FEIS 3-1 March 2012

3.0 Affected Environment

This chapter describes the condition of the human and natural environment in the GNBPA (Figure 1.1-1). 

For NEPA, the human environment is the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people to 

that environment. The affected environment for individual resources was delineated based on the area of 

potential direct and indirect environmental impacts for the proposed project and the associated cumulative 

effects area. For many resources, the resulting study area includes the proposed GNBPA. Other resources 

(e.g., watersheds, air quality, transportation network) are addressed in a larger regional context. 

The environmental baseline information summarized in this chapter was obtained from review of published 

sources, unpublished data, communications with government agencies, and review of field studies of the 

area. The level of information provided in this chapter is commensurate with the potential impacts to the 

resource described.
FEIS 3-2 March 2012

3.1 Air Quality 

The study area for air quality is the Uinta Basin. Air quality within the GNBPA has the potential to be affected 

by such activities as emissions from the construction and operation of oil and gas facilities, access roads, 

and other elements of management activities. Regional air quality also is affected by natural events such as 

windstorms and wildfires. These natural events generally are short lived, lasting from several hours to 

perhaps several days. The effects during these events may impact human health and the environment, and 

generally are considered part of the natural and physical environment. This section describes the existing air 

quality resource of the region and the applicable air regulations that would apply to the Proposed Action and 

alternatives. 

3.1.1 Regional Climate 

The climate in the region is characterized as arid, with cold winters and hot summers. Annual precipitation 

(rainfall and snowfall) in the region ranges from 8 to 10 inches. A climate summary for Vernal, Utah, is 

presented in Table 3.1-1. 

Table 3.1-1 Monthly Climate Summary for Vernal Airport, Utah 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

Avg. Max. Temp. (degrees 

Fahrenheit [°F]) 

29.7 37.5 50.6 62.4 72.7 82.4 89.8 87.3 78.0 64.3 46.5 33.2 61.2 

Avg. Min. Temp. (°F) 4.9 10.9 22.1 30.5 38.6 45.6 51.7 49.9 41.2 31.2 19.5 9.3 29.6 

Avg. Total Precip. (inches) 0.49 0.48 0.66 0.82 0.83 0.71 0.52 0.71 0.85 1.09 0.57 0.57 8.30 

Avg. Total Snow Fall 

(inches) 

4.8 2.9 1.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.9 4.7 15.4 

Avg. Snow Depth (inches) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Note: Period of Record: 1/1/1928 to 6/30/2007.

Source: Western Region Climate Center 2007a. 

Three important meteorological factors influence the dispersion of pollutants in the atmosphere: mixing 

height, stability, and wind (speed and direction). Mixing height is the height above ground within which the 

air is well mixed due to wind-induced turbulence or buoyancy from surface heating. A relatively high mixing 

height allows the surface-level pollutants to be mixed into a deeper layer, thereby diluting the concentration 

and reducing the ambient air quality impact from those emissions. Mixing heights vary by several factors: 

1) time of day due to the influence of the sun’s heating of the surface inducing buoyant mixing within that 

layer and the cooling at night; 2) terrain features that may inhibit flow; 3) cloud cover that inhibits daily 

heating and cooling; 4) turbulence from winds in relation to the roughness of the surface; and 5) the 

passage of weather systems and large-scale convection that act to mix air vigorously. In the GNBPA, 

average morning mixing heights are approximately 1,000 feet and annual mean afternoon mixing heights 

are more than 7,800 feet (Holzworth 1972). Mean morning mixing heights tend to be lowest in the summer 

and fall, and highest in the spring months.

Atmospheric stability patterns are related to the temperature change with height above the surface and also 

are affected by surface winds. If the temperature decreases rapidly with height, the atmosphere tends to be 

unstable and the pollutants are well mixed. If the temperature increases with height (a temperature 

inversion), the atmosphere is stable and it inhibits the dispersion of pollutants. As related to the mixing 

heights, the atmosphere is more stable in afternoon hours due to solar heating, and tends to be more stable 

late at night and early morning due to surface cooling. The atmosphere generally is most stable on clear, 

cold, winter mornings with calm winds and on days with snow cover at the surface. In and around the 

GNBPA, the typically dry atmosphere leads to increased instability in the afternoons with extended periods 

of sunshine, and the dry conditions lead to stable conditions in the early morning because of the clear skies 

and strong night-time surface cooling. Stable conditions also develop along lower lying terrain features, such 

as valleys, due to the sinking of colder air into those valleys, with warmer air aloft. Thus, the topography 

plays a role in development of localized atmospheric stability conditions.
FEIS 3-3 March 2012

The dispersion of pollutants also is related to local wind speeds and changing wind direction. Dispersion is 

enhanced by higher wind speeds that simply dilute the emitted pollutants. Dispersion also is enhanced by 

wind flow that changes direction in short periods of time or changes direction at various levels above the 

surface layers. The GNBPA lies within the prevailing westerly wind belt, and within that belt, the associated 

large-scale storm systems that pass through the area act to enhance dispersion of pollutants.

Air pollutant dispersion in the area also is dependent on wind direction and speed. Although wind direction is 

highly influenced by the local terrain, the wind direction at Vernal tends to be westerly, (i.e., blowing from the 

west). Figure 3.1-1 presents a wind rose for the Uinta Basin region depicting the frequency of wind speeds 

and direction.

3.1.2 Air Quality 

Air quality in a given location is defined by pollutant concentrations in the atmosphere and generally is 

expressed in units of parts per million (ppm) or micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3

). The existing air quality 

in the proposed development area is in attainment of the NAAQS (which are established by the USEPA 

to protect public health and the environment) and State AAQS (SAAQS) or has insufficient data to 

establish attainment status. Representative ambient background levels of pollutants measured in Uintah 

and Salt Lake counties in Utah, and Sweetwater County, Wyoming, are shown in Table 3.1-2. Data for this 

table were obtained from the USEPA Air Quality System (AQS) data archives website. The carbon 

monoxide (CO) data from Salt Lake County are not representative of the area, but were used to provide a 

conservative estimate of background levels for estimating impacts on the NAAQS for CO.

Table 3.1-2 Ambient Air Quality Background Values

Averaging Concentration 1 Pollutant Period Ranking Year (μg/m3

) County State

NO2 1-hour 98th Percentile 2009/2010 69.62 Uintah Utah

98th Percentile 2010/2011 52.72 Uintah Utah

98th Percentile 2009/2010 58.33 Uintah Utah

98th Percentile 2010/2011 60.23 Uintah Utah

Annual H 2009/2010 9.02 Uintah Utah

H 2010/2011 6.82 Uintah Utah

H 2009/2010 7.83 Uintah Utah

H 2010/2011 8.13 Uintah Utah

CO 1-hour H2H 2004 6,210 Salt Lake Utah

H2H 2005 6,325 Salt Lake Utah

H2H 2006 6,325 Salt Lake Utah

8-hour H2H 2004 3,680 Salt Lake Utah

H2H 2005 3,910 Salt Lake Utah

H2H 2006 3,450 Salt Lake Utah 4 SO2 1-hour 99th Percentile 2007 21.7 Sweetwater Wyoming

99th Percentile 2008 19.7 Sweetwater Wyoming

99th Percentile 2009 19.0 Sweetwater Wyoming

3-hour H2H 2007 16.0 Sweetwater Wyoming

H2H 2008 16.7 Sweetwater Wyoming

H2H 2009 10.1 Sweetwater Wyoming

24-hour H2H 2007 5.9 Sweetwater Wyoming

H2H 2008 5.6 Sweetwater Wyoming

H2H 2009 3.9 Sweetwater Wyoming

Annual H 2007 1.5 Sweetwater Wyoming

H 2008 1.5 Sweetwater Wyoming

H 2009 0.8 Sweetwater Wyoming
FEIS 3-4 March 2012

Table 3.1-2 Ambient Air Quality Background Values

Pollutant

Averaging 

Period Ranking1 Year

Concentration 

(μg/m3) County State

Particulate matter (PM) with an 24-hour H2H 2004 14.0 Uintah Utah

aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or H2H 2005 18.0 Uintah Utah

less (PM10) H2H 2006 16.0 Uintah Utah

Annual H 2004 5.0 Uintah Utah

H 2005 7.0 Uintah Utah

H 2006 7.0 Uintah Utah

PM with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 24-hour 98th percentile 2009/2010 19.52 Uintah Utah

microns or less (PM2.5) 98th percentile 2010/2011 23.62 Uintah Utah

98th percentile 2009/2010 16.33 Uintah Utah

98th percentile 2010/2011 17.83 Uintah Utah

Annual H 2009/2010 7.32 Uintah Utah

H 2010/2011 12.32 Uintah Utah

H 2009/2010 6.33 Uintah Utah

H 2010/2011 9.43 Uintah Utah

Ozone 8-hour H4H 2009/2010 117.02,5 Uintah Utah

H4H 2010/2011 116.02,5 Uintah Utah

H4H 2009/2010 98.03,5 Uintah Utah

H4H 2010/2011 100.03,5 Uintah Utah

1 H = Highest value recorded; H2H = High Second High (second highest value from the highest receptor site); H4H = High Fourth High (fourth 

highest value from the highest receptor site [Appendix G]). 2 Ouray Monitoring Station Data (USEPA AQS Database). 2009/2010 data period = 7/30/09 to 6/30/2010. 20010/2011 period = 7/1/2010 to 6/30/2011. 3 Redwash Monitoring Station Data (USEPA AQS Database). 2009/2010 data period = 7/30/09 to 6/30/2010. 20010/2011 period = 7/1/2010 to 6/30/2011. 4 Wamsutter Monitoring Station Data (USEPA AQS Database). 5 Ozone is measured in parts per billion (ppb).

Figure 3.1-2 shows the maximum daily 8-hour average ozone concentrations recorded at the Ouray 

and Redwash monitoring stations from July 30, 2009, to June 30, 2011. These data show winter 

ozone levels above 75 ppb NAAQS; however, summer 8-hour daily maximum values do not exceed 

75 ppb. This winter ozone pattern is similar to ozone monitoring observations made in other oil and 

gas fields including the Upper Green River Basin and Jonah-Pinedale Anticline (Schnell et al. 2009). 

The current scientific consensus is that the photochemical processes that form tropospheric ozone 

in the presence of NO2 and free radical volatile organics are heightened by increased concentrations 

of ozone precursors from the stagnant winter atmospheric conditions and increased solar radiation 

reflected from the winter snow cover (Schnell et al. 2009). However, this is an area of ongoing 

scientific research.

3.1.3 Regulatory Framework

The CAA of 1970 (42 USC 7401 et seq.) as amended in 1977 and 1990 is the basic federal statute 

governing air pollution. Provisions of the CAA of 1970 that potentially are relevant to the GNBPA are listed 

and discussed below: 

• NAAQS;

• Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD); 

• Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR); 

• Conformity Regulations;

• New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); and

• Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Standards.
FEIS 3-5 March 2012

Figure 3.1-1 Wind Rose from Vernal, Utah, Airport
FEIS 3-6 March 2012

Figure 3.1-2 Ouray and Redwash Ozone Monitoring Data
FEIS 3-7 March 2012

3.1.3.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

The Federal CAA requires all states to control air pollution emission sources so that NAAQS are met and 

maintained. In addition to these requirements, the National Park Service (NPS) Organic Act requires the 

NPS to protect the natural resources of the lands it manages from the adverse effects of air pollution. 

The NAAQS establishes maximum acceptable concentrations for oxides of nitrogen (NO2/NOX), CO, SO2, 

PM10, PM2.5, ozone, and lead. Given the extremely low levels of lead emissions from project sources, the 

lead standards are not addressed in this analysis. These pollutants are known as criteria pollutants. The 

NAAQS are established by the USEPA and are outlined in 40 CFR 50. These standards represent the 

maximum allowable atmospheric concentrations that may occur without jeopardizing public health and 

welfare, and include a reasonable margin of safety to protect the more sensitive individuals in the 

population. The NAAQS represent maximum acceptable concentrations that generally may not be 

exceeded more than once per year; the annual standards may never be exceeded. An area that does not 

meet the NAAQS is designated as a nonattainment area on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. 

The USEPA established a 1-hour NO2 NAAQS of 100 ppb (188 μg/m3) on January 22, 2010 (75 FR 

6474-65370, February 9, 2010), supplementing the existing annual NO2 NAAQS. Further, the USEPA 

established a 1-hour SO2 NAAQS of 75 ppb (197 μg/m3) on June 2, 2010 (FR 35520-35603, June 22, 

2010). At the same time, USEPA revoked the existing 24-hour and annual primary SO2 standards. 

The NO2 and SO2 standards became effective on April 12 and August 23, 2010, respectively. 

Compliance with the standard is attained for 1-hour NO2 when the 3-year average of the 98th

percentile of the annual distribution of daily maximum 1-hour concentrations does not exceed the 

standard within an area. For 1-hour SO2, the standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 

99th percentile of the annual distribution of daily maximum 1-hour concentrations does not exceed 

the standard within an area. Applicable state and federal criteria are presented in Table 3.1-3.

3.1.3.2 Prevention of Significant Deterioration

PSD regulations, which restrict the degree of ambient air quality deterioration allowed in areas that meet 

the NAAQS, apply to proposed new or modified major stationary sources located in an attainment area that 

have the potential to emit criteria pollutants in excess of predetermined de minimis values (40 CFR Part 51). 

Increments for criteria pollutants are based on the PSD classification of the area. Class I area status is

assigned to federally protected wilderness areas and allows the lowest amount of permissible deterioration. 

Class I areas allow the lowest amount of air quality increment consumption, while Class II designations 

allow higher increment consumption. There are no designated Class III or heavy industrial use areas.

As defined in 40 CFR 51, a source is a major stationary source if it: 

1. Can be classified in one of the 28 named source categories listed in Section 169 of the CAA and it 

emits or has the potential to emit (PTE) 100 tons per year (tpy) or more of any pollutant regulated 

by the Act; or

2. Is any other stationary source that emits or has the PTE 250 tpy or more of any pollutants regulated 

by the CAA (USEPA 1990). 

Compressor stations and other upstream oil and gas sources are not listed as one of the 28 named source 

types in Section 169 of the Act; therefore, 250 tpy is the threshold for major source status. 
FEIS 3-8 March 2012

Table 3.1-3 Applicable Ambient Air Quality Standards

1 Averaging Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant Period National Wyoming Utah Colorado

3 2 3 3 NO2 (μg/m ) 1-hour 188 -- 188 --

Annual4 100 100 100 100

5 CO (μg/m3

) 1-hour 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000

5 8-hour 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000

3 6 3 3 SO2 (μg/m ) 1-hour 197 -- 197 -- 5,7 3-hour 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300

5,7 8 24-hour -- 260 365 365

8 Annual4 -- 60 80 80

3 9 PM10 (μg/m ) 24-hour 150 150 150 150

10 Annual4 -- 50 50 50

3 11 PM2.5 (μg/m ) 24-hour 35 35 35 35

Annual12 15 15 15 15

13 Ozone (ppb) 8-hour 75 75 75 75

1

 Sources: USEPA 2009, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) 2008, Utah Department of Air Quality (UDAQ) 2010, 

and Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) 2007. 2 Three-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average. 3 No state standard has been incorporated into the State Implementation Plan. 4 Never to be exceeded. 5 Not to be exceeded more than once per year. 6 Three-year average of the 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average. 7 Secondary standard only. 8 The 24-hour and annual SO2 NAAQS have been revoked and replaced with the 1-hour standard (75 FR 35520-35603, June 22, 2010). 9 Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years. 10 The annual PM 3 10 NAAQS of 50 μg/m was revoked by USEPA on September 21, 2006. See FR Volume 71, Number 200, October 17, 

2006. 11 Three-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each population-oriented monitor within an area must not 

exceed the standard. 12 Three-year average of the weighted annual mean concentrations from single or multiple community-oriented monitors must not 

exceed this standard. 13 Three-year average of the fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average measured at each monitor within an area over each year 

must not exceed this standard.

In addition to more stringent PSD increments, Class I areas are protected by Federal Land Managers 

(FLMs) by management of air quality related values (AQRVs) such as visibility and acid deposition. Though 

not a regulatory program under PSD, FLMs review the issuance of a PSD permit for any impacts that 

exceed guideline thresholds for these parameters. The air quality impacts in the area must meet the 

NAAQS, which apply nationwide. The nearest Class I area is Arches National Park about 80 miles south of 

the GNBPA. See Table 3.1-4 for a complete list of Class I and Class II areas considered in the air quality 

analysis.

Table 3.1-4 Class I and Sensitive Class II Areas of Concern for Air Quality Impact Analysis

NPS Class I Areas

Arches National Park

Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park

Canyonlands National Park 

Capitol Reef National Park
FEIS 3-9 March 2012

Table 3.1-4 Class I and Sensitive Class II Areas of Concern for Air Quality Impact Analysis

Mesa Verde National Park

USFS Class I Areas

Eagles Nest Wilderness Area

Flat Tops Wilderness Area

La Garita Wilderness Area

Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness Area

Mount Zirkel Wilderness Area

Weminuche Wilderness Area

West Elk Wilderness Area

NPS Class II Areas

Colorado National Monument

Dinosaur National Monument

USFS Class II Areas

Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area

High Uintah Wilderness Area

Holy Cross Wilderness Area

Hunter/Frying Pan Wilderness Area

Raggeds Wilderness Area

USFWS Class II Areas

Browns Park National Wildlife Refuge

Allowable deterioration to air quality can be expressed as the incremental increase to ambient 

concentrations of criteria pollutants, or PSD increment. Modeled air concentrations of NO2, SO2, and PM10

predicted at near-field receptors that result from the emissions due to project sources are compared with the 

convenient threshold of allowable PSD increments. This comparison to PSD Class II increments is solely 

for informational purposes and does not represent a regulatory PSD increment consumption analysis 

because the focus of this study is the Proposed Action and alternatives under NEPA, not incrementaffecting sources, which are not evaluated for regulatory purposes under NEPA. The allowable PSD 

increments for Class I and Class II areas are given in Table 3.1-5. 

Table 3.1-5 PSD Increments for Class I and Class II Areas

PSD Class Pollutant 

Allowable Increment (μg/m3)

Annual Arithmetic Mean 24-hour Maximum 3-hour Maximum

Class I NO2 2.5 - - 

SO2 2 5 25

PM10 4 8 - 

PM2.5 2 1 - 

Class II NO2 25 - - 

SO2 20 91 512

PM10 17 30 - 

PM2.5 9 4 - 
FEIS 3-10 March 2012

On June 3, 2010, the USEPA issued the final rule that “tailors” the applicability of PSD regarding 

USEPA and/or permitting authorities to implement PSD permitting requirements for GHGs (75 FR 

31514). The “Tailoring Rule” took effect on January 2, 2011, for new or modified sources that have 

the PTE or net increase in emissions more than 75,000 tpy of CO2e and would be considered major 

for other PSD pollutants. On or after July 1, 2011, this rule will apply to any new source with the PTE 

100,000 tpy CO2e and exceeds the major source threshold of any GHG on a mass basis regardless

of the PTE of other PSD pollutants. Further, modifications at an existing major source that results in 

a net emissions increase of 75,000 tpy CO2e also will be reviewed under the PSD rules.

This EIS does not evaluate permitting requirements under the CAA; however, if a major source were 

to be proposed during the course of development of any alternatives, emissions from that source 

would need to be evaluated regarding the applicability of the PSD program based on GHG 

emissions, as well as the standard criteria air pollutant emissions. Under the current project design, 

including compressor stations that are the largest sources of GHGs, none of the proposed sources 

would trigger PSD review under the Tailoring Rule.

3.1.3.3 Nonattainment New Source Review 

NNSR is required for major stationary sources locating or expanding in nonattainment areas. The areas 

potentially impacted by the proposed project are currently in “attainment” for all criteria pollutants; therefore, 

NNSR does not apply.

3.1.3.4 Conformity for General Federal Actions

According to Section 176I of the CAA (40 CFR 51.853), a federal agency must make a conformity 

determination in the approval of a project having air emissions that exceed specified thresholds in 

nonattainment and/or maintenance areas. The proposed project is not located in a nonattainment or 

maintenance area; therefore, a general conformity analysis is not required.

3.1.3.5 New Source Performance Standards

The regulation of new sources, through the development of standards applicable to a specific category of 

sources, was a significant step taken by the CAA. The significant feature of the law is that it applies to all 

new, modified, or reconstructed sources within a given category, regardless of geographic location or the 

existing ambient air quality. The standards defined emission limitations that would be applicable to a 

particular source group. The NSPS potentially applicable to the project include the following subparts of 

40 CFR Part 60: 

• Subpart A – General Provisions;

• Subpart Kb – Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Storage Vessels;

• Subpart JJJJ – Standards of Performance for Stationary Spark-Ignition Internal Combustion 

Engines; and

• Subpart KKKK – Standards of Performance for Stationary Combustion Turbines.

Subpart A – General Provisions

Certain provisions of Subpart A apply to the owner or operator of any stationary source subject to a NSPS. 

Provisions of Subpart A potentially would apply depending on the size and type of compressor-drivers to be

installed. 
FEIS 3-11 March 2012

Subpart Kb – Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels

Subpart Kb applies to storage vessels containing volatile organic liquids with a capacity greater than 75 m3

(approximately 19,800 gallons). This subpart potentially would be applicable to storage tanks for natural gas 

liquids and pipeline liquids tanks located at pump or meter stations. 

NSPS JJJJ – Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines

On January 18, 2008, the USEPA published in the Federal Register the finalized rule for NOX, CO, and 

non-methane hydrocarbons from certain new stationary spark-ignited internal combustion (IC) engines that 

commence construction, modification, or reconstruction after the date the particular standard for a specified 

engine is identified. For the purposes of this Subpart, the date that construction commences is the date that

the engine is ordered by the owner or operator. The requirements of this Subpart apply to owners and 

operators of stationary spark-ignition (SI) IC engines that commence construction after June 12, 2006, 

where IC engines greater than or equal to 500 hp are manufactured on or after July 1, 2007, and where 

emergency generator engines are manufactured on or after January 1, 2009.

Subpart KKKK – Stationary Combustion Turbines

On February 18, 2005, the USEPA published proposed rules in the Federal Register for NOX and SO2 from 

new stationary combustion turbines that are larger than 1 megawatt that commence construction, 

modification, or reconstruction after February 18, 2005. The preamble to the proposed rule states that new 

stationary combustion turbines subject to the proposed standards are exempt from the requirements of 

40 CFR 60, Subpart GG. Combustion turbines that operate in emergency situations are exempt from the 

new regulations. The USEPA promulgated the new combustion turbine, Subpart KKKK rule on July 6, 2006.

3.1.3.6 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

Under the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), the USEPA promulgated 

MACT standards pursuant to Section 112 of the 1990 CAA Amendments and these rules are provided in 

40 CFR 63. The MACT standards that potentially would be applicable to the proposed project include:

• Subpart A – General Provisions;

• Subpart HH – Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities;

• Subpart YYYY – Stationary Combustion Turbines; and

• Subpart ZZZZ – Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines

Subpart A – General Provisions 

The general provisions for all sources affected by a MACT standard are promulgated under Subpart A. 

Each of the promulgated standards contains a detailed list of Subpart A provisions that are applicable to 

the affected facility. The critical sections of Subpart A are summarized in Section 63.6, specifically including 

paragraph 63.6(e), which provides operation and maintenance requirements. 

Subpart HH – Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities 

In the January 3, 2007, Federal Register (72 FR pp. 26-43), the USEPA amended 40 CFR 63, Subpart HH 

to include area sources rather than just major sources of HAPs. An affected source under this final rule is 

each tri-ethylene glycol dehydration unit located at an area source oil and natural gas production facility. 

The USEPA is reviewing the Subpart HH rules and is under a consent decree schedule to issue a 

final rule revising Subpart HH, or a determination that revisions are not necessary, by 

November 30, 2011.
FEIS 3-12 March 2012

Subpart YYYY – Stationary Combustion Turbines

The USEPA published the final stationary combustion turbine MACT rule in the Federal Register on 

March 5, 2004. New lean premix and diffusion flame gas- and oil-fired turbines at major HAP facilities are 

required to limit formaldehyde emissions to 91 ppb volume dry at 15 percent oxygen. On April 7, 2004, the 

USEPA published two proposed rules affecting natural gas-fired lean premix combustion turbines and three 

other subcategories. On August 18, 2004, USEPA issued a final rule to stay of the effectiveness for two 

categories of stationary combustion turbines: lean pre-mix gas-fired turbines and diffusion flame gas-fired 

turbines. 

Subpart ZZZZ – Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

On January 18, 2008, the USEPA published in the Federal Register finalized rules to amend 40 CFR 63, 

Subpart ZZZZ. An affected source under this amended Subpart is any existing, new, or reconstructed 

stationary reciprocating internal combustion engine with a site-rating of more than 25 brake hp, which are 

located at either a major source or area source of HAPs.

On August 20, 2010, the USEPA published further revisions to this rule (71 FR 51570 et. seq.) to 

address emissions from existing stationary SI engines less than or equal to 500 hp at major sources 

and all existing stationary SI engines located at area sources.

3.1.3.7 Carbon Dioxide and Other Greenhouse Gases

Ongoing scientific research has identified the potential impacts of anthropogenic (man-made) GHG 

emissions and changes in biological carbon sequestration due to land management activities on global 

climate. Through complex interactions on a regional and global scale, these GHG emissions and net losses 

of biological carbon sinks cause a net warming effect of the atmosphere, primarily by decreasing the amount 

of heat energy radiated by the earth back into space. Although GHG levels have varied for millennia, recent 

industrialization and burning of fossil carbon sources have caused CO2e concentrations to increase 

dramatically, and are likely to contribute to overall global climatic changes. The Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC) recently concluded that warming of the climate system is unequivocal and most of 

the observed increase in globally average temperatures since the mid-20th century very likely is due to the 

observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations (IPCC 2007).

Global mean surface temperatures increased nearly 1.8°F from 1890 to 2006. Models indicate that average 

temperature changes are likely to be greater in the Northern Hemisphere. Northern latitudes (above 24°N) 

have exhibited temperature increases of nearly 2.1°F since 1900, with nearly a 1.8°F increase since 1970. 

Without additional meteorological monitoring systems, it is difficult to determine the spatial and temporal 

variability and change of climatic conditions, but increasing concentrations of GHGs are likely to accelerate 

the rate of climate change.

In 2001, the IPCC projected that by the year 2100, global average surface temperatures could increase by 

2.5 to 10.4°F above 1990 levels. The National Academy of Sciences (2010) has confirmed these 

projections, but also has indicated that there are uncertainties regarding how climate change may affect 

different regions. Computer model predictions indicate that increases in temperature would not be equally 

distributed, but are likely to be accentuated at higher latitudes. Warming during the winter months is 

expected to be greater than during the summer, and increases in daily minimum temperatures are more 

likely than increases in daily maximum temperatures. Although large-scale spatial shifts in precipitation 

distribution may occur, these changes are more uncertain and difficult to predict.

As with any field of scientific study, there are uncertainties associated with the science of climate change; 

however, this does not imply that scientists do not have confidence in many aspects of climate change 

science. Some aspects of the science are known with virtual certainty because they are based on wellknown physical laws and documented trends (USEPA 2010b).
FEIS 3-13 March 2012

Several activities contribute to the phenomena of climate change, including emissions of GHGs (especially 

CO2 and methane [CH4]) from fossil fuel development, large wildfires, activities using combustion engines, 

changes to the natural carbon cycle, and changes to radiative forces and reflectivity (albedo). It is important 

to note that GHGs will have a sustained climatic impact over different temporal scales. For example, recent 

emissions of CO2 may influence climate for 100 years.

It may be difficult to discern whether climate change is already affecting resources globally, let alone those 

in the vicinity of the proposed project. In most cases, there is little information about potential or projected 

effects of global climate change on resources. It is important to note that projected changes are likely to 

occur over several decades to a century. Therefore, many of the projected changes associated with climate 

change may not be measurably discernible within the reasonably foreseeable future. Existing climate 

prediction models are global in nature; therefore, they are not at the appropriate scale to provide a credible

estimate of climate change impacts in the project vicinity. 

The analysis of the Regional Climate Impacts prepared by the U.S. Global Change Research 

Program (USGCRP) (2009) suggests that recent warming in the region was among the most rapid 

nationally. They conclude that this warming is causing decline in spring snowpack and reducing 

flow in the Colorado River. Their projections of future climate change indicate that further strong 

warming will reduce precipitation, which in turn will strain regional water supplies, increase the risk 

of wildfires and invasive species, and degrade recreational opportunities.

Past records and future projections predict an overall increase in regional temperatures, which 

would cover the development area. As has been observed at many sites to date, the observed 

increase is largely the result of the warmer nights, and effectively higher average daily minimum 

temperatures at many of the sites in the region. The USGCRP (2009) projects a region-wide 

decrease in precipitation, although with substantial variability in interannual conditions. For eastern 

Utah, the projections range from approximately 5 percent decrease in annual precipitation to 

decreases as high as 40 percent of annual precipitation.

In Massachusetts v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court (April 7, 2007) held that CO2 satisfies the definition of “air 

pollutant” and that USEPA has authority to regulate emissions of CO2 and other GHGs from new motor 

vehicles under the CAA. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the USEPA to determine whether such 

motor vehicle emissions contribute to global climate change, and thereby endanger public health or welfare. 

On October 30, 2009, the USEPA promulgated the final mandatory reporting rule for GHGs under 

40 CFR Part 98, which requires a wide range of sources to record and report selected GHG 

emissions including CO2, CH4, nitrous oxide (N2O), and some halogenated compounds. A CO2e 

value is calculated for combined emissions of these gases based on their comparative global 

warming potential. This rule applies to sources that emit 25,000 tpy or more CO2e. Further, the 

USEPA issued the final reporting GHG requirements for petroleum and natural gas production on 

November 30, 2010 (40 CFR Part 98, Subpart W) (75 FR 74458). The rule specifically identifies 

monitoring and reporting requirements for natural gas systems including combustion units 

(Subpart C) as well as on-shore gas production, storage, processing, and transmission (Subpart W).

Applicable USEPA rules do not require any controls or establish any emission limits related to GHG 

emissions or impacts. Therefore, there is no requirement at this time that would affect development of the 

proposed project under this rule, other than the requirement for the operator to develop a monitoring 

plan and maintain recordkeeping and reporting of GHG emissions.
FEIS 3-14 March 2012

3.2 Cultural Resources and Native American Traditional Values

The study area for cultural resources and Native American traditional values is defined as the GNBPA.

3.2.1 Cultural Resources

Cultural resources are those aspects of the physical environment that relate to human culture, society, and 

cultural institutions that hold communities together and link them to their surroundings. Cultural resources 

include prehistoric and historic sites and ethnographic resources. Prehistoric and historic sites are the 

tangible remains of past activities that show use or modification by people. They are distinct geographic 

areas that can include artifacts; features such as hearths, rock alignments, trails, rock art, railroad grades, 

canals and roads; landscape alterations; or architecture. The reader is referred to Section 3.2.2, Native 

American Traditional Values, for the discussion of ethnographic resources. 

3.2.1.1 Cultural Resources Overview

The following prehistoric and historic contexts are derived from NBU Class I Existing Data Review for 

Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP, Uintah County, Utah (Patterson et al. 2008) and the Final Castle Peak 

and Eightmile Flat Oil and Gas Expansion Project EIS (BLM 2005).

3.2.1.2 Prehistoric Resources

The prehistoric chronological sequence represented in the GNBPA includes the Paleoindian, Archaic, 

Formative, Fremont, and Protohistoric stages. The earliest inhabitants of the region are representative of the 

Paleoindian stage (ca. 12,000-8000 B.P.). Adaptation to terminal Pleistocene environments and big-game 

hunting are characteristic of the Paleoindian stage. In the Uinta Basin, few Paleoindian sites have been 

adequately documented, and most evidence of Paleoindian exploitation of the area is restricted to isolated 

projectile points recovered in non-stratigraphic contexts. 

The Archaic stage is broken down into Early Archaic (ca. 8000-5000 B.P.), Middle Archaic (ca. 5000-

700 B.P.), and Late Archaic 700 B.P. to A.D. 550). The Early Archaic is characterized by the dependence on 

a foraging subsistence, with a seasonal exploitation of a wide variety of plant and animal species in different 

ecozones. Dependence on these resources involved the ability to shift camps from one available food 

source to another. The Middle Archaic is characterized by improved climatic conditions and an increase in 

human population on the northern Colorado Plateau. Subsistence included plant gathering and processing, 

as well as big-game and small-game hunting. During this stage, the use of rock shelters, overhangs, and 

open camps was common throughout the Uinta Basin. The Late Archaic is defined by changes in 

subsistence strategies and settlement patterns. By about A.D. 100, maize horticulture is added to the 

Archaic life way. Domesticated agriculture required a greater level of sedentism, which is evidenced by 

semi-permanent architecture and storage features. In addition, there are indications of complex burial 

practices, which suggest a shift in social structure. 

The Formative stage (A.D. 500-1300) is recognized in the area as the Uinta Fremont. This stage is 

characterized by continued foraging with a reliance on domesticated corn and squash, and increased 

sedentism. Later in the stage, substantial habitation structures, pottery, and changes in bow and arrow 

technology appear. Based on archaeological evidence, the temporal range of the Uinta Fremont appears to 

be from A.D. 650 to 950. Rock art styles often are used as culturally diagnostic attributes of the Fremont. 

Fremont-style rock art includes petroglyphs, rock paintings, and a combination of petroglyphs and rock 

paintings. 

Archaeological evidence suggests that Numic-speaking people (Utes) appeared in the region at 

approximately A.D. 1100. Remnants of Numic-speaking Utes primarily consist of lithic scatters with low 

quantities of brown ware ceramics, rock art, and occasional wickiups. 
FEIS 3-15 March 2012

3.2.1.3 Historical Resources

The earliest recorded visit by Europeans to Utah was the Dominguez-Escalante expedition in 1776. With the 

exception of the Dominguez and Escalante expedition, few explorers ventured into Ute territory until the 

1820s when a growing number of trappers passed through or established temporary trading posts. Between 

the 1820s and the 1840s, such men as William H. Ashley, Etienne Provost, Antoine Robidoux, and Kit 

Carson visited the basin and mountains. These travelers passed through the area via several routes. One 

northerly route from Santa Fe, today known as the Old Spanish Trail, was used from 1829 to 1848 to 

access that portion of eastern Utah near the present day town of Green River. Others came from the north 

following a number of trails, later to become such well-known routes as the Oregon, Overland, and 

Cherokee trails. 

At least two semi-permanent trading posts were established in the Uinta Basin: Fort Robidoux, sometimes 

referred to as Fort Uintah or Winty (1830s-1844), and Fort Kit Carson (1833-1834). Several important U.S. 

government expeditions visited the area, including Captain John C. Fremont’s expedition in the 1840s, and 

Major John Wesley Powell who floated down the Green River in 1869 and again in 1871. Fort Robidoux was 

established in 1832 at the confluence of the Uinta and Duchesne rivers and survived until late 1844 when 

Ute Indians routed the inhabitants just after John C. Fremont’s visit. However, the Utah Historical Records 

Survey maintains that the Fort was established earlier, possibly by 1830, at the mouth of the White River. 

The Uinta Basin was of little interest to most settlers during the initial phase of settlement in the Great Basin. 

In 1861, Brigham Young sent a formal Mormon exploration party to the Uinta Basin, but they soon returned 

to the Wasatch front range stating that the basin was too desolate, disappointing, and undesirable for 

settlement. Soon after, most of the Uinta Basin was set aside by Presidential proclamation for an Indian 

reservation. However, it was not until the late 1860s that most of the Utes residing in Utah Valley and areas 

south were relocated to the new Indian reservation. 

By the early 1870s, Mormon ranchers began filtering into Ashley Valley, which first served as excellent 

summer feeding grounds for herds of cattle. The building of water flumes and canals through the late 1800s 

was crucial to farming success in this arid region, first tapping Ashley Creek along which the majority of the 

white population lived in the early years. By 1880, there was a permanent population sufficiently large 

enough for Uintah County to be established by the territorial legislature. By the 1890s, gilsonite and other 

asphaltum minerals were discovered in Uintah County, as well as on the eastern edges of the Indian 

reservations. A number of gilsonite camps were established along the Utah-Colorado border. During this 

time, freight and stagecoach traffic increased between the eastern GNBPA and Uintah Railway stations 

located first at Dragon and later at Watson. The Uintah Railway Company’s Stage Line from Vernal to 

Watson is located in the GNBPA. The population grew slowly until August of 1905 when much of the Uintah 

Indian Reservation was declared open for white settlement. Thousands of potential homesteaders rushed to 

Vernal, Price, and Provo to register for the land drawing. Only a small fraction of registrants actually took up 

homesteads and many of those eventually gave up on their efforts to secure cheap farmland. 

In 1904, a system of roads and telephone/telegraph lines were built. Roads were constructed from Green 

River to Vernal and Fort Duchesne. One of the main routes between these areas was the Ouray to Rangely

wagon road, later known as the Watson Road. Segments of the Watson Road are located in the GNBPA. 

By 1916, most of the freight cargo from Watson to Vernal and Fort Duchesne was transported by motor 

vehicles. The Chapita Wells way-station, which is located in the GNBPA, was operated by the Uintah Toll 

Road Company from 1906 to the late 1930s or early 1940s. 

Commercial oil production started in the 1950s, but was not fully exploited until the 1970s with the increased 

price of crude oil. This in turn spurred private and public ventures to develop an inexpensive process for 

separating oil from oil shale and tar sands. The oil development in the basin during the 1970s resulted in 

vigorous economic activity, an increase in the local population, increased school enrollment, and a shortage 

of housing. However, in 1980, international oil prices began to fall and the economic health of the Uinta 

Basin quickly fell. 
FEIS 3-16 March 2012

The Uinta Basin has been susceptible to frequent economic boom-bust cycles. Currently, there is little 

evidence of past economic booms. The small population base of European-Americans and Indians is 

supported by a fragile economy based on farming, ranching, and the production of oil and gas. It is 

increasingly influenced by worldwide energy prices.

Regulatory Framework

Federal historic preservation legislation provides a legal environment for documentation, evaluation, and 

protection of cultural resources that may be affected by federal undertakings, or by private undertakings 

operating under federal license, with federal funding, or on federally managed lands. These include the 

NHPA, as amended; the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (AHPA) of 1974; and the ARPA, as 

amended. EO 11593 also provides necessary guidance on protection and enhancement of cultural 

resources. 

The NHPA requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their actions on properties listed on 

or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Section 106 of the NHPA 

establishes a four-step review process by which cultural resources are given consideration during the 

evaluation of proposed undertakings. The regulations require that federal agencies initiate Section 106 early 

in the project planning, when a broad range of alternatives can be considered (36 CFR 800.1[c]).

