This page intentionally left blank 
ii 

MISSION STATEMENT

It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), an agency of the 

Department of the Interior, to manage BLM-administered lands and resources in a 

manner that best serves the needs of the American people. Management is based 

upon the principles of multiple use and sustained yield taking into account the 

long-term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources. 

BLM-WO-GI-09-001-3900 
ii 

This page intentionally left blank 
ii 

CONTENTS 

RECORD OF DECISION.......................................................................................................3

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................3

OVERVIEW OF THE ALTERNATIVES — OIL SHALE.............................................2

Alternative A — No Action Alternative, Continuation of Current Management....5

Commercial Oil Shale Program Alternatives ..........................................................8

Alternative B — Oil Shale Proposed Amendments...............................................13

Alternative C..........................................................................................................17

OVERVIEW OF THE ALTERNATIVES — TAR SANDS .........................................23

Alternative A — No Action Alternative, Continuation of Current Management..27

Commercial Tar Sands Program Alternatives .......................................................27

Alternative B — Commercial Tar Sands Program, Proposed Plan Amendments.29

Alternative C..........................................................................................................31

COMMENTS ON THE PRMP AND FEIS....................................................................36

THE DECISION .............................................................................................................36

What the Decision and RMP Provides...................................................................38

Oil Shale Decisions................................................................................................38

Tar Sands Decisions...............................................................................................39

What the Decision and RMP Do Not Provide .......................................................39

NOTICE OF MODIFICATIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS MADE TO THE 

APPROVED PLAN...............................................................................................40

Modifications .........................................................................................................40

Clarifications..........................................................................................................40

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS IN SELECTING THE APPROVED PLAN 

Amendments ..........................................................................................................42

Energy Policy Act of 2005.....................................................................................42
ii 

Comments and Recommendations.........................................................................42

Balanced Use and Environmental Protection ........................................................43

CONSISTENCY AND CONSULTATION REVIEW...................................................44

Governor’s Consistency Review............................................................................44

Cooperating Agencies.....................................................................................................45

Tribal Governments ...............................................................................................46

NHPA — Section 106 Consultation ......................................................................49

ESA — Section 7 Compliance...............................................................................49

MITIGATION MEASURES ..........................................................................................53

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................................53

Scoping ..................................................................................................................54

Public Comments on the Draft EIS........................................................................54

RELEASE of the RMPA and FPEIS .....................................................................54

AVAILABILITY OF THE PLAN..................................................................................55

BLM DIRECTOR RECOMMENDATION ...................................................................56

ASSISTANT SECRETARY APPROVAL ....................................................................56

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS.............................57

INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................57

CONSIDERATION OF OTHER BLM PLANS AND POLICIES ................................58

PLAN IMPLEMENTATION .........................................................................................59

General Implementation Schedule.........................................................................59

Maintaining the Plan..............................................................................................59

Changing the Plan..................................................................................................60

LIST OF PREPARERS...................................................................................................60

REFERENCES CITED...................................................................................................61

LIST OF ACRONYMS ..................................................................................................63

LIST OF TABLES..........................................................................................................64

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................64

APPENDIX A:................................................................................................................... A-1
ii 

APPENDIX B:....................................................................................................................B-1

RECORD OF DECISION 

INTRODUCTION 

This Record of Decision (ROD) describes the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) proposal 

to amend 101 Resource Management Plans (RMP) to identify the most geologically prospective 

public lands in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming for oil shale and tar sands resources, and to 

designate certain of these lands as available for application for commercial leasing2

 and future 

exploration and development of these resources. These 10 RMPs still provide decisions for the 

management of the public lands for other resource uses and values. 

The RMP amendments were described as the Proposed Plan in the September 2008 Proposed Oil 

Shale and Tar Sands Resource Management Plan (PRMP) Amendments to Address Land Use 

Allocations in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (FPEIS)(USDI-BLM-2008), and received preliminary approval by the Assistant 

Secretary, Land and Minerals Management. The RMP amendments, approved in this ROD, 

serve as the first step in the process to establish a commercial oil shale and tar sands program 

that meets the intent of Congress while taking advantage of the best available information and 

practices to minimize impacts and ensure that states, local communities, and the public have the 

opportunity to be involved. 

 

1

 The ROD for the Price Field Office RMP/EIS, the Richfield Field Office RMP/EIS, and the Vernal Field Office 

RMP/EIS were signed in October 2008 and the Monticello RMP/EIS was signed in November 2008. These decision 

documents supersede the decision contained in the prior RMPs [Book Cliffs RMP (BLM 1985); Diamond Mountain 

RMP (BLM 1994); Price River Resource Area MFP, as amended (BLM 1989); Henry Mountain MFP (BLM 1982); 

San Rafael Resource Area RMP (BLM 1991); and San Juan Resource Area RMP (BLM 1991)] for the planning 

areas but did not make decisions for oil shale and tar sands resources. Those decisions for oil shale and tar sands 

resources are contained in this ROD. 

Ten land use plans are being amended, six land use plans cover areas containing only oil shale resources, 2 land use 

plans cover areas containing only tar sands resources and 2 land use plans cover areas containing both oil shale and 

tar sands resources. 

2

 While the term “commercial lease” was used throughout the PRMP/FPEIS, the use of the term there, as here, 

represents that BLM may consider issuing commercial leases or research, development, and demonstration leases, or 

both in the areas designated as available for application. 

The phrase “available for application for leasing” is used above, and throughout the document, rather than “available 

for leasing” to highlight that, unlike BLM’s practice with respect to oil and gas leasing, additional National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis will be required prior to the issuance of any lease of oil shale or tar 

sands resources. 
2 

This ROD provides the background on development of the plan and rationale for approving the 

proposed decisions contained in the Proposed Plan. The attached Resource Management Plan 

(RMP) Amendments to Address Land Use Allocations in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming 

(Attachment –Appendix A) (also referred to as the Approved Plan Amendments) describes the 

decisions. 

The purpose and need for the Approved Plan Amendments is to meet the requirements 

established by Congress in Section 369 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. In August 2005, the 

U.S. Congress enacted the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law (P.L.) 109-58. In Section 369 

of this Act, also known as the “Oil Shale, Tar Sands, and Other Strategic Unconventional Fuels 

Act of 2005,” Congress declared that oil shale and tar sands (and other unconventional fuels) are 

strategically important domestic energy resources that should be developed to reduce the 

Nation’s growing dependence on oil from politically and economically unstable foreign sources. 

To support this declaration of policy, Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior (the 

Secretary) to undertake a series of steps, several of which are directly related to the development 

of a commercial leasing program for oil shale and tar sands. 

A principle provision required the Secretary to “...complete a programmatic environmental 

impact statement for a commercial leasing program for oil shale and tar sands resources on 

public lands, with an emphasis on the most geologically prospective lands in Colorado, Utah, 

and Wyoming.” The decisions analyzed in the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) satisfy this statutory requirement. 

OVERVIEW OF THE ALTERNATIVES — OIL SHALE 

The PRMP/PEIS study area for the oil shale resources includes the most geologically prospective 

resources of the Green River Formation located in the Green River, Piceance, Uinta, and 

Washakie Basins and encompasses approximately 3,540,000 acres. 

The BLM identified the most geologically prospective areas for oil shale development based on 

the grade and thickness of the oil shale deposits. The most geologically prospective oil shale 

resources in Colorado and Utah are those deposits that yield 25 gallons of shale oil per ton of 

rock (gal/ton) or more and are 25 feet thick or greater. In Wyoming, where the oil shale resource 

is not as high of a quality resource as it is in Colorado and Utah, the most geologically 

prospective oil shale resources are those deposits that yield 15 gal/ton or more of shale oil and 

are 15 feet thick or greater. 

Figure 1 shows the four oil shale basins that were mapped based on the extent of the Green River 

Formation and the most geologically prospective oil shale resources within those basins. 
3 

Figure 1: Most Geologically Prospective Oil Shale Resources within the Green River formation 

Basins in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming 

The oil shale resources within the defined study areas are located within the jurisdiction of eight 

separate BLM administrative units. These units include the Glenwood Springs, Grand Junction, 

and White River Field Offices in Colorado; the Price, and Vernal Field Offices in Utah; and the 

Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Rock Springs Field Offices in Wyoming. Table 1 presents the total 

acreage of the most geologically prospective oil shale areas. 
4 

Table 1: Total Size in Acres of the Green River Formation Basins, Most geologically 

prospective Oil Shale Areas, and Acres of BLM-Administered and Split 

Estate Lands within the Most Prospective Areas in each State a, b 

 Most Geologically Prospective Area 

State Total Size of 

Basin 

Most 

Geologically 

Prospective 

Area 

Total BLMAdministered 

Lands 

Total Split 

Estate Lands 

(Federal 

Minerals) 

Colorado 

Piceance Basin 1,185,700 503,342 319,710 41,940

Utah 

Uinta Basin c 2,977,900 840,213 560,972 77,220

Wyoming 

Green River and 

Washakie Basins 

4,506,200 2,194,483 1,257,680 39,406

Total 8,669,800 3,538,038 2,138,361 158,566

a Totals may not be exact because of rounding. These estimates were derived from geographic information 

system (GIS) data compiled for the PEIS analyses. The GIS data may contain errors; therefore, these estimates 

should be considered to be only representative of the size of the oil shale resources and the distribution of 

BLM-administered and split estate lands. 

b

 Split estate lands include areas where the Federal government owns, and the BLM administers, the subsurface 

mineral rights, but the surface estate is owned by tribes, states, or private parties. 

Three alternatives, including a no action alternative, were analyzed. All management under any 

of the alternatives would comply with Federal laws, rules, regulations, and policies. Alternative 

A (the no action alternative) would not amend the plans. Management prescriptions in existing 

plans are not modified under this alternative. Alternatives B and C described different 

management approaches to amending RMPs to designate certain lands as being available for 

application for future commercial leasing and development. The approach taken in both 

Alternatives B and C is designed to ensure that future oil shale leasing and development is 

possible when economic and environmentally acceptable. 
5 

Alternative A — No Action Alternative, Continuation of Current Management 

Alternative A is the no action alternative. In this alternative, no amendments to existing land use 

plans to identify lands available for application for commercial oil shale leasing would be 

completed. Existing land use plans would continue to provide direction for management of 

public lands. Under this alternative for oil shale, there are approximately 294,680 acres currently 

classified in the White River RMP (BLM 1997b) in Colorado as available for oil shale leasing, 

and at the time the analysis was conducted, there were approximately 58,100 acres classified as 

available for leasing in the former Book Cliffs RMP (BLM 1985) in Utah. 

Figure 2: Lands Available for Oil Shale Leasing Under Alternative A in Colorado. 
6 

The classified lands in Colorado are located in the Piceance Basin and include 223,860 acres 

classified as available for underground mining; 39,140 acres that are included as part of the 

223,860 acres that are also classified as available for open pit (surface mining); and 70,820 acres 

are classified as Multimineral Zone that contain oil shale and other minerals and that are also 

available for leasing. Lands within the Multimineral Zone would be made available for 

commercial lease only if the applicant can demonstrate that it would use technologies that allow 

recovery of oil shale resources without preventing the recovery of, or otherwise destroying, other 

minerals (e.g., nahcolite and dawsonite). Five of the BLM-issued Research, Development and 

Demonstration (RD&D) leases are located largely within the acreage identified in the White 

River RMP as available for oil shale development and are also shown in Figure 2. Each of the 

RD&D leases includes an initial lease area of approximately 160 acres and an additional 

associated Preference Right Lease Acreage (PRLA) of approximately 4,960 acres that could be 

developed if the lease terms are met. 

The terms of these leases include, among other items, a requirement for additional National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance before conversion to a commercial lease, which 

would include the PRLA acreage. The Oil Shale and Tar Sands PEIS does not represent 

fulfillment of this requirement, regardless of which Alternative is selected. In order for 

commercial leasing and/or development of the associated PRLA to take place under any of the 

Alternatives in this PEIS, additional NEPA compliance would need to be conducted. 

The 58,100 acres previously identified in Utah include 48,000 acres divided into five parcels that 

were designated in the former Book Cliffs RMP as oil shale priority management areas. Of these 

five areas, three areas totaling 42,000 acres were classified for underground mining and two 

areas, totaling 6,000 acres, were classified for in situ mining. The remaining approximately 

10,100 acres were originally leased for oil shale development in the 1970s as Tracts Ua and Ub. 

These leases were relinquished in 1985. The sixth BLM RD&D lease and its associated PRLA 

are located on portions of these two previously leased tracts (see Figure 3). 
7 

Figure 3: Lands Available for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative A in Utah3

. 

While these areas in both Colorado and Utah have been classified as available for oil shale 

leasing for many years, there has been little interest in commercial oil shale development. During 

that time, there were no leasing regulations in place that could be used to guide the processing of 

any applications or oversee development. The Secretary has discretion to lease tracts for 

commercial oil shale development without regulations, but regulations would have advantages 

for potential lessees, the public, and the BLM. The existing White River Resource Area land use 

plan has a requirement for additional NEPA analysis before a lease could be issued. In October 

2008, the Vernal Field Office RMP/EIS did not carry forward the decisions concerning the 

management of the oil shale resources in the area covered by the Book Cliffs plan. The 

management decision for oil shale adopted by the Vernal Field Office RMP/EIS ROD does not 

modify or alter the assumptions concerning development of the RD&D leases or the analysis 

 

3

 The lands shown in the figure were originally covered by decision in the Book Cliffs RMP. The ROD for the 

Vernal Field Office RMP/EIS was signed in October 2008 and did not make decisions for oil shale and tar sands 

resources. 
8 

under Alternative A in the PRMP/FPEIS. This is because the assumption that only the current 

RD&D lease would be developed in the foreseeable future does not change. 

The six RD&D leases that were issued contain terms that allow development of the original 

leases and could allow development of the associated PRLAs, totaling approximately 30,720 

acres. For purposes of analysis and comparison, under Alternative A, it is assumed that each of 

the leases could reach commercial production utilizing the technologies being tested on the 

leases and may utilize the whole PRLA leased area. Where the RD&D leases overlay lands 

classified for open pit (surface), underground, or multimineral development, it is assumed that 

only the technologies being tested on the individual leases will be utilized in the development. 

Under this alternative, if an individual RD&D lease holder relinquishes its lease, the area could 

be leased to another operator consistent with the existing management decisions, such as in the 

White River RMP (BLM 1997b). 

Rationale for Non-Selection: Alternative A was not selected as the Proposed Plan Amendment 

because it did not fully meet the purpose of and need for the proposed action, nor is it entirely 

consistent with the mandate established by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to establish a 

commercial leasing program for oil shale and tar sands within the most geologically prospective 

areas in each of the States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Selection of this alternative would 

not allow BLM to offer the most geologically prospective areas of the Green River Formation for 

application for commercial oil shale leasing. 

Commercial Oil Shale Program Alternatives 

The BLM developed two programmatic allocation alternatives. Under both programmatic 

alternatives, eight land use plans would be amended to (1) identify the most geologically 

prospective oil shale resources within each planning unit, (2) designate lands within these most 

geologically prospective areas available for application for leasing, (3) identify any technology 

restrictions, (4) establish requirements for future NEPA analyses and consultation activities, and 

(5) specify that the BLM will consider and give priority to the use of land exchanges to facilitate 

commercial oil shale development pursuant to Section 369(n) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

The plans that would be amended include the following: 

Colorado: 

− Glenwood Springs RMP (BLM 1988, as amended by the 2006 Roan Plateau Plan 

Amendment [BLM 2006b, 2007a, 2008]) 

− Grand Junction RMP (BLM 1987) 

− White River RMP (BLM 1997b, as amended by the 2006 Roan Plateau Plan Amendment 

[BLM 2006b, 2007a, 2008]) 

Utah: 

− Book Cliffs RMP (BLM 1985), as revised by the 2008 Vernal Field Office RMP/EIS 

(BLM 2008a)
9 

− Diamond Mountain RMP (BLM 1994), as revised by the 2008 Vernal Field Office 

RMP/EIS (BLM 2008a)

− Price River Resource Area MFP, as amended (BLM 1989), as revised by the 2008 Price 

Field Office RMP/EIS (BLM 2008b) 

Wyoming: 

− Great Divide RMP (BLM 1990) 

− Green River RMP (BLM 1997a, as amended by the Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated 

Activity Plan [BLM 2006a]) 

− Kemmerer RMP (BLM 1986).

In both programmatic alternatives, it is recognized that the six existing RD&D leases contain 

terms and conditions that could allow commercial development of the original leases and the 

associated PRLAs totaling approximately 30,720 acres to occur. 

Certain lands within the most geologically prospective oil shale resource areas are excluded from 

commercial leasing, under all alternatives, on the basis of existing laws and regulations, 

Executive Orders (EOs), land use plan designations, and other administrative designations or 

withdrawals. As a result, commercial leasing is excluded from all designated Wilderness Areas, 

Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs), and other areas that are part of the National Landscape 

Conservation System (NLCS) administered by the BLM (e.g., National Monuments, National 

Conservation Areas (NCAs), Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs), and National Historic and Scenic 

Trails), existing Areas of Critical Environmental Concerns (ACECs) that are currently closed to 

mineral development, and lands within incorporated town and city limits. Additional areas 

would be closed and would not be available for future opportunity to lease for commercial 

development of oil shale resources under both programmatic alternatives. These additional areas 

include, but not limited to: 

− Mechanically Mineable Trona Area (MMTA). This area, which is located in the Green 

River Basin in Wyoming, falls within a portion of the Known Sodium Leasing Area 

(KSLA) that encompasses the world’s largest known trona deposits.4

 Trona leases were 

issued within this area, and production occurs from a number of underground mines. The 

MMTA would be excluded from oil shale leasing until technology or other factors exist 

to allow development of the oil shale resource without jeopardizing the safe operation of 

underground trona mines. 

