Foppen, and H. Meeuwsen. 1996. The Effects of Traffic on the Density of Breeding Birds in 

Dutch Agricultural Grasslands. Biological Conservation 75:255-260.

Reijnen, R., R. Foppen, C. T. Braak, and J. Thissen. 1995. The Effects of Car Traffic on Breeding Bird

Populations in Woodland. III. Reduction of Density in Relation to the Proximity of Main Roads. Journal 

of Applied Ecology 32:187-202.

Rhino Engineering, LLC. 1999. 100-Year Floodplain Study for the White River: Confluence of the Green River 

to 17 Miles Upstream. Project No. 98013.02. February 15, 1999.

Robson, S. G. and E. R. Banta. 1995. Groundwater Atlas of the United States: Arizona, Colorado, New 

Mexico, Utah. HA 730-C. Internet website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_c/index.html. Accessed 

October 2007.

Rost, G. R. and J. A. Bailey. 1979. Distribution of Mule Deer and Elk in Relation to Roads. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 43(3):634-641.

Rowley, P., W. Hansen, O. Tweto, and P. Carrara. 1985. Geologic Map of the Vernal 1° x 2° Quadrangle, 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1526, U.S. Geological 

Survey. Reston, Virginia.

Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, G. M. Koehler, C. J. Krebs, K. S. McKelvey, and J. R. Squires. 

1999. Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR30WWW. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 

Fort Collins, Colorado.

Sawyer H., R. M. Nielson, F. Lindzey, and L. L. McDonald. 2006. Winter Habitat Selection of Mule Deer Before 

and During Development of a Natural Gas Field. Journal of Wildlife Management 70(2):396-403.

Schmutz, J. K. 1984. Ferruginous and Swainson’s Hawk Abundance and Distribution in Relation to Land Use 

in Southeastern Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management 48(4):1180-1187.

Schnell, Russell C., Samuel J. Oltmans, Ryan R. Neely, Maggie S. Endres, John V. Molenar, and Allen 

B. White. 2009. Rapid photochemical production of ozone at high concentrations in a rural site 

during winter. Nature/Geoscience. January 18, 2009. 

Seiler, R. L. and J. E. Tooley. 1982. Erosion and Sediment Characteristics of the Southeastern Uinta 

Basin, Utah and Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Open-File 

Report 82-428. U.S. Geological Survey, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Smith, L. S. 2009. Greater Sage-Grouse and Energy Development in Northeastern Utah: Implications for 

Management. Master’s Thesis. Utah State University, Logan, Utah.

Smith, M. D., R. S. Krannich, and L. M. Hunter. 2001. Growth, Decline, Stability, and Disruption: A Longitudinal 

Analysis of Social Well-Being in Four Western Rural Communities. Rural Sociology 66(3):425-450.

Snow, N. 2008. Senate Votes to Extend OCS, Oil Shale Moratoria. Oil and Gas Journal, March 24, 2008. 

Stalmaster, M. V. and J. R. Newman. 1978. Behavioral Responses of Wintering Bald Eagles to Human 

Activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 42(3):506-513.

Stohlgren, T. J., D. T. Barnett, and J. T. Kartesz. 2003. The Rich Get Richer: Patterns of Plant Invasions in the 

United States. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1(1):11-14.
FEIS 8-14 March 2012

Stohlgren, T. J., D. Binkley, G. W. Chong, M. A. Kalkhan, L. D. Schell, K. A. Bull, Y. Otsuki, G. Newman, 

M. Bashkin, and Y. Son. 1999. Exotic Plant Species Invade Hot Spots of Native Plant Diversity. 

Ecological Monographs 69(1):25-46.

Stokes, D. W. and L. Q. Stokes. 1996. Field Guide to Birds: Western Region. Little, Brown, and Company. 

521 pp.

SWCA Environmental Consultants. 2005. Final Assessment of Potential Mexican Spotted Owl Nesting Habitat 

on Bureau of Land Management-Administered Lands in Northeastern Utah. Salt Lake City, Utah.

Tepedino, V. J., T. L. Griswold, and W. R. Bowlin. 2010. Reproductive Biology, Hydridization, and 

Flower Visitors of Rare Sclerocactus Taxa in Utah’s Uintah Basin. Western North American 

Naturalist. 70:377-386.

Thompson, S. P., R. S. Johnstone, and C. D. Littlefield. 1982. Nesting History of Golden Eagles in MalheurHarney Lakes Basin, Southeastern Oregon. Journal of Raptor Research 16(4):116-122.

Torrell, R., J. A. Young, and B. Kvasnicka. 2000. Halogeton Poisoning. University of Nevada, Cooperative 

Extension Fact Sheet-00-20. Reno, Nevada.

TriCounty Health Department. 2008. Locations and Hours. Internet website: http://www.tricountyhealth.com/

locations.html. Accessed October 13, 2008.

Trudell, L. G., J. W. Smith, T. N. Beard, and G. M. Mason. 1983. Primary Oil-Shale Resources of the Green 

River Formation in the Eastern Uinta Basin, Utah. USDOE Number DOE/LC/RI-82-4 (DE83009081). 

Laramie Energy Technology Center, Laramie, Wyoming.

Uintah County. 2006a. Emergency Management- Local Fire Departments. Internet website:

http://www.co.uintah.ut.us/em/firedepts.php. Accessed October 13, 2008.

. 2006b. Uintah County Financial Statements for the Year Ended December 31, 2006. Internet 

website: http://www.sao.state.ut.us/lgr/county/2006/06xfuico.pdf. Accessed December 31, 2006.

. 2005. Uintah County General Plan Update, Planning Commission Public Hearing Public Review 

Draft. August 29, 2005.

Uintah County Weed Department. 2008. Noxious Weed Identification. Internet website:

http://www.co.uintah.ut.us/weedctrl/weedID.htm. Accessed December 1, 2008.

Uintah School District. 2005. Annual Financial Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2005. Internet website:

http://www.sao.state.ut.us/lgr/school/2005/05sfuisd.pdf. Accessed April 28, 2006.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. 

Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009a. American FactFinder, Annual Population Estimates for 2008, Data Sets with 

Detailed Tables by Geography, Table T1. Internet website: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/

DatasetMainPageServlet?_lang=en&_ts=290097458347&_ds_name=PEP_2008_EST&_program=PE

P. Accessed December 2009.

. 2009b. Annual Estimates of Housing Units for Counties in Utah: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008 

(HU-EST2008-04-08). August 6, 2009 Release. Internet website: http://www.census.gov/popest/

housing/HU-EST2008-4.html. Accessed December 2009.
FEIS 8-15 March 2012

. 2007. Cumulative Estimates of the Components of Population Change for Counties of Utah: April 1, 

2000 to July 1, 2006. March 20, 2007 Release. Internet website:

http://www.census.gov/popest/counties. Accessed October 2007.

. 2003a. County-to-County Worker Flow Files, Utah, Residence County. Internet website: 

http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/commuting/2KRESCO_UT.xls.

. 2003b. County-to-County Worker Flow Files, Utah, Workplace County. Internet website:

http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/commuting/2KWRKCO_UT.xls.

