Greater Natural Buttes

Final

Environmental Impact Statement

FES 12-8

Volume I

(Chapters 1 through 9)

Bureau of Land Management

March 2012

Vernal Field Office/Utah
BLM Mission Statement

The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for the stewardship of our public lands. It is 

committed to manage, protect, and improve these lands in a manner to serve the needs of the 

American people for all times.

Management is based upon the principles of multiple use and sustained yield of our nation’s 

resources within a framework of environmental responsibility and scientific technology. These 

resources include recreation, rangelands, timber, minerals, watershed, fish and wildlife, wilderness, 

air and scenic, scientific, and cultural values.
United States Department ofthe Interior 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

Vernal Field Office 

170 South 500 East 

Vernal, UT 84078 

(435) 781-4400 Fax: (435) 781-4410 

http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en!fo/vernal.html 

TAKE PRI DE" 

INAMERICA 

IN REPLY REFER TO: 

LLUTG01000 

1790 

UT-080-07-807 

Dear Public Land User: 

Enclosed is the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Greater Natural Buttes Area 

Gas Development Project, which documents anticipated environmental consequences of 

developing natural gas resources in the 162,911 acre project area in Uintah County, Utah. Under 

the Resource Protection Alternative, which is the Agency Preferred Alternative, up to 3,675 new 

gas wells from 1,484 well pads would be drilled over a period of 10 years. Total new surface 

disturbance under the Agency Preferred Alternative would be approximately 8,147 acres, or 5% 

of the total project area. 

This Final EIS has been developed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) prepared the Final EIS in coordination with numerous Cooperating Agencies including 

the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 

United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Uintah County. The BLM also took into account 

comments received during the public comment period on the Draft EIS (July 2010) and 

Supplement to the Draft EIS (June 2011). The Final EIS tracks changes made between the Draft 

EIS and Final EIS, and includes responses to comments received during the public comment 

periods for both the Draft EIS and Supplement to the Draft EIS. 

This Final EIS is not a decision document. The publication of the Notice of Availability in the 

Federal Register for this Final EIS initiates a 30-day waiting period. Following conclusion of that 

period, a Record of Decision (ROD) will be signed to disclose the BLM's final decision and any 

project Conditions ofApproval. Availability of the ROD will be announced through local media, 

the Vernal BLM website, and Utah BLM's Environmental Notification Bulletin Board. 

We appreciate your interest in this project. If you have questions or need additional information, 

please contact Stephanie Howard at (435) 781-4469. 

Sincerely, 

') Michael G. Stiewig 

Field Office Manager 

Enclosures - As Stated 
Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP (KMG)

Greater Natural Buttes

Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

Project Location: Uintah County, Utah

Comments & Further Information 

On the Draft EIS: Stephanie Howard, Project EIS Team Lead

Bureau of Land Management

Vernal Field Office

170 South 500 East

Vernal, Utah 84078

Phone: (435) 781-4400

BLM Authorized Officer 

Responsible for Preparing 

the Final EIS: Mike Stiewig, Field Manager

Abstract

KMG proposes to develop oil and gas resources within the 162,911-acre Greater Natural Buttes Project 

Area (GNBPA) located in Uintah County south of Vernal, Utah. The GNBPA is partially developed with 

1,562 existing oil and gas wells and associated infrastructure (including 23 compressor stations, access 

roads, water management facilities, pipelines, and power lines) with an estimated disturbance of 

7,766 acres. The Proposed Action would include the development of an additional 3,675 well pads at 

20-acre spacing and associated infrastructure. Construction would begin after the issuance of the Record of 

Decision (ROD), approval of individual Applications for Permit to Drill, and approved Right-of-Way grants. 

Construction would require approximately 10 years with the productive life of the project estimated at 30 to 

50 years.

Four alternatives were analyzed in detail in this Final EIS. They are the No Action Alternative, Proposed 

Action, Resource Protection Alternative, and Optimal Recovery Alternative. The No Action Alternative would 

consist of denying KMG’s proposed development of federal leases, but would include new development on 

federal leases (1,102 new wells and associated infrastructure) as approved through previous National 

Environmental Policy Act decision documents. The Proposed Action would consist of KMG’s proposal for 

developing the GNBPA. The Resource Protection Alternative (the Agency Preferred Alternative) would 

limit development to 40-acre well pad spacing by utilizing directional drilling, thereby reducing the potential 

number of new single well pads and reducing the project disturbance. The Optimal Recovery Alternative 

would involve development of new well pads on 10-acre well spacing to maximize the recovery of 

hydrocarbon resources, thereby increasing project disturbance. Under all alternatives, development would 

continue on State and private leases including roads and pipelines crossing federal lands to access the 

State and private leases. In addition to KMG’s commitment to voluntarily apply the applicant-committed 

environmental protection measures listed in Appendix A of this document, mitigation is recommended that 

would lessen the environmental effects of the proposed project. 

The Final EIS will be available for review throughout a 30-day public availability period beginning on the 

date the United States Environmental Protection Agency publishes a Notice of Availability for this EIS. 
FEIS ES-1 March 2012

Executive Summary

Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP (KMG), a wholly owned subsidiary of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, 

has notified the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Vernal Field Office that it proposes to conduct infill 

drilling to develop the hydrocarbon resources from oil and gas leases owned, at least in part, by KMG within 

the Greater Natural Buttes Project Area (GNBPA) in Uintah County, Utah (Figure ES-1). KMG intends to 

develop all potentially productive subsurface formations underlying the GNBPA. The formations include, but 

are not limited to, the Green River Formation, Wasatch Formation, Mesa Verde Group (including the 

Blackhawk Formation), Mancos Shale, and Dakota Sandstone. 

The GNBPA consists of approximately 162,911 acres in an existing gas producing region located on lands 

owned by the federal government, the State of Utah, the Ute Tribe, and other private land owners. Federal 

lands in the proposed GNBPA are under the jurisdiction of the BLM Vernal Field Office. The Vernal Field Office 

has determined that the proposed project constitutes a major federal action requiring the development of an 

environmental impact statement (EIS). This EIS serves the purpose of disclosing and analyzing impacts 

resulting from the level of development proposed within the GNBPA, including a no action alternative, with 

consideration of identified and applied applicant-committed environmental protection measures (ACEPMs) and 

recommended mitigation measures. A summary of these ACEPMs is provided in Appendix A.

KMG, a private corporation, proposes development of their leases in the GNBPA for the purpose of 

making a profit on the extraction and sale of oil and gas resources. In addition to developing the 

subsurface resources in the GNBPA and testing directional drilling technologies, KMG’s proposed 

project would increase the supply of domestic natural gas and liquid hydrocarbons and contribute to 

the economic vitality of the local communities through increased employment opportunities and 

expanded tax bases. KMG’s proposed natural gas and oil development project is consistent with the 

National Energy Act of 2005 and the National Energy Policy (President’s Plan) because it would 

provide a domestic source of natural gas and oil to meet rising national energy demand.

Changes in this Final EIS are presented in bold italics and indicated by vertical bars that appear in the 

left margin. These changes were made in response to comments received on the Draft EIS, comments 

received on the SDEIS, and as a result of updated information that became available after issuance of 

the Draft EIS.

Purpose and Need

The need for a BLM action is to respond to this proposal and to evaluate action on future plans and 

applications related to this proposal. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (Public 

Law 94-579, 43 United States Code [USC] 1701 et seq.) recognizes oil and gas development as one of the 

"principal" uses of the public lands. Federal mineral leasing policies (Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, 30 USC 188 

et seq.) and the regulations by which they are enforced recognize the statutory right of lease holders to 

develop federal mineral resources to meet continuing national needs and economic demands. The purpose of 

this EIS is to facilitate the BLM decision-making process of whether to approve, approve with modifications, or 

disapprove the proposed project or project components based on an evaluation of the expected impacts. 

Through this process, the BLM's purpose is to minimize or avoid environmental impacts to the extent possible, 

while allowing KMG to exercise its valid lease rights.

Scoping

The BLM conducted public and internal scoping to solicit input and identify environmental issues and concerns 

associated with the proposed project. The public scoping process was initiated on October 5, 2007, with the 

publication of a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register. The BLM prepared a scoping information notice and 

FEIS ES-3 March 2012

provided copies to the public, other government agencies, and Tribes. These announcements included 

information on a public scoping and open house, which was held at the Western Park Conference Center in

Vernal, Utah, on October 23, 2007. The official scoping period ended November 5, 2007. Written comments 

were received during the public scoping period consisting of nine letters: two from federal agencies, one from 

state agencies, one from a county agency, one from a non-governmental organization, and four from industry 

or private individuals. During the scoping period, key concerns were identified for consideration in preparing 

the Greater Natural Buttes EIS. The BLM also conducted internal scoping to compile a list of resources 

potentially present in the Vernal Field Office area to be considered in this EIS. Based on this list and public 

scoping, the following resources are discussed and analyzed in Chapters 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0 of this document:

• Air Quality;

• Cultural Resources and Native American Traditional Values;

• Geology;

• Land Use;

• Paleontology;

• Range Resources;

• Recreation;

• Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice;

• Soils;

• Transportation and Access;

• Vegetation Resources;

• Visual Resources;

• Water Resources; 

• Wilderness Characteristics; and

• Wildlife and Fisheries Resources.

The BLM has determined that the proposed project is in conformance with the BLM management plans and 

policies and is consistent with other federal and local land management plans and policies. As allowed under 

36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 800.8, the BLM has used the public comment process under the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to comply with the public consultation requirements of Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Proposed Action and Alternatives

Chapter 2.0 of this EIS describes the existing and approved oil and gas facilities and the proposed 

development alternatives, including a no action alternative, analyzed in this document. In developing the 

alternatives, the BLM followed guidance set forth in 40 CFR 1500-1508 and the BLM NEPA Handbook 

H-1790-1 (BLM 2008a). The BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2005-247, Attachment 1, also provides 

recommendations on developing a range of reasonable alternatives for oil, gas, and geothermal development 

activities. Based on this guidance, the BLM developed four alternatives for analysis in this EIS as described in 

the following paragraphs. The BLM preferred alternative is the Resource Protection Alternative.

Existing oil and gas infrastructure in the GNBPA (as of October 2007) consists of 1,562 vertical productive 

wells generally drilled on single well pads. Supporting infrastructure associated with this existing development 

includes access roads, mancamps, compressor stations, a gas processing plant, water management facilities 

(evaporation, recycling, and injection), gas and water pipelines, and power lines. The existing surface 

disturbance in the GNBPA as of October 2007 is estimated at 7,766 acres or about 4.8 percent of the GNBPA.
FEIS ES-4 March 2012

This date was selected as a fixed point in time to represent information that is continuously changing. While 

the BLM recognizes there is a gap between this point in time and the publication date of this document, the 

information provides a consistent basis for evaluation of the proposed project and alternatives.

No Action: Under the No Action Alternative, drilling and completion of development wells and infrastructure 

would continue as described in approved NEPA decision documents. An estimated 1,102 wells remain to be 

drilled in addition to the 1,562 existing wells in the GNBPA (as of October 2007). Supporting infrastructure 

associated with this alternative includes access roads, compressor stations, water management facilities 

(evaporation, recycling, and injection), gas and water pipelines, and power lines. Because reclamation is 

difficult to achieve in the Uinta Basin, all disturbance is assumed to be present for more than 3 years, typically 

for the life of the project. The estimated new surface disturbance for the No Action Alternative would be 

approximately 4,702 acres or about 2.9 percent of the GNBPA. The total estimated surface disturbance for 

this alternative would be 12,468 acres, or approximately 7.7 percent of the GNBPA.

Proposed Action: This alternative consists of KMG’s proposed infill drilling project within the GNBPA to 

develop an additional 3,675 wells drilled from a maximum of 3,041 new well pads placed at up to 20-acre 

surface spacing. KMG and other operators would drill additional wells at an average rate of approximately 

358 wells per year over a period of 10 years or until the resource base is fully developed. The productive life of 

each well is estimated to be approximately 30 to 50 years. In support of the new wells, KMG would construct 

access roads, pipelines, electric power lines, compression facilities, and water disposal facilities. The 

estimated new surface disturbance for the Proposed Action would be approximately 12,658 acres or about 

7.8 percent of the GNBPA, while the total estimated surface disturbance would be 25,125 acres, or 

approximately 15.4 percent of the GNBPA.

Portions of the GNBPA pose environmental constraints to drilling a vertical well from the surface, based on the 

following factors:

• Topography, including steep slopes that preclude construction of a well pad for a vertically drilled well 

without major cuts-and-fills;

• The viewshed (line-of-sight from the centerline up to 0.5 mile on either side of the river) of the White 

River corridor, outside of the Indian Trust Lands; and

• Areas within 600 feet of the White River within the Indian Trust Lands.

In areas where the gas resources in the reservoirs warrant a downhole spacing of less than 20 acres based on 

reservoir engineering evaluation, or in those areas where environmental constraints preclude vertical wells, 

KMG would test and attempt to utilize directional drilling technology. Analysis of the Proposed Action 

Alternative assumes vertical wells would be drilled at all 3,041 new well pad locations.