− Segments of rivers that the BLM has determined to be potentially eligible for WSR status 

by virtue of a WSR inventory. These river segments and a corridor extending at least 0.25 

mi from the high water mark on either side of these segments would be excluded from 

commercial leasing.5

 

 

4

 Trona is a hydrous sodium carbonate mineral that is refined into soda ash, sodium bicarbonate, sodium sulfite, 

sodium tripolyphosphate, and chemical caustic soda. 

5

 A number of land use plans were undergoing revision, and as part of that process WSR inventories were 

undertaken. Where a river or river segment was found to be “eligible” for inclusion in the WSR system as part of 

one of these inventories, the BLM Handbook directs the BLM to protect the lands along the eligible segment until 
10 

− Historic trails. Historic trails identified by the BLM Wyoming State Office and a corridor 

extending at least 0.25 mi on either side of the trail will be excluded from commercial 

leasing.6

 

− Monument Valley Management Area. Oil shale development within this management area, 

which is located in the Rock Springs Field Office area, is prohibited in the Green River 

RMP (BLM 1997a). Specifically, the RMP directs that these lands remain withdrawn 

from oil shale development until a comprehensive study of the area has been conducted, 

including an assessment of the potential designation of this area as an ACEC on the basis 

of the need to protect cultural and paleontological resources. 

− Management Area 3, Jack Morrow Hills Planning Area. In accordance with the Jack 

Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan (BLM 2006a), extensive restrictions on surfacedisturbing activities have been established for Area 3 within the Jack Morrow Hills 

Planning Area because of the presence of sensitive natural and cultural resources. The 

portion of Area 3 that overlaps with the most geologically prospective oil shale resources 

in the Green River Basin is restricted to No Surface Occupancy (NSO) and has been 

excluded from future leasing on the basis of input from the field office. 

− Expansion Areas around Rock Springs and Green River, Wyoming. The BLM will not 

issue leases within the “expansion areas” agreed upon with the cities of Rock Springs and 

Green River, Wyoming. 

Public lands outside of the most geologically prospective area are not being excluded from 

consideration for leasing for any environmental or other specific reason and could be considered 

for application for leasing at a later time, which would require a new NEPA analysis. Areas 

within the most prospectively valuable area that are excluded from consideration for application 

for leasing, or environmentally and economically sound proposals employing different 

technologies, could also be considered in the future through evaluation of a plan amendment. 

As shown in Figure 4, the areas within the most geologically prospective oil shale areas where 

the overburden is 0 to 500 ft thick are limited to part of the Uinta Basin in Utah and parts of the 

Green River and Washakie Basins in Wyoming. 

 a “suitability” determination is made as part of the land use planning process. If the river or river segment is found 

to be “non-suitable,” the lands along the river then would be available for other uses, but because these segments 

were excluded from analysis under Alternatives B and C, a land use plan amendment will be required prior to 

making these segments available for application for commercial oil shale leasing. 

6 The centerline of trails mapped in the GIS was used to define the 0.25 mi buffer. 
11 

Figure 4: Green River Formation Basins in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming: the Most 

Geologically Prospective Oil Shale Resources; the Areas Where the Overburden above 

the Oil Shale Resources Is ≤500 ft; and Locations of the Six RD&D Projects 

The BLM has limited its evaluation of the impacts of surface mining to those areas within the 

most geologically prospective oil shale areas where the overburden ranges in thickness from 0 to 

500 ft. This limitation is based, in large part, on the assumption that 500 ft is about the 

maximum amount of overburden where surface mining can occur economically, using today’s 

technologies. 

In Utah, about 133,194 acres of land within the most geologically prospective oil shale area have 

an overburden thickness of 0 to 500 ft; all of these lands fall within the former Book Cliffs RMP 

planning area, as revised by the 2008 Vernal Field Office RMP/EIS ROD. In Wyoming, the 

corresponding area includes about 380,220 acres within the Green River RMP planning area. 

Within the most geologically prospective oil shale area defined in the Piceance Basin in 

Colorado, the areas where the overburden is 0 to 500 ft thick are very limited, and it would be 
12 

difficult to configure a lease tract that would be commercially sustainable for surface mining.7

 

The current White River RMP that includes the Piceance Basin in Colorado identifies 39,140 

acres that are classified for potential open pit (surface) development, and these lands are open in 

the no action alternative. In the Proposed Plan Amendment (Alternative B) and Alternative C, 

land is made available for application for lease for surface mining only in Utah and Wyoming in 

those areas shown in Figure 4. 

A NEPA analysis would be conducted prior to lease issuance. Any information collected as part 

of the scoping or lease application process would be used to form the basis of the NEPA 

analysis. During that NEPA review, the BLM would identify and establish appropriate lease 

stipulations to mitigate anticipated impacts. 

In addition, the subsequent approval of project-specific plans of development would require 

NEPA review to (1) consider site-specific and project-specific factors and (2) identify and 

require appropriate mitigation measures, as needed to control impacts beyond those established 

in the lease stipulations. The NEPA review for the plan of development may be incorporated 

into the NEPA review conducted for the lease application, at BLM’s discretion, if adequate, 

operational data are provided by the applicant(s). 

Under both programmatic alternatives (i.e., Alternative B and Alternative C), the BLM would 

require that the operator conduct commercial development in compliance with existing Federal, 

state, and local regulatory requirements and established BLM policies. This compliance would 

include, as appropriate, obtaining and complying with all required permits (e.g., air, water, and 

waste management) as required by regulatory agencies; operating within the permit constraints; 

compliance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which may include completing 

consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. FWS); completing consultation with 

State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, and other 

consulting parties under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (P.L. 89-

665); and compliance with any other relevant and applicable requirements. Compliance-related 

conditions would be developed on a project-by-project basis during site-specific analyses. 

Under both programmatic oil shale alternatives, in Colorado, lands within the Multimineral Zone 

identified in the White River RMP (BLM 1997b) would be made available for application for 

commercial lease only if the applicant can demonstrate that it would use technologies that allow 

recovery of oil shale resources without preventing the recovery of or otherwise destroying other 

minerals (i.e., nahcolite and dawsonite). This is consistent with existing provisions in the White 

River RMP. However, other decisions in the White River RMP relevant to oil shale leasing 

would be modified under both programmatic alternatives. The decisions that have been modified 

include the (1) designation of specific areas as available for commercial oil shale leasing, (2) 

designation of a subset of this area as available for commercial development by surface mining 

(e.g., open pit), and (3) prohibition of oil shale leasing with the Piceance Creek Dome area. 

 

7

 The areas within the most geologically prospective oil shale areas where the overburden is 0 to 500 ft thick were 

mapped on the basis of a variety of sources of information. In Colorado, the area was defined on the basis of data 

published in Donnell (1987). In Utah, the area was mapped based on data provided by the Utah Geological Survey 

(Tabet 2007). In Wyoming, the area was mapped on the basis of data provided by Wiig (2006 a,b). 
13 

In Utah, the decisions in the Book Cliffs RMP identifying lands as available for oil shale leasing 

were modified under both programmatic alternatives. The decisions that were modified include 

the (1) designation of specific areas available for commercial oil shale leasing, and (2) 

identification of specific areas as suitable for development using underground or in situ methods. 

With the exception noted in the socioeconomic analysis in the PRMP/FEIS regarding potential 

impacts on land values that may result from these allocation decisions, the action alternatives 

presented (mere allocations for planning purposes) would not result in any impacts on the 

environment or socioeconomic setting of the area under consideration. 

The following sections describe the programmatic alternatives. The sections identify the 

additional leasing exclusions that the BLM has identified for each alternative and the proposed 

land use plan amendments. The specific land use plan amendments are discussed in greater detail 

in Attachment – Appendix A. 

Alternative B — Oil Shale Proposed Amendments 

Alternative B was identified as the BLM's Preferred Alternative in the Draft RMP/EIS. As a 

result of public comment, internal review, and cooperating agency coordination on the Draft 

RMP/EIS, Alternative B was clarified and slightly modified to become the Proposed Plan and 

analyzed in the Final EIS. With minor adjustments and clarifications, it has been selected, in this 

ROD, as the Approved Plan Amendments (See Appendix A). 

Under this ROD approving the Plan Amendments, eight land use plans are amended to designate 

1,991,222 acres8 as available for application for commercial oil shale leasing. Specifically, the 

lands that are available for application include all lands within the most geologically prospective 

oil shale areas that are BLM-administered public lands, including split estate lands where the 

Federal government owns the mineral rights, but excluding lands excluded from all alternatives. 

The public lands that are available for application for lease in the Plan Amendments (Alternative 

B) are shown in Figures 5, 6, and 7, for Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, respectively. 

 

8

 This amount includes the total potential RD&D lease acreage of 30,720 acres. 
14 

Figure 5: 

Figure 6: Lands Available for Application for 

Lease under Alternative B for 

Commercial Oil Shale Development 

within the Most Geologically 

Prospective areas in Utah. 
15 

Figure 7 Lands Available for Application for Lease under Alternative B for Commercial 

Oil Shale Development within the Most Geologically Prospective areas in Wyoming. 

Table 2 lists the approximate number of acres of BLM-administered lands available for 

application for commercial leasing under the Proposed Plan Amendment by State. 

Table 2: Estimated Acres Potentially Available in Each State for Application 

for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Development under the 

Proposed Plan Amendment (Alternative B)a

State BLM-Administered 

Lands 

Split Estate Lands 

(Federal Minerals only)

Total 

Colorado 317,882 41,916 359,798

Wyoming 992,682 7,771 1,000,453

Utahb 554,977 75,995 630,971

Total – Alternative B 1,865,542 125,681 1,991,222

a Totals may not be exact because of rounding. These estimates were derived from GIS data 

compiled for the PEIS. The GIS data may contain errors; therefore, these estimates should 

be considered to be only representative of the proposed leasing area. 

b The split estate lands in Utah include 57,657 acres of Federal mineral estate within the Hill 

Creek Extension of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation on which the surface rights is owned 

by the Ute Indian Tribe. 
16 

As shown in Figure 6, split estate lands within the Hill Creek Extension of the Uintah and Ouray 

Reservation are included in the lands that are available for leasing under Alternative B. These 

lands total 57,657 acres. 

Commercial leases for surface mining projects would be allowed only on those lands in Utah and 

Wyoming where the overburden is 0 to 500 ft thick. In Utah, under Alternative B, lands 

available for application for leasing for surface mining projects total about 85,640 acres in the 

former Book Cliffs RMP planning area. In Wyoming, under Alternative B, these lands total 

about 248,000 acres in the Green River RMP planning area. 

Under the terms of the existing RD&D leases, the Federal government has a commitment to 

grant the RD&D lessees leases for commercial development within the original 160-acre lease, 

as well as its PRLA, provided the terms and conditions of the leases are met. As a result, all 

lands within the PRLAs would be available for issuance of commercial leases to the current 

RD&D lessees, subject to lease requirements. In Alternative B, the PRLAs for the five RD&D 

projects in Colorado are entirely within the area proposed to be available for application for 

commercial leasing. Under the Plan Amendments, if an existing RD&D leaseholder relinquishes 

its lease, the area would be available for consideration for future leasing. 

However, for the Oil Shale Exploration Company (OSEC) RD&D project in Utah, a portion of 

the PRLA is not identified as available for application for commercial leasing under the 

Proposed Plan Amendments because of the presence of a potentially eligible WSR, Evacuation 

Creek. Subsequent to the publication of the PRMP/FEIS, the 2008 Vernal Field Office RMP 

ROD determined that the river segments of Evacuation Creek were not eligible for inclusion. 

For commercial leasing to occur on the excluded segments, except as a result of conversion of 

the RD&D lease, the Vernal Field Office RMP would need to be amended. 

Rationale for Selection: Alternative B for oil shale was selected as the Proposed Plan 

Amendment based on: 1) its consistency with the requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 

2) its balanced use and protection of resources, 3) the FPEIS’s analysis of potential 

environmental impacts, and 4) the comments and recommendations from cooperating agencies 

and the public. 

Alternative B is structured to be consistent with the congressional mandate of the Energy Policy 

Act to emphasize the “most geologically prospective lands in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming” as 

available for application for leasing. Alternative B, therefore, identifies and offers the most 

geologically prospective acreage (based on grade and thickness of the oil shale deposits) of the 

Green River Formation located in the Piceance, Uinta, Green River, and Washakie Basins of 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. As compared with Alternative C, Alternative B makes more 

Federal oil shale available for application, and provides for fewer fragmented tracts. Alternative 

B also provides for more contiguous tracts that could be configured for economically and 

technically feasible extraction or recovery of the resources. Alternative B would also allow 

access to more of the most geologically prospective oil shale lands, particularly in Colorado. 

Unlike Alternative C, which excludes lands based on existing management decisions for oil and 

gas development, Alternative B provides the decisionmaker with the discretion to balance the oil 

shale use and protection of resources on the public lands during subsequent site-specific NEPA 

analysis. This balanced approach is consistent with FLPMA principles of “multiple use,” and 
17 

“sustained yield.” The requirement to perform future NEPA analyses and to comply with other 

environmental laws allows the decisionmaker to optimize the recovery of energy resources, to 

establish appropriate lease stipulations to mitigate anticipated impacts, or to fully protect a 

resource or resource value by choosing not to offer an area for lease at any particular time. Even 

if some technologies may not allow mining of some tracts to proceed without unacceptable 

impacts to other resource values, Alternative B would allow the agency the opportunity to 

choose to offer leases when a technology is proposed that can be used compatibly with the 

resource values in question. This is consistent with the comments that supported a viable and 

sustainable commercial oil shale leasing program, while ensuring that any impacts to sensitive 

resources or resource values are mitigated to any commercial development. It is also consistent 

with the planning decisions for other mineral resources for these parcels which authorize leasing 

subject to restrictive conditions, rather than preclude leasing altogether. 

Alternative B does, however, exclude certain lands within the most geologically prospective oil 

shale areas under the basis of existing laws and regulations, executive orders and other 

administrative designations or withdrawal. These include WSAs, National Monuments, WSRs, 

NCAs, and existing ACECs that are closed to mineral development. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C is similar to the Proposed Plan Amendments (Alternative B) except that additional 

lands are excluded from the area to be designated as available for application for commercial 

leasing. Under Alternative C, a total of 830,2969 acres would have been designated as available 

for application for commercial oil shale leasing. The lands that would be available for 

application under Alternative C include some of the lands that are available under the Proposed 

Plan Amendments, but exclude lands that are identified as requiring special management or 

resource protection in existing land use plans. 

The lands were identified based on existing land use plan decisions; the possible impacts 

associated with commercial oil shale development were also considered. Based on these impact 

analyses, described in Chapter 4 in the PRMP/FPEIS, it was determined that commercial oil 

shale development could be in conflict with existing land use plan decisions that require surfacedisturbance restrictions or seasonal limitations on activities in order to adequately protect a 

specific resource. Alternative C excludes from application for leasing all lands where such 

surface-disturbance and seasonal limitations are in place to protect known sensitive resources. 

The acreage so excluded were lands where stipulations for no surface disturbance or seasonal 

limitations are in place for oil and gas leasing. Under this alternative, a priority is placed on 

protecting known sensitive resources within each field office by excluding these lands from 

application for leasing. The lands that would be available for application for leasing under 

Alternative C are shown in Figures 8, 9, and 10 for Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, respectively. 

 

9

 This amount includes the total potential RD&D lease acreage of 30,720 areas. 
18 

Figure 8: La

. 

Figure 9: Lands Available for Application for 

Leasing under Alternative C for 

Commercial Oil Shale Development 

within the Most Geologically 

Prospective Areas in Utah. 
19 

Figure 10: Lands Available for 

Application for Leasing under 

Alternative C for Commercial Oil Shale Development within the Most Geologically 

Prospective Areas in Wyoming. 

Table 3 lists, by state, the approximate number of acres of BLM-administered lands available for 

application for commercial leasing under Alternative C. 

Table 3: Estimated Acres Potentially Available in Each State for Application for 

Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Development under Alternative Ca 

State BLM-Administered 

Lands 

Split Estate Lands 

(Federal minerals only)

Total 

Colorado 26,109 14,217 40,326

Wyoming 297,434 2,077 299,511

Utah 472,443 18,017 490,460

Total – Alternative C 795,986 34,311 830,297

a Totals may not be exact because of rounding. These estimates were derived from GIS data 

compiled for the PEIS. The GIS data may contain errors; therefore, these estimates should 

be considered to be only representative of the proposed leasing area. 
20 

Table 4 identifies the types of stipulations and restrictions in place for oil and gas leasing in each 

state that are being used to identify those lands that would not be available for application for 

leasing for commercial oil shale development under Alternative C. 

Table 4: Resources Covered by Stipulations and Restrictions in Place for Oil and Gas 

Leasing in Each State That Are Being Used to Identify Lands Not Available for 

Application for Leasing under Alternative C 

Colorado 

Slopes and fragile/erosive soils 

Riparian zones and wetlands 

Sage grouse leks and nesting habitat 

Raptor nests, roosts, fledgling habitat, and concentration areas 

Wildlife habitata

Colorado River cutthroat trout habitat 

Listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered and BLM-designated sensitive 

species 

Sensitive plants and remnant vegetation associations 

Wild horses and wild horse management areas 

Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class II areas 

ACECs 

Paleontological and cultural resources 

Utah 

Erosive soils 

Floodplains, watersheds, and live water 

Sage grouse leks and nesting habitat 

Raptor nests and habitat 

Wildlife habitata

Black-footed ferret habitat 

Special status plants 

ACECs 
21 

Table 4: Resources Covered by Stipulations and Restrictions in Place for Oil and Gas 

Leasing in Each State That Are Being Used to Identify Lands Not Available for 

Application for Leasing under Alternative C 

Paleontological resources 

Otherb

Wyoming 

Slopes and fragile/erosive soil 

Sage grouse and greater sage grouse leks and nesting habitat 

Raptor nests and concentration areas 

Wildlife habitata

Sensitive species 

VRM Class I and II areas 

Historic trails 

ACECs 

Cultural resources 

Otherb 

a

 Wildlife habitat includes a combination of winter range, crucial winter range, summer range, and 

calving areas for antelope, deer, elk, and moose, as well as seclusion areas for other wildlife. 

b

 Other resources include Special Management Areas (SMAs), recreation areas, and areas restricted from 

leasing for reasons not specified in the GIS data. 