. 2000a. American FactFinder, Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF-1), Table DP-1 Profile of General 

Demographic Characteristics: 2000. Data Sets with Quick Tables by Geography. Internet website: 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_lang=en&_ts=290098888887&_ds_na

me=DEC_2000_SF1_U&_program=DEC

. 2000b. American FactFinder, Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF-3), Table DP-4 Profile of Selected 

Housing Characteristics: 2000. Data Sets with Quick Tables by Geography. Internet website: 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_lang=en&_ts=290099299796&_ds_na

me=DEC_2000_SF3_U&_program=

. 2000c. American FactFinder, Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF-3), Table DP-3 Profile of Selected 

Economic Characteristics: 2000. Data Sets with Quick Tables by Geography. Internet website: 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_lang=en&_ts=290099504407&_ds_na

me=DEC_2000_SF3_U&_program=

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2007. Agricultural Prices 2006 Summary – Reports by Commodity. 

National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, D. C. Internet website: 

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriPricSu//2000s/2007/AgriPricSu-07-20-

2007_revision.pdf.

. 1994. Utah Guide for Soil Survey Manuscripts. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, 

Utah. March 18, 1994.

U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE). 2010a. Natural Gas Weekly Update, March 24, 2010. Energy 

Information Administration (EIA). Internet website: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/ngw/ngupdate.asp. 

Accessed March 31, 2010.

. 2010b. Natural Gas Navigator – U.S. Natural Gas Wellhead Prices (Dollars per Thousand Cubic 

Feet). EIA. Internet website: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9190us3m.html. Accessed 

March 2010.

. 2009. Annual Energy Outlook 2009 – Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook – Low Oil 

Price Case, Table 114, Lower 48 Natural Gas Production and Wellhead Prices by Supply Region. 

EIA. Internet website: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo09/supplement/regionallowprice.html.

. 1998. Deliverability on the Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline System. DOE/EIA-0618(98). EIA, Office of 

Oil and Gas. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Interior (USDOI) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2007. Surface Operating 

Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development. BLM/WO/ST06/021+3071/REV 07. Bureau of Land Management. Denver, Colorado.
FEIS 8-16 March 2012

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2010a. Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure 

(SPCC) Regulation 40 CFR part 112: A Facility Owner/Operator’s Guide to Oil Pollution 

Prevention. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response EPA 540-K-09-001. June 2010. 

. 2010b. Climate Change – Science – State of Knowledge. Internet website: 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html. Accessed May 2010. 

. 2009. National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/air/

criteria.html#3. Accessed February 2009.

. 2008a. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006. Washington, D.C.

. 2008b. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) Red Dog Mine Extension –

Aqqaluk Project Volume I. Seattle, Washington. 

. 2007. Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air 

Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze. USEPA, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina. EPA-454/B-07-002. April 2007.

. 2006. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors: AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point 

and Area Sources, Chapter 13.2.2 Unpaved Roads. November 2006.

. 2005. USEPA’s National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM), A Consolidated Emissions Modeling 

System for MOBILE6 and NONROAD (EPA420-R-05-024). Office of Transportation and Air Quality. 

December 2005.

. 2003. Developing Water Quality Criteria for Suspended and Bedded Sediments (SABS): Potential 

Approaches (Draft, August 2003). Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/WARSSS/sedsource/ 

sabs.htm. Accessed March 20, 2008.

. 2002a. Underground Injection Control Program: Criteria and Standards. 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations Part 146. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Internet website:

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/40cfr146_02.html. Accessed March 2008.

. 2002b. State Underground Injection Control Programs, Subpart TT—Utah. 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations, Parts 147.2250-2253. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Internet 

website: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/40cfr147_02.html. Accessed March 2008.

. 2000. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors: AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point 

and Area Sources, Chapter 3.2 Natural Gas-Fired Reciprocating Engines. July 2000.

. 1998a. Final Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA’s NEPA 

Compliance Analysis. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities, 

Office of Federal Activities, Washington, D.C. Internet website: 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/resources/policy/ej_guidance_nepa_epa0498.pdf.

. 1998b. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors: AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point 

and Area Sources, Chapter 1.3 Fuel Oil Combustion. September 1998.

. 1998c. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors: AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point 

and Area Sources, Chapter 1.4 Natural Gas Combustion. July 1998.

. 1995a. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors: AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume II: Mobile 

Sources. January 1995.
FEIS 8-17 March 2012

. 1995b. Protocol for Equipment Leak Emissions Estimates. EPA 453/R-95-017. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. November 1995.

. 1990. New Source Review Workshop Manual: Prevention of Significant Deterioration and 

Nonattainment Area Permitting (Draft). Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. October 1990.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Final Biological Opinion for Anadarko Petroleum 

Corporation Natural Buttes Unit and Bonanza Area Natural Gas Development Project. Letter 

from L. Crist, Utah Supervisor, Utah Field Office, Ecological Services, Salt Lake City, Utah, to 

M. Stiewig, Field Manager, Bureau of Land Management Green River District Office, Vernal

Field Office, Vernal, Utah. November 9, 2010.

. 2009a. Federal Register, 50 CFR 17. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Taxonomic 

Change of Sclerocactus Glaucus to Three Separate Species. Final Rule. September 15, 2009.

. 2009b. Section 7 Consultation, Sufficient Progress, and Historic Projects Agreement and Recovery 

Implementation Program Recovery Action Plan (RIPRAP). October 15, 1993. Revised April 2, 2009. 

83 pp.

. 2008a. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, 

Virginia. 85 pp.

. 2008b. Conclusion of Section 7 Consultation for the Little Canyon Project Natural Gas Development 

Project Proposed by XTO. FWS/R6 ES/UT 06-F-0309; 6-UT-09-F-003. Memorandum from Utah Field 

Supervisor, Ecological Services, West Valley City, Utah. December 4, 2008.

. 2008c. Mountain-Prairie Region Endangered Species Program: Boreal Toad. Internet website:

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/amphibians/borealtoad/. Accessed December 15, 2008.

. 2007a. 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, State 

Overview. July 2007 Release. Washington, D.C.

. 2007b. Mountain-Prairie Region Endangered Species List in Utah by County. Internet website:

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/endspp/CountyLists/Utah.pdf. Accessed March 20, 2008.

. 2007c. Federal Register, 72 FR 53211. Petition to List Sclerocactus brevispinus (Pariette Cactus) as 

an Endangered or Threatened Species: Taxonomic Change from Sclerocactus glaucus to 

Sclerocactus brevispinus, S. glaucus, and S. wetlandicus; Notice of 12-month Petition Finding and 

Proposed Rule.

. 2007d. Pacific Flyway Map. Internet website: http://library.fws.gov/Pubs/pacific_flywaymap.pdf. 

Accessed November 8, 2007.

. 2006a. Federal Register, 50 CFR 17, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 

Threatened Status for Penstemon grahamii (Graham’s beardtongue) With Critical Habitat; Proposed 

Rule. January 19, 2006.

. 2006b. Federal Register, 50 CFR 17. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of 

Proposed Rule to List Penstemon grahamii (Graham’s beardtongue) as Threatened With Critical 

Habitat; Proposed Rule. December 19, 2006.

. 2002a. Birds of Conservation Concern 2002. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, 

Virginia. 99 pp.
FEIS 8-18 March 2012

. 2002b. Bonytail (Gila elegans) Recovery Goals: Amendment and Supplement to the Bonytail Chub 

Recovery Plan. Mountain-Prairie Region (6), Denver, Colorado.