Resource Protection Alternative: This alternative consists of the same number of wells as the Proposed 

Action (3,675 wells) but surface well pads would be limited to 40-acre spacing, resulting in a reduced number 

of well pads (approximately 1,484 well pads) and a reduction in the surface disturbance of the project. If full 

recovery of the natural gas resource requires the drilling of wellbores at a downhole spacing of 20 acres or 

less, then directional drilling techniques would be required under this alternative. Therefore, impact analysis of 

this alternative assumed 1,557 directionally drilled wellbores to establish the same number of wellbores 

(3,675) as the Proposed Action Alternative.

As discussed under the Proposed Action Alternative, KMG and other operators would drill additional wells at 

an average rate of approximately 358 wells per year over a period of 10 years or until the resource base is fully 

developed. The estimated productive life of each well would be approximately 30 to 50 years. The disturbance 

impacts associated with production facilities (mancamps, compressor stations, water tank batteries, and water 

disposal wells) as well as electrical power requirements is expected to be the same for this alternative as it 

would be for the Proposed Action Alternative. The estimated new surface disturbance for the Resource 
FEIS ES-5 March 2012

Protection Alternative would be 8,147 acres or about 5 percent of the GNBPA. The total estimated surface 

disturbance for this alternative would be 20,615 acres, or approximately 12.7 percent of the GNBPA.

The location of the 40-acre spaced well pads for this alternative would reflect avoidance of the following 

constraining factors: 

• Topography, including steep slopes that preclude construction of a well pad for a vertically drilled well 

without major cuts-and-fills;

• The viewshed of the White River corridor (line-of-sight from the centerline up to 0.5 mile along both 

sides of the river), outside of the Indian Trust Lands; 

• Areas within 600 feet of the White River within the Indian Trust Lands; and

• Areas within the 100-year floodplain of the White River and Green River and 5 miles up major 

tributaries of the White River regardless of surface ownership.

Optimal Recovery Alternative: This alternative maximizes the recovery of natural gas resources by 

increasing surface well pad spacing to 10 acres throughout the GNBPA. Assuming a vertical well would be 

drilled from each new well pad, KMG and other operators would drill an estimated 13,446 new wellbores within 

the GNBPA. KMG’s activities would remain largely as outlined under the Proposed Action Alternative. 

Additional wells would be drilled at an average rate of approximately 672 wells per year using 28 drilling rigs 

and would be drilled over a period of approximately 20 years or until the resource base is fully developed. The 

estimated productive life of each well would be approximately 30 to 50 years. The drilling schedule, well drilling 

and completion parameters, equipment and manpower requirements, compressor stations, water disposal 

facilities, buried water and gas pipelines, electric power facilities, and ancillary facilities would be similar to that 

for the Proposed Action Alternative, but in some cases, more facilities would be constructed because of the 

higher number of wells and increased gas volumes produced under this alternative. The estimated new 

surface disturbance for the Optimal Recovery Alternative would be 42,620 acres or about 26 percent of the 

GNBPA.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis: The BLM considered two alternatives to 

the proposed project that were not carried forward for detailed analysis in subsequent chapters of this 

document. One of these alternatives was one in which no further development would take place in the 

GNBPA. This alternative is not the same as the No Action Alternative, which is required under NEPA and is 

fully analyzed in this document. The No Action Alternative would occur if the BLM were to deny KMG’s 

proposal. The no further development alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis because ongoing 

development already has been approved on valid leases within the GNBPA as disclosed under existing 

NEPA decision documents (Section 2.4.1).

The BLM also considered a phased development alternative, which was intended to rotate concentrated 

disturbance activities through smaller, pre-defined areas (subareas) while the remainder of the GNBPA would 

be less impacted than under the Proposed Action. Under this alternative, one subarea at a time would be open 

to oil and gas construction and development activities for a limited time period, after which construction and 

development activities would cease. Oil and gas extraction and processing would continue (i.e., operational 

activities) in the subarea, while construction and development activities would move to another subarea. An 

additional intent was to encourage concurrent and efficient reclamation of surface disturbance. This 

alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis because the BLM could not impose phased development on 

almost one-half (45 percent) of the GNBPA, phased development could delay surface owner benefits (such as 

payments or hiring preferences for Ute Tribe members), production and maintenance activities would continue 

throughout the currently developed areas of the GNBPA, and development would be concentrated on 

individual grazing allotments (Section 2.9).
FEIS ES-6 March 2012

Affected Environment

Chapter 3.0 of the EIS describes the affected environment of the GNBPA for each of the resources identified 

during internal scoping and listed above. These resources are present within the GNBPA and provide the 

basis to address substantive issues of concern brought forward during internal and public scoping. The 

information presented in Chapter 3.0 provides quantitative data and spatial information where appropriate to 

the resource that serves as a baseline for comparison of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of each of 

the alternatives.

Environmental Consequences

Chapter 4.0 describes the environmental effects of implementing the alternatives on the affected environment 

as described in Chapter 3.0. The chapter is divided into subsections addressing the specific incremental 

impacts for each of the resources identified during internal scoping listed above. The impact analysis for each 

resource was focused on the new disturbance over and above the existing disturbance in the GNBPA

associated with the No Action Alternative. For each of the action alternatives (Proposed Action, Resource 

Protection Alternative, and Optimal Recovery Alternative), the new disturbance is over and above the existing 

disturbance and the new disturbance associated with the No Action Alternative. The resource-specific effects 

of the alternatives are evaluated quantitatively and qualitatively, as appropriate based on available data and 

the nature of the resource analyzed. A comparison of disturbance within the GNBPA associated with the four 

alternatives is provided in Table ES-1. A summary of the Chapter 4.0 impact analyses is provided in 

Table ES-2.

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development are presented in 

Chapter 5.0 of the Draft EIS. For each resource, the Cumulative Impact Study Area (CISA) was developed 

appropriate to the geographical extent of anticipated cumulative impacts. For some resources (e.g., cultural 

resources and Native American traditional values, geology, paleontology, soils and vegetation), the CISA is the 

same as the GNBPA. For other resources (e.g., socioeconomics and air quality), the CISA includes the 

majority of the Uinta Basin, which encompasses the Vernal planning area. 

Due to the intensity of energy development activity in the Vernal planning area, the focus of this analysis is on 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable oil and gas development. A total of 18,666 well pads and 

82,833 acres of cumulative surface disturbance, including the Proposed Action, is estimated to occur due to 

past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects in the Vernal planning area. The Proposed Action would 

represent approximately 20 percent of the total number of well pads and 15 percent of the cumulative surface 

disturbance in the Vernal planning area. The Proposed Action would represent approximately 48 percent of 

the 26,411 acres of cumulative surface disturbance (i.e., existing, No Action, and Proposed Action) in the 

GNBPA.

The 6.07 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of natural gas production over the life of the project under the Proposed Action 

is approximately equivalent to total production for a single year for the entire Mountain region (Utah, North 

Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, and western New Mexico). 

Alternatively, the average annual production under the Proposed Action would represent 3 to 4 percent of the 

annual regional production over the next two decades. Over the first 30 years of the project, the average 

annual production for the Proposed Action would be equivalent to approximately 40 to 45 percent of the 

442 billion cubic feet annual gas production for the State of Utah in 2008.

Below is a summary of cumulative impacts for key resources:

• Air Quality: Cumulative impacts to air quality as predicted from modeling would remain below air 

quality standards under all alternatives except the Optimal Recovery Alternative, for which there is a 

potential to exceed the standard for ozone (75 parts per million). Cumulative visibility modeling shows 

that the No Action Alternative would dominate regional haze impacts at Class I areas, whereas 
FEIS ES-7 March 2012

incremental visibility impacts from the action alternatives would be less than 1.0 deciview (dv). 

Cumulative acid deposition as predicted from modeling would be below established comparative 

deposition values at all Class I and Class II areas within the vicinity of the GNBPA.

• Range Resources: The 12 grazing allotments that make up the CISA for range resources 

encompass an area of 470,228 acres. Total cumulative disturbance to these allotments, including 

impacts from the Proposed Action, would be 37,261 acres; resulting in the loss of 3,149 active animal 

unit months (AUMs). The Proposed Action would account for 1,018 AUMs, or approximately 

32 percent of the total cumulative AUMs lost. Under the Resource Protection Alternative, the proposed 

project would account for 655 AUMs lost (24 percent of the total cumulative loss); under the Optimal 

Recovery Alternative, the proposed project would account for 3,425 AUMs lost (62 percent of the total 

cumulative loss).

• Vegetation: The Proposed Action would represent approximately 48 percent of the 26,411 acres of 

cumulative vegetation loss; the Resource Protection Alternative would represent 37 percent of the 

21,900 acres of cumulative vegetation loss; and the Optimal Recovery Alternative would represent 

76 percent of the 56,373 acres of cumulative vegetation loss within the GNBPA. While cumulative 

surface disturbance, particularly linear disturbances such as pipelines, roads, transmission lines and 

seismic surveys, have the potential to spread noxious weeds and invasive species, these impacts 

would be minimized through the use of wash stations to control mechanical spreading of seeds, 

herbicide spraying, and reclamation of disturbed areas.

• Water: Cumulative impacts to surface water quantity due to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable oil and gas development activities would be minor because the majority of water use 

would be limited and short-term in nature as well as substantially less than other demands (particularly 

agricultural) in the Uintah County region. Compliance with spill prevention and clean-up programs, 

stormwater management plans, and construction best management practices would reduce 

cumulative impacts to surface water quality. Increased injection of produced water into subsurface 

saline aquifers would increase aquifer storage; however, due to implementation of the United States 

(U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency’s Underground Injection Control program, impacts to 

underground sources of drinking water would not be anticipated.

• Wildlife: Cumulative impacts to wildlife resources would be directly related to habitat loss, habitat 

fragmentation, and animal displacement associated with increased surface disturbance. Within the 

CISA for wildlife and fisheries, the Proposed Action would represent approximately 15 percent of the 

82,833 acres of cumulative surface disturbance; the Resource Protection Alternative would represent 

approximately 10 percent of the 78,322 acres of cumulative surface disturbance; and the Optimal 

Recovery Alternative would represent approximately 38 percent of the 112,795 acres of cumulative 

surface disturbance.

Cumulative impacts to fisheries resources include erosion and sedimentation from increased 

surface disturbance, water depletions from the White and Green rivers, and the potential leaks and 

spills of contaminants from facilities or development activities. Due to the presence of federally

endangered fish species in the White and Green rivers, these cumulative impacts would be 

minimized by the protection measures required by the BLM and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Total water depletions of 757 acre-feet/year under the Proposed Action and Resource Protection 

alternatives, and 1,385 acre-feet/year under the Optimal Recovery Alternative, would account for 

less than 1 percent of the total water depletions (182,603 acre-feet/year) within the White and 

Green rivers.
FEIS ES-8 March 2012

Table ES-1 Disturbance Comparison for GNBPA Alternatives (Excluding Existing Condition)

New Facilities

Size

New Surface Disturbance by Alternative

No Action Proposed Action Resource Protection Optimal Recovery

(ROW width 

[feet] or

acres/facility)

Multiplier 

(number or 

miles)

Disturbance 

(acres or % 

of GNBPA)

Multiplier 

(number or 

miles)

Disturbance 

(acres or % 

of GNBPA)

Multiplier 

(number or 

miles)

Disturbance 

(acres or % 

of GNBPA)

Multiplier 

(number or 

miles)

Disturbance 

(acres or % 

of GNBPA)

Roads

Access Roads1 45 feet 276 miles 1,503 760 miles 4,147 594 miles 3,238 1,627 miles 8,875

Well Pads

New Single Well Pads 2.5 acres 1,102 each 2,755 3,041 each 7,603 1,484 each 3,710 12,812 each 32,030

Twinned Well Pads (Additional Disturbance) 0.2 acre 0 each 0 634 each 127 634 each 127 634 each 127

Multi-well Pads (Additional Disturbance) 0.2 acre 0 each 0 0 each 0 1,557 each 311 0 each 0

Well Pad Subtotal 1,102 each 2,755 3,675 each 7,729 3,675 each 4,148 13,446 each 32,157

Construction/Production Facilities

Mancamps 5 acres 0 each 0 2 each 10 2 each 10 2 each 10

Compressor Stations 20 acres 6 each 120 2 each 40 2 each 40 5 each 100

Water Tank Batteries 3 acres 8 each 24 2 each 6 2 each 6 5 each 15

Water Injection Facilities (Additional Disturbance) 0.2 acre 0 each 0.0 15 each 3 15 each 3 25 each 5

Construction/Production Facilities Subtotal 144 59 59 130

Linear Facilities

Gas Gathering Pipelines – Common ROW 0 feet 262 miles 0 722 miles 0 564 miles 0 1,546 miles 0

Gas Gathering Pipelines – Cross-country 20 feet 14 miles 33 38 miles 92 30 miles 72 81 miles 197

Gas Transport Pipelines (Buried) 75 feet 0 miles 0 35 miles 318 35 miles 318 70 miles 636

Water Gathering Pipelines – Common ROW (Surface) 0 feet 0 miles 0 587 miles 0 458 miles 0 1,256 miles 0

Water Connecting Pipelines (Buried) 75 feet 26 miles 236 25 miles 227 25 miles 227 50 miles 455