As shown in Figures 8, 9, and 10 and reflected in Table 3, a large amount of land (i.e., 1,160,926 

acres) available for application for leasing under the Proposed Plan Amendments (Alternative B) 

is excluded under Alternative C. In addition, particularly in Colorado and Wyoming, a large 

portion of the lands available for application for leasing is composed of relatively small, isolated 

tracts of land. These factors could result in limiting the amount of commercial oil shale 

development to some level below that which might be realized under the Proposed Plan 

Amendments (Alternative B). 

Also, commercial leases for surface mining projects would be allowed only in Utah and 

Wyoming on those lands where the overburden is 0 to 500 ft thick. In Utah, under Alternative C, 

lands available for application for leasing for surface mining projects total about 46,900 acres in 

the former Book Cliffs RMP planning area. In Wyoming, under Alternative C, these lands total 

about 68,200 acres in the Green River RMP planning area. 
22 

In Alternative C, portions of three of the five PRLAs for the Colorado RD&D leases are not 

identified as available for application for commercial leasing. These include portions of the 

areas associated with the Chevron, EGL, and Shell Site 2 RD&D projects. For the other two 

Colorado RD&D projects, Shell Sites 1 and 3, none of the PRLAs are within the area identified 

as available for application for commercial leasing. 

Under the terms of the RD&D program, the Federal government has a commitment to grant the 

RD&D leaseholders leases for commercial development that include the RD&D acreage and that 

within the associated PRLAs, provided that all terms and conditions of the leases are met. As a 

result, all lands within the PRLAs would be subject to commercial leasing to the current RD&D 

lessees, subject to their lease requirements. Should such lease conversion occur on lands 

excluded by Alternative C, prior to any commercial oil shale development, the BLM would need 

to review the specific land use plans to determine whether the development conforms to the plan 

or whether plan maintenance or an amendment is required. The Federal government is not under 

an obligation to grant leases for commercial development within the currently leased RD&D 

areas to any other applicants. Under this alternative, if existing RD&D lessees relinquish their 

leases, only 8,205 acres of the 30,720 acres potentially included in the current RD&D leases (i.e., 

160 acre RD&D area plus 4960 PRLA acres per lease) would be available for application for 

future leasing. The areas that would be available for lease are shown in Figures 8 and 9. 

Rationale for Non-Selection: Alternative C was not selected as the Proposed Plan Amendment 

because the alternative would not make the “most geologically prospective lands in Colorado, 

Utah and Wyoming” as available for application for leasing. Thus it is not fully consistent with 

the mandate of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Much of the most geologically prospective 

acreage would be excluded under Alternative C; in particular areas which are in close proximity 

to three of the six RD&D leases would be excluded. In addition, this unreasonably fragments the 

area that would be available for application, resulting in parcels that are unlikely to be explored, 

leased, or developed. This could be an impediment to sound and rational development of the 

resource and can reduce the economic return to the public. If oil shale resources are by-passed 

because of the exclusions in Alternative C, that could also limit the benefits to the nation from 

exploitation of a domestic unconventional energy source. 

Selection of alternative C precipitously limits or restricts the decisionmaker’s discretion to 

balance oil shale use and the protection of resources or resource values, in accordance with 

FLPMA’s principal of “multiple use.” Although as presently being researched, in situ oil shale 

extraction would have many impacts similar to those of oil and gas development, exclusion of 

areas based on existing management prescriptions (e.g., no surface disturbance or seasonal 

limitation that are in place for oil and gas leasing) unnecessarily speculates upon the nature and 

degree of impacts that would be caused by future oil shale development. It would be premature 

to eliminate areas prior to site-specific analysis based on factors that are not known now, but that 

would be known at the leasing or operation permitting stages, such as location, timing and type 

of oil shale technology, that may show that these resources could be adequately protected 

through mitigation. Unlike Alternative B, Alternative C does not give the decisionmaker the 

necessary discretion to optimize the recovery of energy resources, establish appropriate lease 

stipulations to mitigate anticipated impacts, or to fully protect a resource or resource value by 

choosing not to offer an area for lease. 
23 

OVERVIEW OF THE ALTERNATIVES — TAR SANDS 

Tar sands are sedimentary rocks containing bitumen, a heavy hydrocarbon complex. Lighter, 

more volatile hydrocarbons once present in these rocks have escaped to the environment, leaving 

the heavier, less volatile bitumen in place. Because of the very viscous nature of the bitumen, tar 

sands cannot be processed by normal petroleum production techniques. 

More than 50 tar sands deposits occur in Utah. For the tar sands resources, the PRMP/FEIS 

study area includes those locations designated as Special Tar Sand Areas (STSAs) by Congress 

in the Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-78). Eleven STSAs were identified 

in Utah (Figure 11): Argyle Canyon-Willow Creek (hereafter referred to as Argyle Canyon), 

Asphalt Ridge-Whiterocks and Vicinity (hereafter referred to as Asphalt Ridge), Circle Cliffs 

East and West Flanks (hereafter referred to as Circle Cliffs), Hill Creek, Pariette, P.R. Spring, 

Raven Ridge-Rim Rock and Vicinity (hereafter referred to as Raven Ridge), San Rafael Swell, 

Sunnyside and Vicinity (hereafter referred to as Sunnyside), Tar Sand Triangle, and White 

Canyon. The total acreage of the study area is approximately 1,026,000 acres. The tar sands 

resources within the defined study areas are located within the jurisdiction of separate BLM 

administrative units. These units include the Moab, Monticello, Price, Richfield, and Vernal 

Field Offices and the Grand Staircase – Escalante National Monument (GSENM) in Utah. With 

the exception of the GSENM,10 the FEIS evaluated the alternatives that would amend the 

existing BLM land use plans. 

Limited data are available on many of these deposits, and most of the known bitumen occurs in 

just a few of the deposits. The deposits that are being evaluated in this PEIS are those classified 

in the 11 sets of geologic reports (minutes) prepared by the USGS in 1980 (USGS 1980a–k) and 

formalized by Congress in the Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-78).11 The 

11 STSAs, which define the tar sands study area, are shown in Figure 11. 

 

10 Like other National Monuments, the GSENM in Utah, which overlies the Circle Cliffs STSA, will be excluded 

from future leasing for tar sands development. However, at this time, there are two pending conversion leases within 

the GSENM that could potentially be converted to CHLs and developed under the Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing 

Program. For more information about the Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Program and pending conversion leases 

for tar sands development, see Section 1.4.2. Because there will be no future tar sands leasing within the GSENM, 

the impacts of commercial tar sands leasing and development in the Circle Cliffs STSA are not evaluated in this 

PEIS. 

11 The boundaries of the designated STSAs were determined by the Secretary of the Interior’s orders of November 

20, 1980 (45 FR 76800–76801), and January 21, 1981 (46 FR 6077–6078). 
24 

Figure 11: Special Tar Sands Areas in Utah 

Table 5 lists the STSAs, along with their total size in acres and the number of acres of BLMadministered and split estate lands within each STSA. These STSAs are considered to be the 

most geologically prospective areas for tar sands development. 
25 

Table 5: Total Size in Acres of the 11 STSAs and Acres of BLM-Administered and 

Split Estate Lands within Each STSAa,b 

STSA Total Acres BLM-Administered 

Lands 

Split Estate Lands 

(Federal mineral only) 

Argyle Canyon 22,259 1,224 11,869

Asphalt Ridge 39,151 5,323 128

Circle Cliffsc 91,303 51,226 6,707

Hill Creekd 106,795 19,923 36,583

Pariette 22,622 12,337 78

P.R. Spring 273,922 184,558 8,192

Raven Ridge 16,533 14,352 16

San Rafael Swell 130,737 115,667 0

Sunnyside 157,406 78,657 18,575

Tar Sand Triangle 155,049 83,040 0

White Canyon 10,490 8,050 0

Total 1,026,266 574,357 82,148

a Totals may not be exact because of rounding. These estimates were derived from GIS data 

compiled for the PEIS analyses. The GIS data may contain errors; therefore, these estimates 

should be considered to be only representative of the size of the STSAs and the distribution of 

BLM-administered and split estate lands. 

b Split estate lands include areas where the Federal government owns, and the BLM administers, 

the subsurface mineral rights, but the surface estate is owned by tribes, states, or private parties. 

c The Circle Cliffs STSA is included for information purposes only; it has been excluded from 

consideration for being designated as open to application for leasing in this PEIS. The BLMadministered lands fall entirely within the GSENM. 

d The split estate lands in the Hill Creek STSA include 35,472 acres of split estate lands within the 

Hill Creek Extension of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation on which the surface rights are 

owned by the Ute Indian Tribe. 

Although no tar sands development is currently taking place on public lands in Utah, in the mid1980s, a number of CHLs were issued in the Pariette and P.R. Spring STSAs under the authority 

of the Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act (P.L. 97-78). These include four leases in the 

Pariette STSA and two leases in the P.R. Spring STSA; these leases remain in existence. Also in 

the mid-1980s, a number of operators holding oil and gas leases or tar sands claims within 

designated STSAs applied to convert their leases to CHLs. In most instances, the conversion of 

these leases has not been completed; thus, a number of pending conversion applications remains 
26 

within the study area, specifically within the Circle Cliffs, Tar Sand Triangle, and P.R. Spring 

STSAs.12 The BLM is currently engaged in adjudication of these leases.13 Tar sands deposits 

outside the areas designated by the Secretary in the 11 sets of minutes are not available for 

leasing under the CHL Program, but are available for development under a conventional oil and 

gas lease. 

Potential tar sands development could occur on the existing CHLs or on pending conversion 

leases should they be converted to CHLs. However, because there has been no tar sands 

development to date on any of the CHLs and no project proposals have been submitted, the BLM 

cannot reasonably foresee any development of tar sands on public lands within the STSAs over 

the next 20 years under the CHL Program. 

Under both programmatic tar sands alternatives, four land use plans in Utah would be amended 

to (1) designate lands within the STSAs available for application to lease, (2) stipulate 

requirements for future NEPA analyses and consultation activities, and (3) specify that the BLM 

will consider and give priority to the use of land exchanges to facilitate commercial tar sands 

development pursuant to Section 369(n) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The plans that would 

be amended to address commercial tar sands leasing and development include the following: 

− Book Cliffs RMP (BLM 1985), as revised by the 2008 Vernal Field Office RMP/EIS 

(BLM 2008a) 

− Diamond Mountain RMP (BLM 1994, as revised by the 2008 Vernal Field Office 

RMP/EIS (BLM 2008a); 

− Henry Mountain MFP (BLM 1982, as revised by the 2008 Richfield Field Office RMP/EIS 

(BLM 2008c); 

− Price River Resource Area MFP, as amended (BLM 1989, as revised by the 2008 Price 

Field Office RMP/EIS (BLM 2008b); 

− San Rafael Resource Area RMP (BLM 1991a, as revised by the 2008 Price Field Office 

RMP/EIS (BLM 2008b); and 

− San Juan Resource Area RMP (BLM 1991b, as revised by the 2008 Richfield and 

Monticello Field Office RMPs/EISs (BLM 2008c and 2008d). 

−

Public lands outside of the STSAs are not being excluded from consideration for leasing for any 

environmental or other specific reason and could be considered for application for leasing at a 

later time but would require consideration in a new NEPA analysis and a land use plan 

amendment before leasing could be authorized. Areas within the STSAs that are excluded from 

 

12 While the Circle Cliffs STSA is a designated STSA, the BLM-administered portion of it falls entirely within the 

GSENM and has been excluded from consideration for being designated as open to application for leasing in this 

PEIS. 

13 Decisions in this ROD regarding the availability of lands within the STSAs for future commercial leasing and the 

constraints under which such future leases would be issued would not affect the existing CHLs or any of the pending 

applications that are converted to CHLs. 
27 

consideration for application for leasing, or environmentally and economically sound proposals 

employing different technologies, could also be considered in the future in a future plan 

amendment. 

Alternative A — No Action Alternative, Continuation of Current Management 

Under this alternative for tar sands, the BLM assumed that there would be no commercial leasing 

or development of tar sands on public lands. Although a number of CHLs were issued in the 

mid-1980s (and there are additional pending applications to convert oil and gas leases or tar 

sands claims to CHLs), there has been no tar sands development on public lands in the last 20 

years or more. Furthermore, at the time of the preparation of the FPEIS, no commercial tar sands 

project proposals were submitted to the BLM. Based on this history, the BLM has determined 

that it is unlikely that commercial tar sands development would occur under the existing CHL 

Program. Under Alternative A, land use plans would not be amended to allow for leasing for 

commercial tar sands development under any program other than the CHL Program. In October 

2008, the Vernal Field Office RMP/EIS did not carry forward the decisions concerning the 

management of the oil shale resources in the area covered by the Book Cliffs plan. The 

management decision for tar sands adopted by the Vernal Field Office RMP/EIS ROD does not 

modify or alter the assumptions concerning development of the RD&D leases or the analysis 

under Alternative A in the PRMP/FPEIS. This is because the assumption that only the current 

RD&D lease would be developed in the foreseeable future does not change. 

Rationale for Non-Selection: Alternative A was not selected as the Proposed Plan Amendment 

because it did not meet the purpose of and need for the proposed action, nor is it consistent with 

the mandate established by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to establish a commercial leasing 

program for tar sands resources. Under this alternative, BLM would not amend its plans to open 

areas for commercial tar sands leasing and development. 

Commercial Tar Sands Program Alternatives 

There are two separate programmatic alternatives, Alternatives B and C, consisting of different 

management approaches to future commercial tar sands leasing. Under each programmatic 

alternative, the BLM proposes to make certain lands within the STSAs available for application 

for commercial leases. With the exception noted in the socioeconomic analysis in the 

PRMP/FEIS regarding potential impacts on land values that may result from these allocation 

decisions, the action alternatives presented would not result in any impacts on the environment 

or socioeconomic setting of the area under consideration. The BLM will also consider and give 

priority to the use of land exchanges where appropriate and feasible to consolidate land 

ownership and mineral interests within the STSAs. 

Under both alternatives, additional NEPA analyses would be conducted prior to the issuance of 

commercial leases. In addition, site-specific NEPA analyses would be conducted during 
28 

evaluation and approval of plans of development during the project development phase. These 

site-specific analyses, which potentially could be combined into a single NEPA evaluation, 

would identify potential project-specific impacts and define appropriate lease stipulations and 

required mitigation measures. Potential applicable mitigation measures would be applied during 

the site-specific analyses, as appropriate. 

Certain lands within the STSAs are excluded from commercial leasing under all alternatives, on 

the basis of existing laws and regulations, E.O.s, land use plan designations, and other 

administrative designations or withdrawals. As a result, commercial leasing is excluded from all 

designated Wilderness Areas, WSAs, and other areas that are part of the NLCS administered by 

the BLM (e.g., National Monuments, NCAs, WSRs, and National Historic and Scenic Trails). 

Leasing also would be excluded from all existing ACECs and lands within incorporated town 

and city limits. 

The BLM has also determined that additional areas would be closed and would not be available 

for future opportunity to lease for commercial development of tar sands resources under both 

programmatic alternatives. These additional areas include: 1) Circle Cliffs STSA. Most of the 

Circle Cliffs STSA falls entirely within the GSENM and Capitol Reef National Park. The 

issuance of new leases for mineral development within each of these units is prohibited. Also, a 

small portion of the Circle Cliffs STSA underlies the Glen Canyon National Recreation Areas 

(NRA); this area is part of the “Natural Zone” within which mineral leasing and development are 

prohibited, and 2) Segments of rivers that have been determined to be potentially eligible for 

WSR status by virtue of a WSR inventory. These river segments and a corridor extending at 

least 0.25 mi on either side of these segments would be excluded from commercial leasing14. 

Leasing would occur as set forth in 43 CFR Part 3140. The BLM anticipates that it will need 

additional information about potential technologies for, and impacts from, commercial 

production of tar sands in order to complete an analysis under NEPA for issuing leases or 

approving plans of developments. That information does not presently exist and would likely 

need to come from the industry before the BLM would proceed with leasing or approval of 

operations. 

Under both programmatic alternatives, the BLM would ensure that the operator conducts 

commercial development in compliance with existing Federal, state and local regulatory 

requirements and established BLM policies. That compliance would include, as appropriate, 

obtaining all permits (e.g., air, water, and waste management) as required by regulatory agencies; 

operating within the permit constraints; compliance with section 7 of the ESA, which may 

include completing consultation with the U.S. FWS; completing consultation with SHPOs, Tribal 

Historic Preservation Officers, and other consulting parties under Section 106 of the NHPA; and 

 

14 A number of land use plans were undergoing revision, and as part of that process WSR inventories were 

undertaken. Where a river or river segment was found to be “eligible” for inclusion in the WSR system as part of 

one of these inventories, the BLM Handbook directs the BLM to protect the lands along the eligible segment until a 

“suitability” determination is made as part of the land use planning process. If the river or river segment is found to 

be “non-suitable,” the lands along the river then would be available for other uses, but because these segments were 

excluded from analysis under Alternatives B and C, a land use plan amendment will be required prior to making 

these segments available for application for commercial tar sands leasing. 
29 

compliance with any other relevant and applicable requirements. Compliance-related conditions 

would be developed on a project-by-project basis during site-specific analyses. 