Eligibility Criteria for Listing Cultural Resources on the NRHP

The NRHP, maintained by the NPS on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior, is the nation’s inventory of 

significant cultural resources. The NPS has established three main standards that a resource must meet to 

qualify for listing on the NRHP: age, integrity, and significance. To meet the age criteria, a resource 

generally must be at least 50 years old (except in special circumstances). To meet the integrity criteria, a 

resource must “possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and 

association” (36 CFR 60.4). Finally, a resource must be significant according to one or more of the following 

criteria:

• Be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of U.S. 

history (Criterion A); or

• Be associated with the lives of persons significant in U.S. history (Criterion B); or

• Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represent the 

work of a master, or possess high artistic values, or represent a significant and distinguishable 

entity whose components may lack individual distinction (Criterion C); or

• Have yielded, or may likely yield, information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D) 

(NPS 1995).

Cultural Resources Investigations in the GNBPA

Numerous Class I (files search) and Class III (field survey) large-scale cultural resource inventories have 

been conducted in the GNBPA for oil field development, including associated access roads and pipelines. 

Several small-scale, site-specific block surveys also have been conducted in the GNBPA. The objective of 

these previous inventories was to locate, document, and evaluate any cultural resources within the GNBPA 

pursuant to a determination of effect to NRHP-eligible sites in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA. In 

summer and fall 2008, a Class III inventory was conducted on remaining portions of the GNBPA that had 

not been previously surveyed. The results of the 2008 Class III inventory and inventories previously 

conducted in the GNBPA are in the process of being combined into one Class III inventory report for the 

proposed project. Once completed, the Class III inventory report will be submitted to the BLM Vernal Field 

Office and Utah SHPO for review. The following paragraphs are brief summaries of the inventory data found 

in the Class III inventory report (Patterson 2009).
FEIS 3-17 March 2012

Class I Files Search Results 

Between June 2006 and January 2007, a Class I files search of 459 square miles (293,805 acres) covering 

an area between Bonanza and Ouray in Uintah County was conducted at the Utah SHPO and the BLM 

Vernal Field Office (Patterson et al. 2008). In addition, Government Land Office maps of the GNBPA were 

examined to identify potential historic cultural resources including homesteads, roads, and similar 

resources. The files search also identified all lands within the GNBPA that had not been previously 

inventoried for cultural resources. As a result of the files search, 1,820 cultural resource inventories and 

1,212 cultural resources were identified in the GNBPA. Based on the files search data, the average site 

density of previously recorded prehistoric and historic sites within the GNBPA is estimated at 7.1 sites per 

square mile.

Of the 1,212 sites identified in the Class I files search, 413 (34 percent) are recommended as eligible to the 

NRHP, 772 sites (63.6 percent) are not eligible, and 27 sites (3.0 percent) are unevaluated and require 

additional research to determine their eligibility for the NRHP. The majority of eligible sites are prehistoric 

sites eligible under Criterion D due to their potential to provide important information on the prehistory or 

history of the area. Other eligible site types include rock art panels, historic roads, gilsonite mines, and a

limited number of historic temporary camps, trash scatters, and cairns. Cairns consist of small to large 

stacked stones used to demarcate section corners, claims, and line-of-site markers. The 772 sites 

determined as not eligible for the NRHP are predominately historic temporary camps and trash scatters. The 

27 unevaluated sites consist of 19 prehistoric artifact scatters of unknown cultural affiliation, 4 prehistoric 

temporary camps of unknown cultural affiliation, 2 historic inscriptions, 1 unaffiliated prehistoric rock art site, 

and 1 unaffiliated prehistoric rock shelter. 

Class III Field Survey Results

Prehistoric Sites

Prehistoric cultural resources located in the GNBPA were classified as one or more of eight site types. The 

site types include camp sites, habitation sites, human remains, lithic quarries, lithic scatters, rock art, rock 

shelters, and stone circles. Camp sites typically contain evidence of temporary habitation in the form of 

domestic trash and the presence of features such as hearths, cists, and tent rings. Lithic scatters are often 

similar to camp sites, but lack constructed features. Habitation sites refer to sites occupied either 

continuously or seasonally for extended periods of time. Habitation sites often contain features that required 

substantial investments of time or resources to construct, such as standing architecture or slab-lined storage 

cists. Human remains consist of human bones or skeletons and associated funerary objects. Lithic quarries 

refer to tool stone sources utilized by prehistoric inhabitants of the area. Rock art refers to sites containing 

either petroglyphs or pictographs on cliffs or boulders. The distinguishing characteristic of a rock shelter is a 

natural alcove in a cliff or large boulder that was utilized by prehistoric inhabitants of the area; rock shelters 

may have served as camp or habitation sites. Finally, stone circles consist of closed alignments of rocks. 

Though the exact function of stone rings is not readily identifiable from their surface manifestations, it is 

likely that the circles represent tent rings, shrines, or markers.

Table 3.2-1 lists the site type and cultural affiliation of known prehistoric sites in the GNBPA, including both 

previously recorded sites and sites identified during the 2008 cultural resource inventory. In total, 

877 prehistoric sites are known to be present in the GNBPA. The majority of the sites (801) could not be 

categorized as belonging to any particular cultural affiliation due to the absence of temporal or diagnostic 

indicators. Of the sites that could be classified as belonging to a particular period, most date in the Archaic

period (41 sites). Fremont sites represent the second most commonly identified affiliation. Numic and 

Paleoindian sites represent minor portions of the archaeological record in the GNBPA. 
FEIS 3-18 March 2012

Table 3.2-1 Prehistoric Site Types and Cultural Affiliations 

Site Type Paleoindian

Early 

Archaic

Middle 

Archaic

Late 

Archaic

Archaic 

(General) Fremont Numic

Unknown 

Aboriginal Total

Camp Site 1 2 10 5 4 166 188

Camp Site, Lithic Quarry 3 3

Habitation Site 1 1 2

Habitation Site, Human 

Remains

1 1

Human Remains 1 1

Lithic Quarry 48 48

Lithic Scatter 3 5 4 1 14 3 2 469 501

Rock Art 1 5 3 10 19

Rock Art, Rock Shelter 1 1

Rock Shelter 3 4 3 99 109

Stone Circle 4 4

Total 3 6 5 3 27 20 12 801 877

In general, lithic scatters account for over half of the prehistoric sites documented in the GNBPA; camp sites 

are the second most common site type. Less common site types include habitation sites, stone circles, rock 

art, and sites containing human remains. The general absence of habitation sites in this portion of the Uinta 

Basin is not entirely unexpected given the low diversity of resources, the lack of permanent water sources 

away from the major rivers and creeks, and the overall terrain of the GNBPA. These same factors may 

partially account for the low frequency of identified rock art sites relative to surrounding areas. Prehistoric 

human remains were identified at two sites in the GNBPA. 

Historic Sites

Compared to prehistoric sites, the types of historic sites are more complex given the nature of varying land 

use systems and the extraction of commercial resources. Many of the historic site types fall into one or more 

land use categories, including homesteading and ranching, resource development and extraction, and 

indigenous land use. Ranching and homesteading site types commonly include homesteads, corrals, 

temporary camps, trails, and stock driveways, certain classes of cairns, and trash scatters. Resource 

extraction and development sites include certain types of cairns (e.g., claim markers), mines, utility lines, 

roads, bridges, and sites related to the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). Historic sites related to 

continued use of the landscape by the Ute Indians include teepee rings and trash scatters, temporary 

camps, rock art, and graves. Other types of sites, including inscriptions, rock alignments, and rock 

concentrations, do not fit neatly into any of the broad land use classifications. Both inscriptions (e.g., names, 

initials, dates, brands) and rock art are included in the historic sites. 

Table 3.2-2 lists the site types and cultural affiliations of historic sites identified in the GNBPA, including both 

previously recorded sites and sites identified during the 2008 cultural resource inventory. In total, 

897 historic sites are known to be present in the GNBPA. Most of the historic sites are associated with 

Euro-Americans and include cairns, temporary camps, and trash scatters. While some of these sites have 

ambiguous or unknown functions, it likely is that most are associated with ranching activities. Corrals and 

homesteads, though much less common in the GNBPA, further support a strong historic ranching-based 

economy. Sites related to development and resource extraction are less common in the GNBPA. Two sites 

are identified as related to the CCC: one site is a temporary camp documented in the historic literature and 

the second is a road grader with the letters “CCC” painted on its side. Other development-related sites 

include the old Ouray Bridge, numerous historic freight and coach roads, and an old power/telegraph line. 

One of the 13 documented graves is associated with Euro-Americans.
FEIS 3-19 March 2012

Table 3.2-2 Historic Site Types and Cultural Affiliations

Site Type

European 

American Ute

European 

American or Ute Total

Cairn 246 246

Cairn (Claim Marker) 3 3

Cairn, Inscription 1 1

Cairn, Temporary Camp 1 1

Cairn, Trash Scatter 3 3

CCC Temporary Camp 1 1

Corral 19 7 26

Corral (Lambing Pen) 1 1

Feed Trough 1 1

Grave 1 12 13

Grave, Stone Circle 3 3

Homestead 3 5 8

Inscription 13 13 2 28

Livestock Driveway 2 2

Mine 12 12

Road 7 7

Road Grader (CCC) 1 1

Rock Alignment 3 1 4

Historic Rock Art 12 12 24

Rock Concentration 2 1 3

Rock Shelter 1 1

Temporary Camp 246 6 16 268

Teepee Ring 3 3

Trail 1 1

Trash Scatter 216 18 234

Bridge 1 1

Utility Line 1 1

Total 796 51 50 897

Sites affiliated with the Ute Indian Tribe include potential graves, rock art panels and inscriptions, temporary 

camps, and teepee rings and/or rock concentrations. The majority of the Ute-affiliated sites occur on the 

Uintah and Ouray Reservation. Sites listed as either Euro-American or Ute also mostly occur on Tribal land, 

but lack any diagnostic Ute characteristic making it difficult to assign them to one particular cultural

affiliation. In general, the types of sites classified in this group are relatively common to both the Ute and 

their Euro-American counterparts.

Multicomponent Sites

Multicomponent sites consist of cultural resources with at least two distinct cultural affiliations or temporal 

periods and are spatially associated with one another. As applied here, multicomponent sites consist of the 

same site types and cultural affiliations described above for prehistoric and historic sites. Table 3.2-3 lists 

the multicomponent sites identified in the GNBPA, including both previously recorded sites and sites 

identified during the 2008 cultural resource inventory. In total, 39 multicomponent sites are known to be 

present in the GNBPA. The most common multicomponent site types are prehistoric lithic scatters and 

historic trash scatters. All but eight of the multicomponent sites have a Euro-American component. The 

majority of the multicomponent sites contain both prehistoric and historic components. One site has multiple 

prehistoric components; no sites have multiple historic components. 
FEIS 3-20 March 2012

Table 3.2-3 Multicomponent Site Types and Cultural Affiliations

Site Types

Archaic, European American

Archaic, European American or Ute

Archaic, Fremont, European American

Early Archaic, European American

Early Archaic, Fremont

European American, Ute, Numic

Fremont, European American

Fremont, European American, Ute

Fremont, Ute

Paleoindian, European American

Numic, European American

Unknown Aboriginal, European 

American, Ute

Unknown Aboriginal, Fremont, 

European American, Ute

Unknown Aboriginal, European 

American

Unknown Aboriginal, Ute

Total

Cairn, Lithic Scatter 1 1

Camp Site 1 1 2

Camp Site, Corral 1 1 1

Camp Site, Rock Art, Inscriptions 1 1

Camp Site, Trash Scatter 1 1

Habitation, Inscription 1 1

Lithic Scatter, Homestead 1 1

Lithic Scatter, Inscription 1 1 2

Lithic Scatter, Road 1 1

Lithic Scatter, Temporary Camp 1 1 2

Lithic Scatter, Trash Scatter 1 1 1 8 11

Lithic-Ceramic Scatter, Trash Scatter 1 1

Rock Art 1 1 2 4

Rock Art, Corral 1 1

Rock Art, Inscription 1 1 2

Rock Art, Lithic Scatter, Inscription 1 1 2

Rock Shelter 2 1 3

Rock Shelter, Inscription 1 1

Rock Shelter, Trash Scatter 1 1

Total 2 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 15 5 39

NRHP Eligibility of Sites Identified in the GNBPA

Table 3.2-4 lists sites either recommended or evaluated as eligible for listing on the NRHP based on one or

more of the four NRHP criteria, as well as the land ownership of each site. It should be noted that 

Table 3.2-4 is preliminary and subject to change pending review by the BLM and SHPO of the Class III 

inventory report currently being prepared for the proposed project. NRHP eligibility has been determined for 

approximately 580 sites. These sites include cultural resources recorded or re-recorded during the 2008 

Class III inventory. Concurrence by the BLM and SHPO is pending on approximately 300 additional sites. 

Depending on the outcome of agency review, eligibility recommendations may change.
FEIS 3-21 March 2012

Table 3.2-4 Site Eligibility and Land Status

BLM

BLM, 

Private

BLM, 

USITLA Private USITLA Ute Tribal

Ute Tribal, 

BLM

Ute Tribal, 

Private Total

Eligible 258 4 8 11 93 367 4 0 745

Not Eligible 615 6 16 18 166 244 1 1 1,067

Total 873 10 24 29 259 611 5 1 1,812

3.2.2 Native American Traditional Values

Ethnographic resources are associated with the cultural practices, beliefs, and traditional history of a 

community. Examples of ethnographic resources include places, such as particular rock formations, the 

confluence of two rivers, or a rock cairn; large areas, such as landscapes and viewscapes; sacred sites and 

places used for religious practices; social or traditional gathering areas, such as dance areas; natural 

resources, such as plant materials or clay deposits used for arts, crafts, or ceremonies; and places and 

natural resources traditionally used for non-ceremonial uses, such as trails or camping locations. 

3.2.2.1 Ethnographic Overview

The following ethnographic overview is derived from NBU Class I Existing Data Review for Kerr-McGee Oil 

& Gas Onshore LP, Uintah County, Utah (Patterson et al. 2008) and the Final Castle Peak and Eightmile 

Flat Oil and Gas Expansion Project EIS (BLM 2005).

Ute Indians can be divided into eastern and western groups. The eastern Utes inhabited the high plateaus 

and Rocky Mountain parks of Colorado and northern New Mexico, and consisted of the Yamparka and 

Parianuc (White River Utes), the Taviwac (Uncompahgre Utes), and the Wiminuc, Kapota, and Muwac 

(Southern and Ute Mountain Utes). The western or Utah Utes inhabited the central and eastern two-thirds of 

the state. Utah Ute bands included the Cumumba or Weber Utes, the Tumpanuwac, Uinta-ats, Pahvant, 

San Pitch, and Sheberetch. The bands traded and intermarried with each other, but did not form large Tribal 

organizations. Principally hunters and gatherers, the semi-nomadic Utah Utes gathered seeds and berries in 

season, dug roots, fished, hunted small game, and occasionally killed mountain buffalo. 

Utes in Colorado acquired horses from the Spanish by 1640; however, the Utah Ute, being farther away 

from the Spanish frontier, acquired horses sometime later, possibly by 1680. With acquisition of the horse, 

the Ute quickly adopted the horse and buffalo culture of the Plains Indians. They became noted raiders and 

traded horses between the Spanish Southwest and the northern plains. Utes actively participated in Spanish 

attacks against Navajo and Apache raiders, and conducted their own slave trade with the Spanish against 

the Southern Paiute and Navajo. 

Beginning in 1847, Utes experienced the full impact of Euro-American contact with the arrival of Mormon 

settlers. The Mormons rapidly extended their settlements south into the Utah Valley, a major trade 

crossroads and subsistence area for the Ute People. As conflicts increased between the Mormons and 

Utes, the federal government was pressured by the Mormons to put the Indians on a reservation. In 1861, 

Abraham Lincoln issued an EO creating the Uintah Valley Reservation, comprising 2,039,400 acres in the 

Uinta Basin. By 1870, most members of the Tumpanuwac, San Pitch, Pahvant, Sheberetch, Cumumba, and 

Uinta-at bands of Utah Utes (collectively called the Uintah Band) resided on the Uintah Reservation. In 

1881, the Yamparka and Parianuc bands were forced by the federal government to join the Uintah Band on 

the Uintah Reservation. In 1882, the Taviwac were moved to their own reservation, the 1,912,320 acre 

Uncompahgre (Ouray) Reservation, immediately south of the Uintah Reservation. The Uintah and 

Uncompahgre Reservations were combined into the present Uintah and Ouray Reservation in 1886. Today, 

the Yamparka, Parianuc, and Taviwac are collectively called the Northern Ute Tribe. 
FEIS 3-22 March 2012

In 1905, the federal government allotted the reservations and opened the remainder for non-Indian entry. 

Each Ute received an 80- to 160-acre plot for farming and access to a communal grazing district. By 1909, 

the Uintah and Ouray Reservation shrank from nearly 4 million acres in 1882 to a jointly owned 

250,000-acre grazing reserve and 1,283 individual allotments totaling 103,265 acres. Sales of individual 

allotments further reduced Ute holdings. 

Following the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, the Northern Ute Tribe began repurchasing alienated 

reservation lands. In 1948, the federal government returned some 726,000 acres to the Tribe in what is now 

called the Hill Creek Extension. In a 1986 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Appeals Court ruling 

granting the Northern Ute Tribe “legal jurisdiction” over 3 million acres of alienated reservation lands. In the 

1990s, the Northern Ute Tribe had grown to 3,000 members and became an increasingly powerful force in 

local and state politics. The Uintah and Ouray Reservation now encompasses approximately 4.5 million 

acres. 

3.2.2.2 Regulatory Framework

Federal law and the BLM Manual H-8160-1 require the BLM to consult with Native American Tribes 

concerning the identification of cultural values, religious beliefs, and traditional practices of Native American 

people that may be affected by actions on BLM-administered lands. This consultation includes the 

identification of places (i.e., physical locations) of traditional cultural importance to Native American Tribes. 

Places that may be of traditional cultural importance to Native American people include, but are not limited 

to, locations associated with the traditional beliefs concerning Tribal origins, cultural history, or the nature of 

the world; locations where religious practitioners go, either in the past or the present, to perform ceremonial 

activities based on traditional cultural rules or practice; ancestral habitation sites; trails; burial sites; and 

places from which plants, animals, minerals, and waters possessing healing powers or used for other 

subsistence purposes, may be taken. Additionally, some of these locations may be considered sacred to 

particular Native American individuals or Tribes.

In 1992, the NHPA was amended to explicitly allow that “properties of traditional religious and cultural 

importance to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization may be determined to be eligible for inclusion 

on the NRHP.” If a resource has been identified as having importance in traditional cultural practices and the 

continuing cultural identity of a community, it may be considered a traditional cultural property. The term 

“traditional cultural property” first came into use within the federal legal framework for historic preservation 

and cultural resource management in an attempt to categorize historic properties containing traditional 

cultural significance. National Register Bulletin 38: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional 

Cultural Properties (Parker and King 1998) defines a traditional cultural property as “one that is eligible for 

inclusion in the NRHP because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that 

a) are rooted in that community’s history and b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity 

of the community.” To qualify for nomination to the NRHP, a traditional cultural property must be more than 

50 years old, must be a place with definable boundaries, must retain integrity, and must meet certain criteria 

as outlined for cultural resources in the NHPA. 

In addition to the NRHP eligibility, some places of cultural and religious importance also must be evaluated 

to determine if they should be considered under other federal laws, regulations, directives, or policies. 

These include, but are not limited to, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

(NAGPRA) of 1990, American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) of 1978, ARPA, and EO 13007 of 

1996. 

NAGPRA established a means for Native Americans, including Indian Tribes, to request the return of human 

remains and other sensitive cultural items held by federal agencies or federally assisted museums or 

institutions. NAGPRA also contains provisions regarding the intentional excavation and removal of, 

inadvertent discovery of, and illegal trafficking in Native American human remains and sensitive cultural 

items.
FEIS 3-23 March 2012

AIRFA established a federal policy of protecting and preserving the inherent right of individual Native 

Americans to believe, express, and exercise their traditional religions including, but not limited to, access to 

sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional 

rites.

ARPA requires notification of the appropriate Indian tribe before approving a cultural resource use permit for 

the excavation (testing and data recovery) of archaeological resources, if the responsible federal land 

manager determines that a location having cultural or religious importance to the tribe may be harmed or 

destroyed.

EO 13007 defines a sacred site as any specific, discrete, narrowly delineated location on federal land that is 

identified by an Indian tribe, or Indian individual determined to be an appropriately authoritative 

representative of an Indian religion, as sacred by virtue of its established religious significance to, or 

ceremonial use by, an Indian religion, provided that the tribe or appropriately authoritative representative 

has informed the federal agency of the existence of such a site. In compliance with the NHPA, as amended, 

and the BLM Manual H-8160-1, the BLM initiated government-to-government consultation for the Greater 

Natural Buttes EIS on January 9, 2008, by sending letters to the following tribal groups: Ute Mountain Ute, 

Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, White Mesa Ute Council, Pueblo of Laguna, Southern Ute 

Tribal Council, Ute Indian Tribe, Santa Clara Pueblo, Hopi Tribal Council, Zia Pueblo, Navajo Nation, 

Northwestern Band of Shoshone Nation, and Eastern Shoshone Business Council.

At this time, three of the contacted Tribes have responded to the January 9, 2008, letter. Both the Pueblo of 

Laguna and Navajo Nation state that the proposed project would have no significant impact on any 

traditional cultural properties or historical properties of importance to the Tribes (Joe 2008; Antonio 2008). 

However, 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 cairns 

previously documented in the GNBPA (Kuwanwisiwma 2007). To the Hopi, stone cairns found on canyon 

rims and outcrops or precipices are characteristic of Hopi shrines and are associated with prehistoric 

architecture in Nine Mile Canyon. In response to Hopi concerns, the BLM sent the site forms of nine stone 

cairn sites previously documented in the GNBPA to the Hopi Tribe. The Tribe was requested by the BLM to 

determine if any of the stone cairn sites are considered shrines by the Hopi and potentially significant. In a 

letter dated January 15, 2008, the Hopi stated that all nine stone cairn sites are considered potentially 

significant and potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP (Kuwanwisiwma 2008). 

On July 10, 2009, the BLM and Director of the Hopi Office of Cultural Preservation visited several stone 

cairn sites in the GNBPA. According to the Director, the Hopi tribe has cultural connections with the Ute, and 

the possible occurrence of twin cairns may mark the coming together of Ute and Hopi clans. During the field 

visit, the Director examined and viewed the sites utilizing characteristics derived from Hopi cultural practices. 

At the time of the visit, the Director could not confirm whether any of the cairn sites were Hopi or ancestral 

Hopi. However, the Director plans to prepare a report that would summarize his findings, provide cultural 

affiliation and function of the sites, and indicate whether additional site visits are necessary.
FEIS 3-24 March 2012

3.3 Geology

The study area for geology is the GNBPA. The geologic environment includes geologic hazards, mineral 

resources, and features of bedrock and surficial rock units, as differentiated from soils (Section 3.9) and 

groundwater (Section 3.13.3). There were no issues specifically relating to geology identified during public 

scoping.

The GNBPA is located within the East Tavaputs Plateau portion of the Colorado Plateau physiographic 

province (Fenneman 1931). The Plateau forms part of the southern margin of the asymmetrical Uinta 

structural basin. The basin was formed contemporaneously with uplift of the adjacent Uinta Mountains, 

which form its northern border, during the latest Cretaceous through early Paleogene Laramide Orogeny. 

This tectonic episode was the origin of most of the paired Rocky Mountain uplifts and associated basins, 

including the adjacent Piceance Basin to the east (Hintze 1988). The Uinta-Piceance Basin province and 

general location of the GNBPA are illustrated in Figure 3.3-1. Structurally, rocks in the vicinity of the GNBPA 

dip generally north towards the center of the Basin.

With the exception of Quaternary alluvial, colluvial, and eolian deposits found in the base of the major 

drainages, surface geology in the GNBPA consists almost entirely of exposures of the Middle Eocene Uinta 

Formation. The formation consists of fluvial sediments with some interbedded tuffs and may exceed 

1,600 feet in thickness. The uppermost portion (Parachute Creek Member) of the underlying and 

semi-contemporaneous Middle Eocene Green River Formation is exposed in the walls of some of the 

deeper canyons (Rowley et al. 1985; Cashion 1973) and consists of lacustrine marlstones, siltstones, and 

limestones (Cashion 1982). The Uinta Formation represents encroachment of highland-derived sediments 

from the north onto the margins of ancient Lake Uinta, the depositional setting for the Green River rocks. 

Maximum thickness of the Parachute Creek Member in the area may exceed 650 feet. The two formations 

display complex interfingering stratigraphy (Franczyk et al. 1992; Hail 1987). A sedimentary section in 

excess of 20,000 feet in thickness underlies the GNBPA (Osmond 1992). A stratigraphic column for surface 

geology in the GNBPA is indicated in Figure 3.3-2. 

3.3.1 Mineral Resources

3.3.1.1 Oil and Gas Resources

The Uinta Basin is a prolific producer of oil and gas. In 2006, Uintah and Duchesne counties, which 

comprise the bulk of the Uinta Basin, ranked first and third, respectively, for gas production and second and 

first for oil production in the state of Utah (UDOGM 2007). The major productive horizons include the 

Tertiary Green River and Wasatch formations, the Cretaceous Mesaverde Group and Dakota Sandstone 

Formation, the Jurassic Navajo Formation, and the Pennsylvanian Weber Formation. The USGS has 

delineated a number of conventional and nonconventional oil and gas plays within the Uinta Basin 

(BLM 2002a; USGS 2002), including the vicinity of the GNBPA. 

The GNBPA is located within the Greater Natural Buttes gas production area, which includes portions of at 

least nine oil and gas fields (Figure 1.1-2). Production is attained from stratigraphic traps on northwest 

regional dips. Reservoirs include lacustrine marginal sandstones of the Green River Formation, fluvial 

sandstones of the Wasatch Formation, braidplain sandstones of the Mesaverde Group, and limited 

production from other formations. Oil production, typically exhibiting rapid decline, has been obtained from 

fewer than 100 wells located mainly in the northern, downdip portions of the area. A rapid development 

phase in the area followed completion of the Natural Buttes field discovery well in 1952 (Osmond 1992). The 

GNBPA includes portions of Bitter Creek, Buck Canyon, Devils Playground, Love, and Natural Buttes fields. 

As of October 2007, there are 1,562 productive (producing or shut-in awaiting pipeline connection) wells 

within the GNBPA. Almost all (96 percent) have been assigned to the Natural Buttes Field. The GNBPA 

includes approximately 50 percent of all of the productive wells (3,018) assigned by UDOGM to the Natural 

Buttes Field as of October 2007. 


FEIS 3-27 March 2012

The accuracy of UDOGM oil and gas production records prior to 1984 is limited. Production within the 

GNBPA from 1984 through 2006 is summarized in Table 3.3-1. Natural Buttes Field cumulative production 

since 1984 is more than 1,272 billion cubic feet (Bcf), with approximately 61 percent of field production 

(774 Bcf) derived from the GNBPA. An additional 74 Bcf of production has been reported between Natural 

Buttes field discovery and 1982 (Clem 1985). Since 1984, the Natural Buttes Field generally has been the 

second most productive gas field in Utah, moving into first place in 2005. Gas production has been 

consistently increasing since 1997, as illustrated in Figure 3.3-3. In 2006, Natural Buttes Field accounted for 

45.5 percent of total Utah gas production (UDOGM 2007).

Table 3.3-1 Cumulative Production in the GNBPA by Producing Zone 1984 – 2006

Producing Zone Wells

Oil

(Bbl)

Oil

(% Total)

Gas

(Mcf)

Gas

(% Total)

Blackhawk 1 1,816 0.1 529,982 0.1

Castlegate 2 15,346 0.5 3,251,354 0.4

Dakota 2 1,502 0.0 169,121 0.0

Green River 49 887,610 29.0 27,644,643 3.6

Green River – Wasatch 3 69,945 2.3 1,377,790 0.2

Jurassic-Cretaceous 2 411 0.0 65,916 0.0

Mancos 3 4,076 0.1 951,281 0.1

Mesaverde-Mancos 1 3,428 0.1 320,379 0.0

Mesaverde 128 295,831 9.7 46,028,888 5.9

Wasatch-Mesaverde 449 756,655 24.8 174,775,738 22.6

Wasatch 707 763,190 25.0 489,176,592 63.2

Unidentified 120 256,493 8.4 30,051,049 3.9

GRAND TOTAL 1,467 3,056,303 774,342,733

Source: UDOGM 2007. 

Natural Buttes Field Gas Production

1984-2006

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Annual Production (BCF)

Figure 3.3-3 Natural Buttes Gas Production 1984 to 2006
FEIS 3-28 March 2012

The Wasatch Formation represents the principal producing zone, with more than 85 percent of total gas 

production being achieved from the Wasatch alone or from dual completions in the Wasatch and 

Mesaverde. Less than 10 percent of total gas production is solely from either the Green River or Mesaverde 

rocks. Stratigraphically, the deepest production has been non-commercial gas from the Lower Cretaceous 

Dakota Formation. 

Green River Formation gas reservoir sandstones are up to 30 feet thick with porosities up to 18 percent. 

Average initial daily production rates are approximately 2,200 Mcf of dry (small volumes of associated 

natural gas liquids) gas. Average heat content of the gas is approximately 1,025 British thermal units (Btu) 

per standard cubic foot (scf). Both the Wasatch and Mesaverde productive sandstones are classified as 

"tight" sands, with average permeabilities of less than 0.1 millidarcy. Maximum porosities are 18 percent 

with average porosity of 10 to 14 percent for the Wasatch and 8 to 12 percent for the Mesaverde reservoirs. 

Wasatch productive sandstones are up to 40 feet thick. Average initial daily production rates are 

approximately 1,600 Mcf for the Wasatch and approximately 1,100 Mcf for the Mesaverde reservoirs. 

Wasatch and Mesaverde reservoir gases have slightly higher associated liquid contents than the Green 

River gas and heating values of 1,048 to 1,179 Btu/scf. Mesaverde reservoirs are tighter than those in the 

Wasatch and Green River formations and typically are slightly overpressured (Osmond 1992). 

Within the GNBPA, there are 1,736 current or formerly gas-productive wells, including 1,562 producing or 

shut-in. Approximately 11 percent (194 wells) have achieved cumulative gas production in excess of 

1 Bcf/well and three percent (51 wells) have produced more than 2 Bcf/well. As of October 2007, 

789 locations were in the process of being drilled or had approved APDs.

3.3.1.2 Other Mineral Resources

Oil shale

Approximately the southern 60 percent of the GNBPA is underlain by marlstone of the Green River 

Formation containing the organic substance kerogen at depths of less than 2,000 feet. These "oil shales" 

may be processed in various ways to produce oil in quantities exceeding 15 gallons per ton of source rock. 

The highest quality resource is found in the lower portion of the Parachute Creek Member of the formation. 

Rich oil shale horizons are present over much of the depositional basin occupied by the Green River 

Formation and the GNBPA has the potential for oil yields of 60,000 to 90,000 bbls/acre from these rocks 

and large portions of the GNBPA have been designated Known Oil Shale Leasing Areas (KOSLA), 

indicating areas with inferred high potential for development (BLM 2002a). Intermittent attempts to 

commercially exploit oil shales have occurred for decades during times of high oil prices. The 2006 issuance 

of federal oil shale research leases by the BLM in the Piceance Basin and development of new extraction 

technologies indicate the potential for future exploitation of oil shale in the vicinity of the GNBPA 

(BLM 2006d). As of October 2007, there were no active federal oil shale leases within the GNBPA

(BLM 2007a), but according to USITLA, approximately 38,000 acres of state lands were actively leased.

Gilsonite

Gilsonite is the American Gilsonite Company's trademarked name for the mineral uintaite or uintahite. 

Gilsonite is a black hydrocarbon resin similar to coal or asphalt in appearance and is not known to occur in 

commercial quantities outside the Uinta Basin. The mineral's chemical properties make it useful in the 

production of dark-colored printing inks and paints, oil well drilling muds and cements, asphalt modifiers, 

and various chemical products (BLM 2002a). 

The Greater Natural Buttes gas production area coincides with concentrated gilsonite-bearing veins. The 

veins are vertical, vary from a few inches to up to 20 feet wide, and extend in a west-northwesterly direction 

for distances of up to 12 miles. The veins have been mapped in the Uinta and Green River formations as 

emplacements into fractures, which do not exhibit lateral displacement (Osmond 1992). The origin of the 

gilsonite is believed to be the oil shale-rich portions of the Green River Formation. During times of maximum 

burial, hydrocarbon generation and fluid expulsion in the oil shales is believed to have led to forceful 
FEIS 3-29 March 2012

emplacement of bitumen into the vein fractures (Monson and Parnell 1992). According to the UGS 

database, portions of at least 55 of these veins cross the GNBPA. 

All of Utah's gilsonite production occurs in three areas (Bonanza, Asphalt Wash, and East Bench) from 

mines that are owned by American Gilsonite Company and Ziegler Chemical and Minerals Company. Five

currently active gilsonite seams are located in T9S R24E. Other active mines are located in T8S 

R24E Section 32, T10S R21E Section 35, and T11S R24E Section 32. Future gilsonite mining activity 

will be along veins located in T8S R23E and T9S R23E. The inactive ITM mine and the active 

Cottonwood mine are located in the southwest portion of the GNBPA (Bon and Wakefield 2008, 2006). 

Production of gilsonite in 2005 from these mines was estimated to be 73,000 metric tons (Bon and Krahulec 

2006). As of October 2007, there were 2 authorized federal gilsonite leases comprising 435 acres, 1 active 

state lease comprising 160 acres, and 9 authorized or pending prospect permits comprising more than 

6,000 acres located within the GNBPA (BLM 2007a).

Mineral Materials

Sand and gravel deposits on BLM-administered surface may be sold under a contract basis or disposed of 

for free in certain circumstances, although no active permits are located within the GNBPA (BLM 2002a). 

There are no currently active or historical state permits within the GNBPA (USITLA 2006).

Locatable minerals

The Tokay-Blanca uranium occurrence is located in the Uinta Formation within the GNBPA (Doelling and 

Bon 1990). No active locatable minerals extraction is occurring within the GNBPA (BLM 2002a) and there 

are no currently active mining claims (BLM 2007a).
FEIS 3-30 March 2012

3.4 Land Use

The study area for land use is the GNBPA. Zoning in the GNBPA is for mining and grazing, while the 

primary land uses are mineral extraction, agriculture, livestock grazing, and recreation. There is very little 

cultivated cropland in the area. Cropland is mostly hay and alfalfa near the White River. A large portion of 

the GNBPA has a shrub scrub land cover that is conducive to grazing, as detailed in Figure 3.4-1. Also, the 

majority of the recreational activities take place on the White River in the form of boating and fishing. 

As shown in Figure 3.4-2 and summarized in Table 2.1-1 in Chapter 2.0, the BLM is the primary landowner

within the GNBPA, with state, Tribal, and private lands also present. Private lands and State Sovereign 

Lands (associated with the Green River in the northwestern part of the study area) make up less than 

2 percent of the total land ownership in the GNBPA. State Sovereign Lands in Utah include the beds of 

navigable waters on Tribal Land. All uses on, beneath, or above the beds of navigable lakes and streams

are regulated for the protection of navigation, fish and wildlife habitat, aquatic beauty, public recreation, and 

water quality. USITLA manages lands granted to Utah by Congress to support state schools and other 

institutions. USITLA-administered lands make up slightly more than 20 percent of landownership.

3.4.1 White River Special Recreation Management Area

The White River SRMA totals 2,831 acres, of which 632 acres are located within the boundary of the 

GNBPA (Figure 3.4-3). As defined in the Vernal RMP (BLM 2008b), a SRMA is a public lands unit identified 

in land use plans to direct recreation funding and personnel to fulfill commitments made to provide specific,

structured recreation opportunities. Recreational activities identified for the White River SRMA include, but 

are not limited to, canoeing, rafting, primitive camping, and hiking.

3.4.1.1 Areas of Special Designation

Other than the BLM White River natural area (discussed in detail under Wilderness Characteristics), there 

are no other areas of special designation (also including designated wilderness or wilderness study areas) 

contained either wholly or partially within the GNBPA (Figure 3.4-3). The areas of special designation 

closest to the GNBPA include the Ouray National Wildlife Refuge (0.4 miles), Fantasy Canyon SRMA 

(1.4 miles), a wild and scenic suitable segment of the Green River (1.9 miles), the Lower Green River 

Corridor Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) (1.9 miles), and the Pariette ACEC (2.7 miles).



FEIS 3-34 March 2012

3.5 Paleontology 

The study area for paleontological resources is the GNBPA. Paleontological resources comprise the fossil 

record of past life forms, which provide data vital to interpretation of earth history. 

Approximately 12 percent of the GNBPA is underlain by alluvial and eolian deposits of Quaternary age. 

These units occur along and form the floodplain of the White River and Bitter Creek and also are found a 

short distance up some tributaries to these two streams. Fossils of scientific importance have not been 

recovered from these units. The exposed bedrock in the GNBPA is comprised of rocks that are all of Middle 

Eocene age. The upper portions of the Green River Formation, of Early to Middle Eocene Age, crop out in 

exposures restricted to the walls of the canyons containing the White River and Bitter Creek in T10-11S, 

R22E, comprising approximately 4 percent of the GNBPA. All of the rest of GNBPA (approximately

84 percent) is underlain by the Uinta Formation of Middle Eocene Age (Rowley et al. 1985; Cashion 1973), 

which is divided into upper Myton and lower Wagonhound members. Most of the exposed formation within 

the GNBPA is identified as Wagonhound Member with some Myton exposures in the northern portion of the 

area. Both the Uinta and Green River formations are noted as sources of scientifically important vertebrate 

fossils. The Uinta Formation is the type formation for defining the Uintan Age division (middle Middle 

Eocene) of the North American Land Mammal biostratigraphic system (Rasmussen et al. 1999). 

Fossils on federal lands are protected under provisions of FLPMA, as amended, 43 USC 1737(b), 

PL 94-579; PL 111-011, Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, Subsection D, Section 6302; and 

43 CFR 3802 and 3809. Paleontological resources on State of Utah lands are afforded protections under 

provisions of Chapter 73 of the Utah Code, and permits are required for fossil collection on both state and 

federal lands. 

As of October 2007, the BLM has adopted the PFYC system as the standard for evaluating potential 

impacts to paleontological resources on public lands (BLM 2007b). The system uses a five-part 

classification of geologic units with respect to their potential for the production of scientifically important 

fossils. The evaluation scale runs from 1 (very low probability) to 5 (very high probability), based upon the 

unit's lithology, age, depositional setting, risk for adverse impacts, and history of producing fossils. 