Electric Power Lines 100 feet 2.5 miles 30 7 miles 85 7 miles 85 14 miles 170

Linear Facilities Subtotal 300 722 702 1,458

New Surface Disturbance (acre) 4,702 12,658 8,147 42,620

GNBPA New Disturbance (%) 2.9% 7.8% 5.0% 26.2%

No Action Alternative New Disturbance (acre) 4,702 4,702 4,702

Existing Surface Disturbance (acre) 7,766 7,766 7,766 7,766

Total Surface Disturbance (acre) 12,468 25,125 20,615 55,088

Total GNBPA Disturbed (%) 7.7% 15.4% 12.7% 33.8%

Surface Disturbance Interim Reclamation Estimates2

Reclaimable New Surface Disturbance (acre) 1,753 4,731 3,387 13,189

Reclaimable No Action New Surface Dist (acre) 1,753 1,753 1,753

Reclaimable Existing Surface Disturbance (acre) 3,267 3,267 3,267 3,267

Total Est. Reclaimable Surface Disturbance (acre) 5,020 9,751 8,407 18,209

Reclaimable Surface Disturbance (%) 40.3% 39% 41% 33%

Reclaimable Surface Dist as % of GNBPA 3.1% 6.0% 5.2% 11.2%

1 Assume access road length of 0.25 mile/well pad for No Action and Proposed Action; 0.4 mile/well pad for Resource Protection Alternative; 0.127 mile/well pad for Optimal Recovery Alternative. 2 Interim reclamation estimates are based on the potential to reclaim 0.5 acre per new well pad, 27 feet ROW for new access roads, and all new Linear Facilities summarized in the table above.
FEIS ES-9 March 2012

Table ES-2 Impact Comparison by Resource for All Alternatives

Resource

No Action 

Alternative

Proposed Action 

Alternative

Resource Protection 

Alternative

Optimal Recovery 

Alternative Additional Discussion

Air Quality

Air Quality (exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards) No No No Potential1 Section 4.1

Acid Deposition (exceed U.S. Forest Service threshold) Yes (1 area)2 Yes (1 area)2 Yes (1 area)2 Yes (1 area)

2 Section 4.1

Visibility (Class I) Cumulative 

impacts > 1.0 dv

Incremental impacts 

< 1.0 dv

Incremental impacts 

< 1.0 dv

Incremental impacts 

< 1.0 dv

Section 4.1

Visibility (Class II) Cumulative 

impacts > 1.0 dv

Incremental impacts 

> 1.0 dv at 2 areas

Incremental impacts > 

1.0 dv at 2 areas

Incremental impacts 

> 1.0 dv at 2 areas

Section 4.1

Greenhouse Gas Emissions (103 tonne carbon dioxide 

equivalents/year)

1,761 2,754 2,754 5,485 Section 4.1

Cultural Resources and Native American Traditional Values

Sites potentially encountered (incremental due to new surface 

disturbance)

52 142 90 475 Section 4.2

Geology 

Recoverable Gas Resources Over the Life of the wells (Tcf) 1.41 6.07 6.07 15.44 Section 4.3 

Recoverable Condensate Resources Over the Life of the Wells 

(million barrels [bbl])

22.3 86.5 86.5 118 Section 4.3 

Land Use

White River Special Recreation Management Area (incremental 

acres disturbed)

7.8 49 32 164 Section 4.4 

Paleontology

Potential Fossil Yield Classification Class 4 or 5 areas (potential 

incremental acres disturbed)

4,467 12,025 7,740 40,489 Section 4.5 

Range Resources

AUMs Lost – BLM 352 947 609 3,186 Tables 4.6-1, 4.6-2, 4.6-4, and 4.6-6

AUMs Lost – BIA 26 71 46 239 Tables 4.6-1, 4.6-2, 4.6-4, and 4.6-6

Total AUMs Lost 378 1,018 655 3,425

Number Rangeland Improvements Impacted (BLM land only) 12 26 15 27 Tables 4.6-3, 4.6-5, and 4.6-7

Socioeconomics

Energy Resource Recovery Section 4.8 and Table 4.8-1

Natural Gas (Tcf) 1.41 6.07 6.07 15.44

Oil Condensates (million bbl) 22.3 86.5 86.5 117.9

Projected end of production (year) 2051 2059 2059 2066

Employment (number jobs) Section 4.8 and Tables 4.8-5, 4.8-9, 

and 4.8-13

Peak – development 1,790 4,302 4,302 9,024

Average – production 239 875 875 1,712

Population – Duchesne and Uintah counties Section 4.8 and Tables 4.8-6, 4.8-10, 

and 4.8-14

Peak – development 2,585 5,590 5,590 8,368

Average – production 450 1,508 1,508 2,732
FEIS ES-10 March 2012

Table ES-2 Impact Comparison by Resource for All Alternatives

Resource

No Action 

Alternative

Proposed Action 

Alternative

Resource Protection 

Alternative

Optimal Recovery 

Alternative Additional Discussion

Temporary and permanent housing demand in Duchesne and 

Uintah counties during development (units)

1,593 3,447 3,447 5,159 Section 4.8 and Tables 4.8-6, 4.8-10, 

and 4.8-14

Grazing – Reduction in annual cash farm receipts ($24 per 

AUM lost)

As much as

$7,632 lost

As much as

$24,432 lost

As much as

$15,720 lost

As much as

$82,200 lost

Section 4.8 

Public Sector Revenues – Cumulative Life of Field3 (millions of 

2006 dollars)

Section 4.8 and Tables 4.8-8, 4.8-12, 

and 4.8-16

Ad Valorem Taxes 89.2 343.8 343.8 856.1

Utah Severance Taxes 270.5 1,146.7 1,146.7 2,709.5

Federal and Tribal Mineral Royalties 417.9 2,692.4 2,692.4 6,332.8

State Public School Fund Royalties 158.9 673.1 673.1 1,582.5

Combined Public Sector Revenues 1,154.3 4,856.0 4,856.0 11,481.0

Percent Increase over No Action N/A 321 321 895

Soils

High Constraint (incremental acres disturbed) 4,396 11,835 7,618 39,849 Table 4.9-1, Appendix F

Moderate Constraint (incremental acres disturbed) 141 380 244 1,279

Low Constraint (incremental acres disturbed) 165 443 285 1,492

Transportation and Access

New Access Roads (miles) 276 760 594 1,627 Section 4.10

Increase in Traffic Volume at Full Production (total number 

vehicle miles)

0 20,948 20,948 59,162 Section 4.10

Number of Annual Incidents (mostly minor accidents and spills) 22 58 58 201 Section 4.10

Vegetation

Uinta Basin hookless cactus potential preferred habitat 

(estimated incremental acres disturbed)

1,600 4,266 2,667 13,866 Section 4.11

Vegetation Type (estimated incremental acres disturbed) Tables 4.11-1, 4.11-2, 4.11-3, 4.11-4

Salt-desert shrubland 1,932 5,279 3,437 17,775

Sagebrush shrubland 1,663 4,548 2,961 15,313

Grassland 455 1,246 811 4,194

Cliff/Canyon 217 593 386 1,997

Riparian 143 189 29 637

Pinyon-juniper woodland 82 225 147 758

Agriculture 30 81 53 274

Barren 178 490 319 1,650

Developed 2 7 4 22

Visual Resources

Visual Resource Management Class II areas on federal lands 

(incremental acres disturbed)

0 91 58 305 Section 4.12 

Incremental Disturbance Visible from (acres): Section 4.12

Boaters on the White River 1,287 3,461 2,218 11,536

Goblin City Overlook 140 377 242 1,257
FEIS ES-11 March 2012

Table ES-2 Impact Comparison by Resource for All Alternatives

Resource

No Action 

Alternative

Proposed Action 

Alternative

Resource Protection 

Alternative

Optimal Recovery 

Alternative Additional Discussion

Water Resources

100-year Floodplains (incremental acres disturbed) 325 288 0 1,510 Section 4.13 

Total Water Use (acre-feet/year) 454 757 757 1,385 Section 4.13 

Produced Water Withdrawals (acre-feet per year) 415 1,385 1,385 5,067 Sections 2.4.2.5, 2.6.2.6, 2.7.2.4, 

and 2.8.2.6

Produced Water Injected (acre-feet per year) 62 1,032 1,032 4,714 Sections 2.4.2.5, 2.6.2.6, 2.7.2.4, 

and 2.8.2.6

Wilderness Characteristics

BLM White River Natural Area (incremental acres disturbed) 0 0 0 0 Section 4.14

Non-wilderness Study Area Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics (estimated incremental acres disturbed)

81 217 139 724 Section 4.14

Wildlife Resources

Big Game Habitat (estimated incremental acres disturbed) Tables 4.15-1, 4.15-3, 4.15-5, and 

4.15-7

Pronghorn Year-long Crucial 3,183 10,264 6,607 34,562

Pronghorn Year-long Substantial 67 179 116 604

Mule Deer Year-long Crucial 553 1,488 958 5,011

Mule Deer Winter Substantial 68 183 118 615

Elk Winter Substantial 9 24 16 82

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Year-long Crucial 781 2,103 1,354 7,082

Bison Year-long Crucial Range 3,406 9,168 5,901 30,869

Potential White-tailed Prairie Dog Habitat (estimated 

incremental acres disturbed)

4,258 11,644 7,581 39,206 Section 4.15

Greater Sage-grouse Habitat (estimated incremental acres

disturbed)

Tables 4.15-2, 4.15-4, 4.15-6, and 

4.15-8

2.0 Mile Lek Buffer 442 1,190 766 4,007

Nesting 675 1,817 1,169 6,117

Brooding 1,782 4,797 3,088 16,153

Winter 1,356 3,649 2,349 12,288

Fisheries Resources 

Estimated total water depletions for life of the project (acre/feet) 2,270 7,571 7,571 27,700 Section 4.15

1 2006 meteorological data show modeled concentrations of ozone between 76 and 79 ppb; 2005 meteorological data show modeled concentrations of ozone below 76 ppb. 2 Modeled deposition from action alternatives does not exceed Federal Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Workgroup thresholds, except for Mesa Verde National Park, which is predicted to exceed thresholds for the No 

Action Alternative. 3 The public sector revenue projections assume constant natural gas prices of $4.59/thousand cubic feet and $45/barrel for liquids. However, energy prices fluctuate over time. Actual sector revenues could be higher or 

lower than shown, depending on future prices and production. Such variance would affect all alternatives.
FEIS AA-1 March 2012

Acronyms and Abbreviations

°F degrees Fahrenheit

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

μS/cm microSiemens per centimeter

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

ACEPM applicant-committed environmental protection measure

ADT average daily traffic 

AHPA Archaeological and Historical Preservation Act of 1974

AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978

AMP Allotment Management Plan

amsl above mean sea level

AO Authorized Officer

APD Application for Permit to Drill

API American Petroleum Institute

APLIC Avian Power Line Interaction Committee

AQRV Air Quality Related Value

AQS Air Quality System

ARMS Air Resource Management Strategy

ARPA Archaeology Resources Protection Act of 1979

AUM animal unit month

BA biological assessment

bbl barrels

BCC Birds of Conservation Concern

Bcf billion cubic feet

BCPD barrels of condensate per day

BHCA Bird Habitat Conservation Area

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP best management practice

BSC biological soil crusts

BTEX benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene

Btu British thermal unit

BWPD barrels of water per day

CAA Clean Air Act
FEIS AA-2 March 2012

CAGR Compounded Annual Growth Rate

CCC Civilian Conservation Corps

CDOW Colorado Division of Wildlife

CDP Census Designated Place

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CH4 methane

CISAs Cumulative Impact Study Areas

CMAQ Community Multiscale Air Quality

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

CO2e carbon dioxide equivalents

COA Condition of Approval

CWA Clean Water Act

dBA decibels on the A-weighted scale

dv deciview

DWSPZ drinking water source protection zone

EA environmental assessment

EIA Energy Information Administration

EIS environmental impact statement

EO Executive Order

ESA Endangered Species Act

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FLAG Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Workgroup

FLMs Federal Land Managers

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

FMR federal mineral royalty

FOOGLRA Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987

FR Federal Register

FY Fiscal Year

GHG greenhouse gas

GIS Geographic Information System

GNBPA Greater Natural Buttes Project Area

GWP global warming potential

H2S hydrogen sulfide

HAP hazardous air pollutant
FEIS AA-3 March 2012

hp horsepower

IC internal combustion

IM Instruction Memorandum

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

kg/ha-year kilograms per hectare-year

km kilometer

KMG Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP

KOSLA Known Oil Shale Leasing Areas

kV kilovolt

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MCD multi-county district

Mcf thousand cubic feet

mg/L milligrams per Liter

MLA Mineral Leasing Act of 1920

MMbl million barrels

MMcfd million cubic feet per day

mmhos/cm millimhos per centimeter

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MPE Model Performance Evaluation

N2O nitrous oxide

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990

NAIP National Agriculture Imagery Program

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1986

NNSR Non-attainment New Source Review

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOA Notice of Availability

NOI Notice of Intent

NOS Notice of Staking

NOX oxides of nitrogen

NPS National Park Service

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places
FEIS AA-4 March 2012

NSO No Surface Occupancy

NSPS New Source Performance Standards

NWIS National Water Information System

OHV off-highway vehicle

OSEC Oil Shale Exploration Company

PFYC Potential Fossil Yield Classification

PIF Partners in Flight

PILT payments-in-lieu of taxes

PL Public Law

PM particulate matter

PM10 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less

PM2.5 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less

PMZ Primary Management Zone

ppb parts per billion

ppm parts per million

ppmw parts per million weight

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

psi pound per square inch

PTE potential to emit

PWR Public Water Reserve

RAPPS Reasonable and Prudent Practices for Stabilization

RDG Resource Development Group

RfC Reference Concentrations

RFD reasonably foreseeable development

RIP Recovery and Implementation Program

RMP Resource Management Plan

ROD Record of Decision

ROW right-of-way

RVs recreational vehicles

SAAQS State Ambient Air Quality Standards

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

scf standard cubic feet

SDEIS Supplement to the Draft EIS

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SI spark-ignition
FEIS AA-5 March 2012