Under both programmatic tar sands alternatives, four land use plans in Utah would be amended 

to (1) designate lands within the STSAs available for application to lease, (2) stipulate 

requirements for future NEPA analyses and consultation activities, and (3) specify that the BLM 

will consider and give priority to the use of land exchanges to facilitate commercial tar sands 

development pursuant to Section 369(n) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

Public lands outside of the STSAs are not being excluded from consideration for leasing for any 

environmental or other specific reason and could be considered for application for leasing at a 

later time, but would require consideration in a new NEPA analysis and a land use plan 

amendment before leasing could be authorized. Areas within the STSAs that are excluded from 

consideration for application for leasing in the current PEIS, or environmentally and 

economically sound proposals employing different technologies, could also be considered in a 

future plan amendment. 

The following sections describe the programmatic alternatives. The sections identify the 

additional leasing exclusions that the BLM has identified for each alternative and the proposed 

land use plan amendments. The specific land use plan amendments are discussed in greater detail 

in Attachment – Appendix A. 

Alternative B — Commercial Tar Sands Program, Proposed Plan Amendments 

Alternative B was identified as the BLM's Preferred Alternative in the Draft RMP/EIS. This 

alternative represents the mix and variety of actions that, in the opinion of BLM, best resolve the 

issues and management concerns in consideration of all values and programs. As a result of 

public comment, internal review, and cooperating agency coordination on the Draft RMP/EIS, 

Alternative B was clarified and slightly modified to become the Proposed Plan Amendment and 

analyzed in the Final EIS. With minor adjustments and clarifications, upon signing of this ROD, 

it is now the Approved Plan Amendment. 

Under Alternative B, the BLM is designating a total of 431,224 acres available for application 

for commercial tar sands leasing by amending four land use plans. Specifically, the lands that 

would be available for application include all BLM-administered lands within the STSAs, 

including split-estate lands where the Federal government owns the mineral rights. Figure 12 

shows the lands that would be available for application for lease. 
30 

Figure 12: Lands Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative B for Commercial Tar 

Sands Development within the STSAs in Utah 

Table 6 lists the approximate number of acres available for application for commercial leasing 

under Alternative B by STSA. As indicated in Table 6, split estate lands within the Hill Creek 

Extension of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation where the surface estate is owned by the Tribes 

and the minerals are owned by the Federal government, are included in the lands proposed to be 

available for leasing under Alternative B. These lands encompass 35,472 acres. Under 

Alternative B, land use plans in the study area would be amended to adopt the conditions and 

constraints discussed in the previous section. 
31 

Table 6: Estimated Acres Potentially Available under Alternative B for Application 

for Leasing in Each STSA for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta 

STSA BLM-Administered 

Lands 

Split Estate Lands 

(Federal minerals only) 

Total Acres 

Argyle Canyon 1,022 10,204 11,226

Asphalt Ridge 5,310 125 5,435

Circle Cliffsb

0 0 0

Hill Creekc

19,923 36,583 56,506

Pariette 10,083 78 10,161

P.R. Spring 145,922 7,081 153,003

Raven Ridge 14,348 16 14,364

San Rafael Swell 70,475 0 70,475

Sunnyside 61,093 17,023 78,116

Tar Sand Triangle 24,938 0 24,938

White Canyon 7,001 0 7,001

Total – Alternative B 360,115 71,110 431,224

a Totals may not be exact because of rounding. These estimates were derived from GIS data 

compiled for the PEIS analyses. The GIS data may contain errors; therefore, these estimates 

should be considered to be only representative of the proposed leasing area. 

b Leasing for commercial tar sands development in the Circle Cliffs STSA is excluded under all 

alternatives because it falls entirely within the GSENM and units managed by the National Park 

Service (NPS) on which mineral leasing and development are prohibited. 

c The split estate lands in the Hill Creek STSA include 35,472 acres of Federal mineral estate within 

the Hill Creek Extension of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation on which the surface is owned by 

the Ute Indian Tribe. 

Rationale for Selection: Alternative B for tar sands was selected as the (Proposed Plan 

Amendment based on: 1) its consistency with the requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 

2) its balanced use and protection of resources, 3) the PEIS’s analysis of potential environmental 

impacts, and 4) the comments and recommendations from cooperating agencies and the public. 

Alternative B is structured to be consistent with the congressional mandate of the Energy Policy 

Act to emphasize the “most geologically prospective lands in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming” as 

available for application for leasing. Alternative B, therefore, identifies and offers those 

locations designated as STSAs by Congress in the Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981. 
32 

As compared with Alternative C, Alternative B makes more Federal tar sands available for 

application, and provides for fewer fragmented tracts. Alternative B also provides for more 

contiguous tracts that could be configured for economically and technically feasible extraction or 

recovery of the resources. 

Unlike Alternative C, which excludes lands based existing management decisions for oil and gas 

development, Alternative B provides the decisionmaker with the discretion to balance the tar 

sands use and protection of resources on the public lands during subsequent site-specific NEPA 

analysis. This balanced approach is consistent with FLPMA principles of “multiple use,” and 

“sustained yield.” The requirement to perform future NEPA analyses and to comply with other 

environmental laws allows the decisionmaker to optimize the recovery of energy resources, to 

establish appropriate lease stipulations to mitigate anticipated impacts, or to fully protect a 

resource or resource value by choosing not to offer an area for lease at any particular time. Even 

if some technologies may not allow mining of some tracts to proceed without unacceptable 

impacts to other resource values, Alternative B would allow the agency the opportunity to 

choose to offer leases when a technology is proposed that can be used compatibly with the 

resource values in question. This is consistent with the comments that supported a viable and 

sustainable commercial tar sands leasing program, while ensuring that any impacts to sensitive 

resources or resource values are mitigated to any commercial development. It is also consistent 

with the planning decisions for other mineral resources for these parcels, which authorize leasing 

subject to restrictive conditions, rather than preclude leasing altogether. 

Alternative B does, however, exclude certain lands within the STSAs under the basis of existing 

laws and regulations, executive orders and other administrative designations or withdrawal. 

These include WSAs, National Monuments, WSRs, NCAs, and existing ACECs that are closed 

to mineral development. Additionally, the Circle Cliffs STSA was excluded, where most of the 

acreage falls within GSENM and the Glen Canyon National Recreation Areas, as well as the 

small portion, which underlies the Capitol Reef National Park. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C is similar to Alternative B except that additional lands are excluded from the area 

made available for application for commercial leasing. Under Alternative C, the BLM identified 

a total of 229,038 acres available for application for commercial tar sands leasing. The lands that 

are available for application under Alternative C include some of the lands that are available 

under Alternative B, but exclude lands that are identified as requiring special management or 

resource protection in existing land use plans. 

To identify those lands that would be excluded based on existing land use plan decisions, the 

BLM considered the possible impacts associated with individual commercial tar sands 

development projects. Based on these impact analyses, it was determined that commercial tar 

sands development could be in conflict with existing land use plan decisions that require surfacedisturbance restrictions or seasonal limitations on activities in order to adequately protect a 

specific resource. It was decided to exclude from Alternative C all lands where such surfacedisturbance and seasonal limitations are in place to protect known sensitive resources. The BLM 
33 

made the determination that the most effective means of identifying lands that should be 

excluded on this basis was to exclude those lands within each field office where stipulations for 

no surface disturbance, controlled surface use, or seasonal limitations are in place for oil and gas 

leasing. Under this alternative, the BLM would place a priority on protecting known sensitive 

resources within each field office by excluding certain lands from application for leasing. 

Figure 13 shows the lands that would be available for application for lease under Alternative C. 

Figure 13: Lands Available for Application for Leasing under alternative C for Commercial Tar 

sands Development within the STSAs in Utah 
34 

Table 7 lists the approximate number of acres of BLM-administered lands, including areas where 

the Federal government owns only the mineral estate, available for application for commercial 

leasing under Alternative C by STSA. 

Table 7: Estimated Acres Potentially Available under Alternative C for 

Application for Leasing in Each STSA for Commercial Tar Sands 

Developmenta 

STSA BLM-Administered 

Lands 

Split Estate Lands 

(Federal minerals only)

Total Acres 

Argyle Canyon 0 0 0

Asphalt Ridge 1,372 93 1,464

Circle Cliffsb

0 0 0

Hill Creekc

19,455 480 19,934

Pariette 830 0 830

P.R. Spring 50,727 6,001 56,728

Raven Ridge 9,935 16 9,950

San Rafael Swell 54,492 0 54,492

Sunnyside 48,731 14,010 62,741

Tar Sand Triangle 22,511 0 22,511

White Canyon 386 0 386

Total – Alternative C 208,438 20,600 229,038

a Totals may not be exact because of rounding. These estimates were derived from GIS data 

compiled for the FPEIS analyses. The GIS data may contain errors; therefore, these 

estimates should be considered to be only representative of the proposed leasing area. 

b Leasing for commercial tar sands development in the Circle Cliffs STSA is excluded under 

all alternatives because it falls entirely within the GSENM and units managed by the NPS 

on which mineral leasing and development are prohibited. 

c The split estate lands in the Hill Creek STSA include 35,472 acres of Federal mineral estate 

within the Hill Creek Extension of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation on which the surface 

is owned by the Ute Indian Tribe.. 

Table 8 identifies the types of stipulations and restrictions in place for oil and gas leasing in each 

state that are being used to identify those lands that would not be available for application to 

lease for commercial tar sands development under Alternative C. 
35 

Table 8: Resources Covered by Stipulations and Restrictions in Place for Oil and Gas 

Leasing in the STSAs That Are Being Used to Identify Lands That Would Not Be 

Available for Application for Commercial Tar Sands Development Leasing 

under Alternative C 

Slopes and fragile/erosive soils 

Riparian zones and wetlands 

Sage grouse leks and nesting habitat 

Raptor nests, and habitat 

Wildlife habitata

Listed, proposed, or candidate threatened or endangered and BLM-designated sensitive 

species 

Sensitive plants and relict vegetation 

VRM Class II areas and other high-quality visual resources 

ACECs 

Paleontological resources 

Otherb 

a

 Wildlife habitat includes a combination of winter range, crucial winter range, summer range, and 

calving areas for antelope, bighorn sheep, deer, and elk, as well as seclusion areas for other wildlife. 

b

 Other resources include Special Management Areas (SMAs,) recreation areas, and areas restricted from 

leasing for reasons not specified in the GIS data. 

As shown in Figure 13 and reflected in Table 7, 202,186 acres available for application for 

leasing under Alternative B are excluded under Alternative C; several STSAs become entirely 

unavailable for application for lease. In addition, in some of the STSAs, a large portion of the 

lands proposed to be available for leasing is composed of relatively small, isolated tracts of land. 

These factors could result in limiting the potential amount of commercial tar sands development 

to a level below that which might be realized under Alternative B. 

Rationale for Non-Selection: Alternative C was not selected as the Proposed Plan Amendment 

because the alternative would not make the “most geologically prospective lands in Utah 

available for application for leasing. Thus it is not fully consistent with the mandate of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005. Much of the most geologically prospective acreage of the STSAs 

would be excluded under Alternative C. In addition, this unreasonably fragments the area that 
36 

would be available for application, resulting in parcels that are unlikely to be explored, leased, or 

developed. This could be an impediment to sound and rational development of the resource and 

can reduce the economic return to the public. If tar sands resources are by-passed because of the 

exclusions in Alternative C that could also limit the benefits to the nation from exploitation of a 

domestic unconventional energy source. 

Selection of Alternative C precipitously limits or restricts the decisionmaker’s discretion to 

balance tar sands use and the protection of resources or resource values, in accordance with 

FLPMA’s principal of “multiple use.” Although as presently being researched, tar sands 

extraction would have many impacts similar to those of oil and gas development, exclusion of 

areas based on existing management prescriptions (e.g., no surface disturbance or seasonal 

limitation that are in place for oil and gas leasing) unnecessarily speculates upon the nature and 

degree of impacts that would be caused by future tar sands development. It would be premature 

to eliminate areas prior to site-specific analysis based on factors that are not known now, but that 

would be known at the leasing or operation permitting stages, such as location, timing and type 

of tar sands technology, that may show that these resources could be adequately protected 

through mitigation. Unlike Alternative B, Alternative C does not give the decisionmaker the 

necessary discretion to optimize the recovery of energy resources, establish appropriate lease 

stipulations to mitigate anticipated impacts, or to fully protect a resource or resource value by 

choosing not to offer an area for lease. 

COMMENTS ON THE PRMP AND FEIS 

The BLM received a comment after the publication of the PRMP/FEIS questioning why the 

proposed plan amendments were not going to be subject to the protest process described in the 

BLM’s planning regulations (43 CFR 610.2). 

Because of the strategic importance and multiple state involvements in the process, the Assistant 

Secretary, Land and Minerals Management, in the Department of the Interior will approve the 

proposed plan amendments. As such, the proposed amendments could not be subject to any 

protest to the BLM Director, who is subordinate to the Assistant Secretary. Thus, the regulatory 

process was not applicable. 

THE DECISION 

Preparation of the Plan Amendments was done under the authority of the FLPMA of 1976 and in 

accordance with BLM planning regulations (43 CFR Part 1600). The Approved Plan 

Amendments are consistent with the requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, provides a 

balanced use and protection of resources, and analyze potential environmental impacts. A PEIS 

was prepared to analyze and provide support for the approval of these Plan Amendments in 

compliance with the NEPA. 
37 

The Approved Plan Amendments are identical to the Proposed Plan Amendments presented in 

the PRMP/FEIS, although some clarifications were added, and a few corrections made. 

Management decisions and guidance for public lands under the jurisdiction of the Glenwood 

Springs, Grand Junction, White River, Price, Vernal, Monticello, Richfield, Kemmerer, Rock 

Springs, and Rawlins Field Offices are presented in the Approved Plan Amendments. 

The decision is to adopt Alternative B for both oil shale and tar sands and to approve the attached 

plan amendments as the Approved Plan Amendments for management of public lands that are 

administered by the BLM’s Glenwood Springs, Grand Junction, White River, Price, Vernal, 

Monticello, Richfield, Kemmerer, Rock Springs, and Rawlins Field Offices (see Attachment — 

Appendix A). The Approved Plan Amendments replace public land decisions regarding oil shale 

and tar sands resources in the following plans: 

Colorado: 

− Glenwood Springs RMP (BLM 1988, as amended by the 2006 Roan Plateau Plan 

Amendment [BLM 2006b, 2007a, 2008]) 

− Grand Junction RMP (BLM 1987) 

− White River RMP (BLM 1997b, as amended by the 2006 Roan Plateau Plan Amendment 

[BLM 2006b, 2007a]) 

Utah: 

− Book Cliffs RMP (BLM 1985), as revised by the 2008 Vernal Field Office RMP/EIS 

(BLM 2008a) 

− Diamond Mountain RMP (BLM 1994), as revised by the 2008 Vernal Field Office 

RMP/EIS (BLM 2008a) 

− San Rafael Resource Area RMP (BLM 1991a, as revised by the 2008 Price Field Office 

RMP/EIS (BLM 2008b); and 

− Price River Resource Area MFP, as amended (BLM 1989), as revised by the 2008 Price 

Field Office RMP/EIS (BLM 2008b) 

− Henry Mountain MFP (BLM 1982, as revised by the 2008 Richfield Field Office RMP/EIS 

(BLM 2008c); 

− San Juan Resource Area RMP (BLM 1991b, as revised by the 2008 Richfield and 

Monticello Field Office RMPs/EISs (BLM 2008c and 2008d). 

Wyoming: 

− Great Divide RMP (BLM 1990) 

− Green River RMP (BLM 1997a, as amended by the Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated 

Activity Plan [BLM 2006a]) 

− Kemmerer RMP (BLM 1986). 
38 

What the Decision to Amend the RMPs Provides 

The decision serves as the first step in the process to establish a commercial oil shale and tar 

sands program that meets the intent of Congress while taking advantage of information and 

practices to minimize future impacts and ensure that states, local communities, and the public 

have the opportunity to be involved at future NEPA steps in the oil shale and tar sands program. 

The decision is an allocation decision, (i.e., making lands available or open for the potential 

leasing of oil shale and tar sands resources). The BLM anticipates that the eventual development 

of the oil shale and tar sands resources would proceed in a phased approach – proceeding from 

this allocation decision, to a leasing decision and then to an operational permit approval. The 

allocation decision essentially removes an administrative barrier present today that prevents the 

BLM from accepting and considering applications to lease oil shale or tar sands without first 

amending the respective land use plan. Prior to the leasing and development phases additional 

NEPA analysis will be required. This measured approach, where each step builds upon a prior 

step, ensures that state and local communities have the opportunity to be involved and are fully 

informed of the activities associated with the program. The allocation decisions open the areas 

to the availability for the application to lease as identified in Alternative B for Oil Shale and Tar 

Sands in the PRMP/FEIS. 

Oil Shale Decisions 

• Is subject to existing Federal, State and local laws and regulatory requirements, as well as 

established BLM policies. 

• Identifies the most geologically prospective oil shale areas within the planning unit; 

• Designates 1,991,222 acres of land within the most geologically prospective oil shale area 

as available for application for leasing for commercial oil shale development in 

accordance with applicable Federal, state, and local regulations and BLM policies; 

• Removes the administrative barrier to BLM considering any application to lease oil shale; 

• Allows only the use of surface mining technologies in areas in Utah and Wyoming where 

the overburden is 0 to 500 ft thick; 

• Modifies existing decisions related to oil shale leasing in the White River RMP; 

• Requires additional NEPA analysis of the environmental, social, and economic effects of 

reasonably foreseeable development before the issuance of leases for commercial 

development; 

• Requires additional NEPA analysis of the site-specific environmental, social, and 

economic effects of particular development proposals to consider site-specific and 

project-specific factors before the approval of project-specific development plans; and 
39 

• Requires the BLM to consider and give priority to the use of land exchanges, where 

appropriate and feasible, to consolidate land ownership and mineral interests within the 

oil shale basins. 