Subclasses are assigned depending upon the degree of exposure of the unit. Approval of surface-disturbing 

activities affecting geologic formations rated 4 or 5 is likely to require surveys by a qualified paleontologist 

prior to or during construction. The BLM also may apply protective mitigations and local field offices may 

alter the rankings based upon site-specific knowledge. In the vicinity of the GNBPA, the BLM has evaluated 

the PFYC classification for both the Uinta and Green River formations as 4 or 5, indicating high to very high 

paleontologic potential (BLM 2008f; Murphey and Daitch 2007). A simplified map of bedrock geology and 

PFYC rankings within the GNBPA is indicated in Figure 3.5-1.

Both the BLM and the UGS maintain a database of recorded occurrences of scientifically important fossils. 

A file search of these records was conducted in support of this project (Alderks 2006). The inventory 

returned a report for each of the 254 sections within the GNBPA indicating any fossil localities in the 

databases, the formation and, in some cases, member, in which the fossils were discovered, and the types 

of fossils recovered. Of the 254 sections inventoried, 90 contain 1 to 10 recorded fossil localities 

(35 percent). Fifty-nine of the 90 sections (66 percent) were identified stratigraphically to the member level. 

All of the recorded fossils were obtained from the Uinta Formation. Where the member was identified, 

92 percent of the localities were indicated as being from the Wagonhound or Uinta B (upper Wagonhound) 

Member, representing the lower portion of the Uinta Formation. Five localities were recorded from the Myton 

Member (upper Uinta) and one contained fossils from both the Wagonhound and Myton members. No 

fossils were recorded from the Green River Formation.

Fossil localities are well distributed across most of those portions of the GNBPA with exposed bedrock. 

Myton Member representatives are restricted to the northernmost portions of the GNBPA, reflecting thicker 
FEIS 3-35 March 2012

sections and younger horizons of preserved Uinta Formation to the north. Locality distribution also is closely 

correlative to the distribution of existing oil development, suggesting that many finds may have resulted from 

surveys done in connection with oil and gas drilling. The area of lowest density of sites is in the southern 

portion of the GNBPA, which also is the least drilled area. The absence of any fossils from the Green River 

Formation is probably a result of GNBPA exposures generally being limited to certain canyon walls where 

steep slopes would preclude well pad locations. It may be assumed that exposed bedrock throughout the 

GNBPA should be considered as having high potential for production of fossils.

The 2006 file search found that a total of 295 fossil localities have been recorded within the GNBPA

(Alderks 2006). All of the reported occurrences have been from the Uinta Formation, which comprises the 

vast majority of the bedrock exposed within the GNBPA. No occurrences from exposures of the Green River 

Formation, principally limited to steeper slopes within portions of the White River and Bitter Creek canyons, 

have been reported to date. Fossils reported include various mammalian, reptilian, and fish species. Turtles 

and turtle fragments are by far the most common fossil, being reported from 87 percent of identified 

localities. Other common fossils include mammalian miscellaneous and limb bones, and crocodilian 

fragments. No avian or amphibian species have been identified (Alderks 2006). A listing of paleontological 

resources identified, as well as their abundance and stratigraphic occurrence, is included in Table 3.5-1. 

Table 3.5-1 Identified Paleontological Resources of the Uinta Formation in the GNBPA

Class Order Family Genus/Species/Description Member1 Localities

Actinopterygii Semionotiformes Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus M 1

Gar fragments and scales W 2

Reptilia Crocodilia Crocodiles and crocodilian fragments M,W 18

Alligatoridae Pristichampus? W 1

Squamata Lizard fragments W 1

Testudines Miscellaneous turtle fragments M,W 78

Baenidae Baenid turtle fragments W 9

Baena M,W 2

Emydidae Echmatemys sp. M,W 34

Echmatemys uintensis W 2

Testudinidae Testunid turtle fragments M,W 4

Testudo W 3

Xerobates? W 1

Trionychidae Apalone sp. M,W 8

Trionyx W 7

Mammalia Mammalian foot or limb bones W 25

Mammalian jaw fragments W 9

Mammalian miscellaneous bones W 25

Mammalian skull fragments W 6

Mammalian teeth W 9

Artiodactyla Miscellaneous artiodactyl fragments W 2

Agriochoeridae Achaenodon W 1

Protoreodon M,W 4

Dichobunidae Bunomeryx M 1

Merycoidodontidae Oreodont? fragments W 1

Protoceratidae Leptotragulus W 1

Dinocerta Uintathere? fragments W 2

Perissodactyla Miscellaneous perissodactyl fragments W 8

Amynodontidae Amynodon? tracks W 2

Titanothere fragments W 8

Amynodon? fragments W 1
FEIS 3-36 March 2012

Table 3.5-1 Identified Paleontological Resources of the Uinta Formation in the GNBPA

Class Order Family Genus/Species/Description Member1 Localities

Brontotheriidae Miscellaneous brontothere fragments W 8

Dolichorinus fragments W 4

Equidae Horse tracks W 1

Epihippus W 1

Hyracodontidae Triplopus W 1

Rodentia Miscellaneous rodent fragments M,W 2

Other Petrified wood fragments W 2

Stromatolites W 1

1 M indicates Myton Member, W indicates Wagonhound Member. 

Source: Alderks 2006; Gunnell and Bartells 1999.

FEIS 3-38 March 2012

3.6 Range Resources

The study area for range resources is defined as the GNBPA. The following section presents range 

management activities per allotment and water-related range improvements within the GNBPA. 

The GNBPA is characterized as a patchwork of the BLM, State of Utah, Ute Tribe, and private surface 

ownership encompassing 8 BLM grazing allotments and 4 Ute Tribe grazing allotments. Implementation of 

the proposed project would result in the expansion of existing operations, thus disturbing areas currently 

being grazed. 

Table 3.6-1 provides a summary of each BLM and Ute Tribe grazing allotment within the GNBPA, including 

acreage calculations, current livestock numbers, and permitted use in AUMs. Figure 3.6-1 illustrates the 

BLM and Ute Tribe grazing allotments within the GNBPA.

In the GNBPA, the dominant livestock type grazed is sheep. Most of the grazing allotments are utilized from 

November through various times in the spring and typically are used for winter grazing, lambing, and 

shearing activities. The level of annual use is determined by the current climatic conditions and availability of 

forage resources. Lambing typically occurs from April 1 to June 1, depending on weather, forage conditions, 

and the condition of the livestock. Lambing occurs in covered shelters or on the open range and typically is 

located near water sources and areas with forage or available feed.

Different grazing rotation systems are employed on the various allotments in the GNBPA that are used for 

sheep grazing. Deferred rotation starts at one end of the allotment and rotates down one side and back up 

the other side in the first year. The following year, grazing starts at the other end of the allotment and rotates 

in the opposite direction. With limited deferment of spring use pastures, a different pasture is grazed each 

year in both the spring and fall to avoid grazing at the same time in the same area each year. The deferred 

rotation grazing system also consists of either alternately resting a pasture every other spring or having 

grazing begin and end each season in a different pasture every other year.

Grazing rotation systems include deferred rotation in the Antelope Draw allotment, a limited deferment of 

spring use pastures in the Coyote Wash allotment, a two-pasture deferred rotation grazing system in the 

Olsen Allotment Management Plan (AMP) and the Seven Sisters allotments, and grazing primarily during 

the non-growing season in the Southam Canyon allotment. The permits for the Southam Canyon and the 

White River Bottoms allotments are scheduled for renewal and will incorporate a grazing system. Permittees 

are required to coordinate with the BLM in advance if they plan to deviate substantially from the terms of the 

permit.

There currently is no pasture rotation system in place for either the Sand Wash or Thorne-Ute-Broom 

allotments. Both allotments are utilized sporadically, and the Sand Wash allotment is heavily fragmented, 

which makes it difficult to implement a pasture rotation system. Cattle often are grazed in small groups due 

to the high level of ongoing oil and gas activity on the allotment. The permit renewal process for these two 

allotments will be initiated in 2010. Each permit renewal will be analyzed through the NEPA process and will 

include a Rangeland Health analysis.

Range improvements predominantly consist of stock ponds, reservoirs, and guzzlers. Perennial waterbodies 

including the Green River, White River, and Bitter Creek flow throughout the year, providing water for 

livestock within the White River Bottoms and Olsen AMP grazing allotments. The intermittent reaches of 

Coyote Wash, Cottonwood Wash, and Sand Wash occasionally flow to provide water for livestock within the 

Coyote Wash, Antelope Draw, Sand Wash, and Olsen AMP grazing allotments. One spring, adjacent to 

Bitter Creek, also may provide water to livestock during the wet season. Table 3.6-2 summarizes range 

improvements within the GNBPA. Figure 3.6-1 illustrates range improvements within the GNBPA.
FEIS 3-39 March 2012

Table 3.6-1 Grazing Allotments Within the GNBPA

Grazing Allotment 

Name

Total 

Allotment 

Acreage1 

Total Allotment 

Active AUMs2

Allotment 

Acreage within 

GNBPA

Projected 

Active AUMs 

within GNBPA3

Livestock Grazing Period

Type

Number per 

Allotment Begin End

BLM4

Antelope Draw5 61,530 3,976 2,976 192 Sheep 3,691 11/16 4/27

Coyote Wash 99,290 9,554 21,634 2,082 Sheep 5,873 11/1 5/20

Olsen AMP 134,306 12,144 36,796 3,327 Sheep 6,170 11/1 2/28

-- -- -- -- Sheep 6,254 3/1 6/15

Sand Wash 5 75,136 7,974 51,332 5,448 Cattle 1,191 11/30 4/30

Seven Sisters 19,285 2,348 8,608 1,048 Sheep 1,557 11/1 2/28

-- -- -- -- Sheep 1,557 3/1 4/15

Southam Canyon 13,827 1,357 373 37 Sheep 1,315 11/1 2/28

-- -- -- -- Sheep 1,315 3/1 4/1

Thorne-Ute Broome 5,436 400 79 6 Cattle 63 11/1 2/28

White River Bottoms 12,900 885 544 37 Cattle 106 6/1 10/15

BLM Total 421,710 38,638 122,342 12,177 -- -- -- --

BIA

Cottonwood Wash 7,486 168 7,486 168 Cattle 33 11/1 3/31

Molly’s Nipple 10,742 400 10,527 392 Cattle 80 11/1 3/31

Chapita Grove 11,330 311 2,843 78 Cattle 26 1/1 12/31

North White River 18,960 485 10,807 276 Cattle 40 1/1 12/31

BIA Total 48,518 1,364 31,663 914 -- -- -- --

Total 470,228 40,002 154,005 13,091 -- -- -- --

1 Allotments on BIA-administered land consist primarily of Tribal land. 2 An AUM represents the quantity of forage necessary to sustain 1 cow-calf pair or 5 sheep for 1 month. 3 Projected active AUMs were calculated based on the percentage of the allotment within the GNBPA compared to the allotment as a whole. 4 Ownership on the BLM allotments includes USITLA, private, and BLM-managed lands. Acreage and AUMs for the BLM allotments account for all of these various landowners. 5 Because the actual number varies over time, the total allotment active AUMs on USITLA-owned lands was calculated based on an average number of AUMs per acre.

FEIS 3-41 March 2012

Table 3.6-2 Range Improvements within the GNBPA

Grazing Allotment Name/

Range Improvement per Allotment

Legal Location

Meridian Township Range Section Subdivision

Coyote Wash

Twin Ponds South Salt Lake 009S 023E 3 NENW

Colorado Interstate Gas Pipeline 

Reservoir #5

Salt Lake 009S 023E 24 SWSW

CIG Pipeline Reservoir #6 Salt Lake 009S 024E 29 NWNE

Olsen AMP

Triangle Antelope Guzzler Salt Lake 010S 022E 33 NWNW

North Olsen Allotment Reservoir #1 Salt Lake 010S 022E 19 SESW

North Olsen Allotment Reservoir #2 Salt Lake 010S 022E 30 NWNE

North Archy Bench Guzzler Salt Lake 010S 022E 35 NESE

Olsen Reservoir #2 Salt Lake 011S 022E 9 NESW

Olsen Reservoir #6 Salt Lake 011S 022E 4 NENW

Olsen Reservoir #7 Salt Lake 011S 022E 4 SWSE

Olsen Reservoir #8 Salt Lake 011S 022E 21 NWNW

Cotton Antelope Guzzler Salt Lake 011S 022E 7 SWSE

Sand Wash

West Cottonwood Reservoir Salt Lake 011S 021E 5 NWSE

Twelve Mile Knoll Reservoir Salt Lake 011S 021E 1 NWSW

West Bench Reservoir Salt Lake 011S 021E 17 SWNW

Uinta Badlands Reservoir #1 Salt Lake 010S 020E 35 NWNW

Uinta Badlands Reservoir #2 Salt Lake 011S 021E 7 SWNE

Sand Wash Alternative Reservoir #1 Salt Lake 010S 021E 21 SESE

Sand Wash Alternative Reservoir #2 Salt Lake 010S 021E 23 SWNE

Sand Wash Alternative Reservoir #3 Salt Lake 010S 021E 26 SWSE

Sand Wash Alternative Reservoir #4 Salt Lake 010S 021E 35 SWSE

Sand Wash Alternative Reservoir #5 Salt Lake 010S 021E 14 SWNE

Sand Wash Alternative Reservoir #6 Salt Lake 010S 021E 15 SWSW

Sand Wash Alternative Reservoir #7 Salt Lake 010S 021E 3 SWNW

Sand Wash Alternative Reservoir #8 Salt Lake 010S 021E 7 NWNE

North Cottonwood Antelope Guzzler Salt Lake 011S 021E 4 NWSW

Natural Buttes West Boundary Fence Salt Lake 009S 020E 26 NWNW
FEIS 3-42 March 2012

3.7 Recreation

The study area for recreation is the GNBPA and adjacent White River corridor. The area in and around the 

GNBPA typically is used for hunting, fishing, rafting, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, and hiking. Figure 3.7-1

shows recreation areas near the GNBPA. Data for the number of hikers, hunters, and other recreational users 

in the study area, with the exception of rafting data, is difficult to collect reliably due to the dispersed nature of 

recreational activities. Therefore, it has not been included in this analysis. A November 2001 telephone survey 

of the Uinta Basin area, sponsored by the Institute of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, revealed that hiking 

was the most popular recreational activity (Burr et al. 2001). The survey also indicated that OHV use and 

rafting are popular recreation activities in the project vicinity, as is indicated by the approximately 2,000 people 

who visit the White River from the Bonanza Bridge to the Enron take-out each year. Within the GNBPA, 

119,899 acres of BLM-managed and state owned land are open to limited OHV use; 1,415 acres are closed to 

OHV use; and the remainder is undesignated.

The GNBPA is located within two game management units: the South Slope unit generally found north of the 

White River, and the Book Cliffs unit found to the south of the White River in the GNBPA (Figure 3.7-1). 

Hunting is allowed for mule deer and elk, and to a much lesser extent pronghorn and moose. Tables 3.7-1 and 

3.7-2 show hunting statistics from 2001 through 2006 for mule deer and elk, respectively. The majority of big 

game hunting within the South Slope game management unit takes place north of the GNBPA in higher 

forested terrain, while within the Book Cliffs game management unit, the majority is in the southern portion, 

well south of the GNBPA. Big game hunting season is typically from mid-August through early November.

Table 3.7-1 Mule Deer Hunting Statistics

Game Management Unit / Year Total Mule Deer Harvest Hunters Afield Mean Days Hunted

South Slope

2001 2,538 6,771 4.4

2002 2,367 6,812 5.0

2003 1,821 5,618 4.6

2004 2,630 6,372 4.9

2005 2,047 6,020 5.7

2006 2,616 6,336 5.6

Book Cliffs

2001 423 530 4.2

2002 413 466 4.2

2003 357 422 4.9

2004 391 442 4.0

2005 412 471 4.6

2006 463 515 4.1

Source: UDWR 2007a, 2006a, 2005.
FEIS 3-43 March 2012

Table 3.7-2 Elk Hunting Statistics 

Game Management Unit / Year Total Elk Harvest Hunters Afield Mean Days Hunted

South Slope

2001 1,438 7,172 6.2

2002 1,450 7,649 6.4

2003 1,365 7,182 6.2

2004 1,370 7,316 6.1

2005 975 6,585 6.0

2006 1,341 7,100 5.9

Book Cliffs

2001 309 388 6.0

2002 277 388 7.3

2003 353 534 4.7

2004 167 230 4.4

2005 157 224 4.2

2006 208 270 4.5

Source: UDWR 2007a, 2006a, 2005.

The portion of the White River through the GNBPA offers canoe-camping and kayaking for a variety of 

experience levels (BLM 2007c). The BLM does not require a permit for boating on the White River; however, a 

permit is required by the Ute Tribe to park and access the White River and another is required for takeout on 

Tribal Lands. Recreational use of the river is typically busiest from mid-May to mid-June, followed by summer 

and fall. 

Special Recreation Management Areas

As shown on Figure 3.7-1, the approved Vernal RMP designated one SRMA that falls partially within the 

GNBPA boundary. The White River SRMA intercepts the southeast portion of the GNBPA. An integrated 

activity plan has been developed for this SRMA, which provides for the following uses: canoeing, rafting, 

primitive camping, and hiking. This would not exclude other recreational opportunities (BLM 2008b). 

 

FEIS 3-45 March 2012

3.8 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

3.8.1 Study Area for Socioeconomics

The study area for socioeconomics includes central Uintah and eastern Duchesne counties. The GNBPA is 

located in Uintah County, Utah. The counties share a common boundary and are linked by a highway

transportation network that integrates local resources. The two principal communities in the study area are 

Vernal (Uintah County) and Roosevelt (Duchesne County), which together host many oil and gas 

exploration, production, and service firms and the associated labor force that comprise the oil and gas 

industry of the Uinta Basin. Many residents live in nearby communities; however, most residents live in the 

rural, unincorporated areas of each county. This study area was defined to encompass the geographic area 

capturing the majority of the project’s anticipated effects to the economy, population, housing, facilities and 

services, and fiscal conditions at a local level.

3.8.2 Background on the Role of Oil and Gas Development in the Region

The Uinta Basin is the historical center of oil and gas production in the state of Utah. More than two-thirds of 

statewide annual oil and gas production in Utah comes from the Uinta Basin and oil and gas development has 

been a major force driving the contemporary economic and social development of the Uinta Basin over the 

past several decades.

Although several major new discoveries have been made outside of the Uinta Basin in recent years, 

according to the UDOGM database, more than 80 percent of the new oil and gas well spuds (i.e., new well 

drilling) in Utah over the past 4 years have been in Duchesne or Uintah County (Table 3.8-1). In 2008, drilling 

was initiated on more than 950 new wells in these counties, with subsequent well completions raising the 

number of producing wells in the basin to 7,593; 88 percent of all producing oil and gas wells in the state. In 

recent years, the majority of new development activity in the basin has been for natural gas in Uintah County. 

However, Duchesne County leads Uintah County in terms of annual oil production.

Table 3.8-1 Oil and Gas Development Summary, 2005 to 2008

2005 2006 2007 2008 Change

Two-county Share of All New 

Wells Spud in Utah

85% 88% 86% 83% NA

Producing Wells

Duchesne County 1,498 1,655 1,792 1,981 483

Uintah County 3,875 4,452 4,922 5,612 1,737

Two-county Share of State 85% 87% 88% 88% 95%

Natural Gas Produced (Mcf)

Duchesne County 20,089,535 22,525,615 25,329,443 26,570,939 32.3%

Uintah County 163,586,421 203,552,421 218,464,429 272,211,226 66.7%

Two-county Share of State 59% 63% 63% 68% NA

Barrels of Oil Produced

Duchesne County 6,670,720 6,401,299 7,586,828 8,696,046 30.4%

Uintah County 4,365,012 4,959,425 5,411,742 6,567,834 50.5%

Two-county Share of State 66% 63% 67% 69% NA

According to data obtained from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis database in December 2009 

and the University of Utah (2009), the mining industry in the Uinta Basin, which consists predominately of oil 
FEIS 3-46 March 2012

and gas development and production, saw the total number of jobs grow more than five-fold over the past 

4 decades, from 928 in 1969 to 5,077 in 2007. In 2007, the mining sector directly accounted for one of every 

six jobs in the Basin. The sector’s economic significance becomes even more pronounced when the indirect 

and induced effects are considered. Economic data for 2006 indicate that each direct job in oil and gas 

exploration, development, and production supports between 0.5 and 2.1 additional jobs in the regional 

economy through what is commonly referred to as the “multiplier effect.” Assuming an average of 

1.3 additional jobs per direct job, the mining sector was responsible for approximately 38 percent of the 

region’s total employment in 2007. The industry’s influence extends beyond jobs into many aspects of the 

region’s economic, fiscal, and social structure. For example, population growth and migration patterns tend to 

mirror the industry’s expansionary and contractionary cycles, which ripple through the labor market to the 

housing market, the region’s retail trade sector, local tax collections, and public school enrollment.

The most recent expansionary period began in 2002 when the area was one of several major centers of 

renewed natural gas development in the Rocky Mountains. The pace of development activity grew over time, 

with more than 900 new wells started in each of the past 3 years (2006, 2007, and 2008). That activity 

triggered sharp increases in local employment, population growth, and historically low local unemployment. 

Despite strong long-term demand for natural gas, the region has not been immune to the effects of the recent 

global economic slowdown. Following sharp increases in natural gas prices from 2005 through mid-2008, 

slackening demand triggered by the current economic recession resulted in a dramatic slowdown in the pace 

of development in the Uinta Basin. Through October 2009, the number of new oil and gas well starts in the two 

counties was less than half the annual numbers in the preceding 3 years.

Although production and some development activity continues, the economy in the region has seen marked 

changes as local unemployment rates and number of unemployed nearly tripled between December 2008 and 

July 2009. Based on information obtained in October 2009 from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

database, the number of unemployed in Duchesne County rose from 275 to 807 with a corresponding 

increase in the unemployment rate from 2.6 percent to 7.3 percent. In Uintah County, the ranks of the 

unemployed grew from 406 to 1,408, and the unemployment rate climbed from 2.2 percent to 7.2 percent. 

Other evidence of the economic slowdown includes drilling rigs stacked in storage yards and the suspension 

of construction on partially completed new homes and commercial buildings, although progress continued on 

several major public infrastructure projects. Less tangible or directly observable, but nonetheless important, 

impacts on the economy include declining retail sales and lower occupancy rates among local overnight 

lodging establishments. 

The remainder of this section characterizes social and economic conditions in the study area, providing the 

background for assessing the potential social and economic effects of the proposed project. Due to time lags 

and differences in reporting frequencies and schedules for much of the socioeconomic data, much of the 

information presented focuses on pre-recession conditions and trends. A number of significant changes 

associated with the economic downturn are discussed where relevant.

Although the recession has brought about changes in some local social and economic conditions, the 

historical information provides a “snapshot in time” perspective that is insightful as it portrays local 

communities responding to growth and other forces associated with high levels of oil and natural gas 

development. Given the energy resources located in the Uinta Basin and long-term domestic demand for 

natural gas, the re-establishment of economic market conditions conducive to stimulating renewed oil and 

gas development is likely. Over time, these projects could recreate many, though not all, of the pre-recession

conditions. For instance, one could expect renewed population growth to once again trigger new home 

construction. However, without the liberalized home mortgage lending practices that characterized recent 

years, future housing development is likely to reflect a greater emphasis on mid-range/moderate cost housing 

than was occurring just prior to the recession.
FEIS 3-47 March 2012

3.8.3 Local Population

In 2008, Uintah County had 29,885 residents and Duchesne County had 16,861 residents (Table 3.8-2). 

Between 2000 and 2008, the resident populations of Duchesne and Uintah counties grew at compounded 

annual growth rates (CAGRs) of 2.0 percent and 2.1 percent, respectively. Although more rapid than the 1.0 to 

1.5 percent CAGRs generally accepted as manageable, both grew considerably slower than the 2.6 percent 

CAGR statewide. Much of the local population growth has occurred since 2003 and is largely attributed to 

energy resource development. 

Table 3.8-2 County Population Trends 

Year Uintah County Duchesne County

State of Utah

(millions)

2000 (Census)1 25,224 14,371 2.23

2001 26,049 14,646 2.29

2002 25,984 14,856 2.33

2003 26,019 14,698 2.36

2004 26,224 14,933 2.42

2005 26,883 15,237 2.49

2006 27,818 15,433 2.59

2007 28,978 16,187 2.67

2008 29,885 16,861 2.74

2000-2008 Absolute Change +4,661 +2,490 +0.51

2000-2008 Percentage Change +18.5% +17.3% +22.9%

1 2000 Census counts are April 1. Estimates are July 1. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2009a.

Some new residential development in recent years has been of an infill nature, or has occurred in a number 

of smaller subdivisions within the principal cities of Vernal and Roosevelt. However, most of the new 

development and hence, the population growth, has occurred in the unincorporated communities and outlying 

areas of the two counties (Table 3.8-3).

Table 3.8-3 Population Growth Trends within Each County

County/Municipality 2000 Census

2006 

(Estimate)

2007 

(Estimate)

2008 

(Estimate) 2000 – 2008 CAGR

Duchesne County 14,371 15,433 16,187 16,861 2.0%

Duchesne City 1,408 1,485 1,553 1,612 1.7%

Roosevelt City 4,299 4,613 4,852 5,025 2.0%

Balance of county 8,664 9,335 9,782 10,224 2.1%

Uintah County 25,224 27,818 28,978 29,885 2.1% 

Vernal City 7,714 8,140 8,403 8,696 1.5% 

Other municipalities 1,866 2,131 2,239 2,383 3.1%

Balance of county 15,644 17,547 18,806 18,806 2.3%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2009a. 

Other municipalities in the study area and their 2008 populations include: Altamont (population 194), Myton 

(population 597), and Tabionia (population 163) in Duchesne County, and Ballard (population 689) and Naples 

(population 1,694) in Uintah County (U.S. Census Bureau 2009a). Unincorporated communities in the 
FEIS 3-48 March 2012

study area include the Fort Duchesne, Randlett, and White Rocks census designated places (CDPs) 

and Jensen. Both counties have substantial rural populations.

Population in the study area is predominately white, but less so than that of the state as a whole. In 2004, 

American Indians represented a larger share of the population in both counties as compared to the statewide 

average (Table 3.8-4). The proportions of Hispanic and/or Latino persons were considerably lower in both 

Duchesne County (4.3 percent) and in Uintah County (3.7 percent) when compared to Utah as a whole.

Table 3.8-4 Racial Demographics by Community

Black / African American Other and Two Hispanic or 

Community White American Indian1 or More Races Latino2 

State of Utah 93.8% 1.0% 1.3% 3.9% 10.6%

Duchesne County 92.6% 0.2% 5.2% 2.1% 4.3%

Uintah County 89.3% 0.2% 9.1% 1.4% 3.7%

1 American Indian includes other native races of North America. 

2 Persons identifying themselves as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race or combination of races.

Source: Utah Governor's Office of Planning and Budget (UGOPB) 2006. 

Historically, natural increase (the net difference between local births and deaths) has been a major component 

of the population change dynamics in Duchesne and Uintah counties. In Duchesne and Uintah counties, 

natural increase between 2000 and 2006 is estimated at 1,137 and 2,064 persons, respectively (Table 3.8-5). 

Net migration, the difference between the numbers of residents who move into a county and the numbers that 

leave, is the other component of population change. Both counties experienced several years of net negative 

migration since 2000; however, both also experienced substantial net in-migration in the past 2 years, with 

Uintah County gaining more than 630 residents and Duchesne County gaining 349 residents through 

migration.

Table 3.8-5 Components of Population Change

Year

Uintah County Duchesne County

Natural Increase Net Migration Net Change Natural Increase Net Migration Net Change

2000 72 -21 51 41 -33 8

2001 313 188 501 182 5 187

2002 314 138 452 166 117 283

2003 329 -265 64 196 -158 38

2004 301 -13 288 158 -87 71

2005 376 173 549 182 188 370

2006 359 467 826 212 161 373

Total 2,064 667 2,731 1,137 193 1,330

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2007.

The boundary of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation encompasses approximately 4 million acres of 

land under varied ownership in Uintah, Duchesne, and Grand counties. Tribal surface and mineral ownership 

totals approximately 1.2 million acres, though surface and mineral ownership are not entirely overlapping 

(Ute Indian Tribe and BIA 2006). Total population within the jurisdictional Reservation was 19,182 in 2000, 

including 2,780 persons identifying themselves as American Indian alone, with another 357 identifying 

themselves as American Indian in combination with one or more other races. Because of varied land 

ownerships, the resident population within Reservation boundaries was 16.4 percent American Indian in 2000 

(Table 3.8-6). 
FEIS 3-49 March 2012

Table 3.8-6 Resident Population on the Uintah and Ouray Reservation

2000 Census1 

Total Population, All Races 19,182 

American Indian Population (persons of one or multiple races) 3,157

American Indian Population as Percent of Total Population 16.4%

1 2000 Census data include population on off-reservation trust land. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000a.

The Ute Tribe has a membership of 3,157, with members residing both on and off the reservation. The Ute 

Tribal headquarters is in Fort Duchesne. The Tribe is economically active, and its enterprises include a 

supermarket, gas stations, a bowling alley, livestock feedlot, Uinta River Technologies (computer data capture 

and management), Ute Tribal Enterprises LLC (livestock), Ute Water Systems (water and sewer for several 

reservation communities), and Ute Energy (exploration and development of the Tribe’s mineral estate) (Ute 

Indian Tribe 2008). Ute Energy also participates in Chipeta Processing, a joint venture that provides gas 

processing and a delivery hub for the Greater Natural Buttes area. The Tribe derives substantial income from 

the processing revenues generated by these operations.

3.8.4 Local Economy and Labor Force

According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis database, Total employment in Duchesne and Uintah 

counties more than tripled between 1970 and 2007 (Figure 3.8-1), with additional job growth realized through 

mid-2008. Energy resource development played a key role in local economic growth during the early 1980s. A 

slowdown in such development resulted in substantial economic contraction in the latter half of that decade. 

Total employment in Uintah County did not surpass the previous peak again until 1995. Renewed energy and 

mineral resource development, beginning in 2002, triggered another expansionary economic cycle in the 

region. More than 8,300 new jobs were added in the two counties between 2002 and 2007, a 38 percent 

increase.

Figure 3.8-1 Total Full and Part-time Employment, 1970 to 2007 
FEIS 3-50 March 2012

The net long-term job growth through mid-2008 was consistent with the 3.6 percent CAGR achieved 

statewide; although local employment growth has occurred more erratically than the relatively steady 

long-term growth at the state level. Contrary to trends in many areas, the U.S. Bureau of Economic 

Analysis database indicates that local farm employment has increased over time (Table 3.8-7). Recent 

economic data suggest the onset of an economic contraction in the third quarter of 2008, with a net job loss 

through mid-2009 of more than 3,000 jobs (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2009).

Table 3.8-7 Composition of Total Employment in the Study Area 

1990 2000 2007

Absolute 

Change

1990 – 2007

CAGR

1990 – 2007

Duchesne County

Total full and part-time employment 6,016 7,766 11,216 5,200 3.7%

Wage and salary employment 4,061 5,133 7,978 3,917 4.1%

Proprietors 1,955 2,633 3,238 1,283 3.0%

Farm employment 913 992 935 22 0.1%

Uintah County

Total full and part-time employment 10,057 13,667 19,231 9,174 3.9% 

Wage and salary employment 7,410 9,999 15,108 7,698 4.3%

Proprietors 2,647 3,668 4,123 1,476 2.6% 

Farm employment 811 1,000 943 132 0.9%

State of Utah (thousands)

Total full and part-time employment 944.33 1,387.85 1,637.91 693.58 3.3%

Wage and salary employment 778.16 1,134.76 1,316.89 538.73 3.1%

Proprietors employment 166.17 253.09 357.0 190.83 4.6%

Farm employment 19.15 20.38 18.90 -0.25 -0.1%

As is common throughout the nation, non-farm wage and salary employment accounts for the majority of 

employment and most of the changes in the number of jobs in Duchesne and Uintah counties. The number of 

proprietors in the regional economy has increased substantially as well, with proprietors accounting for nearly 

one of every four jobs in the study area (Table 3.8-7). However, many of the proprietorships are part-time or 

incidental/casual type businesses, rather than primary, full-time enterprises.

The distribution of jobs by major industrial sector in 2007, as reported by the U.S. Bureau of Economic 

Analysis, is described in Table 3.8-8. At that time, which corresponded to an expansionary period for the oil 

and gas industry, the mining industry (which includes the oil and gas industry) had a 20.3 percent share of total 

employment in Uintah County. Local government has the single largest share of employment in Duchesne 

County. For more information regarding the role of the oil and gas industry in the region’s economy see The 

Structure and Economic Impact of Utah’s Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Industry, Phase I – The 

Uinta Basin (University of Utah 2007).

Table 3.8-8 Non-Farm Wage and Salary Employment by Major Industry, 2007

Industry Duchesne County Uintah County State of Utah

Agricultural Services, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 1.2% 0.4% 0.2%

Mining 13.2% 20.3% 0.8%

Utilities 0.5% 0.8% 0.3%
FEIS 3-51 March 2012

Table 3.8-8 Non-Farm Wage and Salary Employment by Major Industry, 2007

Industry Duchesne County Uintah County State of Utah

Construction 11.5% 8.5% 8.5% 

Manufacturing 2.9% 2.0% 8.2%

Wholesale Trade 2.0% 3.8% 3.3%

Retail Trade 10.8% 11.6% 11.4%

Transportation and Warehousing 7.6% 5.5% 3.4%

Information 2.0% N/A 2.1%

Finance and Insurance 2.3% 2.9% 5.7%

Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 4.1% 4.2% 5.2%

Professional Scientific and Technical Services 2.1% 3.1% 6.3%

Management of Companies and Enterprises N/A N/A 1.3%

Admin., Support, Waste Management, Remediation N/A N/A 6.1%

Education Services (private) 0.9% 0.5% 2.5%

Health Care and Social Assistance 6.3% 5.5% 7.7%

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.0% 0.7% 2.0%

Accommodation and Food Services 4.9% 5.5% 6.1%

Other Services (except Public Administration) 6.5% 5.9% 5.2%

Federal Government, civilian 0.8% 2.2% 2.1% 

Military 0.7% 0.7% 1.0%

State Government, including Public Education 1.1% 0.8% 4.0% 

Local Government, including Public Education 15.0% 10.9% 6.4%

Total Non-Farm Employment, not including 97.4% 95.9% 100.0%

In Uintah County, the local economy historically has been dependent on the oil and gas industry (included as 

part of the mining industry), and the county’s relative concentration in oil and gas production has increased 

since the early 1990s, climbing above 60 percent of the statewide total, according to the UDOGM database. 

Mining’s lower employment values in Duchesne County reflect a smaller resource base, more employment in 

local government and services associated with the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, and relative gains in other 

sectors.

In the natural gas portion of the mining industry, recent declines in wellhead natural gas prices, along with 

capital availability constraints, have resulted in a dramatic slowdown in the pace of new development. 

However, natural gas prices are expected to increase over the long term, stimulating a return to more recent 

levels of development activity because the oil and gas extraction industry tends to expand exploration and 

production and hire more workers during periods of higher prices. 

Energy resource development in the region, along with the economic stimulus associated with outdoor 

recreation and other activities has created many new jobs and decreased unemployment rates in the 

socioeconomics study area to record lows in 2007 and 2008. As result, local unemployment rates, which 

typically had been above the statewide average, were below the statewide average in 2006, 2007, and 2008, 

but have since surpassed the statewide average, as reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

(Table 3.8-9). 
FEIS 3-52 March 2012

Table 3.8-9 Labor Force and Unemployment Rates

Year

Labor Force Unemployment Rate (Annual Average)1

Duchesne County Uintah County Duchesne County Uintah County State of Utah

2000 6,095 11,339 4.9% 4.2% 3.4%

2001 6,741 12,164 5.2% 4.4% 4.4%

2002 6,995 12,587 6.7% 6.0% 5.8%

2003 6,923 13,173 6.8% 5.8% 5.6%

2004 7,341 13,925 5.7% 5.1% 5.0%

2005 7,735 14,754 4.6% 3.9% 4.1%

2006 8,507 16,324 2.9% 2.5% 3.0%

2007 9,197 17,231 2.3% 2.2% 2.7%

2008 10,257 18,581 2.6% 2.2% 3.4%

2009 (July) 11,061 19,687 7.3% 7.2% 6.0%

1 All unemployment rates listed are annual average values except 2009, which is the monthly rate for July.

The national economic recession in the latter part of 2008 and early 2009 affected the local labor market 

dramatically due to its effects on energy exploration and development. The region’s labor market, which had 

been characterized by considerable unmet demand for labor, had relatively few unfilled jobs. More than 

3,000 jobs were lost locally and local unemployment more than tripled between December 2008 and 

July 2009. The higher unemployment levels reflect not only a loss of local jobs, but in-migration by individuals 

who lost jobs elsewhere and rising labor force participation stimulated by the economic recession.

The dynamic nature of the region’s labor market during the pre-recessionary expansion is characteristic of 

conditions associated with energy and mineral development when rapid economic expansion absorbs 

available labor, lowers unemployment rates, induces labor migration, and creates competition for available 

labor among employers. Some of those effects were highlighted in a 2005 statewide survey that indicated a 

job vacancy rate of 5.2 percent in the Uinta Basin, the highest of any region surveyed. The survey tallied 

nearly 900 job openings at an average advertised wage of $12.20 per hour (Utah Department of Workforce 

Services [UDOWS] 2005). However, labor market conditions changed rapidly with the concurrent contraction 

in the energy industry and the broader economic recession, the effects of which include rapidly rising 

unemployment and higher short-term labor force participation. Absent a timely economic recovery, out 

migration and declining labor force participation would be expected over time, contributing to a contraction in 

the local labor force and setting the stage for a reoccurrence of the same pattern with the next expansionary 

cycle.

In northeastern Utah, which includes Duchesne and Uintah counties, tourism is an important component of the 

economy. According to the Utah Division of Travel Development (2004), tourism employment, including both

direct tourism employment and the ripple effects of that employment, constitutes from 10 to 19 percent of total 

employment in the GNBPA. Recreation resources of the GNBPA are described in Section 3.7, Recreation.