SMA surface management agencies

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SPCC Plan Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan

SR State Road

SRMA Special Recreation Management Area

SSA sole source aquifer

SSD Special Service District

SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic

SSXPII Southern System Extension II

STATSGO General Soil Map

STSA Special Tar Sand Areas

SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

SWReGAP Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project

Tcf trillion cubic feet

TDS total dissolved solids

TEG tri-ethylene glycol

tpy tons per year

TSL Toxic Screening Level

TSS total suspended solids

UCAT Utah College of Applied Technology

UDAQ Utah Division of Air Quality

UDEQ Utah Department of Environmental Quality

UDNR Utah Department of Natural Resources

UDOGM Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining

UDOT Utah Department of Transportation

UDOWS Utah Department of Workforce Services

UDWR Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

UGOPB Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget

UGS Utah Geologic Survey

UIC Underground Injection Control

UNHP Utah Natural Heritage Program

UNPS Utah Native Plant Society

UPDES Utah Pollution Discharge Elimination System

U.S. United States

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USC United States Code
FEIS AA-6 March 2012

USCA United States Code Annotated

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDOE U.S. Department of Energy

USDOI U.S. Department of the Interior

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation

USDW underground source of drinking water

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

USITLA Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration

UTAG Utah Air Resource Technical Advisory Group

VOC volatile organic compound

VRM Visual Resource Management

WIC Wyoming Interstate Company

WMU wildlife management unit

WRAP Western Regional Air Partnership

WSA wilderness study area
March 2012 i FEIS

Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................ES-1

Acronyms and Abbreviations........................................................................................................................AA-1

1.0 Introduction and Background..................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Project Location and Background.......................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Summary of Proposed Action.............................................................................................................1-1

1.3 Purpose and Need ..............................................................................................................................1-4

1.4 Environmental Analysis Process ........................................................................................................1-4

1.4.1 Decisions to be Made After the EIS Process........................................................................1-5

1.4.2 Supplement to the Draft EIS..................................................................................................1-5

1.4.3 Final EIS.................................................................................................................................1-6

1.5 Legal and Policy Considerations ........................................................................................................1-6

1.5.1 Leases and Leasing History..................................................................................................1-6

1.5.2 Conformance with BLM Management Plans and Policies ...................................................1-7

1.5.3 Consistency with Other Federal and Local Land Management Plans and Policies............1-7

1.5.4 Authorizing Actions and Project Relationships to Statutes and Regulations ......................1-8

1.6 Scoping..............................................................................................................................................1-10

1.6.1 Public Scoping .....................................................................................................................1-10

1.6.2 Internal Scoping and Issue Identification ............................................................................1-11

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives ..........................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Greater Natural Buttes Project Area...................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Existing Oil and Gas Infrastructure in the GNBPA.............................................................................2-2

2.3 Management Common to All Alternatives..........................................................................................2-3

2.4 No Action Alternative...........................................................................................................................2-6

2.4.1 Field Development Plan and Schedule.................................................................................2-7

2.4.2 Alternative-specific Activities .................................................................................................2-7

2.5 Field Development Activities Common to All Action Alternatives....................................................2-11

2.5.1 Pre-construction Activities ...................................................................................................2-11

2.5.2 Access Roads......................................................................................................................2-12

2.5.3 Drilling and Completion of Vertical Wells............................................................................2-13

2.5.4 Gas Production, Distribution, and Maintenance .................................................................2-16

2.5.5 Produced Water Disposal....................................................................................................2-18

2.5.6 Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste................................................................................2-20

2.5.7 Reclamation and Abandonment..........................................................................................2-22

2.6 Proposed Action Alternative..............................................................................................................2-22

2.6.1 Field Development Plan and Schedule...............................................................................2-24

2.6.2 Alternative-specific Activities ...............................................................................................2-24
March 2012 ii FEIS

2.7 Resource Protection Alternative .......................................................................................................2-27

2.7.1 Field Development Plan and Schedule...............................................................................2-29

2.7.2 Alternative-specific Activities ...............................................................................................2-29

2.8 Optimal Recovery Alternative ...........................................................................................................2-31

2.8.1 Field Development Plan and Schedule...............................................................................2-32

2.8.2 Alternative-specific Activities ...............................................................................................2-34

2.9 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Consideration ..............................................2-35

2.10 Comparison of Alternatives...............................................................................................................2-36

3.0 Affected Environment ...............................................................................................................................3-1

3.1 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................3-2

3.1.1 Regional Climate ...................................................................................................................3-2

3.1.2 Air Quality...............................................................................................................................3-3

3.1.3 Regulatory Framework ..........................................................................................................3-4

3.2 Cultural Resources and Native American Traditional Values..........................................................3-14

3.2.1 Cultural Resources ..............................................................................................................3-14

3.2.2 Native American Traditional Values....................................................................................3-21

3.3 Geology .............................................................................................................................................3-24

3.3.1 Mineral Resources...............................................................................................................3-24

3.4 Land Use ...........................................................................................................................................3-30

3.4.1 White River Special Recreation Management Area...........................................................3-30

3.5 Paleontology......................................................................................................................................3-34

3.6 Range Resources..............................................................................................................................3-38

3.7 Recreation .........................................................................................................................................3-42

3.8 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice....................................................................................3-45

3.8.1 Study Area for Socioeconomics..........................................................................................3-45

3.8.2 Background on the Role of Oil and Gas Development in the Region ...............................3-45

3.8.3 Local Population ..................................................................................................................3-47

3.8.4 Local Economy and Labor Force........................................................................................3-49

3.8.5 Specific Economic Sectors..................................................................................................3-54

3.8.6 Community Facilities and Services .....................................................................................3-57

3.8.7 Public Expenditures and Revenues....................................................................................3-62

3.8.8 Population and Employment Projections............................................................................3-67

3.8.9 Community Social Conditions .............................................................................................3-68

3.8.10 Environmental Justice .........................................................................................................3-70

3.9 Soils ...................................................................................................................................................3-72

3.9.1 Soils Characterization..........................................................................................................3-72

3.9.2 Soil Constraints....................................................................................................................3-72

3.9.3 Biological Soil Crusts...........................................................................................................3-75

3.10 Transportation and Access ...............................................................................................................3-76

3.11 Vegetation Resources.......................................................................................................................3-78

3.11.1 General Vegetation..............................................................................................................3-78
March 2012 iii FEIS

3.11.2 Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species................................................................................3-81

3.11.3 Special Status Plant Species ..............................................................................................3-83

3.12 Visual Resources ..............................................................................................................................3-89

3.12.1 Visual Resource Management Classification .....................................................................3-89

3.13 Water Resources...............................................................................................................................3-93

3.13.1 Surface Water......................................................................................................................3-93

3.13.2 Floodplains, Waters of the U.S., and Wetlands................................................................3-102

3.13.3 Groundwater Resources ...................................................................................................3-107

3.14 Wilderness Characteristics .............................................................................................................3-115

3.14.1 BLM White River Natural Area..........................................................................................3-115

3.14.2 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics ...........................................................3-115

3.15 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources ...................................................................................................3-118

3.15.1 Wildlife................................................................................................................................3-118

3.15.2 Fisheries Resources..........................................................................................................3-134

4.0 Environmental Impacts .............................................................................................................................4-1

4.1 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................4-2

4.1.1 No Action Alternative .............................................................................................................4-6

4.1.2 Proposed Action Alternative................................................................................................4-10

4.1.3 Resource Protection Alternative..........................................................................................4-18

4.1.4 Optimal Recovery Alternative..............................................................................................4-19

4.1.5 Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of the Human Environment and 

Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity ...............................................4-23

4.1.6 Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitment of Resources..........................................................4-24

4.2 Cultural Resources and Native American Traditional Values..........................................................4-25

4.2.1 No Action Alternative ...........................................................................................................4-25

4.2.2 Proposed Action Alternative................................................................................................4-25

4.2.3 Resource Protection Alternative..........................................................................................4-28

4.2.4 Optimal Recovery Alternative..............................................................................................4-28

4.2.5 Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of the Human Environment and 

Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity ...............................................4-28

4.2.6 Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitment of Resources..........................................................4-29

4.3 Geology .............................................................................................................................................4-30

4.3.1 No Action Alternative ...........................................................................................................4-30

4.3.2 Proposed Action Alternative................................................................................................4-30

4.3.3 Resource Protection Alternative..........................................................................................4-31

4.3.4 Optimal Recovery Alternative..............................................................................................4-32

4.3.5 Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of the Human Environment and 

Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity ...............................................4-33

4.3.6 Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitment of Resources..........................................................4-33

4.4 Land Use ...........................................................................................................................................4-34

4.4.1 No Action Alternative ...........................................................................................................4-34

4.4.2 Proposed Action Alternative................................................................................................4-34

4.4.3 Resource Protection Alternative..........................................................................................4-35
March 2012 iv FEIS

4.4.4 Optimal Recovery Alternative..............................................................................................4-36

4.4.5 Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of the Human Environment and 

Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity ...............................................4-37

4.4.6 Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitment of Resources..........................................................4-37

4.5 Paleontology......................................................................................................................................4-38

4.5.1 No Action Alternative ...........................................................................................................4-38

4.5.2 Proposed Action Alternative................................................................................................4-38

4.5.3 Resource Protection Alternative..........................................................................................4-39

4.5.4 Optimal Recovery Alternative..............................................................................................4-39

4.5.5 Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of the Human Environment and 

Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity ...............................................4-39

4.5.6 Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitment of Resources..........................................................4-39

4.6 Range Resources..............................................................................................................................4-40

4.6.1 No Action Alternative ...........................................................................................................4-40

4.6.2 Proposed Action Alternative................................................................................................4-42

4.6.3 Resource Protection Alternative..........................................................................................4-47

4.6.4 Optimal Recovery Alternative..............................................................................................4-49

4.6.5 Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of the Human Environment and 

Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity ...............................................4-51

4.6.6 Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitment of Resources..........................................................4-52

4.7 Recreation .........................................................................................................................................4-53

4.7.1 No Action Alternative ...........................................................................................................4-53

4.7.2 Proposed Action Alternative................................................................................................4-53

4.7.3 Resource Protection Alternative..........................................................................................4-54

4.7.4 Optimal Recovery Alternative..............................................................................................4-54

4.7.5 Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of the Human Environment and 

Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity ...............................................4-55

4.7.6 Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitment of Resources..........................................................4-55

4.8 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice....................................................................................4-56

4.8.1 No Action Alternative ...........................................................................................................4-61

4.8.2 Proposed Action Alternative................................................................................................4-68

4.8.3 Resource Protection Alternative..........................................................................................4-78

4.8.4 Optimal Recovery Alternative..............................................................................................4-79

4.8.5 Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of the Human Environment and 

Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity ...............................................4-85

4.8.6 Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitment of Resources..........................................................4-86

4.9 Soils ...................................................................................................................................................4-87

4.9.1 No Action Alternative ...........................................................................................................4-89

4.9.2 Proposed Action Alternative................................................................................................4-91

4.9.3 Resource Protection Alternative..........................................................................................4-93

4.9.4 Optimal Recovery Alternative..............................................................................................4-94

4.9.5 Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of the Human Environment and 

Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity ...............................................4-95

4.9.6 Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitment of Resources..........................................................4-95
March 2012 v FEIS

4.10 Transportation and Access ...............................................................................................................4-96

4.10.1 No Action Alternative ...........................................................................................................4-96

4.10.2 Proposed Action Alternative................................................................................................4-96

4.10.3 Resource Protection Alternative..........................................................................................4-98

4.10.4 Optimal Recovery Alternative..............................................................................................4-98

4.10.5 Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of the Human Environment and 

Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity ...............................................4-99

4.10.6 Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitment of Resources..........................................................4-99

4.11 Vegetation........................................................................................................................................4-100

4.11.1 No Action Alternative .........................................................................................................4-100

4.11.2 Proposed Action Alternative..............................................................................................4-104

4.11.3 Resource Protection Alternative........................................................................................4-114

4.11.4 Optimal Recovery Alternative............................................................................................4-115

4.11.5 Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of the Human Environment and 

Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity .............................................4-116

4.11.6 Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitment of Resources........................................................4-116

4.12 Visual Resources ............................................................................................................................4-118

4.12.1 No Action Alternative .........................................................................................................4-118

4.12.2 Proposed Action Alternative..............................................................................................4-118

4.12.3 Resource Protection Alternative........................................................................................4-120

4.12.4 Optimal Recovery Alternative............................................................................................4-121

4.12.5 Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of the Human Environment and 

Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity .............................................4-122

4.12.6 Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitment of Resources........................................................4-122

4.13 Water Resources.............................................................................................................................4-123

4.13.1 No Action Alternative .........................................................................................................4-125

4.13.2 Proposed Action Alternative..............................................................................................4-133

4.13.3 Resource Protection Alternative........................................................................................4-140

4.13.4 Optimal Recovery Alternative............................................................................................4-142

4.13.5 Relationship between Local Short-term Uses of the Human Environment and 

Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity .............................................4-145