Tar Sands Decision 

• Is subject to existing Federal, State and local laws and regulatory requirements, as well as 

established BLM policies. 

• Designates 431,224 acres of land within the STSAs as available for application for leasing 

for commercial tar sands development in accordance with applicable Federal, state, and 

local regulations and BLM policies; 

• Requires additional NEPA analysis of the environmental, social, and economic effects of 

reasonably foreseeable development before the issuance of leases for commercial 

development; 

• Requires additional NEPA analysis of the site-specific environmental, social, and 

economic effects of particular development proposals to consider site-specific and 

project-specific factors before the approval of project-specific development plans; and 

• Requires the BLM to consider and give priority to the use of land exchanges where 

appropriate and feasible to consolidate land ownership and mineral interests within the 

STSAs. 

What the Decision to Amend the RMPs Does Not Provide 

The Approved Plan Amendments do not authorize the immediate leasing of oil shale or tar sands 

resources. The Amendments do nothing more than remove the administrative barrier present 

today that prevents the BLM from accepting and considering applications to lease oil shale and 

tar sands without first amending the respective land use plan. The amendment of the land use 

plans does not authorize any ground-disturbing activities and is not an irreversible or 

irretrievable commitment of resources under NEPA. 

• The Approved Plan Amendments do not contain decisions for minerals other than oil shale 

and tar sands for land administered by the BLM’s Glenwood Springs, Grand Junction, 

White River, Price, Vernal, Monticello, Richfield, Kemmerer, Rock Springs, and Rawlins 

Field Offices. The Approved Plan Amendments also do not contain decisions for mineral 

estates for Forest Service lands located in the planning area, for lands under the 

jurisdiction of other Federal agencies, or for private or State-owned lands and minerals. 

• The Approved Plan Amendments do not contain decisions for allocating lands for leasing 

STSAs in NPS units. Leasing STSAs in NPS units is allowed only where mineral leasing 
40 

is permitted by law and where the lands are open to mineral resource disposition in 

accordance with any applicable NPS Minerals Management Plan. The NPS Regional 

Director also must find that leasing within an NPS unit would not result in any significant 

adverse impacts on the NPS unit or any contiguous unit. 

• The Approved Plan Amendments do not apply to private or state lands shown on maps 

included in the RMP. 

• The Approved Plan Amendments do not affect valid existing rights. 

• In addition, many decisions are not appropriate at this level of planning and are not 

included in the ROD. Examples of these types of decisions include: 

− Statutory requirements. The decision will not change the BLM's responsibility to 

comply with applicable laws, rules, and regulations. 

− National Policy. The decision will not change BLM's obligation to conform to 

current or future National policy, as established by BLM itself, the Department, 

the President or Congress. 

− Funding levels and budget allocations. These are determined annually at the 

National level and are beyond the control of the field office. 

NOTICE OF MODIFICATIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS 

MADE TO THE APPROVED PLAN 

Modifications 

After careful review of the information provided by the Governors of Colorado, Utah and 

Wyoming during the Governor’s consistency review and continued internal review, BLM 

determined that no modifications to the Proposed Plan were necessary. 

Clarifications 

The following clarifications and minor corrections made to the information included in the 

PRMP/FEIS are reflected in the attached Approved Plan: 

− The ROD for the Price Field Office RMP/EIS, the Richfield Field Office RMP/EIS, and 

the Vernal Field Office RMP/EIS were signed in October 2008 and for the Monticello 

RMP/EIS, the ROD was signed in November 2008. These decision documents supersede 

the decision contained in the prior RMPs [Book Cliffs RMP (BLM 1985); Diamond 

Mountain RMP (BLM 1994); Price River Resource Area MFP, as amended (BLM 1989); 

Henry Mountain MFP (BLM 1982); San Rafael Resource Area RMP (BLM 1991); and 
41 

San Juan Resource Area RMP (BLM 1991)] for the planning areas with the exception of 

the decisions pertaining to oil shale and tar sands resources. Those decisions for oil shale 

and tar sands resources are contained in this ROD. 

− The adoption of the RODs for the four Utah RMPs listed above changed the number of 

plans being amended from 12 to 10. The Approved Plan amends eight land use plans for 

to designate lands, as available for commercial oil shale leasing and amends four lands 

use plans to designate lands as available for tars sands leasing. Two of the plans that are 

being amended contain both oil shale and tar sands resources, so a total of ten plans are 

being amended. 

− This ROD only amends the decisions for oil shale and tar sands resources in the 10 

existing RMPs, and does not amend any of the decisions or protocols for the management 

of the other resource uses or values, such as air quality, wildlife, cultural resources, water 

quality, special resource values, etc. 

− A number of land use plans are and were undergoing revision, as part of that process where 

WSR inventories were undertaken. Where a river or river segment was found to be 

“eligible” for inclusion in the WSR system as part of one of these inventories, the BLM 

Handbook directs the BLM to protect the lands along the eligible segment until a 

“suitability” determination is made as part of the land use planning process. If the river 

or river segment is found to be “non-suitable,” the lands along the river then would be 

available for other uses. The 2008 ROD for the Vernal Field Office, determined that the 

river segments of Evacuation Creek were not eligible for inclusion. For commercial 

leasing to occur on the excluded segments within the OSEC’s PRLA, if the lease is 

relinquished, or any of the excluded segments outside of the PRLA boundary, the Vernal 

Field Office RMP would need to be amended. 

− A clarification was made that additional NEPA analysis of the environmental, social, and 

economic effects of development would be required before the issuance of leases for 

commercial development or approval of project-specific plans. 

− On April 10, 2008, the Wyoming Environmental Quality Council designated the Abode 

Town as “Very Rare or Uncommon.” This designation was finalized pursuant to 

Wyoming Statue §35-11-112(a)(v) and chapter 7 of the Environmental Quality Council 

Rules of Practice and Procedure. This area consists of the Adobe Town WSA (86,000 

acres) and the Monument Valley Management Area (69,940 acres), both of which were 

excluded from both Alternative B and C in the PRMP/PEIS. The remaining fringe area 

was not excluded from Alternative B and C. 

− The Rawlins Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement was recently published, and the Field Office is in the process of preparing the 

ROD. The surface geological, historical, archaeological, wildlife and scenic values of the 

fringe area would be managed according to the management prescriptions and protocols 

contained in the ROD for the Rawlins RMP/EIS. During the subsequent NEPA analysis, 

if an oil shale application is received for a parcel in the fringe area around the Abode 

Town WSA or the Monument Valley Management Area, when specific technical and 

environmental information is available for analysis at that time, any potential conflicts 

with the Wyoming Environmental Quality Council’s designation can be addressed. The 

appropriate BLM Field Office will consider all available information and a range of 
42 

alternative actions to mitigate or eliminate impacts to resource values present. This is 

consistent with the intent of the “Very Rare or Uncommon” designation to provide a 

higher level of scrutiny when it comes to non-coal mine permits.” 

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS IN 

SELECTING THE APPROVED PLAN AMENDMENTS 

The Approved Plan Amendments have been selected on the basis of the following factors, 

consistent with the requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, a balanced use and protection 

of resources, the analysis of potential environmental impacts and consideration of formal 

comments and recommendations from cooperating agencies and the public. 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 

Consideration has been given to the requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 

(P.L.) 109-58, to establish a commercial leasing program for oil shale and tar sands resources. In 

particular, the requirement that a programmatic environmental impact statement be completed 

“for a commercial leasing program on public lands, with an emphasis on the most geologically 

prospective lands in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.” 

Consideration has also been given as to whether the Approved Plan Amendments conform with 

the intent of Congress in establishing a commercial oil shale and tar sands program, while taking 

advantage of the best available information and practices to minimize impacts and ensuring that 

states, local communities, and the public have the opportunity to be involved in development of 

the PEIS analysis. 

Comments and Recommendations 

Due to the diversity of community needs and stakeholders affected by management of BLM 

lands, there was both support and opposition to certain components of the Proposed Plan 

Amendments. The BLM considered the concerns expressed by the states, tribal and local 

governments, industry, special interest groups, and the public. Consideration was given whether 

the Approved Plan Amendments protected other resources found on the public lands and whether 

impacts on local communities were minimized. 

A major consideration in formulating the Approved Plan Amendments were the environmental 

socioeconomic, resource and technology concerns, and alternatives raised as a result of the 

December 13, 2005 Notice of Intent (NOI) initiating the preparation of the PEIS. Consideration 
43 

of these issues and concerns, in addition to those expressed by cooperating agencies with whom 

BLM worked collaboratively throughout the development of the PEIS, prompted the BLM to 

reconsider the scope of the analysis in the PEIS. The BLM determined that the analysis to 

support an immediate leasing decision would require making many speculative assumptions 

regarding potential, unproven technologies. Consequently, the BLM modified its 

recommendation to the official responsible for the scoping decision – the Assistant Secretary, 

Land and Minerals Management –from the purpose of offering specific parcels for lease, to a 

recommendation to allocate lands available for potential leasing. 

In addition, all substantive comments received during the comment period on the Draft PEIS 

were reviewed and considered. Modifications to the Draft PEIS and alternatives were made, as 

appropriate to form the Approved Plan Amendments. 

Balanced Use and Environmental Protection 

The BLM considered whether the Approved Plan Amendment would improve and sustain 

properly functioning resource conditions, while considering the need and demand for existing or 

potential resource commodities and values. Consideration was given whether there was an 

appropriate balance of resource use to meet resource, social and economic concerns in the 

planning areas. The impact analysis in the PRMP/FEIS discloses, with the exception noted in 

the socioeconomic analysis concerning potential impacts to land values, that there are no impacts 

to the environment or socioeconomic setting of the study area. The amendment of the land use 

plans does not authorize any ground-disturbing activities and there are no irreversible or 

irretrievable commitments of resources. 

The BLM also considered the wealth of information on the consequences of oil and gas and 

underground and surface mining activities. The BLM used comparable data, and the Bureau’s 

professional experience with surface-disturbing activities associated with these types of mineral 

development, to determine that the Bureau had sufficient information on the nature of the effects 

for an allocation decision to be made. The analysis of potential impacts associated with oil shale 

and tar sands development as disclosed in Chapters 4, 5 and 6 of the PRMP/FEIS provided 

essential information necessary for formulating the Approved Plan Amendments. 

Consideration was given to whether the Approved Plan Amendments provided the BLM with the 

discretion to establish appropriate lease stipulations to mitigate anticipated impacts or eliminate 

areas from consideration for leasing to protect resource values. The Approved Plan Amendments 

require site‐specific NEPA analysis to be carried out prior to issuance of any oil shale or tar 

sands leases, and the environmental consequences to specific resource values and uses within the 

areas and any alternative actions be analyzed. If, pursuant to that NEPA and leasing process, the 

BLM determines that leasing and subsequent development of the oil shale or tar sands resources 

would cause significant impacts, the BLM can require the applicant to (1) mitigate the impact so 
44 

that it is no longer significant, (2) move the proposed lease location, or, if neither of these 

options resolves the anticipated conflicts, (3) the BLM can decide that the importance of 

development of the oil shale and tar sands resources outweighs protection of the competing 

resource value and approve the application, or 4) BLM can choose not to issue the particular 

lease. The requirement to perform future NEPA analyses and associated compliance activities, 

gives the BLM the discretion to establish appropriate lease stipulations to mitigate anticipated 

impacts or eliminate areas from consideration for leasing to protect resource values, if the 

mitigation could not be prescribed as conditions of BLM approval of plans for development. 

CONSISTENCY AND CONSULTATION REVIEW 

Governor’s Consistency Review 

43 U.S.C. §1712(c)(9) states that the Secretary of the Interior shall “coordinate the land-use 

inventory, planning , and management activities of or for such lands with the land-use planning 

and management programs of other Federal departments, and agencies and of the States and 

local governments within which the lands are located.” It further states that “the Secretary shall 

assure that consideration is given to those State, local and tribal plans that are germane in the 

development of land-use plans for public lands [and] assist in resolving, to the extent practical, 

inconsistencies between Federal and non-federal government plans....” This does not require the 

BLM to adhere to or adopt the plans of other agencies or jurisdictional entities, but rather to give 

consideration to this plan and make an effort to resolve inconsistencies to the extent practical. 

Congress also authorized the Secretary to lease federal oil shale and tar sands resources and has 

declared them to be “strategically important domestic resources that should be developed” ... “to 

benefit the United States while taking into account affected States and communities. The BLM 

is aware that there are State planning decisions relevant to aspects of public land management 

that are discrete from, and independent of, Federal law. As the BLM is bound by this and other 

federal laws, however, it may be possible that oil shale or tar sands projects would occur that 

would not be completely consistent with all aspects of State and local plans, and inconsistencies 

between Federal and non-federal government plans could only be resolved to the extent practical 

(FLPMA, Title II Sec. 202 (c)(9)). 

Where State plans conflict with Federal law, there will be an inconsistency that cannot be 

resolved or reconciled. Thus, while State and Federal planning processes, under FLPMA, are 

required to be as integrated and consistent as practical, the Federal agency planning process is 

not bound by or subject to State plans, planning processes, or planning stipulations. 

Under the PRMP/FPEIS’s allocation decisions, the BLM is only permitted to consider 

applications to lease. The allocation decision does not grant any property rights, nor does it 

authorize any ground-disturbing activities, and is not an irreversible or irretrievable commitment 

of resources under NEPA. Therefore, the allocation decision does not conflict with any state, 
45 

local, or Tribal plans. On September 5, 2008, the BLM initiated the 60-day Governor's 

Consistency Review of the PRMP/FPEIS. 

By letters dated November 4, 2008, Governors Freudenthal, Huntsman, and Ritter provided 

comments concerning the Proposed Plan Amendments, for their respective States. The three 

Governors all submitted comments and recommendations concerning consistency with State 

plans, programs and policies. The BLM reviewed these letters and did not identify any 

inconsistencies concerning State or local plans, policies, and programs. 

COOPERATING AGENCIES 

The PRMP/FPEIS was prepared in cooperation with 14 Federal, states, and local governmental 

organizations and numerous opportunities for coordination were provided these entities. These 

included coordination during scoping period, providing briefings, formulation of the alternatives, 

and providing opportunities to review and comment on preliminary and internal drafts of the 

PEIS. The BLM held many informal meetings and discussions with the cooperating agencies. In 

addition, the BLM consulted with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the 

PRMP/FEIS. 

The BLM worked collaboratively with its cooperating agencies throughout the process to create 

a balanced commercial leasing program, consistent with the intent of Congress. Management 

plans and programs established by these cooperating agencies were considered in the preparation 

the PRMP/FPEIS based on information provided by the agencies. In consultation with the 

cooperating agencies, the BLM modified the nature and scope of the original PEIS from a 

leasing decision to a land use planning allocation decision. The allocation decision, by opening 

lands to leasing, only permits the BLM to consider applications to lease. The allocation decision 

does not grant any property rights, nor does it authorize any ground-disturbing activities, and is 

not an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources under NEPA. Therefore, the 

allocation decision does not conflict with any state, local, or tribal plans. 

The following agencies participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the 

PRMP/FEIS: 

• National Park Service; 

• Bureau of Reclamation; 

• U.S. Forest Service; 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 

• State of Colorado, Department of Natural Resources and Department of Public Health and 

the Environment; 

• State of Utah; 

• State of Wyoming; 

• Garfield County, Colorado; 

• Mesa County, Colorado; 

• Rio Blanco County, Colorado; 
46 

• Duchesne County, Utah; 

• Uintah County, Utah; 

• City of Rifle, Colorado; and 

• Town of Rangely, Colorado. 

The BLM will continue to cooperate with state, local, and tribal governments to promote 

consistency with their land use plans. No lease sales will be held before additional consultation 

with states, tribes and local governments, as directed by Congress in Section 369(e). 

Tribal Governments 

The BLM works directly with tribal governments on a government-to-government basis. The 

Federal/tribal government-to-government relationship was reaffirmed by the Federal government 

on May 14, 1998, with E.O. 13084 and strengthened on November 6, 2000, with E.O. 13175 

(U.S. President 1998, 2000). 

The BLM coordinates and consults with tribal governments, Native communities, and individual 

members of tribes whose interests might be directly and substantially affected by activities on 

public lands. It strives to provide the tribal entities sufficient opportunities for productive 

participation in BLM planning and resource management decision making. In addition, 

Section 106 of the NHPA requires Federal agencies to consult with Indian tribes for undertakings 

on tribal lands and for historic properties of significance to the tribes that may be affected by an 

undertaking (36 CFR 800.2 (c)(2)). BLM Manual 8120 (BLM 2004a) and Handbook H-8120-1 

(BLM 2004b) provide guidance for Native American consultations. 

The BLM developed a process to offer specific consultation opportunities to “directly and 

substantially affected” tribal governments, as required under the provisions of E.O. 13175 and to 

Indian tribes as defined under 36 CFR 800.2(c)(2). Starting in February 2006, tribal 

governments located in or with interests in the three-state study area were contacted by mail by 

the BLM State Directors. Table 9 lists the Tribal governments that were contacted by each state 

and describes the status of the ongoing consultations with each tribe. At the time the FPEIS was 

completed, six tribes (San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, Ute Indian Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute 

Tribe, White Mesa Band of Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Pueblo of Santa Clara, and Pueblo of Zuni) 

and five Navajo Chapters (Aneth, Navajo Mountain, Oljato, Red Mesa, and Teecnospos) had yet 

to respond to the BLM’s request for consultation. Four tribes (Pueblo of Laguna, Pueblo of 

Nambe, Pueblo of Zia, and Southern Ute Tribe) and two Navajo Chapters (Dennehotso and 

Mexican Water) have indicated that further consultation is not needed. Eight tribes have 

expressed an interest in consultation with the BLM for this project, as summarized in Table 9. 