. 2002c. Colorado Pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) Recovery Goals: Amendment and Supplement 

to the Colorado Squawfish Recovery Plan. Mountain-Prairie Region (6), Denver, Colorado.

. 2002d. Humpback Chub (Gila cypha) Recovery Goals: Amendment and Supplement to the 

Humpback Chub Recovery Plan. Mountain-Prairie Region (6), Denver, Colorado.

. 2002e. Razorback Sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) Recovery Goals: Amendment and Supplement to 

the Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan. Mountain-Prairie Region (6), Denver, Colorado.

. 2002f. Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection from Human and Land Use Disturbances. 

Prepared by L. A. Romin and J. A. Muck. Utah Field Office, Salt Lake City, Utah. January 2002 

(update). 42 pp.

. 1998. Federal Register, 63 FR 52824. Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of 

Black-footed Ferrets in Northwestern Colorado and Northeastern Utah; Final Rule. 

. 1997. Federal Register, 62 FR 49401. Review of Plant and Animal Taxa that are Candidates or 

Proposed for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Notice of Review.

. 1994. Utah Reed-Mustards: Clay Reed-mustard (Schoenocrambe argillacea), Barneby Reedmustard (Schoenocrambe barnebyi), Shrubby Reed-mustard (Schoenocrambe suffrutescens) 

Recovery Plan. Denver, Colorado. 22 pp.

. 1992. Federal Register, 57 FR 1398. Final Rule to Determine the Plant Schoenocrambe argillacea

(Clay Reed-mustard) to be a Threatened Species and the Plant Schoenocrambe barnebyi (Barneby 

Reed-mustard) to be an Endangered Species; Final Rule.

. 1990. Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus (Sclerocactus glaucus) Recovery Plan. Denver, Colorado. 26 pp.

. 1979. Federal Register, 44 FR 58869. Determination that Sclerocactus glaucus is a Threatened 

Species; Final Rule.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2005. National Gap Analysis Program. Southwest Regional GAP Analysis Project—

Land Cover Descriptions. RS/GIS Laboratory, College of Natural Resources, Utah State University.

. 2002. Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the Uinta-Piceance Province, 

Utah and Colorado; Digital Data Series DDS-69-B. Reston, Virginia.

U.S. Geological Survey and Utah Geological Survey. 2004. U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook-2004: 

The Mineral Industry of Utah. Internet website: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/state/

2004/utstmyb04.pdf. Accessed March 25, 2008.

U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States. Cambridge University Press.

University of Utah. 2009. Bureau of Economic and Business Research. Annual Series of Utah Construction 

Information Table 7: Cumulative Totals by Type of Structure for County and State January 2000-

December 2008. Internet website: http://webapps.utah.edu/bebr/report/table7.tpl.

. 2007. The Structure and Economic Impact of Utah’s Oil and Gas Exploration and Production 

Industry, Phase I – The Uinta Basin. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. 

Salt Lake City, Utah. October 2007.
FEIS 8-19 March 2012

Utah Administrative Code. 2008a. Rule 68-9: Utah Noxious Weed Act, as in effect November 1, 2008. 

. 2008b. Rule R649-3. Drilling and Operating Practices, as in effect October 1, 2008.

. 2007. Rule R317-2, Standards of Quality for Waters of the State, as in effect November 1, 2007. 

Utah Association of Realtors. 2009. Market Reports for Utah Residential Sales. Internet website: 

http://www.utahrealtors.com/quarterly/mktrpts.htm. Accessed October 2009.

Utah Board of Water Resources. 1999. Utah State Water Plan – Uintah Basin. Division of Water Resources, 

Utah Department of Natural Resources. Salt Lake City, Utah.

Utah College of Applied Technology (UCAT). 2005. Fourth Annual Report 2004 – 2005. Salt Lake City, Utah.

Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ). 2011. Division of Drinking Water. Utah Water System 

Classifications and Laws, Rules, and Guidance. Internet website: 

http://www.drinkingwater.utah.gov. Accessed April 1, 2011.

. 2001. Ashley Valley Water Reclamation Facility Vernal, Utah [for immediate release June 14, 2001]. 

Internet website: http://www.deq.utah.gov/News/ 2001/061401.htm. Accessed November 19, 2007.

Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT). 2008. Mineral Lease Fund Distributions, Summary Reports for 

Fiscal Years 2001 to 2007. Internet website: http://www.udot.utah.gov/index.php/m=c/tid=135.

Accessed October 14, 2008.

Utah Department of Workforce Services (UDOWS). 2007a. Utah Employment and Wages. Internet website:

http://jobs.utah.gov/jsp/wi/utalmis/gotoIndustry.do. Accessed November 5, 2007.

. 2007b. Labor Force Data (Not Seasonally Adjusted). Internet website:

http://jobs.utah.gov/jsp/wi/utalmis/gotoLaborforce.do. Accessed November 5, 2007.

. 2007c. FirmFind! (Copyright 2004, updated March 2007). Internet website:

http://jobs.utah.gov/firmfind/pgindustry.asp. Accessed November 5, 2007.

. 2005. State of Utah Job Vacancy Study: Fourth Quarter 2005. Internet website: 

http://jobs.utah.gov/opencms/wi/pubs/jvs/2005q4. Accessed November 5, 2007.

Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ). 2010. Air Quality Modeling Guidelines. Internet website: 

http://www.airquality.utah.gov/Planning/Modeling/ NSR_Permit_Modeling/Modgunit.htm. 

Accessed November 2010.

Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining (UDOGM). 2007. Oil and Gas Production Statistics, Utah Division of Oil, 

Gas, and Mining, Salt Lake City, Utah. Internet website: http://oilgas.ogm.utah.gov/Statistics/ 

Statistics.cfm. Accessed November 5, 2007.

. 2004. Preparing an Application for Permit to Drill (APD). UDOGM Guidance Document; 

April 2004. Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining, Salt Lake City, Utah. Internet website: 

http://oilgas.ogm.utah.gov/Quick_Refs/qref_permits.htm. Accessed December 14, 2010.

Utah Division of Travel Development. 2004. 2004 State and County Economic and Travel Indicator Profiles.

Salt Lake City, Utah.

Utah Division of Water Quality. 2007. Uinta Watershed Management Unit Water Quality Assessment – 2004 

305(b) Fact Sheet. Water Quality Documents and Rules, Utah Department of Environmental Quality, 
FEIS 8-20 March 2012

Salt Lake City, Utah. Internet website: http://www.waterquality.utah.gov/documents/DOC_RULE.htm. 

Accessed November 19, 2007.

. 2006. Utah’s 2006 Integrated Report, Volume II – 303(d) List of Impaired Waters. Department of 

Environmental Quality, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Utah Division of Water Rights. 2009. Water Rights Information and Querying Water Rights Records. Internet 

website: http://nrwrt1.nr.state.ut.us/wrinfo/query.asp. Accessed December 2008 and January 2009.

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2009a. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). Wildlife 

Notebook Series No. 3. January 2009.

. 2009b. Utah Greater Sage-grouse Management Plan. Utah Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Wildlife Resources. Publication 09-17. Salt Lake City, Utah.

. 2008a. Utah Conservation Data Center: Clay Reed-Mustard (Schoenocrambe argillacea). Internet 

website: http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/ucdc/default.asp. Accessed November 19, 2008.