4.13.6 Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitment of Resources........................................................4-145

4.14 Wilderness Characteristics .............................................................................................................4-146

4.14.1 No Action Alternative .........................................................................................................4-146

4.14.2 Proposed Action Alternative..............................................................................................4-146

4.14.3 Resource Protection Alternative........................................................................................4-147

4.14.4 Optimal Recovery Alternative............................................................................................4-148

4.14.5 Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of the Human Environment and 

Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity .............................................4-149

4.14.6 Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitment of Resources........................................................4-149

4.15 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources ...................................................................................................4-150

4.15.1 No Action Alternative .........................................................................................................4-150

4.15.2 Proposed Action Alternative..............................................................................................4-160

4.15.3 Resource Protection Alternative........................................................................................4-169

4.15.4 Optimal Recovery Alternative............................................................................................4-175
March 2012 vi FEIS

4.15.5 Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of the Human Environment and 

Maintenance and Enhancement of the Long-term Productivity.......................................4-181

4.15.6 Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitment of Resources........................................................4-181

5.0 Cumulative Impacts...................................................................................................................................5-1

5.1 Time Frame .........................................................................................................................................5-1

5.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects ..........................................................5-1

5.2.1 Oil and Gas ............................................................................................................................5-1

5.2.2 Oil Shale...............................................................................................................................5-11

5.2.3 Gilsonite ...............................................................................................................................5-11

5.2.4 Tar Sands.............................................................................................................................5-12

5.2.5 Sand and Gravel..................................................................................................................5-12

5.2.6 Other Activities.....................................................................................................................5-12

5.3 Cumulative Impacts by Resource.....................................................................................................5-13

5.3.1 Air Quality.............................................................................................................................5-13

5.3.2 Cultural Resources and Native American Traditional Values ............................................5-15

5.3.3 Geology................................................................................................................................5-16

5.3.4 Land Use..............................................................................................................................5-16

5.3.5 Paleontology ........................................................................................................................5-16

5.3.6 Range Resources................................................................................................................5-17

5.3.7 Recreation............................................................................................................................5-22

5.3.8 Socioeconomics...................................................................................................................5-22

5.3.9 Soils......................................................................................................................................5-25

5.3.10 Transportation......................................................................................................................5-26

5.3.11 Vegetation............................................................................................................................5-26

5.3.12 Visual Resources.................................................................................................................5-29

5.3.13 Water Resources .................................................................................................................5-30

5.3.14 Wilderness Characteristics..................................................................................................5-33

5.3.15 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources........................................................................................5-34

6.0 Consultation and Coordination................................................................................................................6-1

6.1 Agency Participation/Coordination......................................................................................................6-1

6.2 Public Involvement ..............................................................................................................................6-8

6.2.1 Public Scoping .......................................................................................................................6-8

6.2.2 Public Comments on the Draft EIS and SDEIS....................................................................6-9

6.3 List of Preparers and Reviewers.......................................................................................................6-13

7.0 Glossary......................................................................................................................................................7-1

8.0 References..................................................................................................................................................8-1

9.0 Index ............................................................................................................................................................9-1
March 2012 vii FEIS

List of Appendices

Appendix A – Applicant-Committed Environmental Protection Measures

Appendix B – Interdisciplinary Team Analysis Record Checklist

Appendix C – Transportation Plan

Appendix D – Example Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan

Appendix E – BLM Green River District Reclamation Guidelines and KMG Draft Reclamation Plan

Appendix F – Soil Mapping Data

Appendix G – Air Quality Technical Support Document

Appendix H – Special Status Species List

Appendix I – Underground Water Rights In and Within One Mile of the GNBPA

Appendix J – Migratory Bird Species List

Appendix K – Integrated Weed Management Plan

Appendix L – Range Improvement Specifications and Design Drawings

Appendix M – BLM and USFWS Clay Reed-mustard and Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus Conservation 

Measures

Appendix N – Graham’s Beardtongue Conservation Measures

Appendix O – Long-term Monitoring Plan for Water Resources

Appendix P – Draft EIS and SDEIS Public Comments and Responses

Appendix Q – Biological Opinion
March 2012 viii FEIS

List of Tables

Table 1.5-1 Key Federal, State, and Local Permits, Approvals, and Authorizing Actions for 

Construction, Operation, Maintenance, and Abandonment of the Proposed Action .................1-8

Table 2.1-1 Surface and Oil and Gas Minerals Ownership within the GNBPA .............................................2-2

Table 2.2-1 Existing Facilities ..........................................................................................................................2-2

Table 2.3-1 Key Oil and Gas Development and Production Guidelines Applicable to all Alternatives.........2-3

Table 2.4-1 No Action Alternative Summary of New Surface Disturbance....................................................2-6

Table 2.6-1 Proposed Action Alternative Summary of New Surface Disturbance.......................................2-23

Table 2.7-1 Resource Protection Alternative Summary of New Surface Disturbance ................................2-28

Table 2.8-1 Optimal Recovery Alternative Summary of New Surface Disturbance ....................................2-31

Table 2.10-1 Disturbance Comparison for GNBPA Alternatives (Excluding Existing Condition)..................2-37

Table 2.10-2 Impact Comparison by Resource for All Alternatives................................................................2-38

Table 3.1-1 Monthly Climate Summary for Vernal Airport, Utah ....................................................................3-2

Table 3.1-2 Ambient Air Quality Background Values......................................................................................3-3

Table 3.1-3 Applicable Ambient Air Quality Standards...................................................................................3-8

Table 3.1-4 Class I and Sensitive Class II Areas of Concern for Air Quality Impact Analysis ......................3-8

Table 3.1-5 PSD Increments for Class I and Class II Areas...........................................................................3-9

Table 3.2-1 Prehistoric Site Types and Cultural Affiliations..........................................................................3-18

Table 3.2-2 Historic Site Types and Cultural Affiliations...............................................................................3-19

Table 3.2-3 Multicomponent Site Types and Cultural Affiliations.................................................................3-20

Table 3.2-4 Site Eligibility and Land Status...................................................................................................3-21

Table 3.3-1 Cumulative Production in the GNBPA by Producing Zone 1984 – 2006 .................................3-27

Table 3.5-1 Identified Paleontological Resources of the Uinta Formation in the GNBPA...........................3-35

Table 3.6-1 Grazing Allotments Within the GNBPA......................................................................................3-39

Table 3.6-2 Range Improvements within the GNBPA ..................................................................................3-41

Table 3.7-1 Mule Deer Hunting Statistics......................................................................................................3-42

Table 3.7-2 Elk Hunting Statistics..................................................................................................................3-43

Table 3.8-1 Oil and Gas Development Summary, 2005 to 2008 .................................................................3-45

Table 3.8-2 County Population Trends..........................................................................................................3-47

Table 3.8-3 Population Growth Trends within Each County.........................................................................3-47

Table 3.8-4 Racial Demographics by Community ........................................................................................3-48

Table 3.8-5 Components of Population Change...........................................................................................3-48

Table 3.8-6 Resident Population on the Uintah and Ouray Reservation .....................................................3-49

Table 3.8-7 Composition of Total Employment in the Study Area ...............................................................3-50

Table 3.8-8 Non-Farm Wage and Salary Employment by Major Industry, 2007.........................................3-50

Table 3.8-9 Labor Force and Unemployment Rates.....................................................................................3-52
March 2012 ix FEIS

Table 3.8-10 Per Capita Personal Income ......................................................................................................3-53

Table 3.8-11 Private Non-Farm Average Monthly Wages, by Major Industry, 2006.....................................3-53

Table 3.8-12 Composition of Total Personal Income, 2005 ...........................................................................3-54

Table 3.8-13 Workforce Commuting in Duchesne and Uintah Counties, 2000.............................................3-54

Table 3.8-14 Approximate Value of Annual Livestock Production from Federal Grazing Leases ................3-55

Table 3.8-15 Oil and Gas Development Related Businesses in the GNBPA, 2006......................................3-57

Table 3.8-16 County Housing Stock By Type, 2000.......................................................................................3-58

Table 3.8-17 Total Housing Units by County ..................................................................................................3-58

Table 3.8-18 Cumulative Building Permits for New Residential Development ..............................................3-58

Table 3.8-19 Homes Sales and Average Prices in the Uinta Basin...............................................................3-59

Table 3.8-20 Selected Characteristics, Duchesne County and Uintah School Districts................................3-61

Table 3.8-21 Total County Expenditures by Function, in Millions ..................................................................3-62

Table 3.8-22 Total Revenue for County Government, in Millions...................................................................3-63

Table 3.8-23 Total City Expenditures by Function, in Millions........................................................................3-63

Table 3.8-24 Total Revenue for City Government, in Millions ........................................................................3-64

Table 3.8-25 Total Public School District Expenditures by Function, in Millions ...........................................3-64

Table 3.8-26 Total Revenues for Public School Districts, in Millions .............................................................3-65

Table 3.8-27 Ad Valorem Tax Base of Local Governments, 2006 (In Millions).............................................3-65

Table 3.8-28 Mineral Lease Distributions to Duchesne and Uintah Counties from UDOT 

Appropriation, in Millions ............................................................................................................3-66

Table 3.8-29 Utah Permanent Community Impact Fund Grant and Loan Funding, Fiscal 

Years 2001 to 2005 ....................................................................................................................3-67

Table 3.8-30 Population Projections to 2040 ..................................................................................................3-67

Table 3.8-31 Employment Projections to 2040 ...............................................................................................3-67

Table 3.8-32 Poverty and Minority Population Characteristics of Selected Communities, 2000 ..................3-71

Table 3.10-1 BLM Road Types within the GNBPA.........................................................................................3-76

Table 3.10-2 Traffic Density for Project Region ..............................................................................................3-76

Table 3.11-1 Vegetation Cover Types within the GNBPA..............................................................................3-78

Table 3.11-2 Designated Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species Potentially Occurring Within 

the GNBPA .................................................................................................................................3-82

Table 3.13-1 Drainage Areas of Selected Streams ........................................................................................3-93

Table 3.13-2 Precipitation-Frequency-Duration Values for the Study Area...................................................3-94

Table 3.13-3 Mean Annual Peak Flow for Smaller Streams, Cubic Feet per Second...................................3-96

Table 3.13-4 Estimated Flood Flows for Smaller Streams, Cubic Feet per Second .....................................3-96

Table 3.13-5 Beneficial Use Designations for Surface Waters ......................................................................3-97

Table 3.13-6 Summary of Selected Water Quality Data near the GNBPA................................................3-101

Table 3.15-1 Greater Sage-grouse Lek Counts (males only) from 1999-2009 ...........................................3-131
March 2012 x FEIS

Table 4.1-1 Summary of Criteria Pollutant Emissions for Each Scenario......................................................4-3

Table 4.1-2 Summary of Potential Increases in Emissions of HAPs for Project-related Alternatives...........4-3

Table 4.1-3 Summary of Emissions Calculation Methods by Source Type and Pollutant ............................4-4

Table 4.1-4 Air Quality Impacts for Criteria Air Pollutants in the Near-field, No Action Alternative...............4-7

Table 4.1-5 Air Quality Impacts for HAPs in the Near-field, No Action Alternative........................................4-7

Table 4.1-6 Detailed Summary of Annual GHG Emissions by Source for the No Action Alternative.........4-10

Table 4.1-7 Summary of Utah Statewide GHG Emissions from the Natural Gas and Electricity 

Sectors........................................................................................................................................4-10

Table 4.1-8 CALPUFF Modeled Results for Acid Deposition, Proposed Action..........................................4-11

Table 4.1-9 CALPUFF Modeled Results for Regional Haze, Proposed Action...........................................4-13

Table 4.1-10 Detailed Summary of Annual GHG Emissions by Source for the Proposed Action 

Alternative...................................................................................................................................4-14

Table 4.1-11 Comparison of Potential GHG Emissions from Proposed Action to Utah Statewide 

GHG Inventory............................................................................................................................4-14

Table 4.1-12 CALPUFF Modeled Results for Acid Deposition, Optimal Recovery Alternative.....................4-20

Table 4.1-13 CALPUFF Modeled Results for Regional Haze, Optimal Recovery Alternative ......................4-21

Table 4.1-14 Detailed Summary of Annual GHG Emissions by Source for the Optimal Recovery 

Alternative...................................................................................................................................4-22

Table 4.1-15 Comparison of Potential GHG Emissions from the Optimal Recovery Alternative to 

Utah Statewide GHG Inventory..................................................................................................4-23

Table 4.4-1 Summary of Surface Ownership Impacts for Each Alternative.................................................4-34

Table 4.6-1 Carrying Capacity Impacts by Allotment Under the No Action Alternative...............................4-40

Table 4.6-2 Range Improvements Potentially Impacted Under the No Action Alternative..........................4-41

Table 4.6-3 Carrying Capacity Impacts by Allotment Under the Proposed Action ......................................4-42

Table 4.6-4 Range Improvements Potentially Impacted Under the Proposed Action .................................4-45

Table 4.6-5 Carrying Capacity Impacts by Allotment Under the Resource Protection Alternative .............4-47

Table 4.6-6 Range Improvements Impacted Under the Resource Protection Alternative ..........................4-48

Table 4.6-7 Carrying Capacity Impacts by Allotment Under the Optimal Recovery Alternative .................4-49

Table 4.6-8 Range Improvements Impacted Under the Optimal Recovery Alternative ..............................4-50