The BLM will continue to consult with interested tribes, as appropriate. In addition, the BLM 

will continue to implement government-to-government consultation on a case-by-case basis for 

site-specific oil shale and tar sands resource development projects. 
47 

Table 9: Government-to-Government Consultation Summary 

Tribes Contacted for Consultation on the 

PEIS Status of Consultation Process 

Colorado 

Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Ignacio, 

CO 

The Tribe has indicated that further consultation is 

not needed. 

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Towoac, 

CO 

No response to initial consultation letter. 

Follow-up consultation will be conducted. 

Utah 

Hopi Tribe, Kykotsmovi, AZ The Tribe has indicated it would be interested in 

the portion of the study area located in eastern Utah 

as far north as Price; no additional specific 

information or concerns have been conveyed to the 

BLM, to date. 

Kaibab Paiute Tribe, Fredonia, AZ The Tribe has expressed interest in development 

associated with a specific STSA; the Tribe has not 

conveyed any specific information or concerns to 

the BLM, to date. 

Navajo Nation, Window Rock, AZ The BLM has provided additional information at 

the request of the Tribe; the Tribe has expressed 

concern with certain specific areas that are located 

in the vicinity of the PEIS study areas. Follow-up 

consultation will be conducted. 

Navajo Nation, Aneth Chapter, 

Montezuma Creek, UT 

No response to initial consultation letter. Follow-up 

consultation will be conducted. 

Navajo Nation, Dennehotso Chapter, 

Dennehotso, AZ 

The Tribe has indicated that further consultation is 

not needed. 

Navajo Nation, Mexican Water 

Chapter, Teecnospos, AZ 

The Tribe has indicated that further consultation is 

not needed. 

Navajo Nation, Navajo Mountain 

Chapter, Tonalea, AZ 

No response to initial consultation letter. Follow-up 

consultation will be conducted. 

Navajo Nation, Oljato Chapter, 

Monument Valley, UT 

No response to initial consultation letter. Follow-up 

consultation will be conducted. 

Navajo Nation, Red Mesa Chapter, 

Montezuma Creek, UT 

No response to initial consultation letter. Follow-up 

consultation will be conducted. 

Navajo Nation, Teecnospos Chapter, 

Teecnospos, AZ 

No response to initial consultation letter. Follow-up 

consultation will be conducted. 
48 

Table 9: Government-to-Government Consultation Summary 

Tribes Contacted for Consultation on the 

PEIS Status of Consultation Process 

Northwestern Band of Shoshone 

Nation, Pocatello, ID 

The Tribe has expressed concern with certain 

specific areas that fall within the PEIS study areas, 

but has not subsequently conveyed any specific 

information or concerns to the BLM. 

Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, Cedar 

City, UT 

The Tribe has expressed an interest in consulting 

with the BLM and becoming involved in 

development of the PEIS; there was no response to 

follow-up contact, however, BLM will continue to 

consult with the Tribe. 

Pueblo of Laguna, Laguna, NM The Tribe has indicated that further consultation is 

not needed. 

Pueblo of Nambe, Santa Fe, NM The Tribe has indicated that further consultation is 

not needed. 

Pueblo of Santa Clara, Espanola, NM No response to initial consultation letter. Follow-up 

consultation will be conducted. 

Pueblo of Zia, Zia Pueblo, NM The Tribe has indicated that further consultation is 

not needed. 

Pueblo of Zuni, Zuni, NM No response to initial consultation letter. Follow-up 

consultation will be conducted. 

San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, 

Tuba City, AZ 

No response to initial consultation letter. Follow-up 

consultation will be conducted. 

Ute Indian Tribe, Fort Duchesne, UT The Tribe has indicated to the BLM that it would 

like to be consulted regarding potential leasing for 

commercial oil shale and/or tar sands development 

on split estate lands located in the Hill Creek 

Extension of the Uinta and Ouray Reservation prior 

to any parcel being put up for leasing. 

White Mesa Band of the Ute 

Mountain Ute Tribe, Blanding, UT 

No response to initial consultation letter. Follow-up 

consultation will be conducted. 

Wyoming 

Northern Arapaho Tribe, Fort 

Washakie, WY 

The BLM met with the Tribe at a joint meeting 

with the Eastern Shoshone Tribe in Ethete, WY, on 

August 25, 2006; a second meeting was conducted 

with the Tribe, by phone, on October 5, 2006. 

Subsequently, the Tribe requested and received 

copies of ethnohistory and cultural resource 
49 

Table 9: Government-to-Government Consultation Summary 

Tribes Contacted for Consultation on the 

PEIS Status of Consultation Process 

overview documents being prepared in conjunction 

with the PEIS, 

Eastern Shoshone Tribe, Fort 

Washakie, WY 

The BLM met with the Tribe at a joint meeting 

with the Northern Arapaho in Ethete, WY, on 

August 25, 2006. 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Fort Hall, 

ID 

The BLM has provided additional information at 

the request of the Tribe and has contacted specific 

individuals at the request of the Tribe; the Tribe has 

not conveyed any specific information or concerns 

to the BLM, to date. 

NHPA — Section 106 Consultation 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(ACHP), and the State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming 

are developing a Programmatic Agreement (PA) to govern implementation of the oil shale and 

tar sands program and to address future impacts from oil shale and tar sands development that 

may affect historic properties on public lands. 

Under the PA, BLM will use a phased approach to meet the agency’s obligations under Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for future leasing and development. Each 

subsequent phase will require an appropriate level of Section 106 analysis. The commercial 

leasing program for oil shale and tar sands resources is a multi-year effort in which the PEIS is 

only the first phase. Under the PEIS, BLM is analyzing an allocation decision, the amendment 

of 10 existing land use plans to designate certain public lands as open for application for future 

oil shale and tar sands leasing. 

ESA — Section 7 Compliance 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) directs each federal 

agency, in consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. FWS) or the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), as appropriate, to ensure that any action authorized, 

funded, or carried out by the agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any 

listed threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. See ESA § 7 (16 USC 1536). Under Section 7 of the ESA, those agencies that 

authorize, fund, or carry out the federal action are commonly known as “action agencies.” If an 

action agency determines that its federal action “may affect” listed species or critical habitat, it 
50 

must consult with the U.S. FWS of the DOI or NMFS of the Department of Commerce (DOC) 

(collectively known as the “Services”), or both, whichever has jurisdiction over the species or 

habitat that may be affected. See 50 CFR 402.02, 402.13-14. If an action agency determines 

that the federal action will have no effect on listed species or critical habitat, the action agency 

may make a “no effect” determination. In that case, the action agency does not initiate 

consultation with the Services and its obligations under Section 7 are complete. 

In order to make this determination, an action agency must consider the effects of the action at 

issue. Regulations implementing NEPA and ESA each use the terms “direct effect,” “indirect 

effect,” and “cumulative effect,” but the definitions of these terms are not identical under the 

statutes. Regulations at 40 CFR 1508.8 and 50 CFR 402.02 highlight these differences. Under 

NEPA, and as demonstrated in the PEIS prepared in support of the amendment of these land use 

plans, an agency will examine the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of a proposed action. 

Indirect effects are those caused by the action, later in time, and reasonably foreseeable. Under 

the ESA, however, the effects of an action are evaluated by a stricter standard. Regulations 

implementing the ESA define the term “effects of an action” at 50 CFR 402.02 to include direct 

and indirect effects (and the effects of interrelated or interdependent activities), but limit indirect 

effects to those that are caused by the action, later in time, and reasonably certain to occur. In 

addition, ESA regulations limit the term “cumulative effects” to those effects of future state or 

private activities; NEPA regulations are not so limited. 

The “reasonably certain to occur” standard used in the ESA regulations is more demanding than 

the “reasonably foreseeable” standard used in the NEPA regulations (see 40 CFR 1508.8). Thus 

it is possible that a proposed action may have “no effect” under the rigorous ESA standard, but 

have multiple effects under NEPA. The ESA standard has been part of interagency regulations 

at 50 CFR Part 402 since 1986 and is the subject of proposed rules recently promulgated by the 

Services. Interagency Cooperation Under the Endangered Species Act, 73 Fed. Reg. 47868 

(Aug. 15, 2008) (to be codified at 50 CFR pt. 402). 

In complying with its duty under Section 7, the BLM, as the action agency, has examined the 

effects on listed species and designated critical habitat of amending land use plans to identify 

lands as available for application for commercial leases for oil shale or tar sands development. 

The BLM also examined the proposed action of amending land use plans in this manner in light 

of the direction and analysis recently provided by the U.S. FWS regarding compliance with 

Section 7, concerning emissions of greenhouse gases, and any effects they may cause to listed 

species and designated critical habitats, in particular the polar bear (Caswell 2008; Hall 2008). 

As a result of these examinations, the BLM has determined that its proposed action of amending 

land use plans would cause no effect on any listed species or designated critical habitat. This 

determination is based on the following. 

1. The Proposed Action, amendment of land use plans to identify lands as available for 

application for commercial leasing for oil shale or tar sands development, is an administrative 

task that would not cause any impact to listed species or critical habitat. The amendments do not 

commit the BLM to a particular course of action or authorize any ground-disturbing activity; 

they merely allow the BLM to consider granting leases—in the future—for oil shale or tar sands 

development. Nor do land use plan amendments result in future implementation actions that 

may cause emission of greenhouse gases (Caswell 2008). 
51 

2. The amendment of land use plans for such purpose does not establish a precedent or create 

any legal right that would allow ground-disturbing activities without further agency decision 

making and compliance with applicable statutes, including the ESA, NEPA, and other applicable 

authorities. 

3. Before the BLM issues a lease or approves any ground-disturbing activity, the BLM will 

analyze the effects of the proposed action and ensure compliance with the ESA. 

It is important to note that the effects of any future activities that might occur as a result of the 

issuance of a lease or approval of any ground-disturbing activity or other authorization on a 

lease, following site-specific compliance with ESA and other applicable laws, would not be 

effects, direct or indirect, of the Proposed Action at issue here. Until BLM receives an 

application to lease oil shale or tar sands resources for development, issues such a lease, and 

considers approval of any ground-disturbing activities on the lease, it is impossible to determine 

what effects on listed species or critical habitat might be “reasonably certain to occur” (see 

discussion above). 

For the above reasons, the action agencies have determined, in compliance with section 7(a)(2) 

of the ESA, that amending land use plans to identify lands as available for application for 

commercial leasing for oil shale or tar sands development would have no effect on listed 

threatened or endangered species or critical habitat. 

The BLM has not reached its “no effect” determination because listed species and critical habitat 

are unlikely to be present in lands described in the land use plan amendments. To the contrary, 

Tables 4.8.1-6 and 5.8.1-6 in the PEIS identify the listed species that occur in the states of 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming where the land use plan amendments would allocate lands for 

either oil shale or tar sands leasing. Portions of the designated areas are occupied by listed 

species or contain designated critical habitat. The BLM considered preparing a biological 

assessment (BA) and initiating consultation with the U.S. FWS under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. 

After discussing various approaches, and closely examining the regulations implementing the 

ESA, the BLM determined, however, that the administrative action of amending land use plans 

in the manner described would not affect listed species or designated critical habitat. 

Preparing a BA before a lease or site-specific project had been proposed would be based largely 

on conjecture and speculation. There would be simply no way to know before such a proposal is 

made whether the impacts to be assessed would be those that would actually occur as a result of 

a proposal by a future proponent. Further, without knowing the specifics of when and where a 

project would occur, it would be impossible to know what species, if any, would be affected by 

the project. The BLM considered whether it made sense to make assumptions for the purposes of 

a BA, but was left with no credible basis on which to make such assumptions. The BLM 

determined such assumptions would be speculative and not linked to the federal action of 

amending land use plans. Any BA would be a speculative assessment of effects from future sitespecific projects, not of the current Proposed Action. 

This is not to say that there would be no Section 7 consultations (including preparation of BAs or 

biological opinions (BOs) where appropriate) on future actions that may affect listed species or 

critical habitat. As noted above, the BLM fully expects that if an application for a lease, permit, 

or other authorization is received by the BLM for oil shale or tar sands development within lands 
52 

identified as available for application, procedures to comply with Section 7 of the ESA would be 

initiated at that time. Such procedures may take the form of a “no effect” determination by the 

BLM; preparation of a BA by the BLM; a “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” 

determination with U.S. FWS concurrence; consultation with the U.S. FWS; or issuance of a BO 

by the U.S. FWS. At such time as any “no effect” determination, BA, concurrence, or BO is 

prepared, such determination would be made based on a full record describing the proposed 

lease, project, site, method of construction, and other relevant information, all features lacking at 

the present time. 

In reaching the “no effect” determination, the BLM found no direct or indirect effect on listed 

species or critical habitat as a result of the mere allocation of areas as available for application 

for commercial leases for oil shale or tar sands development, through land use plan amendment. 

Any effects to a listed species or critical habitat that might occur in an area available for lease 

application or eventual development would occur in the future and are simply unknown at this 

time, and would be caused, if at all, by the site-specific development, following full policy and 

legal review, including any consultation under Section 7 of the ESA. 

At the outset in the process of considering the proposed action and developing this PEIS, BLM 

and U.S. FWS developed a Consultation Agreement (Agreement) to assist in complying with 

Section 7 consultation for this project. Specifically, this Agreement established the process upon 

which Section 7 consultation would be conducted between the BLM and U.S. FWS on the 

proposed Oil Shale and Tar Sands Leasing Program. This Agreement addressed consultation and 

conferencing on all species determined to be listed as threatened or endangered, or proposed for 

listing, and designated or proposed critical habitat occurring on the Federal lands and split estate 

resources managed by the BLM that may be impacted by leasing and development of oil shale 

and tar sands resources. Part of the Agreement provided for the development of conservation 

measures to support the conservation of ESA-listed species. Since the development of the 

Agreement, the scope of the proposed action has changed, and no longer includes the actual 

leasing of the resources, and the conservation measures will not be imposed on the basis only of 

the analysis presented in the PEIS. Rather, it been determined that the Proposed Action 

(amending land use plans to identify lands available for future commercial leasing of oil shale 

and tar sands) has no effect on listed species or critical habitat, and therefore, no imposition of 

conservation measures is warranted at this stage. However, prior to the issuance of any leases, 

additional biological evaluation will be carried out, and conservation measures may be imposed 

by BLM upon potential lessees if this subsequent biological assessment reveals that such 

measures are warranted. 

For purposes of the programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS), and to provide the 

public and any potential lessees with some sense of what conservation measures might be 

imposed, if warranted, the conservation measures that have been developed pursuant to the 

Agreement are presented in Appendix B and are assumed to be generally consistent with existing 

conservation agreements, recovery plans, and completed consultations. It is the intent of the 

BLM and the U.S. FWS to ensure that the conservation measures presented here are consistent 

with those currently applied to other land management actions where associated impacts are 

similar. However, it is presumed that potential impacts from possible development alternatives 

described in the PEIS are likely to vary in scale and intensity when compared with land 

management actions previously considered (e.g., oil and gas exploration and production, surface 
53 

mining, and underground mining). Hence, final conservation measures will be developed 

commensurate with the anticipated level of impact that may result from site-specific projects 

developed under the selected alternative, as analyzed in those site-specific project level analyses, 

and will be consistent with agency policies. For instance, current BLM guidance on similar 

actions (e.g., projects involved in development of fluid mineral resources) requires that the least 

restrictive stipulation that effectively accomplishes the resource objectives or resource uses for a 

given alternative should be used in order that a project remain in compliance with the ESA. 

MITIGATION MEASURES 

The PRMP/FEIS presents a preliminary, qualitative, analysis of the impacts of leasing and 

development of these resources to assist in informing the land use planning decision. This 

analysis of potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with oil shale and tar 

sands development is based on currently known technologies. However, the level and degree of 

the potential impacts could not be quantified because this would require making many 

speculative assumptions regarding potential, unproven technologies, project size, and production 

levels. This analysis, nevertheless, discloses potential effects associated with leasing and 

development to provide the decisionmaker available information to assist in informing the 

allocation decision. 

Included in the PRMP/FEIS is a brief description of mitigation measures to avoid or minimize 

environmental harm that the BLM may consider for use, if warranted by the results of 

subsequent NEPA analysis undertaken prior to issuance of oil shale commercial leases and/or 

approval of detailed site-specific plans of development. Use of the mitigation measures will be 

evaluated at that time. The effectiveness of these potential mitigation measures and the extent to 

which they are applicable would vary from project-to-project and need to be examined in detail 

in future NEPA reviews of leasing and project plans of development. Additional measures to 

mitigate environmental impacts may also be developed during subsequent NEPA analysis at the 

leasing level planning and project development stages. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

One of BLM’s primary objectives during development of the PRMP/FPEIS was to understand 

the concerns and issues of various members of the public by providing opportunities for 

meaningful participation in the resource management planning process. 
54 

Scoping 

To achieve this, BLM, published the NOI to prepare PEIS in the Federal Register (70 FR 73791–

73792) on December 13, 2005. The NOI identified planning criteria, initiated the public scoping 

process, and invited interested members of the public to provide comments on the scope and 

objectives of the PEIS and to identify issues to be addressed in the planning process. The BLM 

conducted scoping from December 13, 2005, through January 31, 2006. During that period, the 

BLM invited the public and interested groups to provide information on resource use, land 

allocations, and development and protection opportunities for consideration in preparation of the 

PEIS. 