Historically, per capita income for residents of Duchesne and Uintah counties commonly has been below the 

statewide average. According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis database, the gaps between the 

statewide average and corresponding averages in the two counties narrowed in recent years (Table 3.8-10), 

due in large part to higher employment in the oil and gas industry, declining unemployment, and the effects of 

higher labor demand pushing up wages for other jobs. In Duchesne County, the 2007 per capita income was 

111 percent of the statewide average, up from 83 percent in 2001. In Uintah County, the 2007 per capita 

income was 99 percent of the state average, up from 76 percent in 2001. Real, inflation-adjusted growth in per 

capita income from 2001 to 2007 was a strong 36 percent in Duchesne County and 35 percent in Uintah 

County, compared to just 3 percent statewide.
FEIS 3-53 March 2012

Table 3.8-10 Per Capita Personal Income

Per Capita Income

Per Capita Income as a Percent of 

Statewide Income

2001 2005 2007

Change

2001-2007 2001 2005 2007

Duchesne County $20,702 $25,660 $32,996 59% 83% 94% 111%

Uintah County $18,770 $23,851 $29,534 57% 76% 88% 99%

State of Utah $24,809 $27,321 $29,831 20% 100% 100% 100%

As is shown in Table 3.8-11, mining jobs are large contributors to total and per capita income in Duchesne and 

Uintah counties. The mining industry recorded high average monthly wages in both counties in 2006, second 

only to the utilities industry in Uintah County. “Arts, entertainment, and recreation” and “accommodations and 

food services” industries are among the lowest-wage industries in the these counties, reflecting not only lower 

pay scales but the fact that many of the jobs are less than full time.

Table 3.8-11 Private Non-Farm Average Monthly Wages, by Major Industry, 2006

Industry Duchesne County Uintah County State of Utah

Agricultural Services, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting $1,506 $1,461 $1,995

Mining $5,257 $5,366 $5,241

Utilities $2,613 $6,894 $6,534

Construction $2,867 $2,702 $2,959

Manufacturing $2,826 $2,119 $3,471

Wholesale Trade $3,645 $3,826 $4,160

Retail Trade $1,595 $1,771 $2,029

Transportation and Warehousing (48 and 49) $4,332 $4,586 $3,209

Information $2,820 $2,117 $3,659

Finance and Insurance $2,261 $2,702 $4,040

Real Estate and Rental and Leasing $1,608 $4,714 $2,782

Professional Scientific and Technical Services $3,104 $3,040 $4,402

Management of Companies and Enterprises - - $4,880

Admin., Support, Waste Management, Remediation $1,645 $2,100 $2,013

Education Services (private) $299 $1,478 $2,116

Health Care and Social Assistance $2,607 $1,934 $2,831

Arts, Entertainment and Recreation $752 $618 $1,691

Accommodations and Food Services $907 $838 $1,100

Other Services (except Public Admin.) $2,168 $2,332 $2,123

Note: Some values are missing because data are withheld when necessary to protect information regarding a single or dominant establishment/employer.

Source: UDOWS 2007a.

Non-labor earnings is another dimension of regional personal income. According to the U.S. Bureau of 

Economic Analysis database, dividends, interest, rent, and personal transfer receipts are nearly 28 percent 

of total income in Duchesne County and 27 percent in Uintah County, both slightly above the 26 percent share 

statewide (Table 3.8-12). In Duchesne and Uintah counties, non-labor income is associated with income 
FEIS 3-54 March 2012

maintenance and public assistance medical care benefits rather than with public retirement benefits or 

property income.

Table 3.8-12 Composition of Total Personal Income, 2005

Duchesne County Uintah County

($000) Pct. of Total ($000) Pct. of Total

Total Earnings by Place of Work $ 265,687 67.5% $ 563,146 87.0%

Less: Contributions for Government social insurance - 31,712 - 8.1% - 67,442 10.4%

Plus: Net Residency Adjustment 50,498 12.8% - 21,174 -3.3%

Net Earnings by Place of Residence $ 284,473 72.3% $ 474,530 73.3%

Plus: Dividends, interest and rent 40,310 10.2% 71,563 11.1%

Plus: Personal Current Transfers 68,541 17.4% 100,951 15.6%

Equals: Total Personal Income $ 393,324 100.0% $ 647,044 100.0%

People who commute to work also have an impact on personal income measured within a single county. 

In-commuters take income away from the county where jobs are located, and out-commuters bring income 

back to their home county. According to the 2000, Census Duchesne County had net out-commuting of 

237 commuters and Uintah County had a net of 299 out-commuters (Table 3.8-13).

Table 3.8-13 Workforce Commuting in Duchesne and Uintah Counties, 2000

Duchesne County Uintah County

Persons living in county/Working outside 1,115 1,235

Persons living outside/Working in county 878 936

Net commuting out-flow 237 299

Total employed labor force living in county 5,679 11,112

Percent of resident workers out-commuting to jobs 15.5% 11.1%

Total industry jobs in county 7,766 13,667

Percent of jobs in county held by in-commuters 11.3% 6.8%

Sources: UDOWS 2007b; U.S. Census Bureau 2003a,b.

The impact of commuting on personal income depends on the income levels of commuters; high incomes 

associated with commuting in one direction can offset larger numbers of commuters in the other direction 

whose incomes are lower. Detailed income data from 2005 show that the net effect of commuting was to add 

12.8 percent of net earnings to local personal income in Duchesne County. According to the U.S. Bureau 

of Economic Analysis database, the net effect of commuting in Uintah County was to subtract 3.3 percent 

of annual earnings from personal income in 2005. 

3.8.5 Specific Economic Sectors

Discussions of specific economic sectors are included because they are the subject of expressed public 

interest as evidenced by comments received during the scoping process. This section addresses two specific

topics: grazing and recreation and the oil and gas industry. Discussion of the first two topics focuses on the 

economic impact of resources in these sectors that are in or near the GNBPA. The third topic discusses how 

local oil and gas resources fit into a regional and national context.
FEIS 3-55 March 2012

3.8.5.1 Grazing

Agriculture is an important segment of the regional economy, with more than 1,900 farm proprietors and 

employees in 2005. According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis database, collectively local 

farmers and ranchers had receipts of $62.6 million from sales of livestock and crops in 2005, 83 percent of 

which was derived from livestock sales. Like much of the west, the area has endured extended drought, one 

impact of which has been pressures on ranchers to trim back herd sizes due to reduced availability of feed. In 

2005 more than $9.0 million of the total livestock sales by local ranchers were characterized as the value of 

“inventory reductions.” 

As in other western states, the local ranching industry relies on grazing on public lands. The GNBPA includes 

portions of 12 federal (BLM and BIA) grazing allotments. The federal allotments are primarily fall/winter use 

(November to April). Total authorized use on the 12 allotments is 40,002 AUMs. Actual use has been much 

less in recent years due to climatic conditions that have limited forage availability. The approximate potential 

value of the production in these allotments, based on average value per AUM, is presented in Table 3.8-14. 

Table 3.8-14 Approximate Value of Annual Livestock Production from Federal Grazing Leases

AUMs1 Value in GNBPA

Total Active AUMs (All Allotments) 40,002

Total Projected Active AUMs within the GNBPA 13,091

Projected Active AUMs (Cattle/Sheep) 6,405 / 6,686

Potential Gross Value of Production from grazing on public lands (2006 $)2 $396,672

1

 An AUM represents the quantity of forage required to sustain 1 cow-calf pair or 5 sheep for 1 month. 2 Gross value of production based on $36.91 / AUM for cattle and $ 23.97 / AUM for sheep (2006 $).

Sources: USDA 2007; BLM 2008c.

The estimates in Table 3.8-14 are based on generalizations about the productivity of the grazing allotments 

found within the GNBPA. Circumstances that affect the actual gross value of production include weather, 

stocking rates, livestock prices, and forage availability. In addition, grazing on a particular allotment may serve 

a disproportionate role on a permittee’s overall operation if restrictions in use occur and the permittee 

“depends” on the allotment and cannot find substitute forage at the same cost, in a feasible location, or in the 

proper seasonal sequence (Godfrey and Bagley 1994).

3.8.5.2 Outdoor Recreation

Beneficial economic impacts from visitor expenditures occur in the local economy when people stop and stay 

while visiting an attraction. The routes that people take to access attractions determine where expenditures 

occur. 

The Utah Office of Tourism calculates very general spending estimates from visitors. The office has estimated 

the average daily expenditures per person per day in southern Utah at $87 (adjusted to 2006$) (Utah Office of

Tourism 2002). Such visitor expenditures create a beneficial economic impact in a county if the expenditures 

are from non-residents of the county; however, there are no recent estimates of overall tourism visitation in 

Duchesne and Uintah counties. 

Local outdoor recreation opportunities and attractions include the Pariette Wetlands, Fantasy Canyon, scenic 

byways, camping, hiking, and rafting on portions of the White River east of the study area. General public 

recreation use in the area is relatively light, although approximately 2,000 rafters use the nearby stretches of 

the White River annually and several youth -oriented outdoor recreation programs use public lands in the area 

to conduct their programs. The BLM Vernal Field Office has issued 23 guide permits providing for recreation 

use of public lands, though the areas of permitted use are not confined exclusively to the GNBPA. Public lands 
FEIS 3-56 March 2012

in the area also are part of an important upland game hunting area managed by the UDWR (BLM 2008c). The 

area also hosts some visitors associated with rafting on the Green River, downstream from the study area. 

High season use from May 15 to August 15 is limited to 6 launches per day of up to 25 people per launch.

Hunting and fishing, much of which is related to public lands, also is an important source of economic stimulus 

for the local economy, particularly for local motels, restaurants, sporting goods dealers and outfitters. 

According to the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, 20 percent of 

all Utahans hunted or fished in 2006, and 32 percent participated in some form of wildlife watching. Average 

annual participation among Utah sportsmen was estimated at 10.1 days for fishing, 8.7 days for hunting, and 

21.5 days for wildlife watching and the estimated average daily expenditures associated with this activity were 

$100 for fishing, $203 for hunting, and $41 for wildlife watching (USFWS 2007a). The UDWR reported sales of 

5,175 hunting licenses, 7,291 fishing licenses, and 1,956 combination hunting and fishing licenses to 

residents of Duchesne and Uintah counties in 2006 (Johnson 2007).

3.8.5.3 Non-market/Non-use Values

Beyond the recreation benefits to individual users of an area, residents of and visitors to the area derive an

array of economic, environmental, social well-being/quality of life, and other benefits from the area’s public and 

private lands. Many of these benefits to individuals, businesses, and other entities come directly or indirectly 

from activities and uses supported by the lands. Activities such as grazing, energy resource production and 

consumption, and commercial outfitting occur on public land and involve market transactions that can be 

estimated and reported. In many cases, the beneficiaries are local; however, some beneficiaries may be 

located far away from the use or activity.

Many services derived from public lands are not marketed or directly measureable, yet they provide 

satisfaction and utility to society even if no money changes hands. These are referred to as non-market 

benefits. Examples of such services include open space, establishment of wilderness, preservation of critical 

wildlife habitat, protection of sensitive and endangered species, and the protection of historical trails and 

vistas. Even though these non-market benefits are not represented in market transactions, individuals and 

society as a whole place a value on them. There is a body of literature that argues that protecting lands with 

certain features and attributes from development may indirectly provide benefits such as enhanced property 

values for nearby private property or enhanced local community and economic development efforts.

Individuals also may derive benefits from non-use, which involves benefits associated with the preservation of 

environmental values not directly experienced. Three categories of such non-use values are commonly 

defined: bequest, existence, and option. Bequest values are associated with the knowledge that something will 

be preserved for the potential use or enjoyment of future generations. The existence value is the value one 

derives simply from knowing that something exists, irrespective of any plans to experience/use it personally. 

The third category of non-use value, the option value, is the value of simply maintaining the option to directly 

experience or be involved in an activity, irrespective of any plan to do so in the foreseeable future. As with 

some of the use benefits, non-use benefits apply both to local residents and to those located elsewhere. 

Economists have developed valuation techniques to quantify use and non-use benefits in dollar terms. 

Implementing those techniques is time consuming, complex, and costly. As a result, non-market valuation 

techniques generally are applied on lands and environmental services that are more ecologically or culturally 

unique or sensitive, scenic, undeveloped, remote, and/or provide high quality recreation opportunities. 

Valuation of potential non-market attributes usually is not as appropriate for lands that have already been 

affected by development, such as those in this assessment area. Nevertheless, public land managers routinely 

consider qualitative aspects of non-market values in their land use decisions through their review of public 

comments submitted by agencies, organizations, and members of the general public who value scenic, 

historic, environmental, and wilderness aspects of public lands. 
FEIS 3-57 March 2012

3.8.5.4 Regional and National Natural Gas Industry Trends

Comments received during the scoping process expressed concern for Utah’s role and that of areas near the 

GNBPA in the national energy strategy. 

The U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) Energy Information Administration (EIA) published a forecast of 

domestic natural gas production (USDOE 2009) predicting that the Rocky Mountain and Alaska regions would 

be the source of most of the increase in domestic natural gas production through 2030. That forecast also 

anticipates that much new production of onshore natural gas in the lower 48 states would come from 

“nonconventional” resources, including coalbed methane, tight sandstones (“tight gas”), and gas shales. The 

EIA also anticipates construction of new pipeline capacity from the Rocky Mountains to deliver increased 

production to national markets.

Interest in Utah natural gas has increased because of market conditions. Utah is a net exporter of natural gas. 

Major pipeline corridors connect Utah and other Rocky Mountain states to the West and Midwest regions. In 

the West, the major natural gas markets are California and Nevada (USDOE 1998). Interest in Utah’s 

resources also is reflected in the growing leasing interest expressed to the BLM Utah State office over the 

past 5 years. Recent leasing nominations have focused on areas in the Price, Richfield, Fillmore, and Cedar 

City field offices. Although these areas have seen less development historically than the Uinta Basin, recent 

exploratory drilling and geophysical testing indicates significant oil and gas potential in these areas 

(BLM 2006e).

Analysis of data published by the UDOWS indicates that there are 269 businesses in the GNBPA that are

related to oil and gas development (Table 3.8-15). Uintah County hosts 191 of these establishments 

(71 percent of the total); Duchesne County hosts 78 businesses. Across the two counties, the 269 oil and gas 

development-related businesses represented 15 percent of all public and private sector establishments in 

2006.

Table 3.8-15 Oil and Gas Development Related Businesses in the GNBPA, 2006

Business Sector (NAICS Code) Duchesne County Uintah County Two County Total

Extraction of Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas (211111) 13 12 25

Extraction of Natural Gas Liquid (21112) 1 1 2

Drilling of Oil and Gas Wells (213111) 5 17 22

Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations (213112) 52 132 184

Construction – Oil and Gas Pipelines and Related Facilities (237120) 2 8 10

Manufacturing – Oil and Gas Field Equipment (331132) 1 1 2

Wholesale – Industrial Equipment (423830)1 3 15 18

Transportation – Gas Pipelines (486210) 1 5 6

Total 78 191 269

Total Establishments – All Industries 667 1,182 1,849

Oil and Gas Related (Share of Total) 12% 16% 15%

1 The sector includes sales of pipeline equipment.

Source: UDOWS 2007c.

3.8.6 Community Facilities and Services

Housing markets and public facilities and services are described in terms of their ability to accommodate future 

growth. These attributes influence the commuting and relocation choices of workers attracted by jobs created 

by the Proposed Action.
FEIS 3-58 March 2012

3.8.6.1 Housing

Housing inventoried in 2000 by the U.S. Census Bureau was predominantly detached single-family; 64 percent 

of housing in Duchesne County, and 73 percent of housing in Uintah County (Table 3.8-16). That trend has 

continued. Mobile and manufactured housing is fairly common and increasing in frequency. Housing units in 

multi-family structures are the least common housing types in both counties.

Table 3.8-16 County Housing Stock By Type, 2000

Housing Type Duchesne County Uintah County

Single Family 63.5% 73.2%

Duplex 1.0% 2.4%

All Other Multi-Family 8.6% 9.1%

Mobile and Manufactured 26.9% 15.3%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000b.

The growth in housing supply in the region generally has kept pace with resident population growth from 2000 

to 2008, with the housing supply increasing by nearly 16 percent in Duchesne County and 19 percent in Uintah 

County (Tables 3.8-17 and 3.8-18).

Table 3.8-17 Total Housing Units by County

Year Duchesne County Uintah County

2000 7,028 9,071

2001 7,196 9,201

2002 7,277 9,310

2003 7,384 9,416

2004 7,489 9,512

2005 7,594 9,636

2006 7,759 9,860

2007 7,937 10,301

2008 8,125 10,822

2000-08 Absolute Change 1,097 1,751

2000-08 Percent Change 15.6% 19.3%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2009b. 

Table 3.8-18 Cumulative Building Permits for New Residential Development

Permits Issued 2000 to 2008

Duchesne County Uintah County Combined Total

Number of Units 1,605 2,734 4,339

Average per Year 178 304 482

Percent Single Family 58% 58% 58%

Percent Manufactured/Mobile Homes 39% 20% 27%

Percent Duplexes, Condominiums, Apartments, and Other 3% 22% 15%

Source: University of Utah 2009.
FEIS 3-59 March 2012

An analysis of building permits issued from 2000 to 2008 indicates that nearly 60 percent more dwelling units 

were authorized for construction than appear in the Census Bureau’s estimated housing stock. Some of the 

difference is attributable to units that remain under construction and will be reported in subsequent years. 

Other units have been canceled or construction has ceased due to factors related to the current economic 

downturn. Despite the differences, the dwelling unit mix is informative, showing that 58 percent of the permits 

in the two counties were for single family dwellings, 27 percent mobile homes or manufactured units, and 

15 percent for duplexes or multi-family housing (Table 3.8-18). The latter represents a considerably higher 

share than existed in 2000; an indication of the housing demands associated with the many temporary, 

younger, and unaccompanied workers in the oil and gas industry. Most of the new multi-family units were 

located in Uintah County (University of Utah 2009). 

Historically, local housing was concentrated in Roosevelt and Vernal. However, recent new housing 

construction has been concentrated in unincorporated parts of the counties; more than 85 percent of the 

permits issued in Duchesne County were for homes located in unincorporated areas, with only a slightly lower 

share of all permitted units located in unincorporated Uintah County.

Local housing costs have risen sharply in recent years due to strong demand and households with higher 

income levels. Consequently, housing affordability had been as much an issue as availability prior to the 

recent economic downturn. As shown in Table 3.8-19, the average sales price of homes sold in the Uinta 

Basin increased by 82 percent between 2004 and 2007, before retreating in 2008. Increases in local housing 

prices outpaced the statewide increases such that the local average sale price climbed from 61 percent of the 

statewide average in 2004 (excluding Park City) to 85 percent in 2007. Sales prices in the Uinta Basin declined 

faster than the statewide average during the latter part of 2008, cutting the ratio of local to statewide prices 

back to 78 percent.

Table 3.8-19 Homes Sales and Average Prices in the Uinta Basin

Year Number of Sales

Average Sales Price 

of Homes Sold

Local Price as Percent of 

State Average1 

2004 427 $115,144 61.0%

2005 544 $137,798 69.6%

2006 634 $172,132 74.5%

2007 555 $209,496 85.2%

2008 625 $187,762 78.2%

1

 Comparison to state average based on state average not including Park City.

Source: Utah Association of Realtors 2009.

The strong local demand for housing also is reflected in the increase in the number of sales, climbing from 427 

in 2004 to 634 in 2006. Home sales, including both new homes and resale of previously owned homes, 

continued strong through the first half of 2007; abating somewhat thereafter as local demand fell sharply. 

Sales rebounded slightly in 2008 in terms of the number of units sold, but the average sales price was below 

that in 2007. Fewer units were sold in the first 6 months of 2009, as compared to 2008, but the average sales 

price had again climbed above $200,000 (Utah Association of Realtors 2009).

Housing availability in Uintah and Duchesne counties has improved somewhat in the wake of the national 

economic slowdown. The slowdown has reduced the pace of oil and gas development and increased

unemployment, triggering some out-migration of workers and easing demand on housing. A search of a 

nationwide listing service from the National Association of Realtors found 95 residential properties in the 

Roosevelt area and more than 400 units in the Vernal area listed for sale. Single family homes in the Vernal 

area range in price from approximately $100,000 to nearly $1,000,000, with many new units listed at over 

$300,000 (National Association of Realtors 2009).
FEIS 3-60 March 2012

Natural gas development in Uintah and Duchesne counties is supported by a resident workforce plus workers 

who live in the area on a temporary basis while maintaining a permanent home elsewhere. The latter reside in 

motels, field camps, rental housing, and recreational vehicles (RVs), which can be parked at commercial 

campgrounds. The study area has a large, existing stock of motel rooms and RV campgrounds. This includes 

approximately 800 motel rooms and 500 commercial RV spaces (some year-round and some seasonal) in the 

vicinity of Vernal (Uintah County) and Roosevelt and Duchesne (Duchesne County) (Go-Utah.com 2007; 

Duchesne County Chamber of Commerce 2007; Dinosaurland Travel Board 2007).

Local motels and campgrounds also support tourism and recreation. Growing industry use, corresponding to 

the rising level of drilling activity, has absorbed more motel room nights, particularly in Uintah and Duchesne 

counties, which sometimes limits availability. Availability is particularly an issue during the summer and during 

the fall hunting season. During the summer of 2007, the Vernal area was able to house all visitors by 

identifying available lodging at times of peak demand and arranging accommodations through regional 

“welcome centers” (Farmer 2007; Oviat 2007). 

3.8.6.2 Water and Wastewater

The Ashley Valley Water Reclamation Facility (Uintah County) treats wastewater for an area that includes 

Ashley Valley and the cities of Vernal and Maeser. The facility opened in 2001 (UDEQ 2001). Some additional 

water and sewer system improvements are needed to serve anticipated long-term growth needs by the Ashley 

Valley Water and Sewer District and the City of Vernal, which jointly manage the wastewater plant with the 

Maeser Water and Sewer District (Natural Resources Impact Working Group 2006).

The Roosevelt municipal water system (Duchesne County), which also serves communities along the line from 

the water source near Neola, rations culinary water during peak summer demand. Completion of an 

$80 million Sand Wash Pipeline in 2008 will relieve the shortage by providing untreated water for irrigation. 

The Roosevelt wastewater system, at 50 percent of capacity, is nominally adequate for another 6,000 persons 

(Hancock 2007).

Duchesne City’s water system has the capacity to handle build-out within the city limits. Water mains are being 

enlarged to serve large subdivisions outside the city with wholesale treated water. The city’s wastewater 

lagoons are near capacity, needing to be dredged, but they will not be expanded because outlying 

subdivisions will rely on septic systems (Miller 2007).

3.8.6.3 Public Safety

The Uintah County Sheriff has a staff of 53, including 19 certified officers and 22 correctional officers. The 

Duchesne County Sheriff’s Office has a staff of 56, including 16 road deputies and 26 correctional officers 

(Duchesne County 2006a).

The largest municipal police departments near the GNBPA are in Vernal and Roosevelt. The Vernal police 

department has 19 sworn officers (Vernal City Online 2008). Roosevelt’s department has 9 officers, 5 reserve 

officers, 1 animal control officer, and 2 administrative staff (Harrison 2008).

There are 7 fire departments in Duchesne County (4 city departments and 3 rural departments) with a total of 

95 volunteer firefighters. The county funds the city departments for coverage outside their boundaries and has 

1 full-time employee to coordinate fire service and emergency management (Duchesne County 2006b).

Uintah County has multiple volunteer fire departments for areas outside of the BLM, U.S. Forest Service, and 

Uintah and Ouray Reservation boundaries. The local fire departments in Uintah County are Vernal/Uintah 

County (27 volunteers), Naples (18 volunteers), Jensen (17 volunteers), Lapoint-Tridell (15 volunteers), and 

Avalon (Uintah County 2006a).
FEIS 3-61 March 2012

3.8.6.4 Health Care

There are two hospitals in the study area. 

• Ashley Valley Medical Center in Vernal is an accredited facility with 39 certified beds. The hospital is a 

short-term facility but all beds are available for long-term care (Hospital-Data.com 2007a). 

• Uinta Basin Medical Center in Roosevelt (Duchesne County) is a non-accredited facility with 

42 certified beds. The hospital is a short-term facility but all beds are available for long-term care 

(Hospital-Data.com 2007b).

The Uinta Basin Medical Center also operates clinics in Duchesne City, Altamont, and Tabiona, which are all 

in Duchesne County (Hyde 2006). Clinics of the TriCounty Health Department, which also serves Daggett 

County, provide screening and preventive services from locations in the Vernal, Roosevelt, and Duchesne 

(TriCounty Health Department 2008).

3.8.6.5 Schools

A countywide school district provides public education in each county. For the two districts combined, total 

enrollment of 10,082 students was projected in the fall of 2007. That total represents a 6.0 percent increase 

and 575 students over the past 5 years (Table 3.8-20). Enrollment gains have occurred in both districts, but 

most of the gains have occurred in the past 2 school years in the Uintah School District. 

Table 3.8-20 Selected Characteristics, Duchesne County and Uintah School Districts

Number of Schools Duchesne County School District Uintah School District

 Elementary and Middle 7 7

 Junior and Senior High 5 3

 Special and Alternative 3 1

Fall Enrollment 

2003 3,900 5,607

2004 3,894 5,642

2005 3,993 5,539

2006 3,982 5,787

2007 (projected) 4,042 6,040

Change 2003-07 4% 8%

Source: Utah State Office of Education 2007.

The Duchesne County School District completed a new building for Duchesne High School in the fall of 2005 

and launched construction of a new junior high school in Roosevelt. Funding for the projects include a loan 

from the state’s Revolving Loan Fund for education facilities, a no-interest loan from the Permanent 

Community Impact Fund jointly issued to the district and Duchesne County, and locally undertaken lease 

revenue bonds (Duchesne County School District 2006).

The Uintah School District completed a major addition and remodel to the Vernal Junior High in 2004-2005 

using a combination of locally issued lease revenue, general obligation bonds, capital outlay reserves, and 

current funds for school programs needing the improvements (Uintah School District 2005).

High school students and adults have access to concurrent enrollment, advanced degrees, and career and 

technical training at the Roosevelt campus of the Utah College of Applied Technology (UCAT), and the Uinta 

Basin Campus of Utah State University with facilities in Vernal and Roosevelt (Utah State University 2007). 
FEIS 3-62 March 2012

There were 1,735 persons in workforce training programs at UCAT during the 2004-2005 school year 

(UCAT 2005).

3.8.6.6 Transportation

In Duchesne and Uintah counties, county government handles ongoing road maintenance and repair, and 

special service districts (SSDs) undertake capital construction projects primarily financed by allocations of 

federal mineral lease revenues and funds appropriated through UDOT for local, state, and federal aid 

transportation projects, and the Class B and C Road Funds (B and C refer to categories of local public roads) 

program.

3.8.7 Public Expenditures and Revenues 

Total expenditures and shares by major government use of funds for Duchesne and Uintah counties are 

shown in Table 3.8-21. In Duchesne County, total expenditures were up by 12 percent in fiscal year (FY) 2006 

compared to FY 2001, as Duchesne County’s population grew by 7 percent. General inflation for the period 

was 13 percent. Total expenditures in Uintah County were up by 20 percent in FY 2006 compared to FY 2001, 

as the county’s population rose 7 percent. County outlays increased mainly in the area of general government 

and public safety for both Duchesne County and Uintah County. 

Table 3.8-21 Total County Expenditures by Function, in Millions 

Function

Duchesne County Uintah County

2001 2006 Change 2001 2006 Change

General Government $1.84 $2.65 44% $3.22 $5.67 76%

Public Safety $3.35 $4.80 43% $2.98 $4.85 63%

Public Health $0.21 $0.69 229% $6.34 $4.31 -32%

Transportation and Public 

Improvements

$2.90 $1.27 -56% $4.90 $5.34 9%

Culture, Recreation and Other 

Public Property

$0.30 $0.46 53% $1.52 $2.91 91%

Housing and Economic 

Development

$0.46 $0.83 80% $1.12 $0.81 -28%

Other Current Outlays1 $5.70 $5.87 3% $1.66 $2.06 24%

Total $14.76 $16.57 12% $21.72 $25.96 20%

1 Includes Capital Outlays, Debt Service, and Miscellaneous Expenditures. These outlays can vary dramatically from year to year.

Sources: Utah State Auditor 2006a, 2002a.

Total revenues and the main revenue sources for the counties are presented in Table 3.8-22. For counties, 

the reported revenue includes just the governmental-type funds within the primary government, plus SSDs, but 

excluding the reported revenue for enterprise funds. Total revenue grew from FY 2001 to FY 2006 by 

33 percent in Duchesne County and by 65 percent in Uintah County. As shown, the most important sources of 

revenue raised locally by the general purpose governments are the property tax and the sales tax. 

Expenditures by Roosevelt and Vernal, the main city governments of the area, also rose from FY 2001 to 

FY 2006 (Table 3.8-23). Total expenditures rose by 48 percent in Roosevelt and by 18 percent in Vernal, while 

population rose by about 9 percent and 6 percent, respectively. The largest increases in expenditures were for 

streets and parks and recreation in Roosevelt. Expenditures for health and general government led city 

spending growth in Vernal.
FEIS 3-63 March 2012

Table 3.8-22 Total Revenue for County Government, in Millions

Revenue Source

Duchesne County Uintah County

2001 2006 Change 2001 2006 Change

Property Tax $2.86 $6.18 116% $4.55 $7.54 66%

Sales and Use Tax $1.21 $1.62 34% $5.01 $9.62 92%

Other Taxes, Licenses, Fees 

and Permits

$0.43 $0.22 -49% $0.90 $2.12 136%

State Road Fund Allotment $1.79 $1.99 11% $2.89 $2.70 -7%

Other Government Grants, Aid 

and Payments

$5.01 $1.28 -74% $4.11 $6.51 58%

Charges, Interest and

Miscellaneous

$1.71 $5.99 250% $5.06 $8.65 71%

Total $13.02 $17.28 33% $22.53 $37.15 65%

Sources: Utah State Auditor 2006a, 2002a.

Table 3.8-23 Total City Expenditures by Function, in Millions

Function

Roosevelt Vernal

2001 2006 Change 2001 2006 Change

General Government $0.47 $0.69 47% $1.32 $1.78 35%

Public Safety $0.84 $1.17 39% $1.80 $2.11 17%

Public Health $0.53 $0.75 42% $0.96 $1.46 52%

Transportation and Public 

Improvements

$0.48 $1.12 133% $1.92 $1.63 -15%

Culture, Recreation and Other Public 

Property

$0.61 $1.21 98% $0.18 $0.15 -17%

Housing and Economic Development $0.11 $0.10 -9% $0.05 $0.07 40%

Other Current Outlays1 $1.06 $1.01 -5% $1.81 $2.31 28%

Total $4.10 $6.05 48% $8.04 $9.52 18%

1 Includes Capital Outlays, Debt Service, and Miscellaneous Expenditures. These outlays can vary dramatically from year to year.

Sources: Utah State Auditor 2006b, 2002b.

Total revenue grew from FY 2001 to FY 2006 by 19 percent in Roosevelt and by 20 percent in Vernal 

(Table 3.8-24). For cities, reported revenues include enterprise funds. City enterprise funds—which cover the 

water and sewer utilities in Roosevelt and Vernal—are integral to the cities’ financial reporting. The revenue of 

school districts conforms to the mandated structure of school finance in Utah.

Sales and use tax is especially important to cities because cities generally do not have taxable minerals 

development or production within their boundaries. 

Expenditures also grew in the county school districts (Table 3.8-25). From school years 2001 to 2006, total 

expenditures grew by 55 percent in the Duchesne County School District and by 26 percent in the Uintah 

School District. Fall enrollments for the corresponding periods declined slightly (-0.3 percent) in Duchesne

County and increased by just 1.1 percent in Uintah.
FEIS 3-64 March 2012

Table 3.8-24 Total Revenue for City Government, in Millions

Revenue Source

Roosevelt Vernal

2001 2006 Change 2001 2006 Change

Property Tax $0.38 $0.50 32% $0.31 $0.33 6%

Sales and Use Tax $1.21 $1.70 40% $3.18 $5.54 74%

Other Taxes, Licenses, Fees 

and Permits

$0.38 $0.71 87% $0.76 $1.23 62%

State Road Fund Allotment $0.21 $0.65 210% $0.29 $0.30 3%

Other Government Grants, Aid 

and Payments

$0.21 $0.44 110% $0.64 $1.33 108%

Charges, Interest and

Miscellaneous

$2.23 $1.49 -33% $3.43 $1.58 -54%

Total $4.60 $5.49 19% $8.60 $10.31 20%

Sources: Utah State Auditor 2006b, 2002b.

Table 3.8-25 Total Public School District Expenditures by Function, in Millions

Function

Duchesne County School District Uintah School District

2001 2006 Change 2001 2006 Change

Instruction $13.44 $16.38 22% $20.91 $22.89 9%

Support Services $7.60 $9.65 27% $10.37 $11.81 14%

School Lunch and Non-Instructional $1.20 $1.31 9% $2.00 $3.43 72%

Capital Facilities $1.66 $9.31 461% $2.07 $6.24 201%

Debt Service $0.96 $1.80 88% $0.30 $0.65 117%

Total Expenditures $24.85 $38.46 55% $35.66 $45.02 26%

Sources: Utah State Auditor 2006c, 2005, 2002c.

Property taxes are the only taxes levied by school districts. Though allotments from the State are by far the 

largest source of revenue for school districts, school districts do benefit from a larger tax base, as do local 

general purpose governments. The revenue of school districts conforms to the mandated structure of school 

finance in Utah. Total revenue grew from FY 2001 to FY 2006 by 19 percent in the Duchesne County School 

District and 21 percent in the Uintah School District (Table 3.8-26).

Schools in Utah have some protection from changing demands and revenues that is not available to other 

local governments. The education foundation program, the Utah Minimum School Program, supports districts 

that do not raise at least a minimum amount per “weighted pupil unit,” currently about $2,200. In addition, the 

State supports capital funding in districts with weak tax bases. State government directly benefits from lease 

royalties and taxes that are specific to minerals production, while local governments benefit indirectly. In Utah, 

mineral lease revenues, which are 50 percent of the royalties and bonuses collected on federal resources in 

the State, are distributed to State agencies and to local entities by appropriation or statutory formula.
FEIS 3-65 March 2012

Table 3.8-26 Total Revenues for Public School Districts, in Millions

Revenue Source

Duchesne County School District Uintah School District

2001 2006 Change 2001 2006 Change

Property Tax $5.41 $7.22 33% $7.45 $13.99 88%

Other Local Revenue $0.51 $1.44 182% $2.78 $2.92 5%

State Sources $17.80 $18.18 2% $22.75 $21.54 -5%

Federal Sources $1.87 $3.60 93% $4.26 $6.44 51%

Total Revenue $25.59 $30.44 19% $37.24 $44.88 21%

Sources: Utah State Auditor 2006c, 2005, 2002c.

In 2006, the ad valorem tax base for the counties and school districts exceeded $1.1 billion in Duchesne 

County and $2.8 billion in Uintah County (Table 3.8-27). Natural resources and related facilities are important 

components of the ad valorem/property tax base of the main government entities in Duchesne and Uintah 

counties. In 2006, total centrally assessed property, which includes natural resources as well as pipelines, 

railroads, electric utilities, and telecommunications facilities that also may be related to natural resources 

development, comprises 47 percent of total taxable value in Duchesne County and 60 percent in Uintah 

County. Oil and gas production are 39 percent of total taxable value in Duchesne County and 46 percent in 

Uintah County.

Table 3.8-27 Ad Valorem Tax Base of Local Governments, 2006 (In Millions)

Government

Total Taxable 

Value1

Locally 

Assessed

Centrally 

Assessed

Oil and Gas Value (Included in 

Centrally Assessed)

Duchesne County and School District $1,113.8 $588.2 $525.6 $439.7 

Roosevelt $143.8 $131.8 $12.0 NA 

Uintah County and School District $2,809.1 $1,137.4 $1,671.7 $1,299.8 

Vernal $398.9 $384.8 $14.1 NA 

1 Sum of land, buildings, personal property and centrally assessed property. The taxable valuation for a county government and the corresponding county 

school district are the same because the jurisdictional boundary and tax base are the same for each entity.

Source: Utah State Tax Commission 2007a,b.

As already noted, both counties and cities also rely on sales tax revenues, which respond both directly and 

indirectly to natural resources development. Taxes are collected on consumer purchases made by individuals 

and households employed by natural resources developers and supporting industries. Sales taxes are paid 

directly by oil and gas operations when purchases of equipment, materials, or supplies are made in the local 

area. Examples of industry purchases that generate sales tax revenue are gravel, pipe, fuel, and other 

supplies purchased locally.

In addition to property taxes and sales taxes derived from natural resource operations, Duchesne and Uintah 

counties receive payments-in-lieu of taxes (PILT) from the federal government for all public lands within the 

county. The federal PILT to counties are to offset foregone property tax revenues due to the tax exempt status 

of the public lands and to partially compensate local governments for the costs of services (e.g., law 

enforcement or emergency medical services provided to the public on public lands). PILT payments are a 

function of the amount of eligible federal acres in a county, subject to certain population-related caps and the 

level of Congressional appropriations. PILT payments are relatively stable from year to year. In federal fiscal 

year 2006, PILT payments of $803,141 and $1,309,658 were made to Duchesne and Uintah counties, 

respectively.
FEIS 3-66 March 2012

The federal minerals royalty revenue sharing program, through which approximately one-half of the federal 

mineral royalties from local production is returned to the state (a portion of which is in turn redistributed locally), 

is a source of current revenue and capital funding for local government. In Utah, the revenue sharing and 

capital funds provisions generally correlate with growth in areas that host oil and gas development on public 

lands. Utah’s federal mineral lease revenue was $156.9 million in FY 2006, up from $82.7 million. Thirty-seven 

percent is appropriated to the UDOT for redistribution to counties and, subsequently, to local SSDs. The state 

also allocated 32.5 percent of the mineral royalties to the Permanent Community Impact Fund, which is used 

to provide loans and/or grants to state agencies and subdivisions of the state that are or may be socially or 

economically impacted, directly or indirectly, by mineral resource development on federal lands.

As shown in Table 3.8-28, distributions of mineral lease revenues directly to Duchesne and Uintah counties 

through UDOT increased several fold since 2001. Historically, these funds are used for transportation and 

recreation projects but more recently, for other facilities and services authorized by statute. Duchesne County 

uses its funding for road work (Duchesne County SSD #2 2004). Uintah County uses mineral lease grants and 

loans for SSDs whose missions are roads, recreation, health, mental health and substance abuse, animal 

control, economic development, and wildfire suppression (Uintah County 2006b).

Table 3.8-28 Mineral Lease Distributions to Duchesne and Uintah Counties from UDOT Appropriation, 

in Millions

Fiscal Year1 Duchesne County2 Uintah County2

2001 $0.79 $6.86

2002 $0.72 $3.03

2003 $0.68 $6.89

2004 $0.93 $11.77

2005 $1.90 $16.70

2006 $2.75 $27.50

2007 $3.15 $27.18

1

 Data are for fiscal years ending June 30. 2

 Distributions by county are allocated in proportion to the amount of mineral lease money generated by each county. Within counties distributions are 

determined by the county legislative body. Revenues are derived from lease bonuses and production royalties of activities located in each county.

Source: UDOT 2008. 

Note that although Duchesne County is a high oil producing county, its federal mineral lease revenue 

allocation from the UDOT appropriation is relatively low. This is because production from federally owned 

minerals is a small though growing fraction of total production from the county’s oil fields. Most of the oil 

produced in Duchesne County is from private or Ute Tribal mineral rights.