Table 4.8-1 Projected New Wells and Total Projected Natural Gas and Oil Condensate Production........4-57

Table 4.8-2 Project Spending Assumptions, All Alternatives........................................................................4-57

Table 4.8-3 Geographical Distribution of Spending by Activity, All Alternatives ..........................................4-58

Table 4.8-4 Assumed Geographic Distribution of Project-related Employment, Population, and 

Housing Growth, All Alternatives ...............................................................................................4-59

Table 4.8-5 Employment and Income Impacts, No Action Alternative.........................................................4-63

Table 4.8-6 Average Population and Housing Demand Impacts, No Action Alternative.............................4-64

Table 4.8-7 Local Government General Purpose Cost During Development (2006 $), No Action 

Alternative...................................................................................................................................4-65
March 2012 xi FEIS

Table 4.8-8 Selected Major Public Revenues Over the Life of Field, No Action Alternative.......................4-66

Table 4.8-9 Project-related Employment and Income, Proposed Action Alternative...................................4-70

Table 4.8-10 Project-related Population and Housing Demand, Proposed Action Alternative .....................4-71

Table 4.8-11 Local Government General Purpose Cost During Development (2006 $), Proposed 

Action Alternative........................................................................................................................4-74

Table 4.8-12 Selected Major Public Revenues Over the Life of Field, Proposed Action Alternative............4-75

Table 4.8-13 Project-related Employment and Income, Optimal Recovery Alternative ................................4-80

Table 4.8-14 Project-related Population and Housing Demand, Optimal Recovery Alternative...................4-81

Table 4.8-15 Local Government General Purpose Cost During Development (2006 $), Optimal 

Recovery Alternative ..................................................................................................................4-83

Table 4.8-16 Selected Major Public Revenues Over the Life of Field, Optimal Recovery Alternative..........4-83

Table 4.9-1 Anticipated Acreage Disturbance for High, Moderate, and Low Constraint Soils by 

Alternative...................................................................................................................................4-88

Table 4.10-1 Anticipated Vehicle Activity for GNBPA, Proposed Action Alternative .....................................4-97

Table 4.11-1 Acreages of Affected Vegetation Under the No Action Alternative ........................................4-100

Table 4.11-2 Acreages of Affected Vegetation under the Proposed Action Alternative..............................4-104

Table 4.11-3 Acreages of Affected Vegetation Under the Resource Protection Alternative.......................4-114

Table 4.11-4 Acreages of Affected Vegetation Under the Optimal Recovery Alternative ...........................4-115

Table 4.13-1 New and Existing Surface Disturbance in Major Watersheds, No Action Alternative............4-126

Table 4.13-2 Previously Authorized and New Surface Disturbance in Major Watersheds, 

Proposed Action Alternative.....................................................................................................4-134

Table 4.13-3 Previously Authorized and New Surface Disturbance in Major Watersheds, 

Resource Protective Alternative...............................................................................................4-141

Table 4.13-4 Previously Authorized and New Surface Disturbance in Major Watersheds, 

Optimal Recovery Alternative...................................................................................................4-143

Table 4.15-1 Long-term Surface Disturbance of Big Game Habitat, No Action Alternative........................4-151

Table 4.15-2 Long-term Surface Disturbance of Greater Sage-grouse Habitat, No Action 

Alternative.................................................................................................................................4-157

Table 4.15-3 Long-term Surface Disturbance of Big Game Habitat, Proposed Action ...............................4-161

Table 4.15-4 Long-term Surface Disturbance of Greater Sage-grouse Habitat, Proposed Action.............4-165

Table 4.15-5 Long-term Surface Disturbance of Big Game Habitat, Resource Protection 

Alternative.................................................................................................................................4-169

Table 4.15-6 Long-term Surface Disturbance of Greater Sage-grouse Habitat, Resource 

Protection Alternative ...............................................................................................................4-172

Table 4.15-7 Long-term Surface Disturbance of Big Game Habitat, Optimal Recovery Alternative...........4-176

Table 4.15-8 Long-term Surface Disturbance of Greater Sage-grouse Habitat, Optimal 

Recovery Alternative ................................................................................................................4-178

Table 5.2-1 Cumulative Impact Study Areas for the Greater Natural Buttes EIS..........................................5-2

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

Cumulative Effects Area...............................................................................................................5-9
March 2012 xii FEIS

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

Cumulative Effects Area...............................................................................................................5-9

Table 5.2-4 Permitted Gilsonite Mines, Uinta Basin .....................................................................................5-12

Table 5.3-1 Summary of Emissions from Oil and Gas Operations in Uinta Basin – 2006 ..........................5-13

Table 5.3-2 Cumulative Impacts Compared to NAAQS ...............................................................................5-13

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

Alternative...................................................................................................................................5-18

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

Alternative...................................................................................................................................5-19

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

Alternative...................................................................................................................................5-20

Table 5.3-6 Cumulative Estimated Surface Disturbance of Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus Habitat ............5-29

Table 5.3-7 Summary of Impaired Waterbodies Within the CISA................................................................5-30

Table 5.3-8 Cumulative Long-term Surface Disturbance of Big Game Habitat...........................................5-41

Table 5.3-9 Cumulative Long-term Surface Disturbance of Greater Sage-grouse Habitat.........................5-43

Table 6.1-1 Status of Section 7 and Section 106 Consultation......................................................................6-3

Table 6.2-1 Substantive Public Comments on the Draft EIS........................................................................6-10

Table 6.2-2 Substantive Public Comments on the SDEIS ...........................................................................6-12

Table 6.3-1 BLM Interdisciplinary Team........................................................................................................6-13

Table 6.3-2 Preparers/Reviewers for AECOM and Subcontractors.............................................................6-14
March 2012 xiii FEIS

List of Figures

Figure 1.1-1 Regional Location Map...............................................................................................................1-2

Figure 1.1-2 Oil and Gas Fields ......................................................................................................................1-3

Figure 2.4-1 No Action Alternative ..................................................................................................................2-9

Figure 2.4-2 Existing Access Roads .............................................................................................................2-10

Figure 2.6-1 Proposed Action........................................................................................................................2-25

Figure 2.7-1 Resource Protection Alternative...............................................................................................2-30

Figure 2.8-1 Optimal Recovery Alternative...................................................................................................2-33

Figure 3.1-1 Wind Rose from Vernal, Utah, Airport........................................................................................3-5

Figure 3.1-2 Ouray and Redwash Ozone Monitoring Data............................................................................3-6

Figure 3.3-1 Uinta-Piceance Basin ...............................................................................................................3-25

Figure 3.3-2 Surface Geology Stratigraphic Column....................................................................................3-26

Figure 3.3-3 Natural Buttes Gas Production 1984 to 2006 ..........................................................................3-27

Figure 3.4-1 Land Cover Types.....................................................................................................................3-31

Figure 3.4-2 Land Ownership........................................................................................................................3-32

Figure 3.4-3 Areas of Special Designation ...................................................................................................3-33

Figure 3.5-1 Paleological Sensitivity .............................................................................................................3-37

Figure 3.6-1 Grazing Allotments and Range Improvements........................................................................3-40

Figure 3.7-1 Recreation Areas ......................................................................................................................3-44

Figure 3.8-1 Total Full and Part-time Employment, 1970 to 2007 ...............................................................3-49

Figure 3.9-1 Soil Constraints .........................................................................................................................3-74

Figure 3.10-1 Transportation Network and Transportation / Utility Corridors................................................3-77

Figure 3.11-1 Vegetation Cover Types ...........................................................................................................3-80

Figure 3.11-2 Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus Potential Habitat.......................................................................3-88

Figure 3.12-1 Visual Resource Management Classes ...................................................................................3-91

Figure 3.12-2 Visibility from White River and Goblin City Overlook...............................................................3-92

Figure 3.13-1 Major Watersheds.....................................................................................................................3-95

Figure 3.13-2 Estimated Sediment Yields.......................................................................................................3-98

Figure 3.13-3 Hundred-year Floodplains and Public Water Reserves ........................................................3-105

Figure 3.13-4 Riparian Areas ........................................................................................................................3-106

Figure 3.13-5 General Stratigraphy and Water Bearing Units .....................................................................3-108

Figure 3.13-6 Birds Nest Aquifer Injection Areas and TDS Values..............................................................3-111

Figure 3.13-7 Water Wells In and Within One Mile of GNBPA ....................................................................3-112

Figure 3.13-8 Groundwater Source Protection Zones..................................................................................3-114

Figure 3.14-1 Non-WSA Lands with Wilderness Characteristics, BLM Natural Areas, and SRMAs .........3-117
March 2012 xiv FEIS

Figure 3.15-1 Pronghorn Habitat...................................................................................................................3-120

Figure 3.15-2 Mule Deer Habitat ...................................................................................................................3-121

Figure 3.15-3 Elk Habitat...............................................................................................................................3-122

Figure 3.15-4 Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Habitat................................................................................3-123

Figure 3.15-5 Bison Habitat...........................................................................................................................3-124

Figure 3.15-6 White-tailed Prairie Dog Colonies ..........................................................................................3-127

Figure 3.15-7 Greater Sage-grouse Habitat .................................................................................................3-132

Figure 4.8-1 Projected Natural Gas Production for the Project Alternatives ...............................................4-56

Figure 4.8-2 Direct On-Site Employment to Develop a Typical Well ...........................................................4-58

Figure 4.8-3 Historical and Projected Wellhead Prices for Natural Gas......................................................4-60

Figure 4.8-4 Direct Project Spending Under the No Action Alternative .......................................................4-62

Figure 4.8-5 Market Value of Product Sold, No Action Alternative ..............................................................4-62

Figure 4.8-6 Direct Project Spending, Proposed Action Alternative ............................................................4-69

Figure 4.8-7 Annual Sales Value of Production, Proposed Action Alternative............................................4-70

Figure 4.8-8 Project Direct Spending, Optimal Recovery Alternative..........................................................4-79

Figure 4.8-9 Annual Sales Value of Production, Optimal Recovery Alternative..........................................4-80

Figure 4.8-10 Total Employment in the Study Area, Optimal Recovery Alternative......................................4-81

Figure 5.2-1 Reasonably Foreseeable Development Areas ..........................................................................5-5

Figure 5.2-2 Cumulative Actions Oil and Gas Field Development.................................................................5-6

Figure 5.2-3 Cumulative Actions Seismic and Pipeline Projects ...................................................................5-7

Figure 5.2-4 Cumulative Actions Oil and Gas Field Development and Pipeline Projects.............................5-8

Figure 5.3-1 Grazing Allotments Cumulative Impacts Study Area...............................................................5-21

Figure 5.3-2 Projected Natural Gas Production in the Mountain Region.....................................................5-23

Figure 5.3-3 Projected Resident Population of Uintah and Duchesne Counties to 2035 ...........................5-24

Figure 5.3-4 Water Resources CISA and Cumulative Actions Location Map .............................................5-32

Figure 5.3-5 Cumulative Actions Wilderness Characteristics ......................................................................5-35

Figure 5.3-6 Cumulative Actions Pronghorn Habitat ....................................................................................5-36

Figure 5.3-7 Cumulative Actions Mule Deer Habitat ....................................................................................5-37

Figure 5.3-8 Cumulative Actions Elk Habitat ................................................................................................5-38

Figure 5.3-9 Cumulative Actions Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Habitat .................................................5-39

Figure 5.3-10 Cumulative Actions Bison Habitat ............................................................................................5-40

Figure 5.3-11 Cumulative Actions Greater Sage-grouse Habitat...................................................................5-45
FEIS 1-1 March 2012

1.0 Introduction and Background

1.1 Project Location and Background

Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP (KMG), a wholly owned subsidiary of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, 

has notified the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Vernal Field Office that it proposes to conduct infill 

drilling to develop the hydrocarbon resources from oil and gas leases owned, at least in part, by KMG within 

the Greater Natural Buttes Project Area (GNBPA) in Uintah County, Utah (Figure 1.1-1). KMG intends to 

explore and develop all potentially productive subsurface formations underlying the GNBPA. The formations 

include, but are not limited to, the Green River Formation, Wasatch Formation, Mesaverde Group (including 

the Blackhawk Formation), Mancos Shale, and Dakota Sandstone. KMG owns contractual leasehold rights for 

more than 85 percent of the lands within the GNBPA. In most cases, KMG’s lease rights include the right to 

occupy the surface to explore, develop, operate, and produce the subsurface oil and gas resources. 

The GNBPA consists of approximately 162,911 acres in an existing gas producing region (Township 8 South, 

Range 20-23 East; T9S, R20-24E; T10S, R20-23E; and T11S, R21-22E) located on lands owned by the 

federal government, the State of Utah, the Ute Tribe, and other private land owners. The GNBPA includes 

portions of at least nine oil and gas fields, most of which are included in the larger Natural Buttes Field, 

currently the most productive gas field in Utah (Figure 1.1-2). The oil and gas fields located within the GNBPA

are the Devil’s Playground Field, the Love Field, the Natural Buttes Field, the Southman Canyon Field, the 

Uintah Field, the Chapita Wells Field, the Bitter Creek Field, the Ouray Field, and the Stagecoach Field.