Open public meetings, were held in Salt Lake City, Utah (January 10, 2006); Price, Utah 

(January 11, 2006); Vernal, Utah (January 12, 2006); Rock Springs, Wyoming (January 13, 

2006); Rifle, Colorado (January 18, 2006); Denver, Colorado (January 19, 2006); and Cheyenne, 

Wyoming (January 20, 2006). It is estimated that as many as 5,000 people participated in the 

scoping process by attending public meetings, providing comments, requesting information, or 

visiting the Oil Shale and Tar Sands PEIS Web site (http://ostseis.anl.gov). 

Approximately 4,735 individuals, organizations, and government agencies provided comments 

on the scope of the PEIS, including the verbal comments provided at the public meetings. 

During the scoping period, more than 7,000 visits were made to the Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

PEIS Web site (http://ostseis.anl.gov) by more than 3,600 different individuals. The BLM 

published a scoping report (BLM 2006) that summarizes and categorizes the major themes, 

issues, concerns, and comments expressed by private citizens, government agencies, private 

firms, and nongovernmental organizations. These comments were considered in developing the 

alternatives in this PEIS. 

Public Comments on the Draft EIS 

The EPA published the Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft PEIS in the Federal Register 

on December 21, 2007 (72 FR 72751–72753). Publication of the NOA began a 90-day public 

comment period on the Draft PEIS, which was subsequently extended 30 days, ending on 

April 21, 2008. The Draft PEIS was posted in its entirety on the Oil Shale and Tar Sands PEIS 

Web site. Printed copies of the document and CDs containing the electronic files for the 

document were mailed upon request. More than 102,000 people and organizations participated 

in the public comment process. Nearly 170 recognized organizations (public and private) 

provided comments on the Draft PEIS. The BLM reviewed and responded to all comments and 

made changes to the FPEIS, as appropriate. 

RELEASE of the RMPA and FPEIS 
55 

The EPA published the NOA of the RMPA/FPEIS in the Federal Register on September 5, 2008 

(73 FR 51838–51840). The BLM will continue to actively seek the views of the public, using 

outreach techniques such as news releases and website information to offer opportunities for 

public participation and inform the public of new and ongoing project proposals, site-specific 

planning, and opportunities and timeframes for comment. The BLM will also continue to 

coordinate, both formally and informally, with the numerous states, Federal, tribal and local 

agencies and officials interested and involved in the management of oil shale and tar sands 

resources on public lands in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming within the planning area. 

AVAILABILITY OF THE PLAN 

Paper and electronic copies of the ROD and the Approved Plan Amendments are available by 

request from the following locations: 

• Colorado State Office, 2850 Youngfield Street, Lakewood, CO 80215 

• Utah State Office, 440 West 200 South, Suite 500, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 

• Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone, Cheyenne, WY 82009 

• Vernal Field Office, 170 South 500 East, Vernal, UT 84078 

• Price Field Office, 125 South 600 West, Price, UT 84501 

• Richfield Field Office, 150 East 900 North, Richfield, UT 84701 

• Monticello Field Office, 435 North Main, P.O. Box 7, Monticello, UT 84535 

• White River Field Office, 220 E. Market Street, Meeker, CO 81641 

• Glenwood Springs Field Office, 2425 S. Grand Ave., Suite 101, Glenwood Springs, CO 

81601 

• Grand Junction Field Office, 2815 H Road, Grand Junction, CO 81506 

• Kemmerer Field Office, 312 Highway 189 North, Kemmerer, WY 83101 

• Rawlins Field Office, at 1300 North Third, PO Box 2407, Rawlins, WY 82301 

• Rock Springs Field Office, 280 Highway 191 North, Rock Springs, WY 82901 

Interested persons may also review the PRMP Amendments and FPEIS on the Internet at 

http://ostseis.anl.gov. 

57 

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

AMENDMENTS 

INTRODUCTION 

These Approved Plan Amendments amend the following Resource Management Plans for oil 

shale and tar sands resources: 

Colorado: 

− Glenwood Springs RMP (BLM 1988, as amended by the 2006 Roan Plateau Plan 

Amendment [BLM 2006b, 2007a, 2008]) 

− Grand Junction RMP (BLM 1987) 

− White River RMP (BLM 1997b, as amended by the 2006 Roan Plateau Plan Amendment 

[BLM 2006b, 2007a]) 

Utah: 

− Book Cliffs RMP (BLM 1985), as revised by the 2008 Vernal Field Office RMP/EIS 

(BLM 2008a) 

− Diamond Mountain RMP (BLM 1994), as revised by the 2008 Vernal Field Office 

RMP/EIS (BLM 2008a) 

− San Rafael Resource Area RMP (BLM 1991a, as revised by the 2008 Price Field Office 

RMP/EIS (BLM 2008b); and 

− Price River Resource Area MFP, as amended (BLM 1989), as revised by the 2008 Price 

Field Office RMP/EIS (BLM 2008b) 

− Henry Mountain MFP (BLM 1982, as revised by the 2008 Richfield Field Office RMP/EIS 

(BLM 2008c); 

− San Juan Resource Area RMP (BLM 1991b, as revised by the 2008 Richfield and 

Monticello Field Office RMPs/EISs (BLM 2008c and 2008d). 

Wyoming: 

− Great Divide RMP (BLM 1990) 

− Green River RMP (BLM 1997a, as amended by the Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated 

Activity Plan [BLM 2006a]) 

− Kemmerer RMP (BLM 1986). 
58 

and are now the base land use allocation plans for oil shale and tar sands resources on public 

lands administered by the BLM's Glenwood Springs, Grand Junction, White River, Price, 

Vernal, Monticello, Richfield, Kemmerer, Rock Springs, and Rawlins Field Offices. 

The Approved Plan Amendments adopt the management described in Proposed Plan and the 

Management Common to All Alternatives section presented PRMP/FPEIS, with adjustments as 

described in the Notice of Modification and Clarification sections of the ROD. 

 CONSIDERATION OF OTHER BLM PLANS AND POLICIES 

The ROD for the Approved Plan Amendments amends the land use plans existing at the time the 

ROD is implemented, identifying those areas designated as open for application for future oil 

shale and tar sands leasing. The existing plans within the PRMP/FPEIS study area include the 

following: 

Colorado: 

− Glenwood Springs RMP (BLM 1988, as amended by the 2006 Roan Plateau Plan 

Amendment [BLM 2006b, 2007a, 2008]) 

− Grand Junction RMP (BLM 1987) 

− White River RMP (BLM 1997b, as amended by the 2006 Roan Plateau Plan Amendment 

[BLM 2006b, 2007a]) 

Utah: 

− Book Cliffs RMP (BLM 1985), as revised by the 2008 Vernal Field Office RMP/EIS 

(BLM 2008a) 

− Diamond Mountain RMP (BLM 1994), as revised by the 2008 Vernal Field Office 

RMP/EIS (BLM 2008a) 

− San Rafael Resource Area RMP (BLM 1991a, as revised by the 2008 Price Field Office 

RMP/EIS (BLM 2008b); and 

− Price River Resource Area MFP, as amended (BLM 1989), as revised by the 2008 Price 

Field Office RMP/EIS (BLM 2008b) 

− Henry Mountain MFP (BLM 1982, as revised by the 2008 Richfield Field Office RMP/EIS 

(BLM 2008c); 

− San Juan Resource Area RMP (BLM 1991b, as revised by the 2008 Richfield and 

Monticello Field Office RMPs/EISs (BLM 2008c and 2008d). 

Wyoming: 

− Great Divide RMP (BLM 1990) 

− Green River RMP (BLM 1997a, as amended by the Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated 

Activity Plan [BLM 2006a]) 

− Kemmerer RMP (BLM 1986). 
59 

With the exception of the RMP for the GSENM, these existing BLM land use plans will be 

amended by decisions contained in the ROD for the PRMP/FPEIS. The proposed land use plan 

amendments are attached (Attachment – Appendix A). These plans continue to outline the 

decisions or protocols for the management of the other resource uses or values within the 

appropriate planning areas. 

In the event there are inconsistencies or discrepancies between previously approved plans and 

these Approved Plan Amendments, the decisions contained in the Approved Plan Amendments 

for oil shale and tar sands resources will be followed. The Glenwood Springs, Grand Junction, 

White River, Price, Vernal, Monticello, Richfield, Kemmerer, Rock Springs, and Rawlins Field 

Offices will continue to tier to statewide, national, and programmatic EISs and other NEPA and 

planning documents, as well as consider and apply Best Management Practices or other 

management protocols contained in other planning documents after appropriate site-specific 

analysis. 

All future resource authorizations and actions will conform to, or be consistent with the decisions 

contained in these Approved Plan Amendments. All existing operations and activities authorized 

under permits, contracts, cooperative agreements or other authorizations will be modified, as 

necessary, to conform to this plan within a reasonable timeframe. However, this plan does not 

repeal valid existing rights on public lands. A valid existing right is a claim or authorization that 

takes precedence over the decisions developed in this plan. If such authorizations come up for 

review and can be modified, they will also be brought into conformance with the plan. 

While the PRMP/FPEIS constitutes compliance with NEPA for the broad-scale decisions made 

in these Approved Plan Amendments, BLM will continue to prepare Environmental Assessments 

(EAs) and Environmental Impacts Statements (EISs) where appropriate as part of leasing and 

development level planning and decision-making. The appropriate BLM Field Office during 

subsequent NEPA analysis will consider all available information and a range of alternative 

management prescriptions for how the local resource values and uses would be managed, in 

conjunction with the specific leasing proposal or development. The NEPA analysis will evaluate 

any potential environment impacts and evaluate specific measures developed to mitigate or 

eliminate those impacts. 

PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 

General Implementation Schedule 

The decisions of the Approved Plan Amendments go into effect upon signature of the ROD. 

Maintaining the Plan 
60 

Land use plan decisions and supporting information associated with the Glenwood Springs, 

Grand Junction, White River, Price, Vernal, Monticello, Richfield, Kemmerer, Rock Springs, 

and Rawlins Field Offices can be maintained to reflect minor changes in data, but maintenance is 

limited to refining, documenting, and/or clarifying previously approved decisions. 

In addition, the BLM expects that new information gathered from field inventories and 

assessments, research, other agency studies, and other sources will update baseline data and/or 

support new management techniques, best management practices, and scientific principles. 

Where monitoring shows land use plan actions or best management practices are not effective, 

modifications or adjustments may occur without amendment or revision of the plan as long as 

assumptions and impacts disclosed in the analysis remain valid and broad-scale goals and 

objectives are not changed. 

Plan maintenance will be documented in supporting records. Plan maintenance does not require 

formal public involvement, interagency coordination, or the NEPA analysis required for making 

new land use plan decisions. 

Changing the Plan 

The BLM believes that the RD&D program will significantly enhance the collective knowledge 

regarding the viability of innovative technologies for oil shale development on a commercial 

scale and provide additional information on environmental consequences and potential 

mitigations. 

The Approved Plan Amendments may be changed, should conditions warrant, through a plan 

amendment process. A plan amendment may become necessary if major changes are needed, 

additional information is available or to consider a proposal or action that is not in conformance 

with the plan. The results of monitoring, evaluation of new data, or policy changes and changing 

public needs might also provide the impetus for an amendment. Generally, an amendment is 

issue-specific. If the plan amendments become outdated or otherwise obsolete, a further plan 

amendment may become necessary. Plan amendments are accomplished with public input and 

the appropriate level of environmental analysis. 

Data used in development of the Approved Plan Amendments are dynamic. The data and maps 

used throughout the Approved Plan Amendments are for land use planning purposes and will be 

refined as site-specific planning and on-the-ground implementation occurs. Updating data is 

considered plan maintenance which will occur over time as the RMP is implemented (see the 

section on Plan Implementation). Please note that all acreages presented in the Approved Plan 

Amendment are estimations, even when presented to the nearest acre. 

LIST OF PREPARERS 

Sherri Thompson PEIS Project Manager BLM 
61 

Debra Agnolet Program Analyst BLM 

REFERENCES CITED 

BLM, 1991b, Resource Management Plan Record of Decision and Rangeland Program 

Summary for the San Juan Resource Area, Moab District, Utah, March. 

BLM, 1982, Hanksville-Henry Mountains Management Framework Plan, Richfield District, 

Utah. 

BLM, 1985 Record of Decision and Rangeland Program Summary for the Book Cliffs Resource 

Management Plan, Vernal District Office, Utah, May 

BLM, 1986, Record of Decision for the Kemmerer Resource Management Plan Record of 

Decision, Grand Junction District, Colo., Jan. 

BLM, 1987, Grand Junction Resource Area Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision, 

Grand Junction District, Colo., Jan. 

BLM, 1988, Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan, Glenwood Springs Resource 

Area, Grand Junction District, Colo., June 

BLM, 1989, Decision Record and Finding of No Significant Impact for Amendment to the 

Management Framework Plan for the Price River Resource Area, Moab District, Price River 

Resource Area, Utah, June. 

BLM, 1990, Great Divide Resource Area Record of Decision and Approved Resource 

Management Plan, Rawlins District Office, Great Divide Resource Area, Wyo., Nov. 

BLM, 1991a, San Rafael Final Resource Management Plan, Moab District, San Rafael Area, 

Utah, May 

BLM, 1994, Diamond Mountain Resource Area Resource Management Plan and Record of 

Decision, Vernal District Office, Utah. 

BLM, 1997a, Record of Decision and Green River Resource Management Plan, Green River 

Resource Area, Rock Springs District Office, Wyo., Oct. 

BLM, 1997b, White River Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan, White 

River Resource Area, Colo., Craig District, Meeker, Colo., July 

BLM, 2004a, Manual 8120 —Tribal Consultation under Cultural Resources, Release 8-74, U.S. 

Department of the Interior 

BLM, 2004b, Handbook H-81-20-1—General Procedural Guidance for Native American 

Consultation, Release -75, U.S. Department of the Interior. 

BLM, 2006, Summary of Public Scoping Comments for the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources 

Leasing Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, prepared by Argonne National 
62 

Laboratory, Argonne, Ill., for Bureau of Land Management, Solid Minerals Group, Washington 

D.C., Jan. 

BLM, 2006a Record of Decision and Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan/Proposed 

Green River Resource Management Plan Amendment, Rock Springs Field Office, Wyo., July. 

BLM, 2006b, Record of Decision and Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan/Proposed 

Green River Resource Management Plan Amendment, Rock Springs Field Office, Wyo., July. 

BLM, 2007a, Record of Decision for the Approval of Portions of the Roan Plateau Management 

Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement, Glenwood Springs Field Office, Colo., 

June. 

BLM, 2008, Record of Decision for the Resource Management Plan Amendment for Portions of 

the Roan Plateau Planning Area Designated as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Public 

Lands in Garfield County, CO, March. 

BLM, 2008a, Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management 

Plan, Vernal Field Office, Utah, October. 

BLM, 2008b, Price Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan, 

Price Field Office, Utah, October. 

BLM, 2008c, Richfield Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management 

Plan, Richfield Field Office, Utah, October. 

BLM, 2008d, Monticello Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management 

Plan, Monticello Field Office, Utah, October. 

Donnell, 1987, “Storehouse of Energy Minerals in the Piceance Basin,” in Oil Shale, Water 

Resources, and Valuable Minerals of the Piceance Basin, Colorado: The Challenge and 

Choices of Development, O.J. Taylor (editor), U.S. Geological Surrey Professional Paper 1310. 

Tabet, D., 2007, personal communication from Tabet (Utah Geological Survey, Salt Lake City, 

Utah) to S. J. Thompson (Bureau of Land Management Washington, D.C. Office), Dec. 14. 

U.S. President, 1998, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” 

Executive Order No. 13084, Federal Register 63:27655, May 19. 

U.S. President, 2000, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 

Executive Order No. 13175, Federal Register 65:67429, Nov. 9. 

Wiig , S., 2006a, personal communication from Wiig (BLM Rock Springs Field Office, Wyo.) to 

P. Perlewitz (BLM Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyo.), June 13. 

Wiig, S., 2006b, personal communication from Wiig (BLM Rock Springs Field Office, Wyo.) to 

K.P. Smith (Argonne National Laboratory, Lakewood, Colo.), June 27. 
63 

LIST OF ACRONYMS 

ACEC Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

CHLs Combined Hydrocarbon Leases 

DOC Department of Commerce 

E.O. Executive Order 

EGL E. G. L. Resources 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

FPEIS Geographic Information System 

GSENM Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument 

KSLA Known Sodium Leasing Areas 

MFP Management Framework Plan 

MMTA Mechanically Mineable Trona Area 

NCA National Conservation Area 

NEPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NLCS National Landscape Conservation System 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOA Notice of Availability 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NPS National Park Service 

NRA National Recreation Area 

NSO Oil Shale Exploration Company 

P.L. Public Law 

PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

PRLA Preference Right Lease Acreage 

PRMP Propose Resource Management Plan 

RD&D Research, Development and Demonstration 

RMP Resource Management Plan 

RMPA Resource Management Plan Amendments 

ROI Region of Influence 

ROD Record of Decision 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 
64 

SMA Special Management Areas 

STSA Special Tar Sands Area 

USDI United States Department of the Interior 

U.S. FWS US Fish and Wildlife Service 

WSA Wilderness Study Area 

WSR Wild and Science Rivers 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1: Total Size in Acres of the Green River Formation Basins, Most geologically 

prospective Oil Shale Areas, and Acres of BLM-Administered and Split Estate 

Lands within the Most Prospective Areas in each State. 