Over time the cumulative amount of grants and loans to Duchesne and Uintah counties from the Permanent 

Community Impact Fund total $12.8 million and $25.2 million, respectively (Table 3.8-29). Under the 

Permanent Community Impact Fund’s charter, these funds are targeted to the planning, construction, and 

maintenance of public facilities and services in areas that may be socially or economically impacted by 

minerals development on federal lands.

Federal minerals production also yields severance tax revenues. Revenue from the Utah Severance Tax goes 

to the State’s general fund. The tax is assessed on the value of production, minus allowed deductions, at the 

rate of 3 percent on the first $1.50 per Mcf of gas and 5 percent on the amount over that. The Ute Tribe 

receives royalties on oil and gas production from Tribal mineral interests.
FEIS 3-67 March 2012

Table 3.8-29 Utah Permanent Community Impact Fund Grant and Loan Funding, Fiscal Years 2001 to 

2005

Allocation (Millions)1 Duchesne County Uintah County

Permanent Community Impact Fund Allocation $12.8 $25.2

Allocated As Grants $5.1 $8.9

Percent Grants 40% 35%

Allocated As Loans $7.7 $16.3

Percent Loans 60% 65%

1 Grants and loans go to local governments and other State sub-divisions located in each county.

Source: Natural Resources Impact Working Group 2005.

3.8.8 Population and Employment Projections 

The state prepares long-term population and employment projections for all counties in Utah under baseline 

conditions (i.e., continuation of general statewide and regional economic trends). Although natural resource 

development factors into the projections for Duchesne and Uintah counties, the projections do not reflect 

discrete development assumptions related to any site-specific development plan. As shown in Table 3.8-30, 

current long-term demographic projections for the period 2007 to 2040 anticipate population growth of nearly 

6,400 residents in Duchesne County and more than 13,700 residents in Uintah County. Statewide growth is 

projected to remain strong, topping 4.0 million by 2025 and 5.0 million by 2039. Population projections for the 

cities are not published by the State of Utah’s long-term projections program.

Table 3.8-30 Population Projections to 2040

Projection Year

Duchesne 

County Uintah County

Uinta Basin 

MCD1 

State of Utah 

(Millions)

2007 Estimate 16,163 28,806 45,938 2.700

2010 17,336 31,379 49,707 2.928

2020 20,130 37,950 59,156 3.653

2030 21,533 40,638 63,326 4.388

2040 22,561 42,536 66,328 5.171

2007-40 CAGR 1.0% 1.2% 1.1% 2.0%

1

 MCD = Multi-county district. Uinta Basin MCD = Daggett, Duchesne, and Uintah counties. 

Source: UGOPB 2008.

The projected population growth rates in Duchesne and Uintah counties are comparable, as are the projected

employment growth rates (Tables 3.8-30 and 3.8-31). 

Table 3.8-31 Employment Projections to 2040

Projection Year

Duchesne 

County Uintah County

Uinta Basin 

MCD

State of Utah 

(Millions)

2007 10,413 19,563 30,688 1.66

2010 11,015 20,799 32,548 1.80

2020 11,689 21,932 34,392 2.20

2030 12,228 22,822 35,851 2.56

2040 12,899 23,876 37,616 2.97

2007-40 CAGR 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 1.8%

Source: UGOPB 2008.
FEIS 3-68 March 2012

3.8.9 Community Social Conditions

The first sub-section discusses the relationship of the nearby counties and communities to the GNBPA. The 

second sub-section discusses the affected groups.

3.8.9.1 Counties and Communities 

Duchesne and Uintah counties contain many small towns that are separated from the major cities of Utah or 

nearby Grand Junction, Colorado, by 2 hours or more of highway travel. In each community near the GNBPA, 

schools, churches, local government, and local institutions are touchstones of a social structure based on 

relationships among neighbors, acquaintances, and members of community groups and institutions. The 

communities of the region remain, as they have been historically, central places within large rural areas. 

Private lands are adjoined by large tracts of public land that hold valuable and strategic natural resources. The 

public lands, which occupy 60 to 70 percent of the surface area in each county, are pivotal to the region’s 

sense of place and plans for the future.

Community identity for most of the population in Uintah and Duchesne counties is tied to use of the land and 

natural resources, and to an economic dependency on public lands. The public in both counties is keenly 

aware of this and sensitive to the fact that public lands management impacts their economic well being 

(BLM 2008b).

According to the Uintah County General Plan (Uintah County 2005), residents value the county’s rural 

character, quiet lifestyle, natural landscapes, and open spaces. The plan states that maintaining these values 

is one of the top priorities of county residents. The plan states the belief that Uintah County depends on the 

use and development of natural resources for its economic well-being and defines county government’s role 

as strongly supporting “the rights of Uintah County residents and businesses to responsibly use and develop 

natural resources” (Uintah County 2005). With respect to public lands management, the general plan states 

that county policy is to support “multiple-use,” responsible resource use and development, and improved public 

and private access to and across public lands.

In Duchesne County, the County General Plan (Duchesne County 2005) identifies oil and gas and agriculture 

as significant to the county’s economic well being. The public’s planning priorities, according to the document, 

are maintaining a rural character and lifestyle; local participation in public land management issues; natural 

resource development; economic development; private land use issues; and human services, particularly 

education.

According to the Duchesne County General Plan, oil and gas has become more important to the local 

economy since the 1980s, so it is “in the economic interest of the county citizens and government” to promote 

access to public land to develop this resource (Duchesne County 2005). The general plan also states that 

recreation and tourism are part of the county’s economy and should be encouraged for their stabilizing effect. 

The plan adds that public lands development should consider impacts to recreational activities and be 

sensitive to values like rural lifestyle, quality of life, and scenic environment. However, county officials also may

assert that the economic benefits of resource development outweigh those of tourism (Hyde 2006).

Members of the Ute Tribe reside within and near the GNBPA. Over half of the Tribal membership chooses to 

live on the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (Ute Indian Tribe 2008), which occupies a large percentage of the 

land area in Uintah and Duchesne counties. Sovereignty over the land and resources of the reservation 

reinforces the Tribe’s separate social and cultural identity. The Ute Tribe receives royalties on oil and gas 

production from Tribal mineral rights.

A survey conducted in 2004 (Duchesne County 2005) indicated that Tribal members see social benefits from 

residency on the reservation. The three aspects of life on the reservation that surveyed Tribal members liked 

the most were: 1) closeness to family, a sense of community, neighbors, cultural/community/ Episcopal 

activities; 2) natural resources, scenery, mountains, clean air and clean water, wildlife, lots of space; and 3) no 
FEIS 3-69 March 2012

taxes, tax exempt, lower cost of living. The issues for the Tribe that members ranked as most important were: 

1) Tribal management, committee relations, and housing maintenance; 2) health services; and 3) resource 

development.

“Tribal/non-Tribal relations” were identified as an issue of moderate importance to members of the Ute Tribe in 

the 1994 survey (Duchesne County 2005). Counties also acknowledge the importance of cooperation and 

mutual sensitivity in relations with the Tribe. The Uintah County General Plan states that “cooperation between 

the Tribe and the County is necessary to ... address many Uinta Basin social and economic concerns and 

issues” (Uintah County 2005). The Duchesne County General Plan states that “resource use or development 

on private, public, or Tribal Lands should be sensitive to Tribal interests and the County's rural lifestyle, quality 

of life, and scenic environment” (Duchesne County 2005).

3.8.9.2 Affected Groups

Discussions of affected groups are included to structure the assessment of social impacts. Information from 

the BLM Vernal RMP (BLM 2008b) suggests that the attitudes and values regarding motorized access to 

public lands, conservation of wildlife, protection of areas with special designation, and economic development

likely are to be salient in the public perceptions of and reactions to a proposed action that involves natural gas 

development on public lands. Groups that share some or all of these values may be assumed to have similar 

attitudes and opinions toward development. For additional information regarding how Utahans use and value 

public land resources and their views toward the management of those lands, refer to The Structure and 

Economic Impact of Utah’s Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Industry, Phase I – The Uinta Basin

(University of Utah 2007), and a companion report focusing on responses from the Uinta Basin, Public Lands 

and Utah Communities: A Statewide Survey of Utah Resident (Utah State University 2009). Key findings from 

the latter also are summarized in Appendix M of the Vernal RMP (BLM 2008b).

It should be noted that these following discussions may generalize the actual values of individual group 

members. In addition, the presentation format is not meant to imply that these groups are mutually exclusive or 

that members of each group do not share interests with other groups. Furthermore, people’s attitudes and 

interests may change over time for a variety of reasons.

Individuals and Groups Who Give High Priority to Motorized Access to Public Lands

This group includes motorized recreationists (such as trail motorcycle, four-wheel-drive, and OHV enthusiasts); 

people with a business or professional need for motorized access; and businesses that supply vehicles and 

related goods and services. The group prefers to retain all motorized access and supports measures to 

promote safety, not access closure, wherever multiple-use might lead to traffic hazards. More 

recreation-oriented members of the group also want to protect visual quality and wildlife as part of their 

motorized trail use experience.

Individuals and Groups Who Give High Priority to Conservation of Wildlife

Members of this group and their supporters focus on the potential for impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat, as 

well as other natural resource values associated with natural wildlife habitat. The comments emphasize the 

concern that these values should be studied for potential conflict with gas development and that mitigation be 

considered for the potential damage caused to the environment.

Individuals and Groups Who Give High Priority to Protection of Areas with Special Designation

These individuals and groups indicate that the status of lands in or near the GNBPA that have special BLM 

land use designation areas is important because they value their naturalness, their uniqueness or increasing 

rarity, their benefits for recreation, their place in the environment, or their value as a source of knowledge.
FEIS 3-70 March 2012

Groups with an interest in special designation areas indicated that their members may support these ideas 

because they want to protect personal, professional, lifestyle, or political values. In addition, many comments 

focused on an interest in preserving these areas for the benefit of future generations.

Individuals and Groups Who Give High Priority to Economic Use of Resources

Comments commonly offered during public scoping on energy development proposals in the region express 

concern that resources on public land be made available for use to contribute to economic development and 

strategic benefits at the local, regional, and national level. Individuals and groups stating this concern did so 

because they live, work, or represent interests in communities that have benefited socio-economically from 

development of natural resources on public lands. Some groups offered these concerns because they 

represent industry, or they represent businesses that sell to industry.

These groups indicate that gas development provides high paying jobs, stimulates the local economy, 

supports public facilities and services, and historically has been part of the local social and economic structure. 

Many comments show support for what they see as the need to encourage development to promote local 

social and economic stability.

Some comments stated the belief that development can occur without destroying other resources and values, 

especially if there is mitigation. Concerns of this kind came from local government concerned over impacts to 

roads and public safety service providers.

3.8.10 Environmental Justice 

Environmental justice is defined as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people 

regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies (USEPA 1998a). EO 12898, Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, tasks 

“each Federal agency [to] make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and 

addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high adverse human health and environmental effects 

of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” 

Implementation of EO 12898 for NEPA by agency directive involves the following steps (BLM 2002b):

• Identification of the presence of minority and low-income populations and Indian Tribes in 

areas that may be affected by the action under consideration.

• Determination of whether the action under consideration would have adverse human health, 

environmental, or other effects on any population.

• Determine of whether such environmental, human health, or other effects would be 

disproportionately high and adverse on minority or low-income populations or Indian Tribes.

• Providing opportunities for effective community participation in the NEPA process, including 

identifying potential effects and mitigation measures in consultation with affected 

communities and improving the accessibility of public meetings, crucial documents, and 

notices (USEPA 1998a). 

Table 3.8-32 shows the proportions of low-income, minority, and Tribal populations in selected 

communities in Duchesne and Uintah counties. Data for the State of Utah are shown for comparison. 

The table includes the main communities in each county near the GNBPA, including the Fort 

Duchesne CDP, Randlett CDP, and Whiterocks CDP. The three CDPs are boundary-defined places 

within the Uintah and Ouray Reservation enumerated by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2000. All three are 

located in western Uintah County and are approximately 18, 10, and 28 linear miles, respectively, from 

the northwest corner of the GNBPA. Fort Duchesne is the headquarters location of the Ute Tribe.
FEIS 3-71 March 2012

Table 3.8-32 Poverty and Minority Population Characteristics of Selected Communities, 2000

Population

Percent of Total 

Population in Poverty

Minority as Percent of Total 

Population1

Percent American 

Indian

Duchesne County 16.8 11.2 5.4

Duchesne City 12.4 5.0 0.7

Roosevelt 22.1 14.9 8.1

Uintah County 14.5 14.1 10.3

Vernal 14.8 8.2 3.1

Naples 6.7 4.1 0.8

Ballard 8.5 5.7 3.9

Uintah and Ouray Reservation 20.2 20.0 16.4

Fort Duchesne CDP2 54.6 94.8 90.2

Randlett CDP 54.5 96.4 93.3

Whiterocks CDP 70.9 94.4 93.8

State of Utah 9.4 14.7 1.3

1 The total minority population comprises all persons of a minority racial identity plus persons of Hispanic-origin identity not 

already included because of race. 2 Unincorporated communities with boundaries defined for purposes of enumeration during the decennial census.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000a,c.

The BLM standard for identifying a low-income population is the poverty level used by the U.S. Census 

Bureau. The standard for identifying minority populations is either: 1) the minority population of the affected 

area exceeds 50 percent, or 2) the minority population percentage of the affected area is “meaningfully 

greater” than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of 

geographic analysis. For environmental justice compliance, the relevant minority population is the total minority 

population comprising all persons of a minority racial identity plus persons of Hispanic-origin identity 

(BLM 2002b). 

Resident populations with a poverty rate over 50 percent exist in the Fort Duchesne, Randlett, and Whiterocks

CDPs. Elsewhere in Duchesne and Uintah counties, the poverty rate varies from 6.7 percent to 22.1 percent, 

compared to 9.4 percent in the state overall. Fort Duchesne, Randlett, and Whiterocks also are minority 

communities, each having populations more than 90 percent minority, principally American Indian. The 

concentration of the American Indian population in the three CDPs is consistent with a 1994 survey of 

the Ute Tribe members in which 64 percent of the respondents living on the reservation reported their 

residence in Whiterocks, 16 percent in Fort Duchesne, and 8 percent in Randlett. The remaining 

survey respondents cited places of residence not enumerated by the U.S. Census Bureau (Duchesne 

County 2005). The minority population percentages elsewhere in Duchesne and Uintah counties, 

including rural areas near the three CDPs, are not meaningfully higher than the state average 

(Table 3.8-32). 

In summary, economic and demographic data from the 2000 Census indicates several concentrations 

of minority and/or low-income populations residing northwest of the GNBPA meeting the BLM 

standard for consideration of potential environmental justice issues.
FEIS 3-72 March 2012

3.9 Soils 

3.9.1 Soils Characterization

The study area for soils is the GNBPA. The soil baseline characterization for the project is based on Soil 

Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database review and analyses. Field mapping methods using national 

standards are used to construct the soil maps in the SSURGO database. Mapping scales generally range from 

1:12,000 to 1:63,360. SSURGO is the most detailed level of soil mapping done by the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS). 

SSURGO data cannot be used in areas where soil surveys have not yet been completed. General Soil Map 

(STATSGO) data are used for those areas where SSURGO data are unavailable. STATSGO data contain 

physical and chemical properties, as well as interpretative grouping for approximately 18,000 soil series 

recognized in the U.S.

Soils within the GNBPA developed on a variety of land surfaces remaining after the differential erosion of 

plateau surfaces of the gently dipping strata of the underlying Uinta Formation. Upland soils in the GNBPA are 

developed on smooth to undulating plateau surfaces, erosion remnants, structural benches, and smaller 

benches interspersed with areas of high relief comprised of escarpments, hills, tableland breaks, badlands, 

and slopes of dissected, incised stream valleys. In the valley bottoms, soils formed in alluvium on alluvial fans, 

terraces, floodplains, and alluvial flats. The residual, colluvial, and alluvial parent materials consist of

interbedded shales and sandstones of the Uinta Formation, and to a lesser extent, the formation’s limestones 

and quartzite deposits. Areas of eolian sand deposits occupy portions of plateau surfaces and moderately 

sloping hillsides throughout the GNBPA. Upland soils comprise approximately 75 percent of the GNBPA’s soil 

resource and typically are sandy or loamy and shallow. Less extensive moderately deep and deep upland soils 

comprise approximately 14 percent of the GNBPA. The finer textured bottomland soils of the valley fans, 

floodplains, flats, and terraces comprise approximately 11 percent of the GNBPA. Throughout the GNBPA, 

soils have elevated levels of salts (16 millimhos per centimeter [mmhos/cm]) and absorbed sodium (sodium 

absorption ratio 30-60). Coarse fragments are present in most soils within intermittent and ephemeral

drainages in the GNBPA. Alluvial soils along the White River are mostly free of coarse fragments.

A total of 25 soil map units occur within the GNBPA. These soils have been mapped at a detailed level of soil 

survey (Appendix F). Mapping at the detailed level covers approximately 122,901 acres (75 percent) of the 

GNBPA. The remaining 40,010 acres (25 percent) of the GNBPA are covered by general STATSGO soils 

mapping. Based on reviews of topographic, geomorphological, geological conditions, and an evaluation of 

both soil surveys, the soil mapping units identified and described in the detailed survey are expected to extend 

into and occur on comparable landscapes of those lands covered by only the general STATSGO soil survey 

within the GNBPA. 

3.9.2 Soil Constraints

Soils were grouped based on constraints posed by disturbance associated with construction, operation, and 

reclamation of the natural gas wells and related facilities. The primary goal for interim and final reclamation 

would be to establish soil stability and restore soil productivity. Constraints considered soil disturbances such 

as blading, excavation, and compaction of soils beneath equipment or facilities. Exposed, loosened soil 

materials left on steeper slopes (cut and fill slopes) would be subject to accelerated soil erosion due to 

precipitation events and runoff. The potential for accelerated erosion increases with slope angle and slope 

length and can be exacerbated by removal of protective vegetative or rock cover and loss of soil aggregation. 

Accelerated erosion can lead to soil loss, slope instability (cut and fillslopes), and subsequent mass wasting

that can affect project operations. Accelerated erosion, as evidenced by head-cutting diversion channels back 

from natural drainages to roads, primarily access roads to oil and gas facilities, is an ongoing problem in the 

GNBPA. Constraints on soil reclamation potential in the GNBPA primarily are: 1) shallow depth to bedrock that

is indicative of droughty and poor nutrient status soil conditions; 2) elevated salinity levels that can affect plant 

establishment and water uptake; 3) elevated sodicity that can affect soil water and oxygen availability; and 
FEIS 3-73 March 2012

4) the high coarse fragment content of soils in the GNBPA. Compaction of soils during construction or 

operational activities can reduce soil water and oxygen availability, and compaction of sodic soils can 

exacerbate the elevated sodium problem. One major component of the 25 soil map units identified in the 

GNBPA by the SSURGO database had a topsoil material quality rating of fair while the remaining 24 soil map 

units’ major components rated poor or were not rated due to the relative absence of soil materials in areas 

mapped as badlands and/or rock outcrops (Appendix F).

Based on the type and prevalence of constraining soil characteristics in the GNBPA (USDA 1994) and the arid 

conditions that have been exacerbated by years of drought, the 25 soil map units have been grouped into: 

• High constraint soils that pose the greatest construction and reclamation constraints; 

• Those with moderate constraints; and 

• Those with low constraints. 

Appendix F identifies the factors used to develop the constraint groupings. Figure 3.9-1 depicts the 

distribution of these groupings within non-tribal portions of the GNBPA. Constraints were extrapolated to Tribal 

Lands based on topography, parent materials, and general soil survey data. The soil constraints 

summarized below include minor soils, which consist of 12 minor soil units comprised of soils, river 

wash, and/or rock outcrop. This group occupies less than 0.5 percent (489 acres) of the GNBPA.

3.9.2.1 High Constraint Soils

As a group, high-constraint soils:

• Overlay steep slopes (slopes greater than 20 percent); 

• Are shallow to bedrock;

• Contain high percentages of coarse fragments;

• Have a high water erosion potential; 

• Contain elevated salinity and/or sodium levels; and

• Include areas of limited soil materials where badlands have developed and where rock outcrops are 

exposed.

This group of high constraint soils occupies approximately 93.5 percent (152,300 acres) of the GNBPA 

(Appendix F).

3.9.2.2 Moderate Constraint Soils

As a group, moderate constraint soils:

• Overlay less steep slopes of 8 to 20 percent;

• Are generally moderately deep or deep to bedrock;

• Contain moderate to high percentages of coarse fragments; 

• Have a moderate water erosion potential principally due to reduced slopes (less than 25 percent) and 

coarse fragment content; 

• Contain moderate levels of salinity and/or sodium; and

• Include areas of sandy (droughty) textured materials with high to very high wind erosion potential.

This group of moderate constraint soils occupies approximately 3 percent (4,900 acres) of the GNBPA 

(Appendix F). 

FEIS 3-75 March 2012

3.9.2.3 Low Constraint Soils

As a group, low constraint soils:

• Occupy level to gently sloping drainages and alluvial bottoms of less than 8 percent;

• Are generally deep soils; 

• Contain low to moderate levels of coarse fragments;

• Have low to moderate water erosion potential, due to minimal slopes; and

• Contain slight to moderate levels of salinity and/or sodium.

This group of low constraint soils occupies approximately 3.5 percent (5,700 acres) of the GNBPA 

(Appendix F).

3.9.3 Biological Soil Crusts

Biological soil crusts (BSCs) occur within the GNBPA on the surface of mostly undisturbed soils supporting the 

dominant salt-desert shrubland, sagebrush shrubland, grassland, and to a lesser extent pinyon-juniper 

woodland vegetation types. BSCs are composed of various organisms including bacteria, green algae, lichens, 

mosses, and micro-fungi that symbiotically form a rough carpet on the surface and a soil-binding matrix below 

(Belnap et al. 2001). On the Colorado Plateau, in which the GNBPA is located, the predominant 

cyanobacterial-lichen soil crusts often provide up to 10 percent of the living cover (Belnap and Gardner 1993). 

BSCs as a group are quite adaptable to a full range of soil types from shallow to deep, heavy to light textures, 

and moist to drier conditions on slopes ranging from level to steep. Given this adaptability, soil crusts are 

expected to occur across much of the GNBPA. Steeper slopes supporting mostly unstable soils and those 

areas lacking soil cover such as badlands and rock outcrops, generally do not support BSCs. The BSCs 

typically occupy interspaces of open ground between higher vascular plants or below their canopies (Belnap 

and Gardner 1993).

In semi-arid and arid environments, BSC cover fixes carbon and nitrogen for other plants, reduces surface

reflection and raises soil temperature, increases water infiltration rates, and stabilizes soils by reducing water 

and wind erosion (Belnap et al. 2001). Nitrogen fixation improves soil fertility by increasing availability of 

nitrogen fertility in typically nutrient poor systems such as the semi-arid landscapes within the GNBPA 

(Muscha and Hild 2006; Belnap and Gardner 1993). Because soils with developed BSCs generally are dark in 

color, they absorb more of the sun’s energy as heat, which can positively increase microbial activity, increase 

plant nutrient uptake, promote higher plant seed germination of native vascular plants adapted to BSCs, and 

increase seedling growth rates. The roughened surface produced by the raised expression of BSCs can act as 

detention structures for water and affect increased water infiltration to the benefit of both BSCs and higher 

plants in the cool deserts of the Colorado Plateau (Belnap et al. 2001). Cyanobacterial-lichen BSCs of the 

Colorado Plateau and the GNBPA entrap and bind soil particles together, increasing the size of soil 

aggregates, which in turn increases their resistance to the erosive forces of wind and water (Belnap et 

al. 2001; Belnap and Gardner 1993).

BSCs generally enhance the establishment of vascular plants by improving the soil medium for plant growth 

(Muscha and Hild 2006). In general, healthy, stable landscapes dominated by native vegetation contain higher 

diversity and cover of biotic crusts.

Threats to BSCs generally arise from damage or loss of BSCs due to disturbance including fire, drought, 

invasive and non-native plant infestations, livestock trampling, human foot traffic, motorized vehicle passage, 

and blading or excavation of the soil surface and BSCs as part of construction activities (Belnap et al. 2001). 

The rate of natural recovery of BSCs in disturbed areas is dependent on the type and severity of disturbance 

and the availability of BSCs to recolonize the affected areas.
FEIS 3-76 March 2012

3.10 Transportation and Access

The study area for transportation and access is the GNBPA plus the regional highway network. The GNBPA is 

located approximately 25 miles due south of the intersection of U.S. Highway 40 and U.S. Highway 191 

(Figure 3.10-1). Access to the western part of the GNBPA is by Utah State Route 88, which heads east near 

the GNBPA boundary and continues through the northern portion before it connects to Utah State Route 45. 

Access to the eastern part of the GNBPA is by Utah State Route 45, which runs just to the east of the study 

area. Several rural roads branch off from these two state highways into the GNBPA, with the most substantial 

rural road being the Glen Bench Road. Additionally, there are several existing rural roads and 4-wheel drive 

trails throughout the GNBPA. 

Most of the unpaved roads within the GNBPA are claimed as Class B and D roads by Uintah County and are, 

therefore, public roads. The remaining roads are short, dead-end roads used to access well pads. These 

roads would not be considered “through” roads by the public, rendering their use by the public unlikely.

There were approximately 766 miles of roads within the GNBPA as of October 2007. The majority of the roads 

in the area is rural in nature or associated with oil and gas development. Of the 766 miles of roads with the 

GNBPA, 49 miles are maintained by the BLM. Table 3.10-1 provides a breakdown of the BLM maintained 

roads. Traffic counts for roads in the vicinity of the GNBPA are provided in Table 3.10-2. Level of Service data 

for maintained gravel roads within the GNBPA is not available. The nearest railroad access is approximately 

1 mile north of the northeastern portion of the GNBPA.

Table 3.10-1 BLM Road Types within the GNBPA

BLM Road Type Miles

Local, neighborhood, and rural roads 39

Vehicular trail, passable only by 4-wheel drive 10

Table 3.10-2 Traffic Density for Project Region

Location

Annual Average Daily Traffic

(ADT) (2006, 2007)

Percent Truck 

Traffic

Road Capacity 

(ADT)

State Road (SR) 88, south of Ouray 1,280 30 0-6,000

SR 45, at Bonanza 410 45 0-6,000

Watson Road at Ouray 1,168 17 N/A

Glen Bench Road, south of State Route 45

• Fidar and Glen Bench Road intersection 1,157 39 N/A

• Mountain Fuel Bridge 630 26 N/A

• Chapita Grove/Glen Bench 878 45 N/A

Source: Bedell 2008. 

Crude oil transport in the Uintah County region is often conducted by supertankers, or longer combination 

vehicles. These vehicles weigh up to 129,000 pounds; carry up to 84,000 pounds of crude; and can be

105 feet in length. Within the Uinta Basin, these types of trucks constitute a small part, 5 percent, of the overall 

oil and gas related truck traffic (Kuhn 2006).

Under the Vernal RMP, there are areas where off-road vehicle travel is limited and areas that are closed to 

off-road vehicle travel. “Limited” OHV areas limit off-road vehicles to designated trails and routes, mainly for 

watershed protection and wildlife values. As noted in Figure 3.10-1, there is a small portion of the area along 

the White River that is closed to off-road vehicles due to recreation values. This area is a part of a larger ROW

exclusion area identified in the Vernal RMP. Several utility corridors that are identified in the Vernal RMP pass 

through the GNBPA.

FEIS 3-78 March 2012

3.11 Vegetation Resources

The study area for vegetation resources including general vegetation, noxious weeds and invasive species, 

and special status plant species is defined as the GNBPA. The following section presents general vegetation 

resources and noxious weeds and invasive species for the study area. 

3.11.1 General Vegetation

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

Plateau. Vegetation types and acreages were analyzed using Southwest Regional GAP Analysis Project 

(SWReGAP) geographic information system (GIS) data. Community characterizations were compiled based 

on aerial photograph interpretation, SWReGAP Land Cover descriptions (USGS 2005), and information from 

the BLM Vernal RMP (BLM 2008b). Nine vegetation cover types occur within the GNBPA. The vegetation 

cover types include salt-desert shrubland, sagebrush shrubland, pinyon-juniper woodland, cliff/canyon, 

grassland, agriculture, riparian habitats, developed (i.e., industrial/commercial), and barren lands. Distribution 

of vegetation types in these areas are strongly influenced by variations in landscape position, soil type, 

moisture, elevation, and aspect. Descriptions of the plant communities in each of these vegetation cover types 

are provided in the following text. Species nomenclature is consistent with the BLM Vernal RMP (BLM 2008b) 

and NRCS Plants Database (NRCS 2008a). Figure 3.11-1 illustrates the vegetation cover types present within 

the GNBPA. Table 3.11-1 summarizes acreages for each vegetation cover type within the GNBPA. 

Table 3.11-1 Vegetation Cover Types within the GNBPA

Vegetation Cover Types Acres Percent of GNBPA1

Salt-desert shrubland 66,875 41

Sagebrush shrubland 57,612 35

Grassland 15,778 10

Cliff/canyon 7,513 5

Riparian 4,961 3

Pinyon-juniper woodland 2,851 2

Agriculture 1,030 <1

Barren 6,208 4

Developed 83 <1

Total 162,911 100

1 Percentages total to more than 100 percent due to rounding.

3.11.1.1 Salt-desert Shrubland

Salt-desert shrubland is the most dominant vegetation cover type within the study area, occurring on lower 

elevational slopes, saline basins, alluvial slopes, and plains. Substrates are often saline and calcareous, 

medium to fine-textured, alkaline soils, but include some course-textured material. This cover type is 

characterized by an open to moderately dense shrubland dominated by shadscale (Atriplex confertilfolia), 

four-winged saltbush (Atriplex canescens), big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), yellow rabbitbrush 

(Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus), rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa), Mormon tea (Ephedra nevadensis), 

spiny hopsage (Grayia spinosa), winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata), and littleleaf horsebrush (Tetradymia 

glabrata). The understory is comprised of galleta (Pleuraphis jamesii), Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum 

hymenoides), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), and a small variety 

of forbs including primrose (Camissonia sp., Oenothera spp.), Steve’s dustymaiden (Chaenactis stevioides), 

and annual buckwheat (Eriogonum spp.) (NRCS 2008a; USGS 2005).

3.11.1.2 Sagebrush Shrubland

Sagebrush shrubland occupies lower elevational areas of the Uinta Basin and Inter-Mountain Basin 

ecoregions. Soils are typically deep, well-drained, and non-saline. These shrublands are dominated by 
FEIS 3-79 March 2012

Wyoming big sagebrush, rubber rabbitbrush, greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), juniper species 

(Juniperus spp.), and saltbush species (Atriplex spp.). The herbaceous component contributes less than 

25 percent of the vegetation in this type and is comprised of Indian ricegrass, blue grama, Idaho fescue 

(Festuca idahoensis), Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda), needle-and-thread grass (Hesperostipa comata), 

and basin wildrye (Leymus cinereus var. cinereus) (NRCS 2008a; USGS 2005). 

3.11.1.3 Grassland

Grassland communities typically occupy xeric lowland and upland areas including swales, playas, mesatops, 

plateau parks, alluvial flats, and plains. Substrates are often well-drained sandy or loamy-textured soils, but are 

quite variable and also may include fine-textured soils. The dominant perennial bunchgrasses and shrubs 

within this community are all very drought-resistant plants. Dominant graminoid species include Indian 

ricegrass, three-awn species (Aristida spp.), blue grama, needle-and-thread grass, muhly species 

(Muhlenbergia spp.), and galleta grass and may include scattered shrubs and dwarf-shrubs of species of 

sagebrush, saltbush, Mormon tea, winterfat, and snakeweed species (Gutierrezia spp.). Altered and/or 

disturbed communities may have converted to invasive annual grasslands (also included in this category) and 

may include annual grass species such as oat species (Avena spp.), brome species (Bromus spp.), and 

Mediterranean grass species (Schismus spp.) (NRCS 2008a; USGS 2005).

3.11.1.4 Cliff/Canyon 

The cliff/canyon vegetation cover type, as defined by the Colorado Plateau Mixed Bedrock Canyon and 

Tableland SWReGAP category, is comprised of barren and sparsely vegetated landscapes of steep cliff faces, 

narrow canyons, and open tablelands of sandstone, shale, and limestone. The vegetation is characterized by 

very open tree canopy or scattered trees and shrubs with a sparse herbaceous layer. Common species 

include two needle pinyon pine (Pinus edulis), ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), juniper species, littleleaf 

mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus intricatus), and other short-shrub and herbaceous species, utilizing 

moisture from cracks and pockets where soil accumulates (NRCS 2008a; USGS 2005). 

3.11.1.5 Riparian

Riparian vegetation is composed of a mosaic of tree-dominated or shrub-dominated species. This vegetation 

community is dependent on a natural hydrologic regime, especially annual or episodic flooding, occurring 

within floodplains, islands, sand or cobble bars, and immediate streambanks that support perennial 

(e.g., White and Green rivers) and intermittent waterbodies throughout the study area. Dominant species may 

include boxelder (Acer negundo), narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia), quaking aspen (Populus 

tremuloides), eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), peachleaf 

willow (Salix amygdaloides), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), skunkbush sumac (Rhus trilobata), Drummond’s 

willow (Salix drummondiana), narrowleaf willow (Salix exigua), silver buffaloberry (Shepherdia argentea), 

snowberry species (Symphoricarpos spp.), and sedge species (Carex spp.). Exotic species such as tamarisk 

(Tamarix spp.), perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), white top (Cardaria draba), and common reed 

(Phragmites australis) also are well established within this vegetation community (BLM 2008b; NRCS 2008a; 

USGS 2005).

3.11.1.6 Pinyon-juniper Woodland

Pinyon-juniper woodland is characterized as a lower elevational community of the Colorado Plateau occurring 

on warm, dry sites on mountain slopes, mesas, plateaus, and ridges. This vegetation cover type occurs at 

slightly higher elevations than the sagebrush shrubland. Substrates supporting this system vary in texture 

ranging from stony, cobbly, gravelly sandy loams to clay loam or clay. Dominant overstory species include two 

needle pinyon and Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma). Common understory species may include greenleaf 

manzanita (Arctostaphylos patula), big sagebrush, mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus spp.), rabbitbrush 

species (Chrysothamnus spp.), winterfat, mormon tea grasses such as Indian rice grass, Idaho fescue, and 

western wheatgrass, and forbs such as milkvetch species (Astragalus spp.) and wallflower (Erysimum spp.) 

(BLM 2008b; NRCS 2008a; USGS 2005).

FEIS 3-81 March 2012

3.11.1.7 Agriculture

Agricultural lands include both non-cultivated and cultivated croplands. Non-cultivated croplands consist of

pasture/hay fields (i.e., areas of grasses, legumes, or grass-legume mixtures). In Utah, cultivated croplands 

consist of field crops such as spring and winter wheat, barley, beans, corn for grain and silage, alfalfa and 

grass hay, oats, onions, and potatoes (NRCS 1997). 

The NRCS classifies croplands to identify the most suitable land for agriculture production. The categories 

include prime farmland and farmland of unique importance. Prime farmland is defined by NRCS as land that 

has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing crops and is available for crop 

production (NRCS 2009). Unique farmland is defined by NRCS as land other than prime farmland that is used 

for the production of specific high value food and fiber crops (NRCS 2009). Generally in Utah, croplands 

require irrigation to be considered prime farmland, while orchards make up most of the areas considered 

unique farmlands. Within Uintah County, all lands designated prime farmland are irrigated, and all unique 

farmlands are orchards. In the BLM Vernal Field Office area, there are no prime or unique farmlands 

(BLM 2008c). Additionally, there are no irrigated lands or orchards on BLM-administered lands within the 

GNBPA.

3.11.1.8 Barren

Barren lands are comprised of barren and sparsely vegetated landforms (i.e., rounded hills and plains that 

form a rolling topography). Substrates are often derived from siltstone and mudstone deposits resulting in an 

area characterized by high rates of erosion. Generally, vegetation such as dwarf-shrub and herbaceous 

species account for less than 10 percent of the total herbaceous cover. 

3.11.1.9 Developed

Developed lands are characterized by housing units, parks, golf courses, and vegetation planted in 

development settings for recreation, erosion control, or aesthetic purposes. Impervious surfaces account for 

less than 20 percent of total cover. 

3.11.2 Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species

A "noxious weed" is defined as any plant the Utah Department of Agriculture commissioner determines to be 

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

(Utah State Legislature 2007). Noxious weeds have become a growing concern in the western U.S. based on 

their ability to increase in cover relative to surrounding vegetation and exclude native plants from an area. The 

spread of noxious weeds has resulted in substantial economic impacts on some sectors of the State of Utah. 

As a result, the State has enacted laws requiring the control of noxious weed species (Utah State 

Legislature 2007). In addition, the Federal Plant Protection Act of 2000 (formerly the Noxious Weed Act of 

1974) and EO 13112 of February 3, 1999, require cooperation with state, local, and other federal agencies in 

the application and enforcement of all laws and regulations relating to the management and control of noxious 

weeds. Recognizing these regulations, the BLM established a goal that NEPA documents consider and 

analyze the potential for the spread of noxious weed species and provide preventative rehabilitation measures

for each management action involving surface disturbance. 