Federal lands in the proposed GNBPA are under the jurisdiction of the BLM Vernal Field Office. The Vernal 

Field Office has determined that the proposed project constitutes a major federal action requiring the 

development of an environmental impact statement (EIS). This EIS serves the purpose of disclosing and 

analyzing impacts resulting from the level of development proposed within the GNBPA, including a no action 

alternative, with consideration of applied applicant-committed environmental protection measures (ACEPMs), 

BLM best management practices (BMPs), and mitigation measures. A summary of the ACEPMs is provided in 

Appendix A.

1.2 Summary of Proposed Action

KMG’s proposed infill drilling project within the GNBPA (the Proposed Action) is the subject of the analysis 

contained in this EIS. KMG and other operators would explore and develop potentially productive subsurface 

formations underlying the GNBPA by drilling up to 3,675 additional wellbores from up to 3,041 new well pads 

over a period of 10 years. The productive life of each well is estimated to be approximately 30 to 50 years. In 

support of the new wells, KMG would construct access roads, pipelines, electric power lines, compression 

facilities, and water disposal facilities. The total estimated new surface disturbance for the Proposed Action 

would be approximately 12,658 acres or about 7.8 percent of the GNBPA.

Infill drilling would be performed on 40-acre and 20-acre surface spacing throughout the GNBPA, which is 

equivalent to a density of 16 to 32 surface well pads per section (or square mile). KMG defines a 40-acre well 

pad as the first well pad located in a governmental 40-acre quarter-quarter section. A 20-acre well pad is 

defined as the second well pad located in a 40-acre quarter-quarter section. Downhole or subsurface spacing 

would be based on the ongoing reservoir engineering evaluation and would be site-dependent, potentially 

ranging from 16 wells per section (40-acre spacing) to 64 wells per section (10-acre spacing) or more.


FEIS 1-4 March 2012

KMG is a private corporation intending to make a profit through development of their leases in the GNBPA. 

Specific purposes for KMG’s proposed project are to:

• Conduct infill drilling on 40-, 20-, and 10-acre downhole spacing to determine the efficiency of 

reservoir drainage of the various spacings; 

• Determine whether directional drilling would be technically and economically feasible for achieving 

desired downhole spacing and for producing from tight gas reservoirs in environmentally constrained 

areas;

• Increase the available supply of domestically produced natural gas by a daily delivery of 500 million 

cubic feet or greater;

• Increase the available supply of domestically produced liquid hydrocarbons;

• Support local economies by providing and maintaining employment opportunities, sustaining local 

businesses, and expanding the tax base;

• Reduce dependence on potentially unstable foreign sources of energy and contribute to our nation’s 

energy security; and 

• Contribute to the available supply of a clean-burning fuel for domestic and industrial use.

In addition, KMG’s proposed natural gas and oil development project is consistent with the National Energy Act 

of 2005 and the National Energy Policy (President’s Plan) because it would provide a domestic source of 

natural gas and oil to meet the rising national energy demand.

1.3 Purpose and Need

The need for a BLM action is to respond to this proposal and to evaluate potential impacts resulting from 

implementing future plans and applications related to this proposal. The Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (Public Law [PL] 94-579, 43 United States Code [USC] 1701 et seq.) recognizes oil and 

gas development as one of the "principal" uses of the public lands. Federal mineral leasing policies (Mineral 

Leasing Act of 1920 [MLA], 30 USC 188 et seq.) and the regulations by which they are enforced recognize the 

statutory right of lease holders to develop federal mineral resources to meet continuing national needs and 

economic demands. The purpose of this EIS is to facilitate the BLM decision-making process whether to 

approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the proposed project or project components based on an 

evaluation of the expected impacts. Through this process, the BLM's purpose is to minimize or avoid 

environmental impacts to the extent possible, while allowing KMG to exercise its valid lease rights.

1.4 Environmental Analysis Process

This EIS was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and in compliance 

with the FLPMA, Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR]

Parts 1500-1508), United States (U.S.) Department of the Interior (USDOI) requirements (Department Manual 

516, Environmental Quality, under 43 CFR Part 46), and guidelines listed in the BLM NEPA Handbook, H1790-1 (BLM 2008a) and in the BLM Utah NEPA Guidebook (BLM 2006a). 

According to the terms of the MLA as amended by the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 

1987 (FOOGLRA), the BLM is the agency authorized to manage federal mineral interests underlying federal or 

split estate lands. Approximately 54 percent of the surface of the GNBPA and 79 percent of the mineral 

interests underlying the GNBPA are owned by the United States and administered by the BLM. Therefore, the 

BLM is the lead agency in this process, and federal jurisdiction of the GNBPA natural gas development project 

is assumed by the BLM, which would issue a Record of Decision (ROD) for this EIS. 
FEIS 1-5 March 2012

Within the ROD, the BLM Authorized Officer (AO) would determine:

• Whether the analysis contained within this document is adequate for the purpose of reaching informed 

decisions regarding GNBPA project development;

• Whether to approve the Proposed Action, select a different alternative, or a combination of 

alternatives; 

• Whether the Proposed Action or other alternatives are in conformance with applicable land and 

resource management plans and programmatic plans developed under NEPA, FLPMA, CEQ 

regulations, USDOI Department Manual 516, and the BLM NEPA Handbook H-1790-1 (BLM 2008a); 

and

• The Conditions of Approval (COAs), if any, that may be attached to the ROD.

The BLM decision would only apply to federal lands; however, the analyses in this EIS consider the impacts for 

all proposed activities regardless of surface ownership. 

Uintah County and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) are cooperating agencies. Copies of the Preliminary Draft 

EIS were submitted to Uintah County and the BIA for their review and comment prior to distribution to the 

public, and their comments were taken into account. 

1.4.1 Decisions to be Made After the EIS Process

Although the ROD may approve the proposed oil and gas wellfield development on a conceptual basis, a 

site-specific environmental review of areas proposed for surface disturbance and sub-surface mineral 

extraction would be completed to determine the final location of facilities based on environmental 

considerations. Prior to drilling on BLM-administered land, the project proponent must submit an Application 

for a Permit to Drill (APD) to the BLM, which includes a Surface Use Plan of Operation and a Drilling Plan. At 

that time, the BLM would conduct a site-specific NEPA review and attach appropriate measures to the permit 

to protect natural and human resources. The BLM is responsible for approval of the drilling program, protection 

of groundwater and other sub-surface resources, and final approval of the APD on BLM-administered lands

and/or minerals. Access roads and utilities such as pipelines and electrical powerlines on federal lands may

require a right-of-way (ROW) grant from the BLM, based on the APD applications or other independent 

applications. The regulations and guidelines that are used to administer the construction and operation of oil 

and gas facilities are further discussed in Section 2.3, Management Common to All Alternatives.

Tribal surface and mineral estate is administered in trust by the BIA. While the BLM would approve drilling 

permits on Tribal Lands, approval of surface disturbance and granting of ROWs would be approved by the 

BIA. All lands belonging to the State of Utah within the GNBPA are administered by the Utah School and 

Institutional Trust Lands Administration (USITLA). USITLA issues oil and gas leases and would approve 

surface disturbance activities on state lands. Approval of APDs on state and privately owned lands would be 

subject to requirements of the Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining (UDOGM).

1.4.2 Supplement to the Draft EIS

In response to comments on the Draft EIS for the Greater Natural Buttes Area Gas Development 

Project, the BLM developed a Supplement to the Draft EIS (SDEIS) to address comments specific to air 

quality. The comments that provided the basis for the BLM’s development of the SDEIS raised issues 

regarding new information and additional analyses to be included in the document and can be 

summarized as follows:

• Since completion of the air quality impact analysis for this project, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (USEPA) established new 1-hour standards for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and 
FEIS 1-6 March 2012

sulfur dioxide (SO2). These standards are addressed through additional near-field modeling 

analyses in the SDEIS.

• Monitoring of ozone levels in the Uinta Basin during 2010 and 2011 have revealed 

concentrations at levels above the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),

prompting the BLM to consider additional mitigation measures in the impact analysis.

• The new information and analyses prompted the BLM to re-evaluate potential environmental 

justice impacts on nearby communities.

The SDEIS presented additional analysis of near-field impacts to address newly promulgated 

standards for NO2 and SO2 as well as to address comments related to mitigation and environmental 

justice impacts due to potential air quality impacts. The SEDIS was formatted to follow the same 

outline as the Draft EIS; however, only those sections that were revised or newly added to the 

document were presented in the SDEIS. For those sections that were referenced in the SDEIS but text 

was not included, the reader was referred to the same section number of the Draft EIS. 

The SDEIS was released for public review as a separate document on June 10, 2011, to obtain 

comment on the revised and newly added sections. The BLM reviewed and responded to public 

comments and made appropriate revisions to the text in the SDEIS. The sections presented in the

SDEIS have been incorporated into this Final EIS.

1.4.3 Final EIS

Changes in this Final EIS are presented in bold italics and indicated by vertical bars that appear in the 

left margin. These changes were made in response to comments received on the Draft EIS, comments 

received on the SDEIS, and as a result of updated information that became available after issuance of 

the Draft EIS.

1.5 Legal and Policy Considerations

1.5.1 Leases and Leasing History

KMG operates the oil and gas leases underlying approximately 85 percent of all lands in the GNBPA. For 

those leases where KMG is the designated operator, KMG is responsible for ensuring that lease stipulations 

are followed during oil and gas development. 

Many of the leases covering BLM-administered minerals within the GNBPA were issued before the current 

Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the project area was approved and, therefore, may not contain 

stipulations other than the standard lease terms. Typical stipulations that may apply to federal oil and gas 

leases in the vicinity of the GNBPA include: 

• Stipulations to protect lands in oil shale withdrawal, Executive Order (EO) 5327 of April 15, 1930;

• Surface disturbance restrictions to protect erosive soils and sensitive plants;

• Seasonal restrictions to protect raptor species and other wildlife;

• Threatened and Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) stipulations; and

• Protection of cultural resources.

Surface stipulations and timing restrictions, threatened and endangered species lease notices for oil and gas 

development, and BLM-committed conservation measures that may apply to federal leases within the GNBPA 

are provided in Appendix K of the Vernal Field Office ROD and Approved RMP (BLM 2008b).
FEIS 1-7 March 2012

1.5.2 Conformance with BLM Management Plans and Policies

Policies for development and land use decisions for federal lands and minerals within the GNBPA are 

contained in the following federal documents.

• The Vernal Field Office ROD and Approved RMP (BLM 2008b)

• Environmental Analysis Record Oil and Gas Leasing Program for the Vernal District (BLM 1975)

Additional guidance for the GNBPA is contained in the following NEPA documents.

• The Vernal Field Office Proposed RMP and Final EIS (BLM 2008c)

• EA No. 1997-13, Coastal Oil & Gas Corporation Natural Buttes Unit Environmental Assessment (EA), 

Uintah County, Utah (BLM 1997a)

• Final EA of Coastal’s Proposed Development of the Ouray Field, Uintah County, Utah (Buys &

Associates 2000)

• EA No. UT-080-2006-240, Kerr-McGee’s Bonanza Area EA (BLM 2006b)

• EA No. UT-080-2006-253, Kerr-McGee’s Love Unit EA and Biological Assessment (BA) (BLM 2006c)

• EIS No. UT-080-2005-0010, EOG Resources’ Chapita Wells-Stagecoach Area EIS and BA 

(BLM 2008d)

• EIS No. UT-080-2003-0369V, Questar Exploration and Production Company’s Greater Deadman 

Bench EIS (BLM 2008e)

Management objectives within the Vernal RMP ROD include leasing oil and gas resources while protecting or 

mitigating impacts to other resource values. As such, the proposed GNBPA natural gas development project is 

consistent with the management decisions contained in the RMP. It is noted that surface occupancy or some 

existing oil and gas leases may not appear to be in conformance with the Vernal RMP; however, existing 

lease terms are not affected or altered by the recently approved RMP (as stated on page 21 of the Vernal 

RMP ROD). To the extent feasible, the proposed project would be expected to comply with the BLM's Utah 

Public Lands Health Standards (BLM 1997b). The proposed project also would be required to comply with 

federal policies related to riparian habitats, floodplains, and drainages.

1.5.3 Consistency with Other Federal and Local Land Management Plans and Policies

The BIA is a cooperating agency on this EIS. A formal management plan does not exist for the Uintah and 

Ouray Reservation; however, the elected Ute Tribe Business Committee and the BIA determine approval of 

land use activities on Tribal Lands. Production from tribal leases provides royalties, tax revenues, and surface 

access and use fees to the Tribe, which contributes to the Tribe’s economic well being. The Proposed Action is 

consistent with the regulatory responsibilities of the BIA, which include promoting the economic development 

objectives of the Ute Tribe under its government-to-government relationship with, and trust responsibility to, 

the Tribe. Therefore, the range of the BIA’s reasonable alternatives is limited to those that would serve the 

Tribe’s economic development objectives consistent with the trust responsibility. 

There are no comprehensive State of Utah plans for the GNBPA. USITLA has leased all of the state lands 

within the GNBPA for oil and gas production. Because the main objective of USITLA is to produce funding for 

the state school system, and because production on federal leases could lead to further interest in drilling state 

leases in the area, the Proposed Action is assumed to be consistent with the objectives of USITLA.

Uintah County has developed a Uintah County General Plan (Uintah County 2005) regarding development on 

public lands within the County. The Uintah County General Plan emphasizes multiple-use public land 

management practices, responsible use, and optimum utilization of public land resources. Multiple-use is 
FEIS 1-8 March 2012

defined in the plan as including, but not limited to, the following historically and traditionally practiced resource 

uses: grazing, recreation, timber, mining, oil and gas development, agriculture, wildlife habitat, and water 

resources. The proposed project is consistent with the Uintah County General Plan.