. 2008b. Utah Big Game Annual Report 2007. Publication 08-42. Annual Performance Report for 

Federal Aid Project W-65-M, segments 55 and 56.

. 2007a. Utah Big Game Annual Report 2006. Publication 07-22. Annual Performance Report for

Federal Aid Project W-65-M, Segments 54 and 55.

. 2007b. Mountain Lion (Felis concolor). Wildlife Notebook Series No. 5. Internet website:

http://wildlife.utah.gov/publications/pdf/newlion.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2007.

. 2007c. American Black Bear (Ursus americanus). Wildlife Notebook Series No. 1. Internet website:

http://wildlife.utah.gov/publications/pdf/bearnew.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2007.

. 2007d. Utah Furbearer Proclamation 2007-2008. Salt Lake City, Utah.

. 2007e. Northeastern Region Black-footed Ferret Management Plan. Final Version, April 5, 2007. Salt 

Lake City, Utah.

. 2007f. Utah Conservation Data Center: Bluehead Succker (Catostomus discobolus), Townsend’s 

Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendipleuriticus), Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis), 

Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus), Brown (Grizzley) Bear (Ursus 

arctos), and Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis). Internet website: http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/ucdc/default.asp. 

Accessed October 29, 2007.

. 2006a. Utah Big Game Annual Report 2005. Publication 06-21. Annual Performance Report for 

Federal Aid Project W-65-M-53.

. 2006b. Utah Conservation Data Center-Utah Sensitive Species: List and Appendices October 17, 

2007. Internet website: http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/ucdc/ViewReports/sslist.htm. Accessed 

October 29, 2007.

. 2005. Utah Big Game Annual Report 2001-2004. Publication 06-20. Annual Performance Report for 

Federal Aid Project W-65-M-50, 51, 52, and 53.

. 1998. Inventory of Sensitive Species and Ecosystems in Utah. Inventory of Sensitive Vertebrate and 

Invertebrate Species: A Progress Report – Revised August 18, 1998. Prepared for Utah Reclamation 
FEIS 8-21 March 2012

Mitigation and Conservation Commission and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Cooperative 

Agreement UC-95-0015. Salt Lake City, Utah.

Utah Geologic Survey (UGS). 2011. Uinta Basin Water Study: Water-Related Issues Affecting 

Conventional Oil and Gas Recovery and Potential Oil Shale Development in the Uinta Basin, 

Utah. Internet website: http://geology.utah.gov/emp/UBwater_study/. Accessed February 3, 

2011.

Utah Governor’s Blue Ribbon Advisory Council. 2007. Blue Ribbon Advisory Council on Climate 

Change Report to Governor Jon M. Huntsman, Jr. October 2007.

Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (UGOPB). 2008. Demographic and Economic Projections –

2008 Baseline Projections. Internet website: http://governor.utah.gov/dea/projections.html. 

. 2006. 2006 Economic Report to the Governor, Table 19. Salt Lake City, Utah.

Utah Native Plant Society (UNPS). 2006. Utah Rare Plant Guide. Salt Lake City, Utah. Internet website:

http://www.utahrareplants.org. Accessed October 29, 2007.

Utah Office of Tourism. 2002. Southern Utah Visitor Profile Summary, 2000/2001. D.K. Shifflet and Associates, 

Ltd. for Utah Division of Travel Development. Internet website: http://travel.utah.gov/ 

research_and_planning/visitor_profiles. Accessed October 29, 2007.

Utah Partners in Flight (PIF) 2005. Coordinated Implementation Plan for Bird Conservation in Utah. Prepared 

by Utah Steering Committee Intermountain West Joint Venture. Internet website:

http://iwjv.org/Images/UTPlan2005.pdf. Accessed October 29, 2007.

Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (USITLA). 2006. Material Permit Sites: Sand and 

Gravel Map, Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Utah State Auditor. 2006a. Survey of Local Government Finances, Utah Counties. 2006. Fiscal Year Ended 

December 31, 2006. Internet website: http://www.sao.utah.gov/lgr/2006 County UT_01.html.

Accessed October 29, 2007.

. 2006b. Survey of Local Government Finances, Utah Municipalities. 2006. Fiscal Year Ended 

June 30, 2006. Internet website: http://www.sao.utah.gov/lgr/2006 Municipal UT_1.html. Accessed 

October 29, 2007.

. 2006c. 2006 Financial Statements, Year Ended June 30, 2006 – School Districts. Internet website:

http://www.sao.utah.gov/lgr/2006 school Financials_1.html. Accessed October 29, 2007.

. 2005. 2005 Financial Statements, Year Ended June 30, 2005 – School Districts. Internet website:

http://www.sao.utah.gov/lgr/2005 School Financials_1.html. Accessed October 29, 2007.

. 2002a. Survey of Local Government Finances, Utah Counties. 2001. Fiscal Year Ended 

December 31, 2001. Internet website: http://www.sao.utah.gov/lgr/2001 County UT_1.html. Accessed 

October 29, 2007.

. 2002b. Survey of Local Government Finances, Utah Municipalities. 2001. Fiscal Year Ended 

June 30, 2001. Internet website: http://www.sao.utah.gov/lgr/2001 Municipal UT_1.html. Accessed 

October 29, 2007.

. 2002c. 2001 Financial Statements, Year Ended June 30, 2001 – School Districts. Internet website:

http://www.sao.utah.gov/lgr/2001 School Financials_1. Accessed October 29, 2007.
FEIS 8-22 March 2012

Utah State Legislature. 2007. Utah Noxious Weed Act. Title 4, Chapter 17, (1-11). Internet website:

http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE04/04_10.htm. Accessed November 1, 2007.

Utah State Office of Education. 2007. Superintendent’s Annual Report, 2005-06, Section II. Internet website:

http://www.schools.utah.gov/finance/other/AnnualReport/ar.htm. Accessed October 29, 2007.

Utah State Tax Commission. 2007a. Utah Property Tax 2006 Annual Statistical Report. Property Tax Division, 

Salt Lake City, Utah.

. 2007b. 2006 List of Final Values by Entity/By Property Type (from the TC-233b reports for each 

county). Property Tax Division, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Utah State University. 2009. Public Lands and Utah Communities: A Statewide Survey of Utah Residents.

Institute for Social Science Research on Natural Resources, Cooperative Extension, Utah State 

University. Logan, Utah. July 2009.

. 2007. Continuing Education, Centers and Campuses, Uinta Basin Campus. Internet website:

http://uintahbasin.usu.edu/. Accessed November 12, 2007.

. 1996. Water Atlas of Utah. Utah Water Research Laboratory. Logan, Utah. Internet website: 

http://www.neng.usu.edu/uwrl/atlas. Accessed November 16, 2007.

Utah Weed Control Association. 2008. Utah’s Noxious Weed List. Internet website:

http://www.utahweed.org/weeds.htm. Accessed December 1, 2008.

Ute Indian Tribe. 2008. The Official Web Site of the Ute Indian Tribe. Internet website: 

http://www.utetribe.com/. Accessed October 11, 2008.

Ute Indian Tribe and BIA. 2006. Mineral & Mining Guide for the Uintah and Ouray Reservation. Uintah & Ouray 

Agency Branch of Real Estate Service - Minerals & Mining, Fort Duchesne, Utah.