Table 3.11-2 provides a list of designated noxious weed species and priority species as identified by the State 

of Utah, the Uintah County Weed Board, and the BLM Vernal Field Office. For the BLM, the invasive species 

of most concern and a priority for management and control are Russian knapweed, spotted knapweed, 

Canada thistle, tall whitetop, musk thistle, Scotch thistle, and leafy spurge (BLM 2008c). On native rangelands, 

black henbane and houndstongue are of concern, while Russian thistle, halogeton, and cheatgrass tend to 

increase in association with oil field development (BLM 2008c). Tamarisk is found in riparian areas and moist 

areas in the desert shrub and sagebrush/grass communities (BLM 2008c). Russian thistle, halogeton, and 

cheatgrass have been observed in the GNBPA (BLM 2006b,c).
FEIS 3-82 March 2012

Table 3.11-2 Designated Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species Potentially Occurring Within the GNBPA

Common Name1 Scientific Name1

State of Utah 

Noxious Weed 

List2

Uintah County 

Noxious Weed 

List3

BLM Vernal Field Office 

Other Invasive Species of 

Concern4

Velvetleaf Abutilon theophrasti -- -- X 

Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens X X X 

Jointed goatgrass Aegilops cylindrica -- -- X 

Common burdock Arctium minus -- -- X 

Downy brome Bromus tectorum -- -- X

Whitetop Cardaria draba X X X 

Plumeless thistle Carduus acanthoides -- -- X

Nodding plumeless thistle Carduus nutans X X X 

Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa X X X 

Spotted knapweed Centaurea stoebe ssp. micranthos X X X 

Meadow knapweed Centaurea nigrescens -- -- X

Yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis X X X 

Squarrose knapweed Centaurea virgata ssp. squarrosa X X --

Oxeye daisy Leucanthemum vulgare X -- X 

Chicory Cichorium intybus -- -- X 

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense X X X 

Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare -- -- X

Poison hemlock Conium maculatum X -- X 

Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis X X X 

Bermudagrass Cynodon dactylon X X --

Houndstongue Cynoglossum officinale X -- X 

Common teasel Dipsacus fullonum -- X X 

Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia -- X X

Quackgrass Elymus repens X X --

Redstem filaree Erodium cicutarium -- -- X

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula X X X 

Halogeton Halogeton glomeratus -- -- X 

Venice mallow Hibiscus trionum -- -- X 

Black henbane Hyoscyamus niger X -- X

Dyers woad Isatis tinctoria X X --

Perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium X X X

Dalmation toadflax Linaria dalmatica X -- X 

Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris X -- X 

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria X X --

Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium X X X

Sulfur cinquefoil Potentilla recta X -- X 

Perennial sowthistle Sonchus arvensis -- -- X 

Perennial sorghum Sorghum almum5 X X --

Johnsongrass Sorghum halepense X X --

Medusahead Taeniatherum caput-medusae X X --
FEIS 3-83 March 2012

Table 3.11-2 Designated Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species Potentially Occurring Within the GNBPA

Common Name1 Scientific Name1

State of Utah 

Noxious Weed 

List2

Uintah County 

Noxious Weed 

List3

BLM Vernal Field Office 

Other Invasive Species of 

Concern4

Saltcedar Tamarix ramosissima X X X 

Common tansy Tanacetum vulgare -- -- X 

Puncturevine Tribulus terrestris -- X X 

Common mullein Verbascum thapsus -- -- X 

-- = Species not classified as noxious or invasive per the cooperating agency.

1 Species nomenclature is consistent with the NRCS Plants Database (NRCS 2008a). 2 Officially designated and published as “noxious” for the State of Utah (Utah State Legislature 2007; Utah Administrative Code 2008a). All property owners and 

custodians of public land are required by Law (4-17-7) to control weeds on lands under their jurisdiction. 3 Designated as “noxious” in Uintah County (Uintah County Weed Department 2008).

4 Species designated as a priority species per the BLM Vernal RMP (BLM 2008b) including species known to occur in Rio Blanco County, Colorado (abutting 

Uintah County, Utah). 5 Species designated as a “noxious” for the State of Utah; however, this species is not designated as a noxious weed species per the Utah Weed Control 

Association (2008). 

Control methods consist of chemical and mechanical measures, as well as habitat manipulation programs for 

cheatgrass infested areas (BLM 2008c). The BLM Vernal Field Office Surface Disturbing Weed Policy 

(BLM 2009b) outlines the goals of the current weed management program, which are prevention, early 

detection and rapid response, control and management, reclamation, and organizational collaboration. A key 

focus of the program is the incorporation of an integrated pest management approach into weed control and 

management activities. This would include the full range of integrated pest management techniques including 

prevention, detection, cultural control, physical control, biological control, chemical control, fire treatment, 

revegetation, and monitoring. The specific prevention and control techniques employed would be determined 

on a site-specific basis.

3.11.3 Special Status Plant Species

Special status plant species are those species for which state or federal agencies afford an additional level of 

protection by law, regulation, or policy. Included in this category are federally listed and federally proposed 

species that are protected under the ESA, or are considered as candidates for such listing by the USFWS, 

species that are state listed as threatened or endangered, BLM sensitive species, and species classified as 

Utah species of special concern. 

In accordance with the ESA, as amended, the lead agency in coordination with the USFWS must ensure that 

any federal action to be authorized, funded, or implemented would not adversely affect a federally listed 

threatened or endangered species or its critical habitat. The BLM Special Status Species Management 

Policy 6840 requires the BLM to manage and protect any USFWS candidate species, state sensitive species, 

or State of Utah species of concern to prevent the need for future federal listing as threatened or endangered. 

Information regarding special status plant species occurrence and habitat within the GNBPA was obtained 

from a review of existing published sources; GIS data from the BLM, Utah Natural Heritage Program (UNHP), 

and Grassland Consulting Inc. (Grassland) APD survey results; the BLM Vernal RMP (BLM 2008c); and 

USFWS file information. Other GIS data resources used to identify potential habitat characteristics were 

obtained from the UGS, the NRCS SSURGO and STATSGO databases, and SWReGAP.

A total of 21 special status plant species (5 federally listed species, 1 federal candidate species, and 15 BLM 

sensitive species) were identified by the USFWS (USFWS 2007b) as potentially occurring within Uintah 

County, Utah. These species, their associated habitats, and potential for occurrence within the GNBPA are 

summarized in Appendix H. For this document, habitat was classified in three categories: 
FEIS 3-84 March 2012

• Potential habitat – areas within the geographic range of this species that have been identified as 

potentially having habitat characteristics based on a desktop analysis of GIS data for the area; 

• Suitable habitat – areas that have been field verified as having habitat characteristics even though no 

species were observed; and 

• Occupied habitat – areas where the species has been identified by field surveys.

Occurrence potential within the study area was evaluated for each of these species based on their habitat 

requirements and/or known distribution. Based on these evaluations, 18 species have been eliminated from 

detailed analysis as their known range is outside of the GNBPA. Rationale for eliminating the species from 

additional analysis is provided in Appendix H. The species eliminated from further analysis include alcove 

bog-orchid, Barneby ridge-cress, Duchesne green-thread, Gibbens beardtongue, Goodrich’s blazingstar, 

Goodrich’s cleomella, Goodrich penstemon, Hamilton milkvetch, Huber’s pepperweed, Ownbey thistle, 

Pariette hookless cactus, park rockcress, rock hymenoxys, shrubby reed-mustard, stemless penstemon,

Untermann daisy, Ute ladies'-tresses orchid, and White River beardtongue. Of the remaining 3 species that 

are analyzed in detail, two are federally listed (Uinta Basin hookless cactus and Clay reed-mustard) and one is 

a BLM sensitive species (Graham’s beardtongue). These species are discussed below. 

3.11.3.1 Graham’s Beardtongue

Graham’s beardtongue is a proposed threatened species as of June 9, 2011. It is an endemic plant species 

in the figwort family that is restricted to the Uinta Basin in Carbon, Duchesne, and Uintah counties, Utah; 

and in adjacent Rio Blanco County, Colorado. 

The USFWS published a proposed rule (January 19, 2006) to determine whether Graham’s beardtongue 

should be listed as threatened under the ESA (USFWS 2006a) and to designate critical habitat for the species. 

The proposed rule was subsequently withdrawn on December 19, 2006 (USFWS 2006b). In a June 9, 2011, 

court decision, the 2006 proposed listing was re-instated. 

Graham’s beardtongue is an herbaceous, small-statured, perennial herb between 2 to 8 inches tall, emerging 

from a branched taprooted caudex. The species has leathery leaves and large, light- to deep-colored tubular 

lavender flowers that develop in late May and early June. It is distinct from other Uinta Basin penstemon 

species (Penstemon spp.) by its large, deep lavender corollas (1 to 1.5 inches long) with dark violet lines in the 

throat and staminode conspicuously exserted and bearded with golden orange hairs. Several species of native 

bees and wasps, including the solitary pollen wasp (Pseudomasaris vespoides), are known to visit this 

species’ flowers, collecting only nectar and pollen for themselves and their progeny (Utah Native Plant Society 

[UNPS] 2006; BLM 2008f).

The species commonly inhabits sparsely vegetated desert shrub and pinyon-juniper communities consisting of 

shadscale, horsebrush, ryegrass, buckwheat, and pinyon-juniper species. Typical habitat consists of exposed, 

raw shale ledges, knolls, and slopes derived from the Parachute Creek and Evacuation Creek members of the 

Green River Formation between 4,600 to 6,700 feet elevation (UNPS 2006; BLM 2008f). 

Based on The Center for Native Ecosystems, approximately 36 Graham’s beardtongue populations are known 

to occur within its range (BLM 2008f). Of these 36 populations, nine populations are composed of less than 

10 individuals. Although populations have been documented in east Duchesne and Uintah counties, Utah, no 

known populations have been identified within the GNBPA. Potential habitat is located in the southwest corner

of the GNBPA, where 121 acres of the Parachute Creek Member of the Green River Formation occur. 

3.11.3.2 Clay Reed-mustard 

The clay reed-mustard (Schoenocrambe argillacea) was listed as federally threatened on January 14, 1992 

(USFWS 1992). A member of the mustard family, it is endemic to the Uinta Basin in Uintah County, Utah. The 

species was first discovered in the southern portion of the Uinta Basin in 1976 (USFWS 1994). Initially 
FEIS 3-85 March 2012

described as Thelypodiopsis argillacea, the species was moved to the genus Schoenocrambe by R.C. Rollins 

in 1982 (USFWS 1994). 

Clay reed-mustard is a herbaceous hairless perennial with a stout woody base (UDWR 2008a; USFWS 1994). 

Sparsely leafed stems grow 6 to 12 inches tall, with narrow, smooth margined alternate leaves 

(NatureServe 2009; USFWS 1994). The leaves are sessile and very narrow, usually less than 0.1-inch wide. 

The leaves are somewhat thickened with acute to rounded apices. The flowers are white to lilac with prominent 

purple veins (NatureServe 2009). The flowers are in a terminal raceme of 3 to 20 flowers, and each flower is 

approximately 0.4-inch long (USFWS 1994). The sepals are violet with translucent margins. The fruit is a 

silique, approximately 0.7 to 0.9 inch long, and usually curved.

Not much is known about the specific pollinators or pollination mechanism of the clay reed-mustard. It flowers 

from late April to early May (NatureServe 2009) and fruits from May to June (USFWS 1994). Seed dispersal 

vectors are unknown but could include wind, animal, or mechanical methods. Very little is known about factors 

affecting its distribution, long-term population dynamics, and seed and seedling biology. 

Clay reed-mustard is often found on north facing slopes, often in steep and inaccessible sites. Populations

occur on shales at the contact zone between the lower Uinta and upper Green River Formations (BLM 2008c). 

It is found on substrates of surface bedrock, scree, and fine-textured soils (UDWR 2008a). The plant prefers 

soils of clayey sand derived from shales and sandstones and is usually found in mixed desert shrub 

communities of Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides) and pygmy sagebrush (Artemisia pygmaea) 

between 4,800 and 5,600 feet above mean sea level (amsl) (UNPS 2006). Other associated species include 

Utah serviceberry (Amelanchier utahensis), Western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), beautiful rockcress 

(Arabis pulchra), black sagebrush (Artemisia nova), Gardner’s saltbush (Atriplex gardneri), and saline wildrye 

(Leymus salinus). 

There are a total of approximately 6,000 individuals across all known populations in Uintah County 

(USFWS 1994). The species is known to occur from Willow Creek to Sand Wash along the Evacuation Creek 

member of the Green River Shale Formation (BLM 2008c). Within the GNBPA, the species has been 

documented in the southwest corner of the GNBPA, where it is limited to cliff habitats within an approximately 

332-acre area (Grasslands 2008a,b). Suitable habitats and known populations have not been documented in 

other portions of the GNBPA. 

3.11.3.3 Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus 

The Uinta Basin hookless cactus (Sclerocactus wetlandicus) has a complicated taxonomic history. Based on 

populations observed in Colorado in 1898 by Karl Schumann, it was originally described as Echinocactus 

glaucus (USFWS 1990). In 1917, Rydberg re-named it E. subglaucus, and in 1925, Purpus assigned it to 

S. whipplei var. glaucus. In 1939, Evans described it as S. franklinii. This is now considered a synonym. In 

1966, Lyman Benson grouped 6 species under the genus Sclerocactus, assigning the Uinta Basin hookless 

cactus S. glaucus. In 1972, Arp reassigned all the species under the genus Sclerocactus to the genus 

Pediocactus, and in 1981, Heil, Armstrong, and Schleser restored the species back to the genus Sclerocactus

and re-established S. glaucus (BLM 2005). When the species was listed as a threatened species on 

October 11, 1979 (USFWS 1979), it was listed under Benson’s nomenclature. In 1989, Fritz Hochstatter 

described a subspecies, S. wetlandicus var. ilsea, as a short-spined subspecies of S. glaucus found in 

northeast Utah around the Pariette Wetlands. In 1994, Heil and Porter in renamed this subspecies as 

Sclerocactus brevinspinus, which they described as having globose stems, short spines, and small flowers. 

Preliminary chloroplast DNA studies further confirmed the taxonomic separation between the sclerocactus

species (BLM 2005). 

In 1997, the USFWS determined that S. brevispinus has legal protection as a threatened species under the 

1979 listing of S. glaucus (USFWS 1997). However, on September 18, 2007, a further change in the taxonomy 

of S. glaucus was submitted to the Federal Register, which split the “Uinta Basin hookless cactus complex”

into three species based on the many studies, field surveys, and garden experiments reevaluating 
FEIS 3-86 March 2012

morphological characteristics and genetic profiles (USFWS 2007c). These three subspecies include

S. glaucus, S. wetlandicus, and S. brevispinus. In this September 18, 2007, Federal Register notice, the 

USFWS states that S. glaucus is endemic to western Colorado, and while originally referred to as the Uinta 

Basin hookless cactus, it is now referred to as the Colorado hookless cactus. The Pariette cactus

(S. brevispinus) has been found to be morphologically unique from the other two species. The Uinta Basin 

hookless cactus (S. wetlandicus) is considered a separate population from the Colorado hookless cactus and 

morphologically unique from Pariette cactus. All three subspecies are considered federally threatened under 

the 1979 listing of S. glaucus. However, during their review of the species, the USFWS did determine that 

reclassifying the Pariette cactus as endangered is warranted (USFWS 2007c). On October 15, 2009, the 

USFWS announced the recognition of the three sclerocactus species as distinct species. 

The Uinta Basin hookless cactus is a perennial, solitary ovoid or cylindrical cactus. A member of the cactaceae 

family, it is usually unbranched and grey to grey-green in color. Each plant generally has 12 vertical ribs with 

spine clusters (aeroles) along the ribs. At each areole, there are 1 to 4 central spines that are white to grey 

colored and 4 to 12 finer radial spines. The central spines are distally hookless (though they can sometimes be 

slightly hooked) and stand erect from the aerole center. The central spines are 0.7 to 1.6 inches long, while the 

radial spines are 0.2 to 0.7 inch long and needlelike. The flowers are 1 to 2 inches long and composed of 

numerous pinkish to lavender perianth parts (sepaloids and petaloids). The sepaloids and petaloids range in 

color from green to lavender to magenta. The numerous stamens have filaments ranging from green to white 

and yellow anthers. The ovary is inferior. The barrel shaped fruit is brown with a few membranous scales 

mostly near the apex and ranges in size from 0.3 to 0.5 inch. The seeds are small, black, and flattened 

apically.

The Uinta Basin hookless cactus flowers late April to May, and fruits in June and July (Heil and Porter 2003; 

USFWS 1990). Observed pollinators include bees, beetles, ants, and flies. Once the pericarp separates 

horizontally near its base, a “cup of seeds” is left to disperse. Seed dispersal vectors include gravity, ants, 

birds, rodents, precipitation, and surface water flows. It is theorized that seed dispersal is a limiting factor in the 

distribution of the species (USFWS 1990). Very little is known about the factors affecting the distribution and 

long-term population dynamics of the Uinta Basin hookless cactus. 

The threats to the all three sclerocactus cactus species listed in the Recovery Plan (USFWS 1990) include 

illegal collecting, mineral and energy development activities, off-road vehicle use and recreational impacts, 

road building and maintenance, water development, and pesticide use. Currently, the Uinta Basin hookless 

cactus is facing many of the same threats, with habitat loss/modification and fragmentation as the top concern. 

Habitat is being lost or modified due to energy development activities, water storage projects, and 

transportation projects. Other threats to the cactus include plant collecting, damage to individuals and 

populations from off-road vehicle use and recreation activities, and pesticide use.

Information on the habitat requirements and distribution of this species has been rapidly changing as more 

studies and surveys are conducted in the Uinta Basin. Currently, it is known to occur on Quaternary and 

Tertiary alluvium soils overlain with cobbles and pebbles of the Duchesne River, Green River, and Mancos 

Formations between 4,500 to 6,600 feet amsl (BLM 2008c; UNPS 2006). It is found on the gravelly hills and 

terraces on river benches, valley slopes, and rolling hills along the Green, White, and Duschesne rivers. 

Preferred habitat seems to be on Pleistocene outwash terraces with coarse-textured, alkaline soils overlain by 

a surficial pavement of large, smooth, rounded cobble. It can be found in a range of vegetative communities 

including clay badlands, salt desert shrub, and pinyon-juniper. Associated species include black sagebrush, 

shadscale saltbush (Atriplex confertifolia), James' galleta (Pleuraphis jamesii), and Indian ricegrass. 
FEIS 3-87 March 2012

Based on known locations and habitat characteristics for the Uinta Basin hookless cactus, the BLM 

and USFWS have identified potential habitat for the species within the Uinta Basin. Although 

populations can be found outside of these areas, they tend to be more isolated and occur in very low 

densities. Of this potential habitat, approximately 32 percent (53,330 acres) occurs within the GNBPA

(Figure 3.11-2). The USFWS and the BLM currently are in the process of identifying core habitat area 

for the cactus. Management for these areas also is under development.

Within the GNBPA, the species has been observed along Willow Creek, Cottonwood Wash, and within 

approximately 2 miles of the White River. These populations have been observed in typical alluvial habitats 

and atypical habitats including, sandstone ledges, angular shale, cryptobiotic soils, and mudstone. Based on 

information provided by UNHP and surveys conducted by Grasslands (Grasslands 2008a,b), Uinta Basin 

hookless cactus occurs in approximately 1,500 to 2,000 locations within and immediately adjacent to the 

GNBPA. These populations are well represented within the previously known locations and have been 

documented beyond the extent of known populations as identified in the 1990 Recovery Plan for the Uinta 

Basin Hookless Cactus (USFWS 1990). 

A distinct population of the Uinta Basin hookless cactus is geographically separated from the 

remainder of the species range. The current separation between this population and the nearest 

individual from the main part of the species range is 5.4 miles. The GNBPA overlaps approximately 

25 percent of the potential habitat of this distinct population and approximately 7 percent of known 

cactus locations (36 of 530). The individuals of this population have distinctive morphological 

characteristics including a flattened apex and a greater width-to-height ratio than found in other 

members of S. wetlandicus. This population also differs reproductively from other members of the 

species in being self-compatible (Tepedino et al. 2010). 

FEIS 3-89 March 2012

3.12 Visual Resources

The study area for the proposed project is defined as the viewshed of the project, or the area from which the 

project can be seen. The viewshed includes an area bounded by foothills and ridges on the east and north and 

less well-defined topographic rises to the south and west of the project site. 

The proposed project is located in the Colorado Plateau Physiographic Province, as defined by Fenneman 

(1931). The province is characterized by extensive vistas, plateaus, buttes, mesas, and deeply incised 

canyons exposing flat-lying or gently warped strata. The White River and associated landforms are the 

predominant landscape features of the region. The confluence of the White River and Green River is situated 

at the northwest corner of the GNBPA.

The visual resources of the area are comprised of gentle to steep landforms. Vegetation consists of salt-desert 

shrubland, sagebrush shrubland, pinyon-juniper woodland, grassland, riparian, and barren lands. Vegetation 

colors in the growing season range from silvery gray-green to medium olive and during the dormant seasons 

vegetation ranges from silvery gray-green of shrubs to tan, buff, umber and gold of grasses and forbs, to 

gray-green and dark olives of tree patterns. Grey, brown, and umber indicate areas of sparse vegetation, soil, 

and rocks.

The GNBPA is visible from rafting, hunting, and fishing recreation areas. The topography is moderately to 

extremely steep sloping. The GNBPA is situated at an elevation ranging from approximately 4,650 to 

6,000 feet. Surface soils and rocks in the vicinity generally range from dark umber to buff to grayish-tan hues 

of light-to-medium-to-dark values. 

The existing and approved development pattern of oil and gas-related structures, well pads, and roads exhibits 

moderate to strong color and landform contrast with the natural surroundings and moderate line and surface 

texture contrast. The browns, light tans and gold of the recently disturbed sites stand out moderately to 

strongly in comparison with the surrounding natural landforms and vegetation. Structures in the visual area of 

influence are limited mainly to industrial forms, colors, and characters.

3.12.1 Visual Resource Management Classification

The BLM is responsible for identifying and protecting scenic values on public lands under several provisions of 

the FLPMA and NEPA. The BLM VRM system was developed to facilitate the effective discharge of that 

responsibility in a systematic, interdisciplinary manner. The VRM system provides the methodology to 

inventory existing scenic quality; assign visual resource inventory classes based on a combination of scenic 

values, visual sensitivity, and viewing distances; and assign visual management objectives. Four visual 

resource classes have been established to 1) serve as an inventory tool portraying the relative value of 

existing visual resources; and 2) serve as a management tool portraying visual management objectives for the 

respective classified lands. Management objectives for each of the visual resource classes are listed as 

follows:

• Class I Objective. The objective of this class is to preserve the existing character of the landscape. 

This class provides for natural ecological changes; however, it does not preclude very limited 

management activity. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be very low and must 

not attract attention.

• Class II Objective. The objective of this class is to retain the existing character of the landscape. The 

level of change to the characteristic landscape should be low. Management activities may be seen, 

but should not attract the attention of the casual observer. Any changes must repeat the basic 

elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the predominant natural features of the 

characteristic landscape.

• Class III Objective. The objective of this class is to partially retain the existing character of the 

landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate. Management 
FEIS 3-90 March 2012

activities may attract attention but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes 

should repeat the basic elements found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic 

landscape.

• Class IV Objective. The objective of this class is to provide for management activities that require 

major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic 

landscape can be high. These management activities may dominate the view and be the major focus 

of viewer attention. However, every attempt should be made to minimize the impact of these activities 

through careful location, minimal disturbance, and repeating the basic elements.

The VRM system also includes a contrast rating procedure for evaluating the potential visual consequences of 

a proposed project or management activity. The VRM system provides the basic approach for evaluating direct 

visual impacts as well as potential cumulative visual impacts of the proposed project. 

The BLM Vernal Field Office considers surface-disturbing activities, including minerals exploration and 

development, OHV use, and road development as the primary activities that could potentially cause visual 

intrusions and impact scenic quality.

The BLM has identified three VRM Classes within the GNBPA: Class II, Class III, and Class IV

(Figure 3.12-1). Class II and III are designated within the White River viewshed and Class IV is designated 

throughout the rest of the landscape. The GNBPA is within standards of Class III and Class IV objectives. This

visual area of influence is the basis for estimating aesthetic consequences of the proposed project in the 

landscape. The basic elements of landscape (form, line, color, and texture) are utilized for analyzing detailed 

landscape character in the affected environment.

The BLM has identified two areas within the GNBPA from which existing and proposed modifications to the 

landscape would be readily visible to recreationists, hunters, campers, and other visitors to the area. These 

areas are the White River and the Goblin City Overlook. Figure 3.12-2 shows the viewshed from the centerline 

of the White River and the viewshed from the Goblin City Overlook within a 5-mile radius. These viewsheds 

were conservatively estimated through computer modeling, assuming a target height above the 

ground surface of 7 meters (23 feet) to simulate a typical tank height. Figure 3.12-2 also shows the 

0.5-mile viewshed constraint from the centerline of the White River, where well pads would be avoided 

within the GNBPA (see Sections 2.6.2.2, 2.7.2.2, and 2.8.2.2), and the location of a no surface 

occupancy (NSO) from the Vernal RMP (Management Decision SRMA-8). Within the GNBPA, an 

estimated 44,369 acres are visible from the centerline of the White River and 4,836 acres are visible within 5 

miles of the Goblin City Overlook.


FEIS 3-93 March 2012

3.13 Water Resources

The study area for water resources is defined as the GNBPA. The following section presents resource 

definitions, applicable regulations, regulatory coordination, and affected environment resources for floodplains, 

waters of the U.S., and wetlands for the study area. 

3.13.1 Surface Water 

3.13.1.1 Surface Water Quantity

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

been deeply dissected by drainages. Major streams in the area include the White River, Bitter Creek, Asphalt 

Wash, Coyote Wash and its tributaries, Sand Wash, and Cottonwood Wash. The Green River is located 

immediately downstream of the GNBPA (Figure 3.13-1). The drainage areas for selected streams in the study 

area are shown in Table 3.13-1. 

Table 3.13-1 Drainage Areas of Selected Streams

Stream or River Drainage Area (square miles)

Agency Draw-Willow Creek 25.8

Asphalt Wash near mouth, near Watson, Utah 97.5

Bitter Creek at mouth, near Bonanza, Utah 398

Cottonwood Wash at mouth, near Ouray, Utah 70.6

Coyote Wash near mouth, near Ouray, Utah 228

Sand Wash near mouth, near Ouray, Utah 71.1

White River near Watson, Utah 4,020

White River at mouth, near Ouray, Utah 5,120

Source: Boyle et al. 1984.

Rainfall in the study area is limited. Average annual precipitation at Ouray and Bonanza is about 6.8 inches 

and 8.9 inches, respectively (Western Regional Climate Center 2007b). Snow accumulates at higher 

elevations to the south and north, and snowmelt provides most of the streamflow through the area. 

Thunderstorms also provide short-term runoff that causes more localized streamflow (Lindskov and 

Kimball 1984a). Evaporation from shallow lakes in the region is between 25 and 35 inches per year (Utah 

State University 1996). As a result of high evaporation rates, seepage into streambeds, and water uptake by 

plants or other users, the duration of flow in most channels is limited to the period of spring runoff.

A few larger streams do exhibit year-round flows. Perennial streams within the GNBPA include the White River 

and Bitter Creek. Most reaches of the other channels are ephemeral, flowing only in response to storm runoff 

or snowmelt. Some streams (e.g., Coyote Draw and Sand Wash) typically flow intermittently in their

downstream reaches near the White River (National Water Information System [NWIS] 2007; Lindskov and 

Kimball 1984a). Along the intermittent reaches, seasonal flows are provided by ground water seeping into the 

stream channels for part of the year. No springs have been identified in the GNBPA, except for 1 mapped in 

the Bitter Creek channel bed about 2 miles upstream from the mouth of the creek (Utah Board of Water 

Resources 1999; Holmes and Kimball 1987). This spring is believed to be caused by upward leakage from the 

Birds Nest Aquifer through the overlying Uinta Formation and into the stream alluvium. It flows relatively 

constantly at about 580 acre-feet per year (Holmes and Kimball 1987). This is equivalent to a flow rate of 

about 0.8 cubic feet per second, or approximately 360 gallons per minute. As such, this is a significant spring 

within the GNBPA. 

Streamflows within the GNBPA and outside it vary considerably due to rainfall, irrigation withdrawals, 

evapotranspiration rates, and other factors. Surface water resources are hydrologically connected both within 

and beyond the GNBPA. In some ways, surface water systems may be thought of as a circulatory system or 

as rush-hour traffic, where conditions at one point can affect other parts of the system at some distance. 
FEIS 3-94 March 2012

Because of this, available data both inside and outside the delineated project boundaries have been used to 

better understand surface water resources in the area.

Flows in the White River were measured by the USGS in the vicinity of Watson, Utah, (upstream near the 

Utah-Colorado state line) and downstream near the river mouth near Ouray, Utah. The common period of data 

at these gages is limited by the Ouray gage, and extends from April 1974 to September 1986. Upstream, the 

mean annual flow in the Watson area for the period was approximately 813 cubic feet per second. Mean 

monthly flows there ranged from a January low of 373 cubic feet per second to a high in June of 2,395 cubic 

feet per second. Downstream, the average annual river flow near Ouray was about 838 cubic feet per second. 

Mean monthly flows there ranged from a January low of 382 cubic feet per second to a high of 2,390 cubic feet 

per second in June (NWIS 2008).

These data generally indicate that, although there is an increase in watershed area of over 25 percent 

between the gages (Table 3.13-1), there has been little difference in the average monthly or annual flows from 

upstream to downstream in the project region. This likely is due to irrigation withdrawals and high 

evapotranspiration rates in the area. In addition, the arid or semi-arid conditions contribute relatively little 

precipitation and runoff when compared to the more mountainous areas in the upper White River watershed. 

Flows in the smaller perennial streams, such as Willow Creek and Bitter Creek, are considerably less than 

those in the White River. Bitter Creek typically has flows of less than 5 cubic feet per second. Flows in Willow 

Creek vary widely, but generally range between 5 and 50 cubic feet per second. When present, flows in 

smaller streams such as Sand Wash, Cottonwood Wash, and Coyote Wash are highly variable but typically 

less than 5 cubic feet per second (NWIS 2007). However, flows in these tributaries may exceed 100 cubic feet 

per second during spring runoff or storm events. 

Under normal conditions for the White River at its mouth near Ouray, a flow of 410 cubic feet per second is 

equaled or exceeded 50 percent of the time. A flow of 570 cubic feet per second is equaled or exceeded 

25 percent of the time, and a flow of 1,400 cubic feet per second is equaled or exceeded 10 percent of the 

time at that location (Boyle et al. 1984). These values do not reflect potential flood events, but they do give an 

indication of flows that normally can be expected to occur on the river. Maximum flow rates that occur under 

flood conditions would be greater, but less frequent.

3.13.1.2 Flood Hydrology 

Floods in small watersheds in the semi-arid West often result from localized, intense summer thunderstorms. 

Rainfall estimates for such events in the study area are shown in Table 3.13-2. 

Table 3.13-2 Precipitation-Frequency-Duration Values for the Study Area

Frequency and Duration of 

Rainfall

Expected Precipitation 

Amount at Ouray (inches)

Expected Precipitation Amount 

at Bonanza (inches)

10 year, 6-hour 0.95 1.06

10-year, 24-hour 1.39 1.46

25-year, 1-hour 0.87 0.98

25-year, 6-hour 1.17 1.30

25-year, 24-hour 1.68 1.76

100-year, 1 hour 1.32 1.46

100-year, 6 hour 1.58 1.74

100-year, 24-hour 2.15 2.25

Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2009. 

FEIS 3-96 March 2012

Small storms would produce no runoff at all; the rainfall would be entirely absorbed by the land surface. In 

contrast, large storms may produce substantial splash erosion, suspended sediment, and flash flooding. Storm 

intensity actually may be greater in shorter-duration events, as can be surmised by comparing the 100-year, 

1-hour, or 6-hour precipitation amounts to the 100-year, 24-hour amount. Although shorter, these large, 

intense storms can still cause substantial runoff, erosion, and flood damage. 

Annual peak flows on the White River and smaller channels in the study area have been studied by previous 

investigators (Lindskov and Kimball 1984a). Based on their analyses, a peak flow of approximately 4,100 cubic 

feet per second can be expected to occur on the White River every 2 years (a 50-percent chance in any year). 

A peak flow of approximately 6,300 cubic feet per second can be expected on a 10-year recurrence interval, or 

in approximately 10 percent of the years. In any given year, there is a 1 percent chance that a peak flow of 

approximately 9,000 cubic feet per second could occur. As a long-term average then, this would be the 

100-year flood on the White River. Of the historical peak flows on the White River near Watson, about 

60 percent resulted from snowmelt runoff and about 40 percent resulted from thunderstorms.

Based on work by Lindskov and Kimball (1984a), Table 3.13-3 shows the mean annual peak flow for smaller 

drainages in the study area. These values represent the largest flow that is most likely to happen during any 

given year. These estimates are based on historical flow measurements that provide a statistical relationship 

to the drainage area of the smaller streams.

Table 3.13-3 Mean Annual Peak Flow for Smaller Streams, Cubic Feet per Second

Stream Mean Annual Peak Flow

Asphalt Wash near mouth, near Watson, Utah 273

Bitter Creek at mouth, near Bonanza, Utah 1,114

Cottonwood Wash at mouth, near Ouray, Utah 198

Coyote Wash near mouth, near Ouray, Utah 638

Sand Wash near mouth, near Ouray, Utah 199

The values in Table 3.13-3 do not represent higher flood flows that may recur at various intervals (e.g., a 

100-year flood). The maximum values for those events are presented in Table 3.13-4. These estimates are 

based on other watershed approximations developed by Lindskov and Kimball (1984a) for the study area. 

Table 3.13-4 Estimated Flood Flows for Smaller Streams, Cubic Feet per Second

Stream 10-Year Flood 

Peak1

25-Year Flood 

Peak1

100-Year Flood 

Peak1

Asphalt Wash near mouth, near Watson, Utah 1,200 2,000 4,100

Bitter Creek at mouth, near Bonanza, Utah 4,900 8,400 16,700

Cottonwood Wash at mouth, near Ouray, Utah 900 1,500 3,000

Coyote Wash near mouth, near Ouray, Utah 2,800 4,800 9,600

Sand Wash near mouth, near Ouray, Utah 900 1,500 3,000

1 The 10-year flood has a 10 percent chance of occurring in any given year; the 25-year flood has a 4 percent chance of occurring in any 

given year; and the 100-year flood has a 1 percent chance of occurring in any given year.

There are no significant impoundments in the GNBPA, other than an existing series of industrial ponds along 

Kennedy Draw and Antelope Draw. These ponds do not impound runoff. Other impoundments in the region 

and corresponding issues related to their storage capacity and flood hydrology are discussed in previous 

NEPA assessments (BLM 2008b). 
FEIS 3-97 March 2012

3.13.1.3 Surface Water Quality 

Water quality standards and related considerations are closely tied to the uses of the water. Beneficial uses of 

surface water are designated by the State of Utah (Utah Administrative Code 2007). None of the streams or 

waterbodies in the GNBPA are classified by the state as High Quality Waters (Utah Division of Water 

Quality 2007). Beneficial uses for major streams in the study area are indicated in Table 3.13-5. 

Table 3.13-5 Beneficial Use Designations for Surface Waters

Waterbody Segment Designated Beneficial Uses1

Willow Creek and tributaries, to headwaters 2B, 3A, 4

White River and tributaries (except as listed below) 2B, 3B, 4

Bitter Creek and tributaries, to headwaters 2B, 3A, 4

1 Protected Beneficial Use Classifications: 2B – Secondary contact recreation such as boating, wading or similar uses; 3A – Cold water 

game fish and aquatic life; 3B – Warm water game fish and aquatic life; 4 – Agricultural uses.

In addition, the SDWA is administered by USEPA and UDEQ to protect drinking water sources in the 

project region. Regulations and guidelines promulgated under the SDWA pertain to public water 

supply systems and their sources. Under the SDWA, drinking water standards and DWSPZ are 

established to ensure adequate drinking water quality. No surface waters within the GNBPA are 

designated for drinking water use, whether for individual domestic purposes or for public drinking 

water systems.

Surface water quality in the study area reflects geologic sources, runoff conditions (e.g., land use patterns, 

snowmelt, or thunderstorms), and water uses such as inflows returning from irrigated croplands. Most of the 

water in the White River originates from mountainous uplands to the east and south of the study area. The 

lower basin, which comprises the semi-arid lowlands of the study area, contributes little of the overall annual 

volume in the White River. However, after the spring runoff has passed, contributions from the study area 

make up a larger portion of the river flow. Water quality generally deteriorates during the low flow seasons due 

to conditions in the lower basin, and because there is less water to dilute the salts and sediments carried in the 

flow. However, no beneficial uses are impaired by water quality conditions in the Lower White River Basin. 

Only Willow Creek is impaired in the study area, on the basis of total dissolved solids (TDS).

The available USGS and USEPA STORET data records from October 1974 to September 1983 show

TDS concentrations in Willow Creek ranged from 519 to 3,650 mg/l, with an average of 1,272 mg/l for 

42 samples. Specific conductivity ranged from 820 to 4,900 microSiemens per centimeter (μS/cm), with

an average of 1,871 μS/cm for 71 samples. Suspended sediment concentrations in Willow Creek

ranged from 112,000 mg/l for this earlier data period, with an average of 8,772 mg/l for 77 samples 

(NWIS 2011). More recent data from the USEPA STORET database indicate generally improved 

constituent levels. From March 1995 to October 2007, TDS concentrations in Willow Creek ranged from 

410 to 1,950 mg/l, with an average of 889 mg/l for 42 samples. Specific conductivity ranged from 614 to 

2,753 μS/cm, averaging 1,260 μS/cm for 62 data points. Total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations in 

Willow Creek ranged from 14 to 12,020 mg/l, averaging 1,254 mg/l for 42 samples.

Estimated sediment yields in the study area are indicated in Figure 3.13-2. In upland areas, estimated 

sediment yields generally range between 0.5 to 1.0 acre-feet per square mile of contributing watershed per 

year. In the areas bordering the major rivers and Willow Creek, smaller sediment yield rates of approximately

0.1 to 0.2 acre-feet per square mile per year are estimated to occur. 

In the Colorado River drainage overall, which includes the White River Basin, the salinity of water has been a 

major concern for decades. The high concentrations of salts in surface and groundwater in the region originate 

from geologic sources, which include sedimentary rocks deposited in both marine and freshwater 

environments. As water is used for irrigation, salts from croplands are carried in the flows that return to rivers 

FEIS 3-99 March 2012

and streams. This occurs repeatedly as water is withdrawn, re-used, and returned on its way downstream. As 

a result, salinity increases and TDS accumulate in surface waters. 

A number of state and federal agencies have been involved in managing salinity in the Colorado River 

watershed since the Colorado River Salinity Control Act was passed in 1974. An amendment in 1984 directed 

the BLM to implement programs that minimize salt loading from lands it administers in the Colorado River 

Basin. These lands include those in the Green River Basin, and the study area in tributary watersheds such as 

the White River.

During the period 1975 to 1983, the White River in Utah accumulated approximately 40,000 tons of dissolved 

solids per year, almost all from Bitter Creek and other small streams between the state line and the river mouth 

(Liebermann et al. 1989). During that period, the mean annual flow-weighted dissolved solids concentration in 

the White River was 419 milligrams per liter. This value is substantially reduced from the average 

concentrations in earlier years (before 1969), largely due to plugging of an abandoned well in the upgradient 

watershed towards Meeker, Colorado (Liebermann et al. 1989). Plugging of additional exploration wells near 

Meeker, Colorado, in the early 1980s also substantially improved water quality in the White River (Liebermann 

et al. 1989).

It should be noted that for historical low-flows, the trend in dissolved solids concentrations for the White River

was essentially linear having a gradual, steady rise downstream of a point about 5 miles west of Rangely, 

Colorado (Boyle et al. 1984). Streamflow temperature gradually rose downstream from about the same point. 

Dissolved oxygen (as a percentage of saturation) and pH gradually decreased in linear trend, whereas 

dissolved nitrogen rapidly increased (Boyle et al. 1984). Based on these data and the historical effects of well 

abandonment, some water quality conditions in the river may result from widespread, more regional causes. 