1.5.4 Authorizing Actions and Project Relationships to Statutes and Regulations

Private exploration and production from federal oil and gas leases is an integral part of the BLM oil and gas 

leasing program under authority of the MLA and FLPMA. The BLM oil and gas leasing program encourages 

development of domestic oil and gas reserves in accordance with the Mining and Minerals Policy Act and the 

reduction of U.S. dependence on foreign energy sources. Natural gas is an integral part of the energy future

for the U.S. due to its availability and the presence of an existing market delivery infrastructure. The 

environmental advantages of burning natural gas, rather than coal, were emphasized by the U.S. Congress 

and by the President when the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990 were signed into law. Furthermore, 

the Energy Policy acts of 2001 and 2005 emphasize the development of domestic natural gas reserves for 

supply and economic stability.

Various aspects of oil and gas development are regulated under the BLM Onshore Oil and Gas Orders, as 

authorized in 43 CFR 3160 including:

• Onshore Order No.1 – Approval of Operations;

• Onshore Order No. 2 – Drilling Operations;

• Onshore Order No. 3 – Site Security;

• Onshore Order No. 4 – Measurement of Oil;

• Onshore Order No. 5 – Measurement of Gas;

• Onshore Order No. 6 – Hydrogen Sulfide Operations;

• Onshore Order No. 7 – Disposal of Produced Water;

• Onshore Order No. 8 – Well Completions/Workovers/Abandonment (Proposed Rule);

• Onshore Order No. 9 – Waste Prevention and Beneficial Use of Oil and Gas (Not Published); and

• Notices to Lessees.

In addition to the BLM, numerous other federal, state, and local governmental agencies may be involved in 

regulation of oil and gas development. A summary of the key permits, approvals, and authorizing actions that 

may apply to the action alternatives is provided in Table 1.5-1.

Table 1.5-1 Key Federal, State, and Local Permits, Approvals, and Authorizing Actions for 

Construction, Operation, Maintenance, and Abandonment of the Proposed Action

Issuing Agency Name and Nature of Permit/Approval Regulatory Authority (if appropriate) 

FEDERAL AGENCIES

USDOI

BLM 

Permit to Drill, Deepen, or Plug Back (APD/Sundry 

Process); Controls drilling for oil and gas on federal 

onshore lands. Also see Chapter 2.0, Table 2.3-1. 

MLA (30 USC 181 et seq.); 43 CFR 3162; 

National Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, 

the FOOGLRA of 1987, (Onshore and Gas Orders 

#1 and #2 [43 CFR 3164]) 

ROW Grants and Temporary Use Permits; grants 

ROW use on BLM-managed lands. 

MLA as amended (30 USC 185); 43 CFR 2880; 

FLPMA (43 USC 17611771); 43 CFR 2800 

Antiquities, Cultural, and Historic Resource Permits; 

issue antiquities and cultural resources use permits to 

inventory, excavate, or remove cultural or historic 

resources from federal lands. 

Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 USC Section 431-433); 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 

(ARPA) (16 USC Sections 470aa47011); 43 CFR 

Part 3; Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) 

Approval to dispose of produced water; controls 

disposal of produced water from federal leases. Also 

see Chapter 2.0, Table 2.3-1. 

MLA (30 USC 181 et seq.); 43 CFR 3164; 

Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 7 
FEIS 1-9 March 2012

Table 1.5-1 Key Federal, State, and Local Permits, Approvals, and Authorizing Actions for 

Construction, Operation, Maintenance, and Abandonment of the Proposed Action

Issuing Agency Name and Nature of Permit/Approval Regulatory Authority (if appropriate) 

USDOI

BLM (Continued)

Pesticide Use Permit and Daily Pesticide Application 

Record. 

BLM Authorization for Herbicide Applications on 

Federal Lands 

Federal Noxious Weed Act compliance. Plant Protection Act of 2000 (PL 106-224, 7 USC 

7701); Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, as 

amended (USC 2801-2814); EO 13112 of 

February 3, 1999

Initiation of Section 7 consultation. Section 7 of the ESA, as amended (16 USC et 

seq.) 

Mineral Material Sales Permit; for use of BLMmanaged borrow pits in road construction. Materials Act of 1947 as amended (30 USC, 601 

et seq.) 

Paleontological Resource Use Permit; approval for 

surveys and potential data collection at well pads and 

road sites. 

FLPMA (302[b]) 

BIA ROW Grants and Temporary Use Permits; grants 

ROW use on Tribal Lands.

25 CFR 169

Tribal/allotted Land Activities. In coordination with the 

Northern Ute Tribe, the BIA has authority to approve 

any and all activities on Tribal/allotted lands.

25 CFR 225

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) 

ESA Section 7 consultation. Section 7 of the ESA, as amended (16 USC et 

seq.) 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) consultation. MBTA of 1918, as amended (15 USC 703-712); 

EO 13186 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act consultation. Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended 

(16 USC 668-668d) 

Section 404 Permit Consultation; review of permit for 

compliance with ESA. 

Consultation as established under the Fish and 

Wildlife Coordination Act 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation 

Cultural resources compliance (Section 106); 

coordinated with the Utah State Historic Preservation 

Officer (SHPO). 

NHPA, Section 106 

U.S. Department of Defense

Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) – Sacramento District

Section 404 permit (Nationwide and Individual); 

controls discharge of dredged or fill materials into 

waters of the U.S. 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 

(CWA) (33 USC 1344) 

USEPA

Region 8

USEPA has responsibility for implementing 

environmental programs for Indian Country (as defined 

at 18 USC § 1151) until Tribal governments are formally 

authorized to implement these programs (the GNBPA 

lies within Indian Country). Regardless of surface 

ownership, USEPA’s responsibility is to provide 

scoping comments, review EISs, and provide CAA and 

CWA permitting, information, and appropriate technical 

assistance during and following the environmental 

analysis process. 

CAA, as amended, 42 USC Annotated (USCA) 

Section 7410-762 (PL 95-604, PL 95-95) Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the 

CWA, 33 USCA Section 1251-1376 (PL 92-500, 

PL 95-217) Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 452 

USCA Section 300F-300J-10 (PL 93-523) 

Underground Injection Control (UIC) – also see 

Chapter 2.0, Table 2.3-1. 

UIC (40 CFR 146.21 through 146.24) 

U.S. Department of 

Transportation (USDOT)

Utah

Approval of construction and operation of natural gas 

pipelines. Prescribes minimum safety requirements for 

pipeline facilities and the transportation of natural gas. 

Pipeline safety regulations (49 CFR 190-199)

STATE AGENCIES

Utah Division of State History

Utah SHPO

Consult on Section 106 compliance process; approve 

cultural resource clearances; provide for protection of 

cultural resources. 

NHPA, Section 106

Antiquities Annual Permit; to conduct archeological 

surveys on state and private lands. 

Archaeological Permit Rules Utah R694-1

Antiquities Projects Permit; regulates all archeological 

excavations on state and private lands. 

Archaeological Permit Rules Utah R694-1

Utah Department of Natural 

Resources (UDNR)

UDOGM

Regulates activities associated with drilling of oil and 

gas wells in state, including pressure monitoring and 

permitting of injection wells and well spacing – also 

see Chapter 2.0, Table 2.3-1. 

Permitting of Wells, Utah R649-3-4 et seq., R649-

3-18; UIC Rules Utah R649-5 and R649-3-2 

Division of Water Rights Review and issuance of stream alteration permit. Utah Code 73-3-29

Approval to Appropriate Water; grants permit to 

appropriate water. 

Utah Code 73-3-2
FEIS 1-10 March 2012

Table 1.5-1 Key Federal, State, and Local Permits, Approvals, and Authorizing Actions for 

Construction, Operation, Maintenance, and Abandonment of the Proposed Action

Issuing Agency Name and Nature of Permit/Approval Regulatory Authority (if appropriate) 

Division of Water Resources Determination of adequate water supply and 

cumulative impacts on water supply. Section 401, 

CWA Water Quality Certification Stream and Wetland 

Crossings Section 401, CWA Water Quality 

Certification Stream and Wetland Crossings. 

CWA as it pertains to state government 

(Section 401) 

Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources (UDWR)

Protection and management of state wildlife and fish 

resources. Participation in the Section 404 Permit 

process and review of the Draft EIS. 

Utah Code 23-22

Consultation and input on fish and wildlife habitat for 

state listed species.

Utah Code 23-13 through 23-21

Forestry, Fire, and State Lands ROW grant for construction activities on State lands. Easement Rules Utah R652-40

Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality (UDEQ)1

Division of Water Quality 

Protection of water quality. Responsible for the Utah 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (UPDES)

storm water discharge permit. Prior to construction the 

preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 

(SWPPP) is required. SDWA review and 

administration.

Utah Code 19-5; UPDES Rules Utah R317-8

UPDES Construction Dewatering Permit; discharge of 

dewatering and hydrostatic test waters from property to 

U.S. waters.

Utah Code 19-5; UPDES Rules Utah R317-8

Division of Air Quality Approval order; permit for operation of certain 

stationary emissions sources; Air Quality Permit to 

Construct. 

Utah Code Stationary Source Rules Utah R307-

210; Operating Permit Rules Utah R307-415

New Source Review Permit; controls emissions from 

new or modified sources. 

New and Modified Source Permit Rules Utah 

R307-401

Fugitive Dust Control. Fugitive Dust Rules Utah R307-205

Utah Department of 

Transportation (UDOT)

Transport Permit; authorizes oversize, over length, and 

overweight load transportation on state highways.

Motor Carrier Rules Utah R909-1

Encroachment Permit; authorizes pipeline crossings of 

access roads that tie into state or federal highways. 

Access Openings Rules Utah R933-3

USITLA Issue a ROW grant/permit for construction and use 

activities on State Trust Lands. 

USITLA Rights-of-Entry Rules Utah R850-41

LOCAL AGENCIES

Uintah County Commissioners County zoning/land use plan consultation. Uintah County Code, Uintah County General Plan 

(Uintah County 2005)

Road Use and Opening permits. Uintah County Code

Construction permits, licenses. Uintah County Code

Noxious Weed Act enforcement. Uintah County Code

Solid Waste Disposal permits. Uintah County Code

Special Use and Conditional Use permits. Uintah County Code

1 USEPA has responsibility for environmental permitting and review on lands in Indian Country.

1.6 Scoping

1.6.1 Public Scoping

The BLM conducted public and internal scoping to solicit input and identify environmental issues and concerns 

associated with the proposed project. The public scoping process was initiated on October 5, 2007, with the 

publication of a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register (FR). The BLM prepared a scoping information 

notice and provided copies to the public, other government agencies, and Tribes. These announcements 

included information on a public scoping and open house, which was held at the Western Park Conference 

Center in Vernal, Utah, on October 23, 2007. The official scoping period ended November 5, 2007.

Written comments were received during the public scoping period. Public response to the NOI and meetings 

included a total of nine letters: two from federal agencies, one from the state agencies, one from a county 

agency, one from a non-governmental organization, and four from industry or private individuals.

During the scoping period, the following key concerns were identified for consideration in preparing the Greater 

Natural Buttes EIS.
FEIS 1-11 March 2012

• Analysis of proposed development throughout the GNBPA in a manner compatible with previous or 

ongoing NEPA projects covering portions of the proposed GNBPA.

• Off-site mitigation opportunities or other management options.

• Laws, regulations, or BLM policies that may have changed since the Book Cliffs RMP.

• Impacts associated with tribal trust resources.

• Detailed transportation analysis that identifies methods to reduce traffic during drilling and production, 

defines maintenance standards, and determines the ultimate disposition of roads at project 

termination.

• Generation of solid wastes including garbage and human waste.

• Disposal of produced water on-site, use of produced water in drilling and fracing operations, and use 

of gathering water with pipelines versus trucking water to disposal sites.

• Comprehensive reclamation plan that includes post-reclamation monitoring and annual reporting.

• Additional surface disturbance associated with pipelines and analysis of surface versus sub-surface 

pipelines.

• Feasibility of locating production facilities outside the 100-year floodplain.

• Comprehensive air-quality analyses and region-wide air-quality modeling.

• Direct and cumulative impacts to pronghorn population, forage availability, and ability of numbers to 

meet herd unit objectives.

• Direct and cumulative impacts to sage grouse leks and surrounding nesting and brood-rearing 

habitats with consideration of mitigative habitat restoration and other mitigation measures.

• Cumulative impacts on current grazing permits, including direct impacts to livestock, forage, water 

developments, and economic returns.

• Identification of hunting value of lands in the GNBPA and impacts to hunting activities.

• Impacts to visual resources and recreational use along the White River.

• Economic effects of the proposed project to the local economy, the state, and the school trust lands.

• Balance between environmental protection and economic growth.

1.6.2 Internal Scoping and Issue Identification

The BLM has compiled a list of resources potentially present in the Vernal Field Office area. These resources 

represent issues considered in all Vernal Field Office EAs and EISs and are discussed and analyzed in 

Chapters 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0 of this document. A listing of these resources and their status within the GNBPA is 

presented in Appendix B. The resources and issues identified in this appendix that are not within the vicinity 

of the GNBPA, and therefore would not be affected by the proposed project, are not carried forward for 

detailed analysis in Chapters 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0 of this EIS.