Vaillancourt, D. A. 1995. Structural and Microclimatic Edge Effects Associated with Clearcutting in a Rocky 

Mountain Forest. M.A. Thesis, Department of Geography and Recreation, University of Wyoming.

Vernal City Online. 2008. Police Department. Internet website: http://www.vernalcity.org/departments/ 

police.htm. Accessed December 1, 2008.

Walker, B. L., D. E. Naugle, and K. E. Doherty. 2007. Greater Sage-grouse Population Response to Energy 

Development and Habitat Loss. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(8):2644-2654.

Wallace, J. 2011. Uinta Basin Baseline Water-Quality Study, January 2011 Update. Year 2 Review 

Meeting Presentations, Uinta Basin Water Study. Utah Geological Survey. Internet website: 

http://geology.utah.gov/emp/UBwater_study/. Accessed February 3, 2011.

Waltemeyer, S. D. 1982. Selected Climatic Characteristics of the Southeastern Uinta Basin, Utah and 

Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Open File Report 82-91.

Wanty, R. B., J. K. Pitman, and T. D. Fouch. 1991. Groundwater Chemistry and Diagenetic Reactions in 

Tertiary Sandstones of the Green River and Wasatch Formations, Uinta Basin, Utah. U.S. Geological 

Survey Bulletin 1787-X.

Ward, A. L. 1976. Elk Behavior in Relation to Timber Harvest Operations and Traffic on the Medicine Bow 

Range in South-central Wyoming. In: Proceedings Elk-Logging-Roads Symposium, ed. S.R. Hieb. Pp. 

32-43. Moscow, University of Idaho. 142 pp.
FEIS 8-23 March 2012

Watkins, R. Z., J. Chen, J. Pickens, and K. D. Brosofske. 2003. Effects of Forest Roads on Understory Plants 

in a Managed Hardwood Landscape. Conservation Biology 17(2):411-419.

Western Regional Climate Center. 2007a. Historical Climate Information: Western U.S. Climate Historical 

Summaries. Internet website: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmut.html. Accessed

November 17, 2007.

. 2007b. Climate Summaries for Ouray 4NE (Station 426568) and Bonanza, Utah (Station 420802). 

Internet website: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmut.html. Accessed November 16, 2007.

White, C. M. and T. L. Thurow. 1985. Reproduction of Ferruginous Hawks Exposed to Controlled Disturbance. 

The Condor 87:14-22.

Woffinden, N. D. and J. R. Murphy. 1989. Decline of a Ferruginous Hawk Population: A 20-year Summary. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 53(4):1127-1132.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. 2008. Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations. 

Internet website: http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/standards.asp. Accessed May 2008.
FEIS 9-1 March 2012

9.0 Index

Abandonment ........................................................................................1-8, 2-4, 2-5, 2-11, 2-12, 2-19, 2-20, 2-22,

....................................................................................................................... 3-99, 4-61, 4-128, 4-131, 4-135, 5-31

Access Roads.........................................................................................1-1, 1-5, 1-10, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7,

............................................................................................................2-8, 2-10, 2-12, 2-13, 2-14, 2-15, 2-16, 2-17,

................................................................................................................... 2-20, 2-23, 2-24, 2-26, 2-27, 2-28, 2-29, 

..................................................................................................................... 2-31, 2-32, 2-34, 2-35, 2-37, 2-39, 3-2, 

................................................................................................................... 3-16, 3-72, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-42, 4-44, 

................................................................................................................... 4-47, 4-49, 4-53, 4-54, 4-57, 4-64, 4-89,

.................................................................................................................4-91, 4-92, 4-93, 4-94, 4-96, 4-98, 4-101,

................................................................................................................ 4-104, 4-105, 4-107, 4-109, 4-110, 4-119,

................................................................................................................ 4-121, 4-122, 4-127, 4-128, 4-129, 4-130, 

................................................................................................................ 4-133, 4-136, 4-137, 4-140, 4-142, 4-144,

................................................................................................................ 4-146, 4-147, 4-148, 4-150, 4-160, 4-163,

................................................................................................................ 4-165, 4-169, 4-171, 4-172, 4-173, 4-175,

.....................................................................................................................................4-177, 4-178, 5-3, 5-17, 5-26

Aesthetics ..................................................................................................................... 3-81, 3-90, 4-54, 4-55, 5-29

Affected Environment ........................................................................................................................ 3-1, 3-90, 3-93 

Air Quality ....................................................................................................... 1-5, 1-6, 1-10, 1-11, 2-27, 2-36, 3-2,

................................................................................................................4-2, 4-68, 4-77, 4-78, 4-85, 5-2, 5-13, 6-9,

..............................................................................................................................................6-11, 6-13, Appendix G

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated.............................................................................................................2-35

Applicant-committed Environmental Protection Measures ................................................................... Appendix A

Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)...............................................................................................3-30

Biological Assessment (BA)...................................................................................................1-7, 4-107, 4-111, 6-3

BLM Preferred Alternative....................................................................................................................................2-1
FEIS 9-2 March 2012

Comparison of Alternatives .................................................................................2-36, 2-37, 2-38, 2-39, 2-40, 2-41

Clay Reed-mustard.........................................................................3-84, 3-85, 4-102, 4-103, 4-108, 4-109, 4-111,

............................................................................................................................................................... 4-113, 4-114

Cultural Resources ...........................................................................1-6, 1-8, 1-9, 2-5, 2-12, 2-38, 3-14, 4-25, 5-2, 

..........................................................................................................................................................5-10, 5-15, 5-29

Endangered Fish ...............................................................................................4-130, 4-139, 4-159, 4-166, 4-167,

............................................................................................................................4-168, 4-173, 4-175, 4-179, 4-181,

...................................................................................................................................................5-4, 5-42, 5-43, 5-44

Environmental Impacts.......................................................................................................................... 1-4, 3-1, 4-1

Environmental Justice ................................................................................. 1-6, 3-70, 4-68, 4-77, 4-78, 4-85, 6-11

Fisheries .................................................................................................. 2-41, 3-118, 3-126, 4-130, 4-139, 4-150,

............................................................................................................................4-158, 4-159, 4-165, 4-172, 4-179, 

....................................................................................................................................... 4-181, 5-4, 5-34, 5-42, 6-12

Floodplains.................................................................................................. 1-7, 1-11, 2-13, 2-16, 2-29, 2-40, 3-34,

.................................................................................................................... 3-72, 3-79, 3-102, 3-104, 3-105, 4-110,

................................................................................................................ 4-123, 4-124, 4-125, 4-126, 4-128, 4-129,

................................................................................................................ 4-130, 4-131, 4-135, 4-136, 4-138, 4-139,

................................................................................................................ 4-140, 4-141, 4-142, 4-144, 4-145, 4-150,

................................................................................................................ 4-159, 4-166, 4-168, 4-173, 4-175, 4-181,

............................................................................................................................................................ 5-4, 5-30, 5-42

Gas Production and Distribution ..........................................................................................................................2-8

Geology.............................................................................................2-38, 3-24, 3-34, 3-100, 4-30, 5-2, 5-10, 5-15

Green River..........................................................................................2-8, 2-15, 2-16, 2-29, 3-4, 3-15, 3-24, 3-27,

..........................................................................................................3-28, 3-30, 3-34, 3-35, 3-38, 3-55, 3-79, 3-84,