Previous water quality investigators also examined dissolved solids on a monthly and annual basis (Boyle et 

al. 1984, Liebermann et al. 1989). The mean annual flow-weighted dissolved solids concentration in Bitter 

Creek from 1975 to 1983 was 6,740 milligrams per liter, the highest value in the regional study by Liebermann 

et al. (1989).

Much of the dissolved material is of geologic origin, carried in runoff from the Uinta Formation. This bedrock is 

widespread within the cumulative study area. It contains gypsum and a thick, saline layer deposited on an 

ancestral lake bed. Based on scattered data and a regression analysis, Bitter Creek discharged about 

10,200 tons of dissolved solids per year to the White River in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Boyle et 

al. 1984). At the same time, Coyote Wash is estimated to have discharged about 19,000 tons. Willow Creek 

also has been noted for elevated TDS concentrations (Utah Division of Water Quality 2007). Willow Creek is 

bounded by extensive badlands exposing marlstones, siltstones, and chalky limestones of the Green 

River Formation.

Further data collection and semi-quantitative interpretations were conducted as part of this EIS, using water 

quality data from the USEPA STORET database. Sampling results for two monitoring stations were 

investigated: the White River near Bonanza at the Utah Highway 45 crossing, and the White River near Ouray 

at the Utah Highway 88 crossing. The first station is upstream of the GNBPA, and the second station is 

downstream of most of the GNBPA (Figure 3.13-1). Data were retrieved for the period 1976 through 2006. 

This period post-dates most of the information that was reviewed from USGS sources and covers the 

increasing oil and gas development in the GNBPA. Data representing 197 samples were retrieved for Ouray. 

Due to missing data at Bonanza, 139 sampling data were retrieved at that station. As available, the Bonanza 

sampling dates were matched to the Ouray sampling dates to form upstream and downstream data pairs. 

Instantaneous water quality and flow data were collected by UDEQ and retrieved from the STORET database. 

Supplementary daily and monthly mean flow data were retrieved from USGS gages at or near the UDEQ 

sampling sites (NWIS 2009). Mean monthly flow data also were collected for the USGS gages upstream on 

the White River at Rangely and Meeker, Colorado. Monthly mean precipitation data were retrieved from the 

climate stations at Bonanza and Ouray (Western Regional Climate Center 2007b). Subsequent efforts focused
FEIS 3-100 March 2012

on searching for trends in concentrations, through time, of TSS (as a measure of sediment load) and TDS (as 

a measure of salinity) for different streamflows and seasons.

Interpretations of historical data from the lower White River Basin are obscured by the natural conditions of 

aridity, erosion, and saline/alkaline sedimentary geology, as mentioned above. In addition, instantaneous 

(grab) samples represent a single point in time, but sediment and dissolved solids concentrations can vary 

dramatically within a day. Influences from livestock, short-term roadwork, erosion episodes, or other factors 

may all create dramatic changes in water quality through time at a single location, or from one location to 

another. Assessments are further complicated by inflow characteristics from upstream, groundwater 

contributions, and by variable travel times for flow between sampling stations. Because of these 

considerations, conclusions based on the existing data are of a general, semi-quantitative nature. 

When comparing available water quality data to well-count records from UDOGM, development in the basin 

area can be grouped into the periods 1976 through 1984, 1985 through 1994, and 1995 through 2006. An 

initial review grouped data into these general periods by season. Based on this approach, for any flow rate 

there was overall evidence of an increase over time in TSS concentrations downstream at Ouray when 

compared to Bonanza (Watson gage) upstream of the GNBPA. There were no trends for TDS concentrations 

over time between the stations. 

A subsequent approach used selected data for March or April, and for August, September, or October, for 

average or higher precipitation at Ouray and/or Bonanza, accompanied by average or lower flows at Rangely 

and/or Meeker in those months. This approach was oriented to periods when rainfall and unfrozen conditions 

in the basin were most likely to cause runoff from the GNBPA without substantial contributions to the river from 

upstream. After this screening (and removal of strongly suspect data), 21 data pairs remained for TDS and 

14 data pairs remained for TSS. Under this approach, there was a subtle but discernible decline in TDS 

concentrations at both Bonanza (Watson) and Ouray over time. Between 1980 and 2006, concentrations of 

TDS ranged from 368 to 786 mg/L at Bonanza (Watson) and from 352 to 828 mg/L at Ouray. The data values 

downstream at Ouray typically exceeded those at Bonanza by approximately 60 mg/L. This may be due to 

background conditions in the tributaries (Seiler and Tooley 1982).

With rare exceptions, TSS concentrations were greater at Ouray than upstream at Bonanza or Watson, 

and frequently much greater. Due to badland conditions along tributaries, USGS information (Seiler 

and Tooley 1982) indicates that this is likely to be a background condition. More specific trends over 

time were not readily discernible. For the selected data set, TSS concentrations for the upstream 

condition ranged from 8 to 2,760 mg/l, while ranging from 28 to 8,940 mg/l at Ouray. For paired data 

when runoff was likely occurring, concentrations downstream at Ouray usually exceeded those 

upstream at Bonanza or Watson by approximately 300 mg/l. As mentioned in Section 3.13.1.1, there 

are few changes in the average monthly or annual flows on the White River between Watson and 

Ouray. With a drainage area increase between gages of over 25 percent in a dry sedimentary 

environment, it seems reasonable that background TSS concentrations would be greater at Ouray. 

Based on this review of available data and development history, there is no indication that increasing

oil and gas development over time has correspondingly increased TSS concentrations in the White 

River. 

In the nearby Green River drainage, water quality data are available for numerous other sites in the 

USEPA STORET database and from USGS monitoring. Suspended sediment and salinity 

considerations are among the primary surface water quality parameters of concern from potential 

project impacts, and available regional data for these constituents are summarized in Table 3.13-6 for 

selected streams near the GNBPA. TSS concentrations, while not equivalent or comparable to 

suspended sediment concentrations (Gray et al. 2000) also were measured at several sites and are 

presented in the table. The period of record reflected in the table is limited by the availability of 

overlapping data for the streams indicated, but does cover different periods of oil and gas 

development in the GNBPA as described above.
FEIS 3-101 March 2012

Table 3.13-6 Summary of Selected Water Quality Data near the GNBPA

Suspended Sediment (mg/l) TSS (mg/l) TDS (mg/l) Specific Conductance (ɥS/cm)

1

Monitoring Location

USGS and/or 

UDEQ (STORET)

Station Number

Data 

Record 

Compared Min Average Max Number2 Min Average Max Number2 Min Average Max Number2 Min Average Max Number2

Green River near Jensen, Utah 09261000 3/76 - 4/96 9 885 18,200 83 no data 90 393 566 164 200 634 1,330 216

Duchesne River near Randlett, Utah 09302000 3/76 - 4/96 3 204 1,490 128 2 76 416 263 132 999 2,410 196 225 1,470 3,640 207

Pariette Draw at Mouth near Ouray, 

Utah

09307300

(STORET 4933440)

3/76 - 4/96 18 236 953 813 4 173 3,656 253 1,080 2,610 4,914 109 1,610 3,443 6,036 108

White River at Mouth near Ouray, 

Utah

09306900

(STORET 4933520)

3/76 - 4/96 no data 28 1,261 8,940 40 392 617 892 41 590 882 1,150 42

White River at Bonanza (Watson), 

Utah

09306500 3/76 - 4/96 no data 8 438 2,760 38 360 555 808 39 606 813 1,100 40

(STORET 4933970)

Green River at Rock Creek, Utah STORET 4933200 5/77 - 10/95 no data 6 315 1,098 16 176 430 660 26 270 661 980 26

Green River near Green River, Utah 09315000 3/76 - 4/96 17 1,239 47,500 240 insufficient 

data

 177 523 1,170 190 290 774 1,520 224

1 ɥS/cm = microSiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius.

2 Number of values in data record.

3 The data record at Pariette Draw is populated for different periods with suspended sediment values (5/75 - 8/91) or TSS values (7/93 - 4/96 on). TSS data for the Duchesne River are from years 1979 and 1980, 

and include several values from 1994.
FEIS 3-102 March 2012

While the data sets indicated in Table 3.13-6 are not rigorously equivalent, they generally indicate that 

the listed tributaries are sources of additional suspended particulates and salinity to the Green River. 

The Green River gage near Jensen is upstream of the GNBPA and the listed tributaries. As discussed 

above, TSS concentrations have historically increased along the White River, but these data do not 

correlate to increasing oil and gas development. As previously discussed, Willow Creek data indicate 

comparatively higher concentrations of TSS and suspended sediment. Data for the Duchesne River 

and Pariette Draw indicate relatively lower TSS or sediment concentrations. The STORET data set for 

the Green River at Rock Creek represents a location approximately 35 linear miles downstream of the 

White River confluence. Although data are limited, TSS concentrations appear relatively low 

downstream on the Green River at Rock Creek. However, on a wider regional basis, data indicate that 

suspended sediment concentrations increase overall along the river between Jensen and Green River, 

Utah. 

Although the Jensen and Rock Creek data sets are different, they appear to indicate that salinity 

conditions are generally similar on the Green River upstream and downstream of the GNBPA. 

However, TDS concentrations and specific conductivity values generally increase far downstream 

toward Green River, Utah. In the White River, salinity indicators generally are greater than those in the 

Green River, but typically lower than those from the Duchesne River or Pariette Draw. TDS and 

specific conductivity in the Green River appear to be more strongly influenced by the Duchesne River, 

Pariette Draw, and based on data and UDEQ impairment findings, by Willow Creek. Designated uses 

for Pariette Draw are impaired on the basis of elevated selenium, boron, and TDS (Utah Division of 

Water Quality 2006).

3.13.2 Floodplains, Waters of the U.S., and Wetlands

3.13.2.1 Definitions of terms

Floodplains

From a geomorphic perspective, floodplains are relatively low, flat areas of land that surround water bodies 

and hold overflows during flood events. Floodplains are often associated with rivers and streams, where they 

consist of sediments forming levels (or “terraces”) deposited at different times along the watercourse. 

From a policy perspective, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) defines a floodplain as being 

any land area susceptible to being inundated by waters from any source (FEMA 2005, 2001). Protection of 

floodplains and related resource values was established by EO 11988. Local, state, and federal agencies have 

additional roles and responsibilities under EO 11988 and the FEMA floodplain program, particularly with 

respect to potential impacts on flooding from proposed projects. In addition, regulatory programs provide 

rigorous guidance on the types, extent, and location of project facilities that may be constructed within 

delineated floodplain boundaries. 

Waters of the U.S.

These resources are defined in 33 CFR Part 328, Section 3. They include all non-tidal waters that are 

currently, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate commerce; all interstate waters 

including wetlands; all other waters such as interstate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), 

mud flats, sand flats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, 

degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate commerce; and all impoundments of waters 

otherwise defined as Waters of the U.S. under this definition. In addition, tributaries of the above listed waters, 

including arroyos and other intermittent drainages, and wetlands adjacent to the above waters also are

considered to be Waters of the U.S.

Criteria used by the USACE to determine whether a drainage constitutes a Waters of the U.S. include 

presence of a defined bed (a linear bed in a topographic depression which would transport surface water from 

a watershed); presence of defined banks (near vertical or steep-sided banks formed by erosion from flowing 
FEIS 3-103 March 2012

water); and evidence of an ordinary high water mark (indicator[s] that the drainage is subject to surface water 

flows on an average annual basis; such indicators include a scoured bed, shelving, an absence of terrestrial 

vegetation and recent alluvial or litter deposition).

Wetlands

As described above, wetlands adjacent to other Waters of the U.S., such as streams, also are considered to 

be Waters of the U.S. In addition, and as used herein, the term “wetlands” has a regulatory definition as 

defined in 33 CFR 328, 7(b). The term “wetland” is defines as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by 

surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances 

do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally 

include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas.” Note that the frequency and duration of saturation may 

vary by geographical region, and is largely dependent upon local climatic conditions.

According to the USACE’s 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual, a "three-parameter" approach is required for 

delineating USACE-defined wetlands (USACE 1987). Based on this approach, areas are identified as 

wetlands if they exhibit the following characteristics:

1. The prevalence of vegetation consisting of hydrophytic species or plants that have the ability to grow 

in water or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water 

content and depleted soil oxygen levels.

2. The presence of soils that are classified as hydric or possessing characteristics that are associated 

with reducing soil conditions. Hydric soils are poorly drained and have a seasonal high water table 

within 6 inches of the surface.

3. An area that is inundated either permanently or periodically at mean water depths less than or equal to 

6.6 feet or the soil is saturated to the surface at some time during the growing season of the prevalent 

vegetation (usually 12.5 percent of the growing season). Within the study area, an area would need to 

be saturated for a period of approximately 18.9 days to support vegetation adapted to saturated soils

since the average number of days above 32°F in the area is approximately 151 (151 x 0.125) 

(NRCS 2006).

The USACE (1987) requires that, under normal circumstances, all three of these conditions be met for an area 

to be considered a wetland under the USACE’s definition.

Isolated Wetlands or Waters of the United States

Isolated waters are generally described as not having contiguity or ecological relationships to other Waters of 

the U.S. Under certain situations, these may include vernal pools, prairie potholes, playa basins, and 

associated wetlands and tributaries. There are no known occurrences of isolated wetlands in the GNBPA. 

3.13.2.2 Regulatory Coordination

Numerous stream channels located within the study area may be considered Waters of the U.S. based on 

their connectivity to the White and Green rivers. Of these, approximately six tributaries are intermittent or 

perennial (Lindskov and Kimball 1984a). EO 11990 (42 CFR 26961, 3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 121), Protection 

of Wetlands, requires that the BLM minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and 

enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. The loss, dredging, or filling of Waters of the 

U.S. would be regulated by the USACE under CWA Section 404, and a USACE permit would be required and 

obtained prior to construction. For Tribal Lands, the USEPA would administer the Water Quality 

Certification (CWA Section 401). A wetlands and Waters of the U.S. assessment would be conducted 

concurrently with the BLM, the Ute Tribe, and State of Utah during site inspections. If wetland and riparian 

features are identified as potentially being jurisdictional, consultation with the Sacramento District of the 

USACE would be conducted, a subsequent jurisdictional determination would be obtained, and permit 

requirements would be determined at that time. 
FEIS 3-104 March 2012

3.13.2.3 Existing Resources

Floodplains

Within the study area, zones likely to be inundated from a 100-year, 24-hour event are indicated on 

Figure 3.13-3. Outside the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, these areas were delineated by FEMA (1977) and 

developed into a GIS shapefile. Within the reservation boundaries, hydraulic analysis by Rhino Engineering, 

LLC (Rhino Engineering, LLC 1999) in addition to topographic maps and aerial photographs were used to 

digitize the geomorphic floodplain during the preparation of this EIS as a means of estimating floodplain 

boundaries. Based on these sources, approximately 10,840 acres within the GNBPA also occur within the 

100-year, 24-hour flood hazard zone. 

Waters of the U.S.

Waters of the U.S. within the GNBPA include the White River and its tributaries such as Bitter Creek, Sand 

Wash, Cottonwood Wash, Coyote Wash, and their tributaries. 

Public Water Reserves

One type of federal reserved water right associated with BLM lands is for public water sources (e.g., water

holes, springs, and wells). These rights were created by executive orders called Public Water Reserves 

(PWRs), and until 1926, these were created on an ad hoc and site-specific basis. Federal agencies would 

identify the water sources they wanted reserved, and these would be incorporated (by executive order) into a 

chronologically numbered PWR. Therefore, PWRs with early numbers refer to site-specific reservations. In 

1926, a more generic PWR was created through an executive order entitled PWR No. 107. PWR 107 ended 

the site-specific system of reserving public water sources. The purpose of PWR 107 was to reserve sources

yielding amounts in excess of homesteading requirements. Under this order, all land within 0.25 mile of public 

lands that are vacant, unappropriated, or unreserved, and contain a water source, are reserved for public use. 

There was no intent to reserve the entire yield of each source; rather, reserved water was limited to domestic 

human consumption and stockwatering. All waters from these sources, in excess of the minimum amount 

necessary for these limited public watering purposes, are available for appropriation through state water law. 

All registered PWRs within the GNBPA are wells. 

As illustrated on Figure 3.13-3, there are four PWRs located within the GNBPA. Based on agency 

communications and water rights investigations, all of these features are sourced from converted 

industrial water wells. These features would be identified and avoided through the onsite review process 

and APD surface use plan review.

Wetlands

The GNBPA is located within the Uinta Basin, a region characterized by a semi-arid or arid climate, and xeric 

rolling topography with widespread ephemeral or intermittent streams. Wetland areas, as previously defined, 

are present along and adjacent to perennial and intermittent drainages within the study area (Lindskov and 

Kimball 1984a). Wetlands were identified in the study area using data downloaded from TerraServer and 

wetland and riparian area mapping conducted by the BLM. Perennial and intermittent drainages within the 

study area include the Green River, White River, Bitter Creek, Coyote Wash below Red Wash, lower Sand 

Wash, and Cottonwood Wash. In the GNBPA, wetlands and riparian areas have been mapped by the BLM on 

lands that the agency administers (Figure 3.13-4). For the rest of the study area, USFWS National Wetland 

Inventory is not available. For these areas, SWReGAP data was used to identify riparian habitat along 

perennial and intermittent streams within the GNBPA on non-BLM lands. SWReGAP riparian types along 

these drainages include riparian woodlands and shrublands, and wet meadows. 

There are 4,961 acres of riparian types in the GNBPA, comprising approximately 3 percent of the area

(Table 3.11-1). Of these areas, almost all (4,837 acres) occur within the delineated 100-year floodplains. 

Wetlands present in these riparian areas generally would consist of palustrine emergent, palustrine scrub 

shrub, palustrine forested, palustrine unconsolidated, and riverine systems as classified using the 


FEIS 3-107 March 2012

Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the U.S. (Cowardin et al. 1979). Common wetland 

species would be the same as described for the riparian vegetation cover type (Section 3.11, Vegetation).

3.13.3 Groundwater Resources

Three major aquifer systems are present in the GNBPA and surrounding region. As shown in Figure 3.13-5, 

these regional systems can be grouped as follows: 

• Uinta-Animas aquifer (includes shallow alluvial aquifers, and the consolidated Birds Nest and Douglas 

Creek aquifers); 

• Mesaverde Aquifer; and 

• Dakota-Glen Canyon aquifer system (includes The Dakota, Morrison, Entrada, and Glen Canyon 

aquifers). 

3.13.3.1 Shallow Aquifers

The shallow water-producing units in the GNBPA primarily consist of alluvial deposits. In these water-bearing 

zones, the depth to water generally ranges from about 5 feet along the White River to approximately 20 feet 

along Bitter Creek (Holmes and Kimball 1987). Depths to water may be shallower or deeper depending on 

location, seasonal precipitation or snowmelt, and local geologic conditions. For example, groundwater surfaces 

as perennial springs along Bitter Creek approximately 2 miles upstream from its mouth.

Alluvial aquifers are of small areal extent, occurring along major drainages. They are primarily composed of 

silts and clays that were eroded from exposed surfaces of the Uinta Formation and deposited as 

unconsolidated valley fills. Sandy and gravelly Quaternary stream sediments also make up smaller portions of 

alluvial aquifer zones (Holmes and Kimball 1987). These alluvial deposits and aquifers primarily occur along 

the larger streams in or near the GNBPA, such as the Green River, White River, Bitter Creek, and Willow 

Creek. Smaller areas of alluvial aquifers also occur along lesser streams such as Cottonwood Creek and 

Coyote Wash. The average thickness of alluvial fill in the Bitter Creek and Willow Creek drainages is on the 

order of 100 feet, whereas the average thickness along the White River is about 30 feet (Holmes and 

Kimball 1987). 

Water in the alluvial aquifers is discharged by springs, evapotranspiration, and wells, and by subsurface flow 

or leakage into deeper consolidated aquifers. Based on groundwater modeling, discharge from alluvial 

aquifers to consolidated-rock aquifers in the southeastern Uinta Basin overall is estimated to be approximately

2,000 acre-feet per year. This represents the amount of recharge from alluvial aquifers required to balance the 

steady-state discharge of the consolidated-rock aquifers in the region (Holmes and Kimball 1987). However, 

this estimate represents a more regional perspective, since much of the leakage and recharge between the 

alluvial aquifers and deeper consolidated bedrock aquifers occurs at higher elevations well outside the GNBPA 

(Holmes and Kimball 1987). 

Generally, the rate of water movement in the alluvial aquifers is slow due to the minimal permeability of the 

fine-grained alluvial deposits. Water-level gradients in major drainages average about 40 feet per mile and the 

average velocity of water moving through alluvial aquifers is about 0.4 feet per day (Waltemeyer 1982). The 

volume of water stored in alluvial aquifers in the southeastern Uinta Basin is estimated to be 675,000 acrefeet. However, the volume of recoverable water locally is a function of the specific yield, and the estimated total 

amount of water that is theoretically recoverable from storage is only 200,000 acre-feet. Maximum yields to 

individual wells are less than 1,000 gallons per minute (Wanty et al. 1991). 

Chemical quality of the shallow groundwater in the southeastern Uinta Basin varies considerably. Water from 

alluvial wells ranges from about 440 to 27,800 mg/L of dissolved solids. Groundwater from the alluvial aquifers 

is very alkaline, and the alluvial aquifers contain very hard water. During periods of low flow in the White River, 

the primary recharge source, the dissolved-solids concentration is almost 1,000 mg/L, and is slightly saline 

FEIS 3-109 March 2012

(Lindskov and Kimball 1984b). In general, alluvial aquifer groundwater is not suitable for public supply, but may 

have value for other uses, such as irrigation, stock water, and limited domestic supply. 

3.13.3.2 Deeper Aquifers

Of the major regional aquifer units identified earlier, the remaining deeper aquifer zones are comprised of 

consolidated bedrock formations of varying age. The Uinta Formation, of Tertiary age, is exposed at the 

surface of the GNBPA and surrounding region (Price and Miller 1975). It mostly consists of thinly-bedded 

shale, siltstone, and fine-grained sandstone with interbedded claystone and limestone. The Uinta Formation is 

generally not water-bearing in most locations, due to drainage by deeply-incised streams (Price and 

Miller 1975). In some parts of the southern Uinta Basin, the Uinta Formation may be saturated in discontinuous 

perched aquifers. These zones typically yield less than 5 gallons per minute (Price and Miller 1975). Such 

zones are most likely to occur at higher elevations outside the GNBPA, where recharge and discharge rates 

are greater. Given these factors, the Uinta Formation is not likely to be an important water-bearing zone in the 

GNBPA. 

The Birds Nest and Douglas Creek aquifers consist of portions of the Green River Formation of Tertiary age 

(Figure 3.13-5). The Birds Nest aquifer is a part of the Parachute Member of the Green River Formation and 

underlies the GNBPA. The Parachute Creek Member consists of lacustrine deposits of thinly-bedded 

claystone and siltstone (both referred to as marlstone), as well as fine-grained sandstone, limestone, and 

some volcanic tuff (Holmes and Kimball 1987). The Birds Nest zone contains cavities created by the removal 

of readily-soluble minerals. 

According to Holmes and Kimball (1987), depths to water in the Birds Nest aquifer range from several feet 

near Evacuation Creek east of the GNBPA, to 400 feet or more in the west. Water levels recorded near the 

White River a few miles east of Asphalt Wash indicate depths of between 150 to 155 feet (Holmes and 

Kimball 1987). The aquifer discharges to the White River and to Bitter Creek as a result of geologic structures 

and upward leakage through overlying rocks. Recharge occurs from the infiltration of streamflow in the vicinity 

of Evacuation Creek, and elsewhere from downward leakage through the Uinta Formation. 

The Birds Nest aquifer currently is being used by KMG within the central portions of the GNBPA for disposal of 

produced water from existing oil and gas operations (Figure 3.13-6). Since 1994, KMG has injected 

approximately 16,000,000 bbls of produced water into the aquifer. In the central portions of the GNBPA, the 

Birds Nest aquifer is found at a depth of 1,700 feet below ground surface and ranges in thickness from 220 to 

420 feet. It has high porosity and permeability due to the dissolution of nahcolite (sodium bicarbonate) 

nodules. Groundwater flow in the Birds Nest aquifer in the GNBPA is from southeast to northwest. 

Water quality within the Birds Nest aquifer declines as groundwater moves to the northwest from recharge 

areas located to the south and southeast of the GNBPA. In the northern portion of GNBPA, water samples 

from the Birds Nest aquifer have TDS values that range from 20,000 to over 100,000 mg/L (UGS 2011)

(Figure 3.13-6). By comparison, the produced water in the GNBPA ranges from 25,000 to 30,000 mg/L. The 

poorer water quality is a natural characteristic of groundwater whereby water quality becomes progressively 

and naturally degraded as the water flows deeper into the basin. In the Birds Nest aquifer, the degradation is 

thought to be enhanced by the dissolution of nahcolite and other soluble minerals in the rock. Toward the 

south, or up-dip in the direction of the recharge area, the water in the aquifer becomes fresher and TDS values 

are less than 10,000 mg/L.

The Douglas Creek aquifer consists of sandstone and limestone and generally is 500 feet thick, but may 

exceed 1,000 feet. The overall waterbearing zone consists of the Douglas Creek Member of the Green River 

Formation, and the Renegade Tongue of the Wasatch Formation. Stratigraphically, the two zones interfinger. 

Based on existing literature (Holmes and Kimball 1987), the aquifer may outcrop in deeply incised canyons 

several miles south of the GNBPA. Recharge of the aquifer generally occurs at the higher elevations several 

miles south of the GNBPA, most notably from precipitation and along incised canyons with porous alluvial 

deposits (Holmes and Kimball 1987). Recharge is limited northward across most of the GNBPA, where the
FEIS 3-110 March 2012

Douglas Creek aquifer is isolated under relatively impermeable marlstones, siltstones, and oil shale within the 

Parachute Creek Member. Discharge from the aquifer occurs in the canyons generally south of the GNBPA, 

and by seepage to the White and Green Rivers (Holmes and Kimball 1987).

From south to north, water quality in the GNBPA portion of the Douglas Creek aquifer varies from 

fresh (less than 1,000 mg/l TDS) to slightly saline (1,000 to 3,000 mg/l TDS) (Lindskov and Kimball 

1984b). Northeast of the GNBPA, TDS concentrations reach the moderately saline range (3,000 to 

10,000 mg/l). From the increase in salinity to the north and regional structural dip, it could be inferred 

that groundwater flow is to the north. Aquifer tests indicate transmissivities ranging from 16 to 170 

feet squared per day (Holmes and Kimball 1987).

The UGS (2011) is conducting a water quality study in the Uinta Basin, which includes sampling of 

groundwater and surface water, an assessment of the Birds Nest aquifer, and re-evaluation of the 

mapping of the base of the moderately saline aquifer that was conducted in 1987 (Howells et al. 1987). 

In the water quality assessment part of the study, many potential sources of water samples were 

identified including wells and springs in and adjacent to the GNBPA (Wallace 2011). However, with the 

exception of a well at Seep Ridge (Section 35, T10S, R20E), most of the sites within the GNBPA were 

not available for sampling. The water quality data being generated by the study is limited to 

approximately 20 sites, only one of which is within the GNBPA. Although many of the sampling 

locations are wells, only two of the sampling sites are from the Douglas Creek aquifer. 

Appendix I provides a list of water wells in and within 1 mile of the GNBPA. The well locations are 

shown in Figure 3.13-7. Many of the water rights for the wells listed have expired, but it is not clear if

others are being actively used. Most of the diversions are wells to extract water for industrial uses 

including oil and gas well drilling and gilsonite mining.

The Mesaverde Aquifer and the Dakota – Glen Canyon aquifer system generally consist of much deeper 

sandstones interbedded with shales and siltstones. They provide little or no discharge to streams, and no 

withdrawals are made from them for beneficial uses in the GNBPA or surrounding region. 

Widespread deep groundwater development in the southern Uinta Basin for domestic, livestock, or industrial 

uses has been limited because of poor water quality (BLM 2008b). TDS values from less than 500 mg/L have 

been recorded from wells screened in alluvial deposits to over 4,000 mg/L for wells screened in the Green 

River Formation and can exceed 10,000 mg/L locally in the Uinta Formation (BLM 2007d). Deeper aquifers 

regularly have TDS values exceeding 25,000 mg/L (Cashion 1967).

3.13.3.3 Groundwater Protection

The potential USDWs are the alluvial and Douglas Creek aquifers. The alluvial aquifers are most likely 

to be used for stock, irrigation, or domestic wells because they are relatively shallow compared to the 

Douglas Creek aquifers.

According to 40 CFR 144, a USDW is defined as “an aquifer or its portion:

(a) (1) Which supplies any public water system; or

 (2) Which contains a sufficient quantity of ground water to supply a public water system; and

 (i) Currently supplies drinking water for human consumption; or

 (ii) Contains fewer than 10,000 mg/L total dissolved solids; and

(b) Which is not an exempted aquifer.”


FEIS 3-113 March 2012

As stated in 40 CFR 146.4, a USDW may be an “exempted aquifer if it meets the following criteria:

(a) It does not currently serve as a source of drinking water; and

(b) It cannot now and will not in the future serve as a source of drinking water because:

 (1) It is mineral, hydrocarbon or geothermal energy producing, or can be demonstrated by a 

permit applicant as part of a permit application for a Class II or Class III operation to 

contain minerals or hydrocarbons that considering their quantity and location are 

expected to be commercially producible.

 (2) It is situated at a depth or location which makes recovery of water for drinking water 

purposes economically or technologically impractical;

 (3) It is so contaminated that it would be economically or technologically impractical to render 

that water fit for human consumption;

 (4) It is located over a Class III well mining area subject to subsidence or catastrophic 

collapse; or

(c) The TDS content of the ground water is more than 3,000 and less than 10,000 mg/L and it is not 

reasonably expected to supply a public water system.

An aquifer that supplies at least 50 percent of the drinking water consumed in the area overlying the aquifer is 

defined by USEPA as a sole or principal source aquifer. In order to protect these sources of drinking water, 

particularly in areas where no alternative drinking water source is available, the USEPA formally designates 

these aquifers as a SSA. The GNBPA does not overlie nor is in close proximity to a designated SSA.

Although as describe above, the alluvial, Douglas Creek, and Birds Nest aquifers may in some areas 

have salinities greater than 10,000 mg/L TDS, other parts of these aquifers may contain TDS 

concentrations less than 10,000 mg/L; therefore, they would be considered USDWs.

UDEQ administers the SDWA for public water systems, including groundwater used for public 

supplies, through the Division of Drinking Water. Public water systems include community (municipal) 

systems that serve year-round residents; non-community systems such as campgrounds, schools, or 

industrial facilities; and transient (non-resident) or non-transient (permanent) user groups. The Utah 

Source Protection Program administers Rule 309-600 to protect groundwater sources and 

groundwater sources that are under the direct influence of surface water. Utah Rule 309-605 similarly 

protects surface water sources. Delineation of protection zones and management areas differs 

between the rules. For groundwater supplies, DWSPZs are identified by distances from the wellhead 

or collection zone; an optional 2-mile radius delineation procedure may be used to delineate a 

groundwater protection zone or management area (UDEQ 2011).

DWSPZs are designated under the State of Utah’s Drinking Water Source Protection program to protect wells 

and springs from contamination. A group of 19 water wells located near Bonanza, Utah, withdraw 

groundwater from shallow alluvium. While the wells are not located within the GNBPA, the 2-mile radius

DWSPZ associated with them overlaps the far eastern portion of the GNBPA (Figure 3.13-8).

On federal leases, usable ground water resources are protected during drilling in accordance with BLM 

Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 2, which requires that all formations containing usable quality water 

(≤10,000 mg/L TDS) be isolated and protected utilizing cement. For an existing lease overlying a SSA or a 

DWSPZ, a COA would be attached to an approved APD requiring the lessee/operator to contact the public 

water system manager to determine any zoning ordinances, best management or pollution prevention 

measures or physical controls that may be required within the protection zone.

FEIS 3-115 March 2012

3.14 Wilderness Characteristics

Wilderness study areas (WSAs) were established in the 1980s as part of the public process of determining 

which lands have wilderness characteristics and should be considered by Congress for wilderness 

designation. Since then, the BLM has inventoried public lands statewide that are located outside of existing 

WSAs and found approximately 2.6 million acres have wilderness characteristics. These lands, known as 

non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics, are areas that generally have at least 5,000 acres in a natural 

or undisturbed condition and provide outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive forms of recreation. 

Information on these lands is documented in an April 2007 Wilderness Characteristics Review in the BLM 

Vernal Field Office management area and is summarized in the BLM Vernal Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

(BLM 2008c).

As shown in Figure 3.14-1, three areas of non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics are located near or 

overlap with the GNBPA. The area identified as “White River” is the only area that overlaps with the GNBPA, 

and a portion of this is being managed as a BLM natural area (BLM 2008b). The BLM White River natural area 

and the White River non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics are discussed in more detail in the 

subsections below.

3.14.1 BLM White River Natural Area

A 6,716-acre area near the southeastern portion of the GNBPA has been identified as having wilderness 

characteristics and is referred to as the BLM White River natural area (Figure 3.14-1). Approximately 

737 acres of this natural area is located within the GNBPA. According to the Vernal RMP (BLM 2008b), BLM 

natural areas are managed to protect, preserve, and maintain values of primitive recreation, the appearance of 

naturalness, and solitude. While available for oil and gas leasing, the BLM White River natural area is 

managed with an NSO stipulation (BLM 2008b). There currently are no existing leases within the portion of the 

natural area that overlap with the GNBPA.

3.14.2 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

A 21,210-acre area adjacent to the White River near the southeastern portion of the GNBPA was inventoried 

by BLM and found to have wilderness characteristics (Figure 3.14-1). Approximately 2,786 acres of this area 

lie within the GNBPA and outside of the BLM White River natural area.

During the Vernal Field Office planning process, a BLM interdisciplinary team inventoried 34 areas within the 

Vernal Field Office management area to determine if these areas possess wilderness characteristics. The 

team determined that 25 of the 34 areas outside of existing WSAs, totaling approximately 277,596 acres, were 

found to have wilderness characteristics. They also determined that 133,723 acres did not possess wilderness 

characteristics. The lands found to have wilderness characteristics were carried through the land use planning

process to assess the impacts of management options on these lands and to determine how wilderness 

characteristics would be managed. Fourteen areas, totaling 106,198 acres, were carried forward in the Final 

RMP as BLM natural areas that are to be managed to protect, preserve, and maintain their wilderness 

characteristics values. The other lands, including portions of the White River non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics, are subject to other management decisions that allow for degradation or loss of the wilderness 

characteristics and values.

As disclosed under the decision record for the Bonanza EA (2006b), seven well pads have been constructed, 

and wells have been drilled within the White River non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics (35 acres of 

disturbance assuming 5 acres per well pad). This has been the only oil and gas related surface disturbing 

activity to date within the White River non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics that overlaps the 

GNBPA. 

The BLM Vernal RMP (BLM 2008b) did not carry portions of the White River area forward as a BLM natural 

area for the protection, preservation, or maintenance of wilderness characteristics. The analysis in the 
FEIS 3-116 March 2012

Proposed RMP and Final EIS (BLM 2008c) clearly portrayed that 45 percent of this area was leased and 

would have a direct loss of natural characteristics as well as a reduction in the quality of opportunities for 

solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation due to the sights and sounds associated with development. 

The analysis ultimately determined that 54 percent of the White River non-WSA area with wilderness 

characteristics would be affected by oil and gas development over the life of the plan. A full analysis of impacts 

to areas with wilderness characteristics in the Vernal Field Office management area is contained in the 

Proposed RMP and Final EIS.

FEIS 3-118 March 2012

3.15 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

The study area for wildlife and fisheries resources is the GNBPA. As discussed in Section 3.11, Vegetation 

Resources, nine vegetation cover types and two land use cover types are located within the GNBPA. The 

vegetation cover types include salt-desert shrubland, sagebrush shrubland, pinyon-juniper woodland, 

grassland, cliff/canyon, agriculture, riparian habitats, developed lands (i.e., industrial/commercial), and barren 

lands. Salt-desert shrubland is the most common vegetation community within the GNBPA. A variety of 

terrestrial wildlife species are associated with upland communities, with greater species diversity occurring in 

areas exhibiting greater vegetative structure and soil moisture, such as pinyon-juniper woodlands and riparian 

communities found along the Green River, White River, and Bitter Creek.

Information regarding wildlife species and habitat within the GNBPA and cumulative effects study area 

(defined as the Vernal Field Office boundary) was obtained from a review of existing published sources, BLM,

UDWR, and USFWS file information, as well as UNHP database information.

3.15.1 Wildlife 

Wildlife species and habitats occurring within the GNBPA are typical of the intermontane zone of the East 

Tavaputs Plateau. This area has highly varied topography of sand/gravel washes, dry upland benches, rocky 

cliffs, and outcroppings. Wildlife habitat within the GNBPA consists primarily of salt-desert shrub and 

sagebrush communities with interspersed grasslands. Pinyon-juniper woodlands occur on higher elevation 

sites, mainly in the southwestern portion of the GNBPA. Riparian areas are limited to the Green River, White 

River, and Bitter Creek drainages.

Available water for wildlife consumption is limited in the project region. Water sources in the vicinity of the 

project, particularly those that maintain open water and a multi-story canopy, support a greater diversity and 

population density of wildlife species than any other habitat types occurring in the region. Man-made water 

sources (guzzlers) are found on BLM- and state-managed lands throughout the region and are important 

sources of water for wildlife species in upland areas with little or no surface water sources. Wildlife utilizing 

guzzlers include a wide array of species from birds and bats to big game.

3.15.1.1 Game Species

Big Game

According to UDWR (2007a), the GNBPA is located within Wildlife Management Units (WMU) 9 (north of the 

White River) and 10 (south of the White River). However, the vast majority of the GNBPA is located within 

WMU 10. Big game habitat information (e.g., year-long crucial habitat, winter habitat) and GIS shapefiles were 

obtained from the UDWR website. This information is updated regularly and presents the most accurate data 

for the GNBPA. Big game species that may occur in the GNBPA include pronghorn, mule deer, elk, Rocky 

Mountain bighorn sheep, and bison (BLM 2008c; UDWR 2007a). The UDWR (2007a) designates big game 

habitat as either crucial or substantial. Crucial value habitat is essentially the habitat needed to maintain the 

core population of a species within a certain region/area. Degradation or unavailability of crucial habitat would

lead to declines in carrying capacity and/or numbers of wildlife species in question. Habitat designated as 

substantial is defined as habitat that is used by a wildlife species but is not crucial for population survival. 

Degradation or unavailability of substantial value habitat would not lead to declines in carrying capacity and/or 

numbers of the wildlife species in question. 