...............................................................................................................3-85, 3-86, 3-89, 3-93, 3-99, 3-100, 3-101,

................................................................................................................ 3-102, 3-103, 3-104, 3-107, 3-109, 3-111, 

................................................................................................................ 3-118, 3-119, 3-125, 3-126, 3-129, 3-133,
FEIS 9-3 March 2012

Green River (continued).......................................................................... 3-134, 3-135, 4-38, 4-105, 4-123, 4-124, 

................................................................................................................ 4-126, 4-127, 4-129, 4-130, 4-131, 4-132,

................................................................................................................ 4-134, 4-135, 4-137, 4-138, 4-139, 4-140,

................................................................................................................ 4-143, 4-156, 4-166, 4-167, 4-168, 4-173,

..................................................................................................................... 4-181, 5-2, 5-4, 5-11, 5-29, 5-30, 5-31, 

................................................................................................................................................................... 5-42, 5-44

Groundwater......................................................................................1-5, 2-4, 2-8, 2-15, 3-24, 3-97, 3-100, 3-107,

................................................................................................................ 3-109, 3-111, 3-113, 3-114, 4-126, 4-127,

................................................................................................................ 4-130, 4-131, 4-132, 4-133, 4-137, 4-138,

................................................................................................................ 4-139, 4-140, 4-142, 4-144, 4-145, 4-150,

...................................................................................................................................................5-4, 5-31, 5-33, 6-12

Hookless Cactus..........................................................................2-39, 3-84, 3-85, 3-86, 3-87, 3-88, 4-103, 4-109,

.............................................................................................. 4-111, 4-112, 4-113, 4-114, 4-116, 4-117, 5-28, 5-29

Land Use and Access .......................................................................1-7, 2-38, 3-18, 3-30, 3-56, 3-68, 3-69, 3-97,

.................................................................................................................3-115, 3-118, 4-3, 4-23, 4-33, 4-34, 4-44,

................................................................................................................... 4-52, 4-73, 4-77, 4-85, 4-90, 4-94, 4-95, 

...........................................................................................................4-105, 4-158, 5-2, 5-3, 5-16, 5-29, 5-31, 5-42

Minerals.............................................................................................1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 2-2, 2-18, 3-15, 3-22, 3-29,

...............................................................................................................3-63, 3-64, 3-66, 3-90, 3-109, 3-113, 4-30,

.....................................................................................................................................4-31, 4-32, 4-67, 4-68, 4-131

Mitigation Effectiveness............................................................................ 4-15, 4-19, 4-23, 4-27, 4-28, 4-31, 4-32,

..........................................................................................................4-35, 4-36, 4-38, 4-39, 4-46, 4-49, 4-51, 4-54, 

..........................................................................................................4-77, 4-78, 4-85, 4-92, 4-94, 4-95, 4-97, 4-98,

.................................................................................................................. 4-99, 4-110, 4-115, 4-116, 4-120, 4-121,

................................................................................................................ 4-122, 4-138, 4-142, 4-144, 4-147, 4-148,

....................................................................................................................................................4-167, 4-173, 4-179
FEIS 9-4 March 2012

Mitigation................................................................................................1-1, 1-6, 1-11, 2-12, 3-34, 3-69, 3-70, 4-1,

................................................................................................................... 4-12, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-23, 

................................................................................................................... 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-28, 4-29, 4-31, 4-32,

................................................................................................................... 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-46,

................................................................................................................... 4-47, 4-48, 4-49, 4-50, 4-51, 4-53, 4-54,

................................................................................................................... 4-55, 4-77, 4-78, 4-85, 4-92, 4-94, 4-95,

.............................................................................................................4-96, 4-97, 4-98, 4-99, 4-101, 4-106, 4-107,

................................................................................................................ 4-110, 4-111, 4-112, 4-113, 4-115, 4-116,

................................................................................................................ 4-120, 4-121, 4-122, 4-125, 4-127, 4-130,

................................................................................................................ 4-136, 4-137, 4-138, 4-139, 4-140, 4-141,

................................................................................................................ 4-142, 4-143, 4-144, 4-146, 4-147, 4-148,

................................................................................................................ 4-149, 4-150, 4-166, 4-167, 4-168, 4-173,

.............................................................................................................................................. 4-179, 4-180, 5-16, 6-1

Native American Consultation........................................................................................................... 3-22, 4-27, 6-3 

Native American Traditional Values...................................................2-38, 3-14, 3-21, 4-25, 4-26, 4-28, 5-2, 5-15 

No Action Alternative..........................................................................1-1, 2-1, 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-11, 2-22, 2-23,

..........................................................................................................2-24, 2-26, 2-27, 2-28, 2-31, 2-32, 2-34, 2-36,

................................................................................................... 2-37, 2-38, 4-1, 4-2, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11,

................................................................................................ 4-12, 4-14, 4-18, 4-19, 4-23, 4-25, 4-28, 4-30, 4-31,

................................................................................................ 4-34, 4-38, 4-40, 4-41, 4-52, 4-53, 4-57, 4-61, 4-62, 

................................................................................................ 4-63, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-67, 4-68, 4-69, 4-71, 4-72,

................................................................................................ 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-81, 4-84, 4-85,

.............................................................................................. 4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 4-91, 4-92, 4-93, 4-94, 4-96, 4-100,

.....................................................................................................4-101, 4-102, 4-103, 4-104, 4-105, 4-107, 4-118,

.....................................................................................................4-125, 4-126, 4-127, 4-128, 4-129, 4-130, 4-132,

.....................................................................................................4-134, 4-135, 4-136, 4-137, 4-138, 4-141, 4-142,

.....................................................................................................4-143, 4-144, 4-146, 4-150, 4-151, 4-152, 4-153,
FEIS 9-5 March 2012

No Action Alternative (continued) ..............................................4-155, 4-156, 4-157, 4-158, 4-159, 4-160, 4-162, 

.....................................................................................................4-163, 4-164, 4-165, 4-166, 4-171, 4-173, 4-176,

.....................................................................................................................................4-178, 4-179, 5-1, 5-31, 5-33

Noise...................................................................................................2-17, 4-43, 4-46, 4-53, 4-151, 4-152, 4-153,

.....................................................................................................4-154, 4-155, 4-157, 4-158, 4-160, 4-161, 4-162,

.....................................................................................................4-163, 4-164, 4-165, 4-169, 4-171, 4-174, 4-175,

..............................................................................................................................4-177, 4-181, 5-2, 5-3, 5-22, 5-41

Noxious Weeds ....................................................................................3-78, 3-81, 3-82, 4-43, 4-44, 4-100, 4-101,

.....................................................................................................4-102, 4-105, 4-106, 4-113, 4-114, 4-115, 4-116,

.....................................................................................................4-136, 4-137, 4-155, 4-156, 4-157, 4-161, 4-165,

...................................................................................................................................................5-3, 5-27, 5-28, 5-43

Optimal Recovery Alternative........................................................ 2-1, 2-31, 2-33, 2-37, 2-38, 4-2, 4-3, 4-9, 4-19,

..........................................................................................................4-24, 4-28, 4-32, 4-36, 4-39, 4-49, 4-52, 4-54, 

...............................................................................................................4-57, 4-79, 4-88, 4-94, 4-98, 4-115, 4-116, 

.......................................................................................................4-117, 4-121, 4-142, 4-148, 4-175, 4-181, 5-10,

..........................................................................................................5-14, 5-15, 5-17, 5-20, 5-26, 5-27, 5-29, 5-30,

.................................................................................................................................................5-33, 5-41, 5-43, 5-44

Paleontology ..........................................................................................................2-38, 3-34, 4-38, 5-2, 5-10, 5-16

Pariette Cactus ...................................................................................................................................................3-86

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects ............................. 5-1, 5-10, 5-17, 5-22, 5-25, 5-26, 5-27, 

.................................................................................................................... 5-28, 5-29, 5-30, 5-33, 5-41, 5-43, 5-44

Primary Issues ................................................................................................................. 4-40, 4-100, 4-123, 4-150

Proposed Action ...............................................................................1-1, 1-5, 1-7, 1-8, 2-1, 2-12, 2-22, 2-25, 2-36,

.............................................................................................................2-37, 2-38, 3-2, 3-9, 3-57, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-9,

..........................................................................................................4-10, 4-24, 4-28, 4-30, 4-34, 4-38, 4-42, 4-52, 

........................................................................................................4-53, 4-56, 4-57, 4-68, 4-88, 4-91, 4-96, 4-104, 
FEIS 9-6 March 2012

Proposed Action (continued)................................................................. 4-116, 4-117, 4-118, 4-133, 4-146, 4-160, 

..........................................................................................................4-181, 5-9, 5-10, 5-13, 5-14, 5-15, 5-16, 5-18,

..........................................................................................................5-22, 5-23, 5-24, 5-25, 5-26, 5-28, 5-29, 5-31,

....................................................................................................................................... 5-33, 5-41, 5-43, 5-44, 6-11

Public Participation ...............................................................................................................................................6-8

Purpose and Need................................................................................................................................................1-4

Range Resources..................................................................................................2-38, 3-38, 4-40, 5-2, 5-17, 6-11

Reclamation......................................................................................1-11, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 2-11, 2-12, 2-13,

..........................................................................................................2-16, 2-17, 2-20, 2-22, 2-23, 2-28, 2-32, 2-36, 

........................................................................................................2-37, 3-72, 3-73, 3-83, 3-133, 4-18, 4-19, 4-23, 

..........................................................................................................4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-52, 

..........................................................................................................4-53, 4-55, 4-57, 4-61, 4-67, 4-72, 4-82, 4-87, 

..........................................................................................................4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 4-91, 4-92, 4-93, 4-94, 4-95,

.........................................................................................................4-96, 4-97, 4-100, 4-101, 4-104, 4-105, 4-106,

................................................................................................................ 4-112, 4-113, 4-115, 4-116, 4-117, 4-122, 

.....................................................................................................4-131, 4-133, 4-136, 4-137, 4-140, 4-142, 4-145,

.....................................................................................................4-146, 4-147, 4-148, 4-149, 4-150, 4-152, 4-153,

.....................................................................................................4-155, 4-156, 4-159, 4-160, 4-161, 4-166, 4-168,

.........................................................................................................4-169, 4-173, 4-174, 4-175, 4-180, 5-17, 5-25, 

..............................................................................................................................5-26, 5-27, 5-28, 5-29, 5-42, 6-11

Recreation................................................................................ 1-8, 1-11, 2-38, 3-30, 3-42, 3-44, 3-51, 3-53, 3-54,

................................................................................................ 3-55, 3-56, 3-60, 3-62, 3-63, 3-66, 3-68, 3-69, 3-76, 

............................................................................................ 3-81, 3-86, 3-89, 3-90, 3-97, 3-115, 3-116, 4-34, 4-35,

................................................................................................ 4-36, 4-37, 4-53, 4-64, 4-72, 4-73, 4-75, 4-82, 4-91, 

.......................................................................................................4-99, 4-116, 4-128, 4-129, 4-139, 4-146, 4-147, 

.................................................................................................. 4-148, 5-3, 5-4, 5-12, 5-16, 5-17, 5-22, 5-25, 5-26,

.................................................................................................................................................5-29, 5-33, 5-34, 5-42 
FEIS 9-7 March 2012

Residual Impacts ................................................................... 4-18, 4-19, 4-23, 4-27, 4-28, 4-31, 4-32, 4-35, 4-36,

................................................................................................ 4-38, 4-39, 4-46, 4-47, 4-49, 4-51, 4-54, 4-55, 4-88,

........................................................................................................4-90, 4-92, 4-94, 4-95, 4-97, 4-98, 4-99, 4-113,

......................................................................................... 4-115, 4-116, 4-120, 4-121, 4-122, 4-140, 4-142, 4-144,

.......................................................................................... 4-147, 4-148, 4-149, 4-168, 4-174, 4-175, 4-180, 4-181

Resource Protection Alternative ......................................2-1, 2-27, 2-30, 2-37, 2-38, 4-2, 4-18, 4-28, 4-31, 4-35, 

............................................................................................ 4-39, 4-47, 4-54, 4-78, 4-88, 4-93, 4-98, 4-114, 4-116,

............................................................................................. 4-117, 4-120, 4-140, 4-147, 4-169, 4-181, 5-10, 5-15, 

........................................................................................5-17, 5-19, 5-25, 5-27, 5-29, 5-30, 5-31, 5-41, 5-43, 5-44

Riparian.............................................................................. 1-7, 2-39, 3-78, 3-79, 3-81, 3-89, 3-103, 3-104, 3-106, 

......................................................................................... 3-107, 3-118, 3-119, 3-125, 3-126, 3-128, 3-131, 3-133, 

............................................................................................. 4-44, 4-49, 4-100, 4-101, 4-106, 4-110, 4-112, 4-114, 

......................................................................................... 4-115, 4-123, 4-124, 4-125, 4-127, 4-128, 4-129, 4-130,

......................................................................................... 4-131, 4-135, 4-136, 4-137, 4-139, 4-142, 4-145, 4-155,

......................................................................................... 4-156, 4-158, 4-163, 4-164, 4-168, 4-169, 4-171, 4-177, 

............................................................................................................................................................... 4-179, 4-180

Sage Grouse....................................................................... 1-11, 2-40, 3-119, 3-130, 3-131, 3-132, 3-133, 4-150,

......................................................................................... 4-154, 4-156, 4-157, 4-158, 4-164, 4-165, 4-168, 4-171,

............................................................................................. 4-172, 4-173, 4-174, 4-175, 4-178, 4-179, 4-180, 5-4, 

..........................................................................................................................................................5-42, 5-43, 5-45

Sedimentation................................................................4-87, 4-91, 4-93, 4-94, 4-95, 4-104, 4-109, 4-111, 4-113,

......................................................................................... 4-123, 4-127, 4-128, 4-130, 4-136, 4-137, 4-140, 4-142,

............................................................................................. 4-144, 4-145, 4-158, 4-159, 4-166, 4-168, 4-179, 5-3, 

................................................................................................................................................................... 5-42, 5-43

Seismic....................................................................................................5-1, 5-3, 5-7, 5-10, 5-27, 5-28, 5-29, 5-34

Socioeconomics ....................................................................................................2-38, 3-45, 4-56, 5-3, 5-22, 6-11

Soil Erosion................................................................................ 3-72, 4-44, 4-87, 4-93, 4-104, 4-105, 4-137, 5-25
FEIS 9-8 March 2012