Pronghorn are most prominent in portions of the GNBPA with adequate forage and surface water (BLM 2008c; 

UDWR 2007a). Pronghorn habitat is characterized by rolling, wide-open, expansive areas within grassland 

and sagebrush vegetation zones. In 2006, UDWR trend data indicated a total of 585 animals in WMU 9 and 

642 animals in WMU 10 (UDWR 2007a). Population levels increased in both WMUs in 2007 to a total of 

794 animals in WMU 9 and 927 animals in WMU 10 (UDWR 2008b). Populations in both WMUs decreased 

slightly in 2008, back to 2006 levels. Since 2005, annual harvest estimates indicate approximately 40 animals 

per year have been harvested in WMU 9 and 20 to 40 animals per year have been harvested in WMU 10. 
FEIS 3-119 March 2012

Overall, populations of pronghorn within the GNBPA have decreased since the late 1990s due to habitat loss 

and drought (UDWR 2008b). Nearly the entire GNBPA is classified as year-long crucial habitat for pronghorn. 

Designated pronghorn habitat is presented in Figure 3.15-1.

Mule deer are widespread throughout the GNBPA. In 2006, the UDWR estimated a total population of 

approximately 21,300 animals with a fawn/doe ratio of 60/100 in WMU 9 and 7,200 animals with a fawn/doe 

ratio of 61/100 in WMU 10 (UDWR 2007a). Mule deer year-long crucial habitat is found in the northern portion 

of the GNBPA, primarily in the drainages and uplands adjacent to the White River. Mule deer winter habitat is

found in the southern portion of the GNBPA. Designated mule deer habitat is presented in Figure 3.15-2.

Elk also occur infrequently in the pinyon-juniper habitat found within the GNBPA, particularly in the fall and 

winter months. In 2006, the UDWR estimated 8,630 elk in WMU 9 and 3,900 elk within WMU 10 with a 

calf/cow ratio of 45/100 and 39/100 respectively (UDWR 2007a). Several small areas in the extreme southern 

portion of the GNBPA are classified as elk winter habitat. Designated elk habitat is presented in Figure 3.15-3. 

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep are found in several small herds in northeastern Utah (BLM 2008c). The State 

of Utah has been involved in an aggressive reintroduction program for the past 30 years. Today, bighorn 

sheep are found in two areas: along the Upper Green River and in the Book Cliffs area (BLM 2008c). The 

UDWR has established habitat designations along the White River and Bitter Creek in anticipation of future 

reintroduction efforts. Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep year-long crucial habitat is found mainly in the southeast 

portion of the GNBPA. Designated Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep habitat is presented in Figure 3.15-4.

The UDWR reintroduced a herd of 45 bison into the Book Cliffs area southeast of the GNBPA during the 

winter of 2009. The Ute Tribe also owns a herd of approximately 400 bison to the west of the GNBPA. 

However, due to expanding populations, animals from these populations occasionally may wander into the 

GNBPA as suitable habitat is present in the majority of the GNBPA (UDWR 2007a). Bison year-long crucial 

habitat is found throughout the GNBPA south of the White River. Designated bison habitat is presented in 

Figure 3.15-5.

Black bear and mountain lion also are classified as big game species in Utah. Mountain lions are fairly 

common throughout Utah and occupy all habitat types in the project region (UDWR 2007b). They often travel 

between mountain ranges and valleys depending on prey availability. Black bears are largely absent from 

most of the GNBPA but may inhabit higher elevations south of the GNBPA and riparian habitat along the 

White River and Bitter Creek (Black and Auger 2004; UDWR 2007c).

Small Game and Furbearers

Other important game species within the GNBPA include upland game birds consisting primarily of greater 

sage-grouse, mourning dove, wild turkey, ring-necked pheasant, and chukar (BLM 2008c). The greater 

sage-grouse is classified as a federal candidate species and is discussed further in Section 3.15.1.3, Special 

Status Wildlife Species. The mourning dove is a spring and summer resident that typically is associated with 

open upland communities and agricultural areas (Stokes and Stokes 1996). Ring-necked pheasant and wild 

turkey occur in low numbers in the agricultural areas and riparian corridors along the White River and Green 

River (BLM 2008c). Low numbers of chukar inhabit steep slopes and ephemeral drainages in the vicinity of 

water (BLM 2008c). Other small game species within the GNBPA include cottontail rabbit and black-tailed 

jackrabbit (BLM 2008c). 

The GNBPA is located within the Pacific Flyway (USFWS 2007d). Waterfowl habitat is limited to ponds and 

wetlands along the Green River, White River, and Bitter Creek. Waterfowl species that may be found within the 

GNBPA include Canada goose, mallard, gadwall, cinnamon teal, blue-winged teal, green-winged teal, northern 

pintail, American wigeon, northern shoveler, and ruddy duck (BLM 2008c; Stokes and Stokes 1996). 

Waterfowl numbers typically peak during the fall and winter months as suitable nesting habitat is limited within 

the GNBPA; therefore, limiting bird numbers during the spring and summer. Pelican Lake and Ouray National 





FEIS 3-125 March 2012

Wildlife Refuge northwest of the GNBPA are important wintering areas for waterfowl as the Green River 

serves as a migration corridor for much of the waterfowl in eastern Utah.

Furbearers that may be found within the GNBPA include bobcat, coyote, raccoon, beaver, gray fox, badger, 

mink, muskrat, striped skunk, western spotted skunk, ringtail, and weasel (BLM 2008c; UDWR 2007d). Due to 

greater vegetation diversity, many of these species are most prevalent along the Green River, White River, and 

Bitter Creek riparian corridors.

3.15.1.2 Nongame Species

A diversity of nongame species (e.g., small mammals, raptors, passerines, amphibians, and reptiles) occupies

a variety of trophic levels and habitat types. Nongame mammal species occurring within the GNBPA include a 

variety of shrews, bats, ground squirrels, rabbits, woodrats, and mice. Prairie dog species in northeastern Utah 

are limited for the white-tailed prairie dog. UDWR and the BLM have not conducted surveys for white-tailed 

prairie dog colonies within the entire GNBPA boundary. Limited survey data shows small, scattered colonies 

are present, especially in the northeast corner of the GNBPA (Figure 3.15-6). However, potential prairie dog 

habitat does exist within other portions of the GNBPA. The white-tailed prairie dog is a sensitive species and is 

discussed further in Section 3.15.1.3, Special Status Wildlife Species. Small mammals provide a substantial 

prey base for the areas predators including mammals (coyote, fox, badger, skunk), raptors (eagles, buteos, 

and owls), and reptile species.

Reptiles and amphibians potentially found within the project region include wandering garter snake, Great 

Basin gopher snake, western whiptail, sagebrush lizard, short-horned lizard, Great Basin spadefoot toad, 

Woodhouse’s toad, and northern leopard frog (BLM 2008c). Although all of these species are important 

members of wildland ecosystems and communities, most are common and have wide distributions within the 

region. Consequently, the relationship of most of these species to the proposed project is not discussed in the 

same depth as species that are threatened, endangered, sensitive, of special economic interest, or are 

otherwise of high interest or unique value.

Migratory Birds

Migratory birds are protected under the MBTA (16 USC 703-711) and EO 13186 (66 FR 3853). Pursuant 

to EO 13186, a MOU between the BLM and USFWS outlines a collaborative approach to promote 

the conservation of migratory bird populations. The purpose of this MOU is to strengthen 

migratory bird conservation by identifying and implementing strategies that promote conservation 

and avoid or minimize adverse impacts on migratory birds in coordination with state, tribal, and 

local governments. This MOU identifies specific activities where cooperation between the BLM and 

USFWS will contribute to the conservation of migratory birds and their habitat.

A wide variety of migratory birds are found within the GNBPA. These species are associated with a variety of 

habitat types, and many occur within the project vicinity year-round. Several of the more common species 

found within the GNBPA include horned lark, common raven, black-billed magpie, western kingbird, cliff 

swallow, and chipping sparrow (BLM 2008c). Other bird species that could occur within wetlands and riparian 

areas along the Green River, White River, and Bitter Creek include great blue heron, pied-billed grebe, 

killdeer, and spotted sandpiper. Details on sensitive species such as Lewis’ woodpecker, and yellow-billed 

cuckoo are discussed further in Section 3.15.1.3, Special Status Wildlife Species.

Raptors

Common raptor species that breed in the project region include the golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, red-tailed 

hawk, Cooper’s hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, northern harrier, prairie falcon, American kestrel, great-horned 

owl, burrowing owl, and long-eared owl (BLM 2008c). Short-eared owls also occur but are less common in the 

region (BLM 2008c). Raptor nest data was compiled from field surveys and data provided by the UNHP, 

UDWR, and KMG (Buys & Associates 2006a,b). A total of 110 nest sites have been identified within the 

GNBPA. The majority of these nests are golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, or prairie falcon.
FEIS 3-126 March 2012

Most identified nest sites within the GNBPA were located on promontory points (e.g., mesa tops, cliff faces, 

rock outcrops) in areas with slopes greater than or equal to 30 percent. Some raptor species (e.g., greathorned owl, red-tailed hawk) also utilize pinyon-juniper woodlands and deciduous trees (e.g., cottonwood, 

boxelder, and Russian olive trees) for nesting; however, these resources are limited within the GNBPA. 

According to SWReGAP data, the GNBPA includes approximately 2,851 acres of pinyon-juniper woodlands 

located at the higher elevations within southern portions of the GNBPA. Large deciduous trees are limited to 

cottonwood trees along the White River and Green River riparian corridors. Northern harriers and short-eared 

owls, which are ground nesters, often utilize heavily vegetated washes with sage and greasewood for nesting.

Birds of Conservation Concern and Partners in Flight Priority Bird Species

A list of Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) was developed as a result of a 1988 amendment to the Fish 

and Wildlife Conservation Act. This Act mandated that the USFWS “identify species, subspecies, and 

populations of all migratory nongame birds that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become 

candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.” The goal of the BCC list is to prevent or 

remove the need for additional ESA bird listings by implementing proactive management and conservation 

actions, and that these species would be consulted on in accordance with EO 13186, Responsibilities of 

Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds (USFWS 2008a, 2002a). Important bird species that potentially 

could occur within the GNBPA and their associated habitat types are presented in Appendix J. The GNBPA is 

located within BCC Region 16 (Southern Rockies/Colorado Plateau) and also contains a small portion of the 

Upper Green River Bird Habitat Conservation Area (BHCA). This area contains the largest contiguous tract of 

lowland riparian habitat in Utah and is a major migration corridor for all bird species (Utah Partners in Flight 

[PIF] 2005). The BHCA contains important habitat for the yellow-billed cuckoo and other riparian obligate 

species.

PIF is a multi-faceted organization with the goal of documenting and reversing population declines of 

neotropical migratory birds and their habitats. PIF Priority Bird Species that potentially could occur within the 

GNBPA and their associated habitat types are presented in Appendix J. 

3.15.1.3 Special Status Wildlife Species

Special status wildlife species include those wildlife species federally listed as threatened, endangered, 

proposed, and/or candidate, as well as BLM sensitive species and State of Utah species of concern. The ESA 

provides protection to federally listed threatened, endangered, and proposed species from any action that may 

jeopardize their existence. 

In accordance with the ESA, as amended, the lead agency in coordination with USFWS must ensure that any 

federal action to be authorized, funded, or implemented would not adversely affect a federally listed threatened 

or endangered species or its critical habitat. Special Status Species Management Policy 6840 requires the 

BLM to manage and protect BLM sensitive species, which include: species listed or proposed for listing under 

the ESA; species requiring special management consideration to promote their conservation and reduce the 

likelihood and need for future listing under the ESA; species designated as BLM sensitive by the State 

Director; and all federal candidate species, proposed species, and delisted species in the 5 years following 

delisting. This policy requires the BLM to manage and protect BLM sensitive species to prevent the need for 

future federal listing as threatened or endangered.

Twenty-five special status wildlife species were identified by the USFWS, the State of Utah, and the BLM as 

potentially occurring within the GNBPA (UDWR 2006b; Crist 2007). These species, their scientific names, 

status, associated habitats, and their potential for occurrence within the GNBPA are summarized in 

Appendix H. Occurrence potential within the GNBPA was evaluated for each of these species based on their 

habitat requirements and/or known distribution. Based on these evaluations, nine terrestrial wildlife species 

FEIS 3-128 March 2012

have been eliminated from detailed analysis as their known range is outside of the GNBPA, and/or the GNBPA

does not include suitable habitat for these species. The species eliminated from analysis include Canada lynx, 

Mexican spotted owl, mountain plover, American white pelican, bobolink, three-toed woodpecker, big 

free-tailed bat, northern goshawk, and boreal toad. The remaining 16 species that have a potential to occur 

within the GNBPA are discussed below.

Black-footed Ferret 

The black-footed ferret is federally listed as an endangered species. The only known populations of 

black-footed ferrets are either captive or have been reintroduced, with no natural wild populations known to 

occur (USFWS 1998). The species utilizes semi-arid grasslands and mountain basins primarily associated

with prairie dog colonies. The historic range of the species included the Rocky Mountain and Western Great 

Plains regions (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). In Utah, the distribution of this species is limited to a nonessential 

experimental population reintroduced into Coyote Basin within Uintah County (USFWS 1998). Seventy-one 

ferrets were first reintroduced into Coyote Basin in 1999. By November 2007, a total of 313 ferrets had been 

reintroduced into Coyote Basin and the area around Snake John. The ferret population currently is holding 

steady at 10 to 15 adult ferrets in Coyote Basin. The black-footed ferret population mimics the prairie dog 

population: it rebounded after a crash in 2003 to 2004 and has held steady for the past 5 years 

(Maxfield 2009). The nearest Coyote Basin prairie dog colonies are approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the 

project. An unconfirmed observation of an individual was reported in Kennedy Wash within the GNBPA, and 

individuals have been documented outside of the Primary Management Zone in other areas within the Uinta 

Basin including a reported credible sighting of a ferret on Tribal ground west of Fantasy Canyon (BLM 2008c; 

Maxfield 2009, UDWR 2007e). Black-footed ferrets in Uintah County are managed as an experimental nonessential population under Section 10j of the ESA. Small scattered white-tailed prairie dog colonies also are

present in the northeast corner of the GNBPA (Figure 3.15-6). These prairie dog colonies are not considered 

part of the Coyote Basin prairie dog complex. However, because of the close proximity to Coyote Basin, the 

potential for occurrence within the eastern portion of the GNBPA is high. 

Fringed Myotis 

The fringed myotis is listed as a wildlife species of concern by the UDWR, as well as a BLM sensitive species. 

This species occurs from low desert scrub to fir-pine associations and oak and pinyon-juniper woodlands at 

2,400 to 8,900 feet elevation (Oliver et al. 2009). This species roosts in caves, mines, and buildings and is 

most commonly associated with water courses and lowland riparian areas (UDWR 2006b). Females mate in 

the fall and ovulation and fertilization occur in late April and May (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). In Utah, this species 

is known to occur in Washington, Garfield, Kane, San Juan, Uintah, and Grand counties (UDWR 2006b). A 

few scattered observations of the species have been documented in Uintah County. Suitable riparian and 

pinyon-juniper woodlands habitats are present within the GNBPA. Roosting locations likely are to be present 

although none have been identified by UDWR or BLM. The species has not been documented within the 

GNBPA; however, based on the known range and the presence of suitable habitats, this species is likely to 

occur within the GNBPA. The potential for occurrence in the GNBPA is moderate.

Spotted Bat 

The spotted bat is listed as a wildlife species of concern by the UDWR as well as a BLM sensitive species. 

This species occurs in montane forests, pinyon-juniper woodlands, and open semi-desert shrublands at 2,700 

to 9,200 feet elevation (Oliver et al. 2009). This species utilizes crevices in rocky cliffs for roosting habitat, 

ponderosa pine woodlands during the reproductive season, and lower elevations at other times of the year 

(Fitzgerald et al. 1994). This species is believed to occur throughout the state in appropriate habitats (Oliver et 

al. 2009; UDWR 2006b). This species is rare in Utah and it has not been documented within the GNBPA; 

however, its presence in Uintah County is likely (UDWR 1998). In addition, potentially suitable habitats for this 

species are present within the GNBPA. The potential for occurrence in the GNBPA is moderate. 
FEIS 3-129 March 2012

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat 

The Townsend’s big-eared bat is listed as a wildlife species of concern by the UDWR as well as a BLM 

sensitive species. This species occupies semi-desert shrublands, pinyon-juniper woodlands, and open 

montaine forests at 3,300 to 8,851 feet elevation (Oliver et al. 2009). This species utilizes caves and 

abandoned mines for day roosts, but also uses abandoned buildings and rock crevices for refuge (Fitzgerald 

et al. 1994). This species occurs throughout Utah including Uintah County (UDWR 1998). One individual was 

collected at the Ouray National Wildlife Refuge northwest of the GNBPA (BLM 2008c). Roosting habitat within 

the GNBPA may be present in rock cliffs and caves. The potential for occurrence within the GNBPA is 

moderate.

White-tailed Prairie Dog 

The white-tailed prairie dog is listed as a wildlife species of concern by the UDWR as well as a BLM sensitive 

species, and has been petitioned to be federally listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. Colonies 

of this species occur primarily in mountain valleys, semi-desert grasslands, and open shrublands (Fitzgerald et 

al. 1994). They are distributed in relatively large, sparsely populated complexes and live in loosely knit clans 

(UDWR 2006b). In Utah, the white-tailed prairie dog occurs predominantly in the Uinta Basin and the northern 

part of the Colorado Plateau. This species is the main food source of the endangered black-footed ferret 

(Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Small white-tailed prairie dog colonies have been observed within the GNBPA. Prairie 

dog colony mapping has been conducted by UDWR and the BLM over portions of the GNBPA

(Figure 3.15-6); however, no prairie dog surveys have been conducted on Tribal Lands (UDWR 2007f). 

Colonies found within the GNBPA are not associated with the Coyote Basin Black Footed Ferret 

Reintroduction complex. 

Bald Eagle

The bald eagle is listed as a wildlife species of concern by the UDWR as well as a BLM sensitive species. This 

species commonly roosts in conifers or other sheltered sites in the winter and typically selects the larger, more 

accessible trees. Breeding habitat for this species typically is found in areas with an adequate supply of fish 

and/or waterfowl and nearby nesting sites (Johnsgard 1990). This species can be sensitive to disturbance 

during the nesting period and tends to choose nesting locations sheltered from disturbance (Johnsgard 1990). 

Recent surveys have shown that more than 1,200 bald eagles occupy Utah during the winter (UDWR 2009a). 

This accounts for approximately 25 to 30 percent of the western population of wintering bald eagles in the U.S. 

Within the Vernal Field Office boundary, this species is known to winter mainly along the Green River,

although smaller wintering populations occupy portions of the White River (BLM 2008c). As of spring 2009, the 

number of nesting bald eagle pairs in Utah remains low, and no bald eagle nests or nesting attempts have 

been documented within the GNBPA (Maxfield 2009). The nearest documented bald eagle nests are located 

on the Uinta River northeast of Duchesne and on the White River east of the Utah/Colorado state line

(Maxfield 2009). Due to the presence of known wintering populations along the Green and White rivers, the 

potential for occurrence within the GNBPA is high.

Burrowing Owl

The burrowing owl is listed as a wildlife species of concern by the UDWR as well as a BLM sensitive species. 

This species habitat includes open grassland and prairies (BLM 2008c). They nest in underground mammal 

burrows, and are often associated with prairie dog colonies (UDWR 2006b). Burrowing owls have been 

documented nesting on both sides of the White River within the Vernal Field Office boundary. This species is 

likely to be present within the GNBPA during the breeding season (March 1 to August 31); therefore, nesting is 

expected to occur in suitable habitats within the GNBPA.

Ferruginous Hawk

The ferruginous hawk is listed as a wildlife species of concern by the UDWR as well as a BLM sensitive 

species. This species habitat includes grasslands, agricultural lands, sagebrush/saltbush/greasewood, 

shrublands, and the periphery of pinyon-juniper woodlands. In Utah, the breeding season for ferruginous 
FEIS 3-130 March 2012

hawks is March 1 to August 1. Nesting habitat includes trees, cliffs, and buttes in close proximity to areas with 

a large prey base such as prairie dogs and jackrabbits (Johnsgard 1990). This species has historically 

nested within the GNBPA and currently is known to nest north of the GNBPA. The nearest nest UDWR has 

recorded is approximately 1 mile from the GNBPA boundary (Maxfield 2009). As of spring 2009, no 

ferruginous hawk nests have been identified within the GNBPA (Maxfield 2009). However, due to suitable 

foraging habitat present throughout the Uinta Basin, the species is likely to occur within the GNBPA.

Grasshopper Sparrow

The grasshopper sparrow is listed as a wildlife species of concern by the UDWR as well as a BLM sensitive 

species. This species occurs in dry grasslands characterized by short to mid-height clumps of grass with few 

to no shrubs. The grasshopper sparrow is known to occur in most of the U.S. in summer, but is limited to the 

southern states and Mexico during winter months (UDWR 2006b). The main concentration of the species 

occurs in the Great Plains from North Dakota south to northern Texas. The only known occurrences of the 

species in Utah are documented in the northernmost region of the state (UDWR 2006b). Occurrences have

not been documented within the GNBPA, and the potential for occurrence within the GNBPA is low.

Greater Sage-grouse

The greater sage-grouse is listed as a federal candidate species, a wildlife species of concern by the UDWR, 

and a BLM sensitive species. On March 5, 2010, the USFWS determined that the greater sage-grouse 

warrants protection under the ESA; however, the USFWS concluded that proposing the species for protection 

is precluded by the need to take action on other species facing more immediate and severe extinction threats.

Therefore, greater sage-grouse in Utah continue to be managed by the UDWR, while most of their habitat is 

located on federal or private lands. Conservation efforts for this species in Utah currently are coordinated by 

the UDWR in cooperation with the USFWS, BLM, and regional greater sage-grouse working groups in an 

attempt to increase population levels and avoid federal listing under the ESA. Greater sage-grouse have the 

lowest reproductive potential of any North American gamebird; therefore, populations may be less able to 

recover from population declines as quickly as most other game birds (UDWR 2009b).

In Utah, the greater sage-grouse inhabits upland sagebrush grasslands, foothills, and mountain valleys 

(BLM 2008c; UDWR 2009b). This species occupies different habitat types during the year depending on 

season, weather, and nutritional requirements. In general, the following three categories are used to classify 

greater sage-grouse habitat. 

Lekking/Nesting Habitat

The center of breeding activity for greater sage-grouse is referred to as a strutting ground or lek. Leks are 

characterized as flat, sparsely vegetated areas within large tracts of sagebrush (Connelly et al. 2004; 

UDWR 2009b, 2006b). Males begin to appear on leks in late February/early March with peak attendance of 

Utah leks occurring in April (UDWR 2009b). To protect greater sage-grouse leks from surface disturbance, the 

Vernal RMP requires a 0.25-mile NSO around active leks (BLM 2008c). More recent literature in Colorado and 

Wyoming suggests that a 0.25-mile NSO is insufficient to prevent disturbance to strutting males, and that a 

0.6-mile NSO should be used instead (Colorado Division of Wildlife [CDOW] 2008). Greater sage-grouse 

nesting habitat typically is centered around active leks and consists of medium to tall sagebrush with a 

perennial grass understory (Connelly et al. 2000). Studies have shown that taller sagebrush with larger 

canopies and more residual understory cover usually lead to higher nesting success (UDWR 2009b). Connelly 

et al. (2000) recommends establishing a 2-mile buffer with timing restrictions around leks to protect nesting 

hens (up to 80 percent) in non-migratory populations. The Vernal RMP requires a timing restriction for surface 

disturbing activities from March 1 to June 15 within 2 miles of an active lek (BLM 2008b). Recent literature 

pertaining to Colorado and Wyoming suggests that a 2-mile buffer is inadequate as it only protects 52 percent

of nesting hens while a 4-mile buffer protects up to 80 percent of nesting hens (CDOW 2008). 
FEIS 3-131 March 2012

Brooding Habitat 

During the late spring and summer, hens and broods typically are found in more lush habitats consisting of a 

high diversity of grasses and forbs that attract insects (Connelly et al. 2004). These habitats include wet 

meadows, riparian areas, and irrigated farmland within or near sagebrush (UDWR 2009b). Hens with broods 

will utilize these habitats until forbs desiccate and insect abundance decreases (Connelly et al. 2004). 

Unsuccessful hens and cocks also will utilize these same habitats; however, due to their nutritional flexibility, 

they are able to occupy a wider variety of habitats during the spring and summer months (Connelly et 

al. 2004). In many greater sage-grouse populations, high quality brooding habitat is often the limiting factor 

due to drought, invasive weeds, and overgrazing associated with improper range management.

Wintering Habitat

Depending on the severity of the winter, greater sage-grouse will move to south- and east-facing slopes that 

maintain exposed sagebrush. Studies have shown that south-facing slopes with sagebrush at least 10 to 

12 inches above the snow level are required for both food and cover (UDWR 2009b). Windswept ridges, 

draws, and swales also may be used, especially if these areas are in close proximity to exposed sagebrush 

(Connelly et al. 2004). A study in Utah indicated that greater sage-grouse preferred sagebrush habitats with 

medium to tall (40 to 60 centimeters) sagebrush and 20 to 30 percent canopy cover (Homer et al. 1993). In 

years with severe winter conditions (i.e., deep snow), greater sage-grouse will often gather in large flocks in 

areas with the highest quality winter habitat. It is suggested that high quality winter habitat is limited in portions 

of the greater sage-grouse’s range (Connelly et al. 2000). 

Greater sage-grouse nesting, brooding, and wintering habitats within the GNBPA are presented in 

Figure 3.15-7. Approximately 61,744 acres of brooding habitat; 23,380 acres of nesting habitat; and 

46,969 acres of wintering habitat occur within the GNBPA. However, these estimates are conservative and are 

based on vegetation type, height, and composition. It is likely that habitat currently utilized by greater sagegrouse within the GNBPA is much smaller and centered around the active leks in the southern portion of the 

GNBPA (East Bench and Middle Bench areas). The UDWR has identified a total of four leks (East Bench 16, 

East Bench NE, Middle Bench Guzzler, and Sand Wash Rim) within the GNBPA, with a fifth lek (East Bench) 

located approximately 1 mile south of the GNBPA boundary. Table 3.15-1 presents the greater sage-grouse 

lek counts over the past 10 years for these 5 leks (Maxfield 2009). 

Table 3.15-1 Greater Sage-grouse Lek Counts (males only) from 1999-2009 

Lek Name 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 10-Year Average

East Bench 161 - - - - - 5 10 6 5 0 0 4.3

East Bench NE 12 14 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.0

Middle Bench Guzzler1 - - - - - - 5 0 5 3 0 2.6

Sand Wash Rim1 29 24 - 27 12 14 19 20 17 8 9 17.9

East Bench1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 - 0.5

Total 41 38 18 27 12 24 34 26 27 11 9 24.3

1 A dash indicates that the lek was not surveyed that year.

As of fall 2009, the East Bench population was estimated at approximately 50 to 60 greater sage-grouse 

(Maxfield 2009). Prior to a research study conducted in 2007 and 2008, the East Bench population was 

estimated at approximately 200 individuals (Smith 2009). Because the East Bench and Middle Bench areas 

provide critical habitat for lekking, nesting, early brood-rearing, and wintering, UDWR conducted a research 

study in 2007 and 2008 on the East Bench greater sage-grouse population using radio telemetry 

(Maxfield 2009; Smith 2009). This study found that nesting/early brood rearing occurred on the East Bench 

and Middle Bench areas. Hens with broods then moved to the Willow Creek drainage during the summer

months. Within the Willow Creek drainage, adult and chick survival was poor, and mortalities during the 

summer and fall months were high, possibly due to predation (Maxfield 2009; Smith 2009). Smith (2009) 

FEIS 3-133 March 2012

documented greater sage-grouse mortality as a result of both mammalian and avian predators. Mortality was 

lower when greater sage-grouse occupied the East Bench and Middle Bench areas. In 2007 and 2008, annual 

mortality for greater sage-grouse in the East Bench population was greater than 60 percent (Smith 2009).

Smith (2009) also found that all radio-marked greater sage-grouse spent the winter within the East Bench and 

Middle Bench areas, both of which are currently being developed. 

The greatest threat to greater sage-grouse within the GNBPA is habitat loss and fragmentation associated with 

energy development. The Uinta Basin population of greater sage-grouse, specifically the East Bench 

population, has shown a steady decline over the past 10 years; much like many other greater sage-grouse 

populations in Utah. This decline may correspond with the increase in energy development within the Uinta 

Basin since the late 1990s. Currently, four other energy development projects (KMG Love Unit EA, Enduring

Resources Big Pack EA, XTO Little Canyon EA, and Resource Development Group [RDG] Uinta Basin EIS)

are occurring or are in the BLM review process within and around the East Bench and Middle Bench areas 

(BLM 2008g, 2006c). In addition, several other smaller energy development projects (e.g., exploratory wells, 

pre-NEPA oil and gas leases) occur in the East Bench and Middle Bench areas. Other threats to greater 

sage-grouse within the immediate vicinity of the GNBPA (e.g., Uinta Basin) include the spread of invasive 

weeds, overgrazing, pinyon-juniper encroachment into sagebrush habitat, and poor reclamation due to 

drought. Overall, greater sage-grouse habitat quality and quantity has declined throughout Utah, which 

coincides with reduced greater sage-grouse populations (Connelly et al. 2004; UDWR 2009b).

Lewis’ Woodpecker 

The Lewis’ woodpecker is listed as a wildlife species of concern by the UDWR as well as a BLM sensitive 

species. This species is a cavity nester and requires large, open pine forests for foraging. The species diet 

consists primarily of insect prey during breeding season and nuts and berries at other times of the year 

(UDWR 2006b). Breeding habitat includes ponderosa pine and open riparian areas. Winter habitat includes 

open woodlands and lowland riparian areas (UDWR 2006b). This species is occasionally found in the riparian 

habitats of the Uinta Basin and along the Duchesne, White, and Green rivers (BLM 2008c). This species has 

been documented within the GNBPA in riparian areas along portions of the White River and Green River

(UDWR 2007f). 

Long-billed Curlew 

The long-billed curlew is listed as a wildlife species of concern by the UDWR as well as a BLM sensitive 

species. This species habitat includes dry uncultivated rangelands and pastures near water (BLM 2008c). 

Long-billed curlews forage in moist meadow wetlands and upland habitats. Habitat for this species occurs at

mid-elevations from the Uinta Mountains in northern Utah to the Book Cliffs in east-central Utah. This species

has been observed in the GNBPA and is known to nest within the GNBPA (BLM 2008c; UDWR 2007f). 

Short-eared Owl 

The short-eared owl is listed as a wildlife species of concern by the UDWR as well as a BLM sensitive species. 

This species occupies open habitats such as fields, pastures, marshes, hay meadows, grassland, and tundra 

(Johnsgard 2002). The species is associated with open country that is found throughout the GNBPA. This 

species has been documented within the GNBPA in Cottonwood Wash.

Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo 

The western yellow-billed cuckoo is a federal candidate species, a wildlife species of concern by the UDWR, 

and a BLM sensitive species. This species nests in dense lowland riparian vegetation of regeneration canopy 

trees, willows, or other riparian shrubs that occur within 100 meters of water (Parrish et al. 2002). This species 

typically nests from late May through July. The western yellow-billed cuckoo is known to occur at the Ouray 

Natural Wildlife Refuge and along the Green and White rivers (UDWR 2007f). Potential habitat for this species 

within the GNBPA would be limited to the riparian corridors along the Green and White rivers. The potential for 

occurrence within the GNBPA is moderate.
FEIS 3-134 March 2012

Corn Snake 

The corn snake is listed as a wildlife species of concern by the UDWR as well as a BLM sensitive species. 

This species occurs in a variety of habitats along stream courses, rocky wooded hillsides, canyons and 

arroyos, and in coniferous forests (BLM 2008c). This species has been documented within the GNBPA in 

suitable habitats. 

Smooth Greensnake 

The smooth greensnake is listed as a wildlife species of concern by the UDWR as well as a BLM sensitive 

species. This species inhabits moist grassy areas and meadows. The known distribution of this species ranges 

from northeast Utah into central Colorado (BLM 2008c). This species is known to occur in Uintah County 

(UDWR 1998), and suitable habitat for this species is present within the GNBPA along the Green and White 

rivers. 

3.15.2 Fisheries Resources

3.15.2.1 Aquatic Habitat and Species

Aquatic habitat in the GNBPA consists mainly of intermittent and ephemeral streams. Within the GNBPA, the 

only drainages with perennial flow are the Green River and White River drainages, which consist of stream 

habitat and associated wetlands/ponds. The UDEQ designates the Green River near Ouray and the White 

River from the Green River confluence to the Colorado state line as warm water fisheries (Utah Administrative 

Code 2007). Game fish species found in the Green and White rivers include channel catfish, smallmouth bass, 

crappie, bluegill, green sunfish, black bullhead, northern pike, walleye, carp, and the occasional trout 

(Monroe 2007). However, channel catfish were the most abundant game species identified from electrofishing 

and fyke/trammel net surveys (Bestgen et al. 2007; Irving and Modde 1994). Other game fish species occur in 

relatively low numbers. Native fish species that occur in the Green and White rivers include Colorado 

pikeminnow (endangered), razorback sucker (endangered), bonytail (endangered), humpback chub 

(endangered), flannelmouth sucker (state sensitive), bluehead sucker (state sensitive), roundtail chub (state 

sensitive), mottled sculpin, and speckled dace (Monroe 2007). Native fish, such as flannelmouth sucker and 

bluehead sucker, and introduced species such as carp, channel catfish, and red shiner were the most 

abundant fish species identified during surveys (Bestgen et al. 2007; Irving and Modde 1994). The Colorado 

pikeminnow, razorback sucker, bonytail, humpback chub, flannelmouth sucker, bluehead sucker, and roundtail 

chub are sensitive species and discussed further under Special Status Fish Species. 

The UDEQ designates Bitter Creek as a cold water fishery (Utah Administrative Code 2007) that supports a 

population of brook trout (Monroe 2007). However, Bitter Creek does not consistently provide adequate flow 

within the GNBPA. Therefore, it is unlikely that fish persist in Bitter Creek within the GNBPA (Monroe 2007).

3.15.2.2 Special Status Fish Species

Special status fish species include those fish species federally listed as threatened, endangered, proposed, 

and/or candidate, as well as BLM sensitive species and State of Utah species of concern. The ESA provides 

protection to federally listed threatened, endangered, and proposed species from any action that may 

jeopardize their existence. 

In accordance with the ESA, as amended, the lead agency in coordination with USFWS must ensure that any 

federal action to be authorized, funded, or implemented would not adversely affect a federally listed threatened 

or endangered species or its critical habitat. Special Status Species Management Policy 6840 requires the 

BLM to manage and protect critical habitat. Special Status Species Management Policy 6840 requires the 

BLM to manage and protect BLM sensitive species, which include: species listed or proposed for listing under 

the ESA; species requiring special management consideration to promote their conservation and reduce the 

likelihood and need for future listing under the ESA; species designated as BLM sensitive by the State 

Director; and all federal candidate species, proposed species, and delisted species in the 5 years following 
FEIS 3-135 March 2012

delisting. This policy requires the BLM to manage and protect BLM sensitive species to prevent the need for 

future federal listing as threatened or endangered.

Eight special status fish were identified as potentially occurring within the GNBPA (Crist 2007; UDWR 2006b). 

These species, their scientific names, status, associated habitats, and their potential for occurrence within the 

GNBPA are summarized in Appendix H. Occurrence potential within the GNBPA was evaluated for each of 

these species based on their habitat requirements and/or known distribution. Based on these evaluations, only

the Colorado River cutthroat trout has been eliminated from further analysis. The other seven special status 

fish species with the potential to occur within the GNBPA are discussed below.

Bonytail 

The bonytail is federally listed as endangered. This species habitat includes main channels of large rivers 

generally associated with swift currents. It typically is found in water depths of 3-4 feet with a shifting sand 

bottom. This species is only known to occur within the Green River (USFWS 2002b). No populations have 

been identified within the White River (Lentsch et al. 2000). This species may occur within the extreme 

northwestern corner of the GNBPA, and the USFWS has designated critical habitat within the Green River in 

Uintah County for this species (USFWS 2002b).

Colorado Pikeminnow 

The Colorado pikeminnow is federally listed as endangered. This species is endemic to the Colorado River 

system and is known to migrate long distances and utilize pools, deep runs, and eddy habitats

(USFWS 2002c). This species occurs in much of the Colorado River Basin and has been collected from the 

White River (Irving et al. 2003). This species is likely to occur within the GNBPA. The USFWS has designated 

critical habitat within the Green and White rivers in Uintah County for this species (USFWS 2002c).

Humpback Chub 

The Humpback chub is federally listed as endangered. This species is endemic to the Colorado River system 

within deep, swift-running rivers, with canyon shaded environments (USFWS 2002d). The species has been 

documented within the Green River; however, no individuals have been identified in the White River (Irving et 

al. 2003). This species is likely to occur within the GNBPA. The USFWS has designated critical habitat within 

the Green River in Uintah County for this species (USFWS 2002d).

Razorback Sucker 

The Razorback sucker is federally listed as endangered. Habitat for this species includes warm water reaches 

of large rivers in areas that include deep runs, eddies, backwaters, and flooded off channel environments 

(USFWS 2002e). This species is endemic to large rivers of the Colorado River Basin, including the Green and 

White rivers (USFWS 2002e). This species is likely to occur within the GNBPA. The USFWS has designated 

critical habitat within the Green and White rivers in Uintah County for this species (USFWS 2002e).

Bluehead Sucker 

The Bluehead sucker is a species receiving special management under a conservation agreement in order to 

preclude the need for a federal listing. This species occurs in fast flowing water in high gradient reaches of

mountain rivers and turbid or muddy, sometimes alkaline waters with vegetation absent or sparse 

(UDWR 1998). This species is known to inhabit the Colorado River drainage and is likely to occur in the Green 

and White rivers (UDWR 1998). This species is likely to occur within the GNBPA. 

Flannelmouth Sucker 

The flannelmouth sucker is a species receiving special management under a conservation agreement in order 

to preclude the need for a federal listing. This species inhabits large rivers, where they are often found in deep 

pools of slow-flowing, low-gradient reaches (BLM 2008c). This species is known to occur within the Green and 
FEIS 3-136 March 2012

White rivers (BLM 2008c). This species has been identified as one of the most common fish species captured 

in the White River during surveys (Lentsch et al. 2000). This species is likely to occur within the GNBPA. 

Roundtail Chub 

The roundtail chub is a species receiving special management under a conservation agreement in order to 

preclude the need for a federal listing. This species occurs in main channels of large rivers, and is most often 

found in murky pools near strong currents (BLM 2008c). This species occurs in much of the Colorado River 

system and is likely to be present in the Green and White rivers (UDWR 1998). This species is likely to occur 

within the GNBPA.