Soils.......................................................................................... 1-6, 2-16, 2-21, 2-39, 3-24, 3-72, 3-78, 3-79, 3-85,

................................................................................................... 3-86, 3-87, 3-89, 3-103, 4-43, 4-87, 4-100, 4-101,

................................................................................................. 4-105, 4-130, 4-131, 4-153, 4-173, 5-3, 5-10, 5-25,

................................................................................................................................................................... 5-27, 6-11

Special Recreation Management Areas.......................................2-38, 3-30, 3-43, 3-90, 3-117, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36,

............................................................................................................................................................ 4-53, 5-2, 5-16

Special Status Species.................................................................3-83, 3-125, 3-134, 4-106, 4-107, 4-108, 4-109, 

.....................................................................................................4-110, 4-112, 4-115, 4-116, 4-150, 4-168, 4-174,

....................................................................................................................... 4-175, 4-180, 4-181, 5-34, 5-42, 6-12 

Species of Special Concern...............................................................................................................................3-83

Surface Water..................................................................................2-8, 2-35, 3-86, 3-93, 3-94, 3-97, 3-99, 3-100,

............................................................................................. 3-102, 3-103, 3-111, 3-113, 3-118, 4-87, 4-89, 4-104,

.....................................................................................................4-112, 4-125, 4-126, 4-127, 4-128, 4-131, 4-133,

.....................................................................................................4-134, 4-135, 4-136, 4-138, 4-139, 4-140, 4-141,

.....................................................................................................4-142, 4-143, 4-144, 4-145, 5-4, 5-30, 5-31, 6-12

Transportation.......................................................................... 1-11, 2-12, 2-17, 2-20, 2-39, 3-1, 3-45, 3-51, 3-53,

................................................................................................ 3-57, 3-62, 3-63, 3-66, 3-76, 3-77, 3-86, 4-53, 4-66,

......................................................................................................4-75, 4-84, 4-96, 4-97, 4-98, 4-99, 4-133, 4-166, 

..............................................................................................................................4-179, 5-3, 5-10, 5-11, 5-24, 5-26 

Vegetation.............................................................................. 2-5, 2-12, 2-13, 2-39, 3-75, 3-78, 3-80, 3-89, 3-103,

............................................................................................. 3-107, 3-118, 3-125, 3-131, 3-133, 3-135, 4-18, 4-19,

................................................................................................ 4-23, 4-25, 4-26, 4-40, 4-43, 4-44, 4-47, 4-51, 4-87, 

......................................................................................................4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 4-91, 4-93, 4-94, 4-100, 4-101,

.....................................................................................................4-102, 4-104, 4-105, 4-106, 4-107, 4-108, 4-110,

.....................................................................................................4-112, 4-113, 4-114, 4-115, 4-116, 4-117, 4-120,

.....................................................................................................4-123, 4-127, 4-130, 4-136, 4-150, 4-152, 4-153,

.....................................................................................................4-154, 4-157, 4-160, 4-161, 4-163, 4-168, 4-169,
FEIS 9-9 March 2012

Vegetation (continued) ..................................................................4-173, 4-175, 4-180, 5-1, 5-3, 5-10, 5-12, 5-15, 

.................................................................................................................... 5-16, 5-26, 5-27, 5-28, 5-29, 5-42, 6-12

Visual Resources...........................................................................1-11, 2-40, 3-89, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-54, 4-118, 

...................................................................................................................................................5-4, 5-29, 5-30, 6-12

Water Quality ......................................................................................2-27, 2-35, 3-30, 3-97, 3-103, 3-109, 3-111, 

.........................................................................................................4-44, 4-45, 4-124, 4-127, 4-130, 4-131, 4-132,

.....................................................................................................4-134, 4-137, 4-138, 4-139, 4-141, 4-143, 4-145, 

..........................................................................................................................................................5-30, 5-31, 6-11 

Water Resources...............................................................................1-8, 2-40, 3-93, 4-43, 4-89, 4-123, 5-4, 5-30, 

................................................................................................................................................................... 5-32, 6-12

Watersheds......................................................................................3-1, 3-76, 3-94, 3-95, 3-96, 3-97, 3-99, 3-102,

.......................................................................................................4-44, 4-124, 4-125, 4-126, 4-128, 4-129, 4-134,

.....................................................................................................4-135, 4-136, 4-140, 4-141, 4-143, 4-158, 4-159,

......................................................................................................................................... 5-4, 5-30, 5-31, 5-42, 5-44

Well Drilling and Completion...................................................................... 2-8, 2-26, 2-29, 2-31, 2-34, 4-78, 4-96, 

............................................................................................................................................................... 4-126, 4-134

Wetlands ...........................................................................................3-55, 3-85, 3-93, 3-102, 3-103, 3-104, 3-107,

.........................................................................................................3-119, 3-125, 3-133, 3-134, 4-44, 4-49, 4-100,

.....................................................................................................4-101, 4-106, 4-112, 4-123, 4-124, 4-125, 4-129,

.....................................................................................................4-130, 4-136, 4-137, 4-139, 4-140, 4-142, 4-144,

.................................................................................................................................................4-145, 5-4, 5-30, 6-12

White River ............................................................................ 1-11, 2-11, 2-15, 2-24, 2-29, 2-34, 2-38, 2-40, 3-15,

..........................................................................................................3-21, 3-30, 3-34, 3-35, 3-38, 3-39, 3-42, 3-43, 

..........................................................................................................3-55, 3-72, 3-76, 3-84, 3-87, 3-89, 3-90, 3-92, 

................................................................................................... 3-93, 3-94, 3-96, 3-97, 3-99, 3-100, 3-101, 3-102,

.....................................................................................................3-104, 3-107, 3-109, 3-115, 3-116, 3-118, 3-119, 

.....................................................................................................3-125, 3-126, 3-129, 3-133, 3-134, 3-135, 3-136,
FEIS 9-10 March 2012

White River (continued)......................................................... 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-40, 4-42, 4-48, 4-50, 4-53, 4-55,

.......................................................................................................4-72, 4-110, 4-118, 4-119, 4-120, 4-121, 4-122,

.....................................................................................................4-123, 4-124, 4-125, 4-126, 4-127, 4-128, 4-129,

.....................................................................................................4-130, 4-134, 4-135, 4-137, 4-138, 4-139, 4-140,

.....................................................................................................4-141, 4-142, 4-143, 4-144, 4-146, 4-147, 4-148,

.....................................................................................................4-149, 4-156, 4-158, 4-159, 4-160, 4-166, 4-167, 

................................................................................................ 4-175, 4-179, 4-181, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-11, 5-16, 5-18,

................................................................................................ 5-19, 5-20, 5-22, 5-26, 5-29, 5-30, 5-31, 5-33, 5-34,

..........................................................................................................................................................5-42, 5-43, 6-12

Wildlife Resources..............................................................................2-5, 2-40, 3-118, 4-150, 5-1, 5-4, 5-34, 6-12 

Wilderness Characteristics..........................................................2-40, 3-30, 3-115, 3-117, 4-37, 4-146, 5-4, 5-16, 

................................................................................................................................................................... 5-33, 5-35

Workovers.............................................................................................1-8, 2-18, 4-57, 4-97, 4-152, 4-162, 4-168, 

....................................................................................................................................................4-170, 4-177, 4-180