Table 2: Estimated Acres Potentially Available in Each State for Application for Leasing for 

Commercial Oil Shale Development under the Proposed Plan Amendment 

(Alternative B) 

Table 3: Estimated Acres Potentially Available in Each State for Application for Leasing for 

Commercial Oil Shale Development under Alternative C 

Table 4: Resources Covered by Stipulations and Restrictions in Place for Oil and Gas Leasing 

in Each State That Are Being Used to Identify Lands Not Available for Application 

for Leasing under Alternative C 

Table 5: Total Size in Acres of the 11 STSAs and Acres of BLM-Administered and Split 

Estate Lands within Each STSA 

Table 6: Estimated Acres Potentially Available under Alternative B for Application for 

Leasing in Each STSA for Commercial Tar Sands Development 

Table 7: Estimated Acres Potentially Available under Alternative C for Application for 

Leasing in Each STSA for Commercial Tar Sands Development 

Table 8: Resources Covered by Stipulations and Restrictions in Place for Oil and Gas Leasing 

in the STSAs That Are Being Used to Identify Lands That Would Not Be Available 

for Application for Commercial Tar Sands Development Leasing under 

Alternative C 

Table 9: Government-to-Government Consultation Summary 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1: Figure 1: Most Geologically Prospective Oil Shale Resources within the Green 

River formation Basins in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. 
65 

Figure 2: Locations of the Six RD&D Tracts and Associated PRLAs 

Figure 3: Lands Available for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative A in Utah. 

Figure 4: Green River Formation Basins in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming: the Most 

Geologically Prospective Oil Shale Resources; the Areas Where the Overburden 

above the Oil Shale Resources Is ≤500 ft; and Locations of the Six RD&D Projects. 

Figure 5: Lands Available for Application for Lease under Alternative B for Commercial Oil 

Shale Development within the Most Geologically Prospective areas in Colorado. 

Figure 6: Lands Available for Application for Lease under Alternative B for Commercial Oil 

Shale Development within the Most Geologically Prospective areas in Utah. 

Figure 7: Lands Available for Application for Lease under Alternative B for Commercial Oil 

Shale Development within the Most Geologically Prospective areas in Wyoming. 

Figure 8: Lands Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative C for Commercial Oil 

Shale Development within the Most Geologically Prospective Areas in Colorado. 

Figure 9: Lands Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative C for Commercial Oil 

Shale Development within the Most Geologically Prospective Areas in Utah. 

Figure 10: Lands Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative C for Commercial Oil 

Shale Development within the Most Geologically Prospective Areas in Wyoming. 

Figure 11: Special Tar Sands Areas in Utah. 

Figure 12: Lands Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative B for Commercial 

Tar Sands Development within the STSAs in Utah. 

Figure 13: Lands Available for Lease under alternative C for Commercial tar Sands 

Development within the STSAs in Utah. 
66 

This page intentionally left blank 
A-1 

APPENDIX A: 

APPROVED LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS 

FOR 

OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS 
A-2 

APPENDIX A: 

APPROVED LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS 

FOR 

OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS 

The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), develops land use 

plans to guide activities, establish management goals and approaches, and establish land use 

allocations within a planning area. Current land use plans are called resource management plans 

(RMPs); in the past, such plans were called management framework plans (MFPs), and some 

MFPs are still in use. Analyses conducted in this programmatic environmental impact statement 

(PEIS) support the amendment of specific land use plans in those field offices where oil shale 

and tar sands resources are located, as discussed in Chapters 2 and 6 of the PEIS. For oil shale, 

eight land use plans would be amended: 

• Colorado 

− Glenwood Springs RMP (BLM 1988, as amended by the 2006 Roan 

Plateau Plan Amendment [BLM 2006a, 2007, 2008]) 

− Grand Junction RMP (BLM 1987) 

− White River RMP (BLM 1997a, as amended by the 2006 Roan Plateau 

Plan Amendment [BLM 2006a, 2007, 2008]) 

• Utah 

− Book Cliffs RMP (BLM 1985, as revised by the 2008 Vernal Field Office 

RMP/EIS)[BLM2008a] 

− Diamond Mountain RMP (BLM 1994), as revised by the 2008 Vernal 

Field Office RMP/EIS (BLM2008a) 

− Price River Resource Area MFP, as amended (BLM 1989), as revised by 

the 2008 Price Field Office RMP/EIS (BLM 2008b) 

• Wyoming 

− Great Divide RMP (BLM 1990) 

− Green River RMP (BLM 1997b, as amended by the Jack Morrow Hills 

Coordinated Activity Plan [BLM 2006b]) 

− Kemmerer RMP (BLM 1986). 

For tar sands, four land use plans would be amended: 

• Utah 
A-3 

− Book Cliffs RMP (BLM 1985), as revised by the 2008 Vernal Field Office 

RMP/EIS (BLM 2008a) 

− Diamond Mountain RMP (BLM 1994, as revised by the 2008 Vernal Field Office 

RMP/EIS (BLM 2008a); 

− Henry Mountain MFP (BLM 1982, as revised by the 2008 Richfield Field Office 

RMP/EIS (BLM 2008c); 

− Price River Resource Area MFP, as amended (BLM 1989, as revised by the 2008 

Price Field Office RMP/EIS (BLM 2008b); 

− San Rafael Resource Area RMP (BLM 1991a, as revised by the 2008 Price Field 

Office RMP/EIS (BLM 2008b); and 

− San Juan Resource Area RMP (BLM 1991b, as revised by the 2008 Richfield and 

Monticello Field Office RMPs/EISs (BLM 2008c and 2008d). 

Table A-1 presents specific information regarding the approved land use plan amendments for 

each land use plan that is associated with Alternative B for oil shale, and Table A-2 presents the 

same information for amendments associated with Alternatives B for tar sands. These tables 

describe the individual amendments for each plan, along with the rationale for the amendment. 

Some of the proposed amendments are common to all land use plans; these amendments are 

presented first in each table. Amendments specific to individual plans are presented in the latter 

section of each table. 
TABLE A-1 Approved Changes and Rationales for Land Use Plan Amendments Associated with Alternative B for Amendments Common to All Land Use Plans Identify the most geologically prospective oil shale areas within the planning unit. Rationale: In accordance with the requirements of Section 369(d)(1) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the BLM has identified the mo

prospective oil shale resources in Colorado and Utah as those deposits on public lands (including federal split estate) that yield 25 gal rock (gal/ton) or more and are 25 ft thick or greater. The most geologically prospective oil shale resources in Wyoming are defined as 15 gal/ton of shale oil or more and are 15 ft thick or greater.c Specify that while the PEIS refers to “application for leasing for commercial oil shale development,” the BLM could publish in the Fe

more additional requests for expressions of interest in RD&D leasing within one or more of the states of Colorado, Utah, and Wyomin

lease would have to be consistent with the applicable BLM land use plans. Rationale: In Section 369(c) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress expressly authorized the Secretary to make land available fo

R&D activities with respect to technologies for the recovery of liquid fuels from oil shale. The impacts of new RD&D leasing are antiqualitatively similar to those of commercial oil shale leasing as analyzed in this PEIS. The RD&D impacts, however, are anticipated t

those of commercial projects, at least until any RD&D lease might be converted to a commercial oil shale lease and expanded to incluacreage. Therefore, the analysis in the PEIS for commercial oil shale projects also provides sufficient analysis of RD&D projects for p

land use plans. New RD&D leases would be issued, if at all, only after site-specific analysis under NEPA. Conversion to commercial an individualized NEPA document. 

Specify that commercial leasing will occur utilizing a lease by application process described in Section 2.3.3. The process will require analysis be conducted prior to lease issuance. Information collected as part of the lease application process will be incorporated into th

Rationale: The BLM has concluded that, at this time, it does not have adequate information on the (1) potential magnitude and pace o

development, (2) potential locations for commercial leases, (3) technologies that will be employed, (4) size or production level of indi

projects, and (5) development time lines for individual projects to support decisions about lease issuance. As a result, the BLM is defe

lease issuance into the future and specifying that prior to processing applications for commercial leases for oil shale development, appto identify key information regarding aspects of the proposed development needed to support a complete NEPA review (e.g., technololevel of planned development, anticipated off-site impacts, strategies to comply with regulatory requirements, and so forth). During thBLM will identify and establish appropriate lease stipulations to mitigate anticipated impacts. 
TABLE A-1 Approved Changes and Rationales for Land Use Plan Amendments Associated with Alternative B for Specify that approval of the project-specific plan of operation will require NEPA review to consider site-specific and project-specific 

review for the plan of operations may be incorporated into NEPA for the lease application if adequate operational data are provided by 

Rationale: Conducting additional NEPA review prior to approval of project-specific plans of operation will allow the BLM to identify 

mitigation measures as needed to control impacts beyond those established in the lease stipulations.. Specify that the BLM will consider and give priority to the use of land exchanges, where appropriate and feasible, to consolidate land 

interests within the oil shale basins. Rationale: Section 369(n) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires the Secretary of the Interior (the “Secretary”) to consider and giv

land exchanges to facilitate the recovery of unconventional fuels. The Act states “...to facilitate the recovery of oil shale and tar sandswhere Federal, State, and private lands are intermingled, the Secretary shall consider the use of land exchanges where appropriate and 

land ownership and mineral interests into manageable areas.” The Act also dictates that any land exchange undertaken shall be implem

with Section 206 of FLPMA. Colorado

Glenwood Springs RMP, Glenwood Springs Field Office Designate 12,424 acres of land within the most geologically prospective oil shale area as available for application for leasing for commdevelopment in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations and BLM policies. Rationale: As described in Section 2.3.3, all lands within the most geologically prospective oil shale area that are not excluded from c

existing laws and regulations, Executive Orders, or administrative land use plan designation, or have not been specifically excluded by 

reasons, will be available for application for commercial leasing. The acreage estimate presented here represents those lands not excluleasing under Alternative B. 

Specify that applications for commercial leases using surface mining technologies will not be accepted in the planning area. Rationale: As described in Section 2.3.1, surface mining will only be allowed in areas where the overburden is 0 to 500 ft thick becaube the maximum amount of overburden where surface mining can occur economically, using today’s technologies. Within the most geoil shale area defined in the Piceance Basin in Colorado, the areas where the overburden is 0 to 500 ft thick are very limited, and it woassemble a logical mining unit (see Figure 2.3-1).d
TABLE A-1 Approved Changes and Rationales for Land Use Plan Amendments Associated with Alternative B for Grand Junction RMP, Grand Junction Field Office Designate 4,024 acres of land within the most geologically prospective oil shale area as available for application for leasing for commdevelopment in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations and BLM policies. Rationale: As described in Section 2.3.3, all lands within the most geologically prospective oil shale area that are not excluded from c

existing laws and regulations, Executive Orders, or administrative land use plan designation, or have not been specifically excluded by 

reasons, will be available for application for commercial leasing. The acreage estimate presented here represents those lands not excluleasing under Alternative B. Specify that applications for commercial leases using surface mining technologies will not be accepted in the planning area. Rationale: As discussed in Section 2.3.1, surface mining will only be allowed in areas where the overburden is 0 to 500 ft thick, beca

be the maximum amount of overburden where surface mining can occur economically, using today’s technologies. Within the most geoil shale area defined in the Piceance Basin in Colorado, the areas where the overburden is 0 to 500 ft thick are very limited, and it woassemble a logical mining unit (see Figure 2.3-1).c 

White River RMP, White River Field Office Designate 343,358 acres of land within the most geologically prospective oil shale area as available for application for leasing for comdevelopment in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations and BLM policies. In addition, the existing decision in the W

regarding the prohibition of oil shale leasing within the Piceance Creek Dome area would be eliminated. Rationale: As described in Section 2.3.3, all lands within the most geologically prospective oil shale area that are not excluded from cexisting laws and regulations, Executive Orders, or administrative land use plan designation, or have not been specifically excluded by 

reasons, will be available for application for commercial leasing (i.e., commercial and/or RD&D). The acreage estimate presented her

not excluded from commercial leasing under Alternative B.. 

Specify that applications for commercial leases using surface mining technologies will not be accepted in the planning area. 

Rationale: As described in Section 2.3.1, surface mining will only be allowed in areas where the overburden is 0 to 500 ft thick, becaube the maximum amount of overburden where surface mining can occur economically using today’s technologies. Within the most geoil shale area defined in the Piceance Basin in Colorado, the areas where the overburden is 0 to 500 ft thick are very limited, and it woassemble a logical mining unit (see Figure 2.3-1).d
TABLE A-1 Approved Changes and Rationales for Land Use Plan Amendments Associated with Alternative B for Specify that certain decisions regarding oil shale leasing and development contained in the current RMP will be removed from the RM

decisions that will be removed include those designating (1) that 294,680 acres of land are available for oil shale leases, of which 39,1for surface mining, and (2) that lands within the “Piceance dome area” are currently closed to leasing for oil shale development. The R

retain the existing decision regarding the 70,820-acre (which is included in total acres available for oil shale lease) Multimineral Zon

that requires that the commercial development of oil shale, nahcolite, and dawsonite will only be allowed in this area if recovery techn

to ensure that each of these minerals can be recovered without preventing recovery of the others. Rationale: The BLM has determined that it will make all lands within the most geologically prospective oil shale area available for ap

except that surface mining lease applications will not be accepted (see above). The BLM also has determined that it will not preclude 

leasing in areas, such as the Piceance dome area, where extensive oil and gas leases exist. Decisions about commercial mineral develo

primarily by lease holders. The decision to maintain the restrictions associated with the Multimineral Zone will continue protection of commercial value of all mineral resources within this area Utah Book Cliffs RMP, as revised by the 2008 Vernal Field Office RMP, Vernal Field Office 

Designate 531,593 acres of land within the most geologically prospective oil shale area as available for application for leasing for comdevelopment in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations and BLM policies. Rationale: As described in Section 2.3.3, all lands within the most geologically prospective oil shale area that are not excluded from c

existing laws and regulations, Executive Orders, or administrative land use plan designation, or have not been specifically excluded by 

reasons, will be available for application for commercial leasing. The acreage estimate presented here represents those lands not excluleasing under Alternative B. 

Specify that applications for commercial leases using surface mining technologies will only be accepted within an area of 85,640 acre

geologically prospective oil shale area where the overburden is 0 to 500 ft thick (see Figure 2.3-1). Applications for commercial leasintechnologies will not be accepted in any other areas. Rationale: As described in Section 2.3.1, surface mining will only be allowed in areas where the overburden is 0 to 500 ft thick, becau

be the maximum amount of overburden where surface mining can occur economically using today’s technologies. Specify that the Ute Indian Tribe will be consulted regarding potential leasing for commercial oil shale development on 57,657 acres olocated in the Hill Creek Extension of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation prior to considering any parcel for leasing; 
TABLE A-1 Approved Changes and Rationales for Land Use Plan Amendments Associated with Alternative B for Rationale: During the tribal consultation process conducted in conjunction with this PEIS, the Ute Indian Tribe requested that such coSpecify that certain decisions designating five areas totaling 48,000 acres as priority management areas for oil shale leasing will be re

Specifically, the decisions to be removed include those designating (1) three areas totaling 42,000 acres as available for underground m

totaling 6,000 acres as available for in-situ development. Rationale: The BLM has determined that it will make all lands within the most geologically prospective oil shale area available for ap

Diamond Mountain RMP, as revised by the 2008 Vernal Field Office RMP, Vernal Field Office Designate 100,556 acres of land within the most geologically prospective oil shale area as available for application for leasing for comdevelopment in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations and BLM policies. Rationale: As described in Section 2.3.3, all lands within the most geologically prospective oil shale area that are not excluded from c

existing laws and regulations, Executive Orders, or administrative land use plan designation, or have not been specifically excluded by 

reasons, will be available for application for commercial leasing. The acreage estimate presented here represents those lands not excluleasing under Alternative B. 

Specify that applications for commercial leases using surface mining technologies will not be accepted in the planning area. Rationale: As described in Section 2.3.1, surface mining will only be allowed in areas where the overburden is 0 to 500 ft thick, becabe the maximum amount of overburden where surface mining can occur economically using today’s technologies. Within the Diamon

planning area, there are no areas where the overburden is 0 to 500 ft thick (see Figure 2.3-1).d

Price River Resource Area MFP, as revised by the 2008 Price Field Office RMP, Price Field Office Designate 107 acres of land within the most geologically prospective oil shale area as available for application for leasing for commer

development in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations and BLM policies. Rationale: As described in Section 2.3.3, all lands within the most geologically prospective oil shale area that are not excluded from c

existing laws and regulations, Executive Orders, or administrative land use plan designation, or have not been specifically excluded by 

reasons, will be available for application for commercial leasing. The acreage estimate presented here represents those lands not excluleasing under Alternative B. 

Specify that applications for commercial leases using surface mining technologies will not be accepted in the planning area. 
TABLE A-1 Approved Changes and Rationales for Land Use Plan Amendments Associated with Alternative B for Rationale: As described in Section 2.3.1, surface mining will only be allowed in areas where the overburden is 0 to 500 ft thick, becaube the maximum amount of overburden where surface mining can occur economically using today’s technologies. Within the Price Ri

planning area, there are no areas where the overburden is 0 to 500 ft thick (see Figure 2.3-1).d Wyoming Great Divide RMP, Rawlins Field Office Designate 68,405 acres of land within the most geologically prospective oil shale area as available for application for leasing for comm

development in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations and BLM policies. Rationale: As described in Section 2.3.3, all lands within the most geologically prospective oil shale area that are not excluded from c

existing laws and regulations, Executive Orders, or administrative land use plan designation, or have not been specifically excluded by 

will be available for application for commercial leasing. The acreage estimate presented here represents those lands not excluded from under Alternative B. 

Specify that applications for commercial leases using surface mining technologies will not be accepted in the planning area. 

Rationale: As described in Section 2.3.1, surface mining will only be allowed in areas where the overburden is 0 to 500 ft thick, becaube the maximum amount of overburden where surface mining can occur economically using today’s technologies. Within the Great D

area, there are no areas where the overburden is 0 to 500 ft thick (see Figure 2.3-1).d 

Green River RMP, Rock Springs Field OfficeDesignate 788,230 acres of land within the most geologically prospective oil shale area as available for application for leasing for comdevelopment in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations and BLM policies. Rationale: As described in Section 2.3.3, all lands within the most geologically prospective oil shale area that are not excluded from c

existing laws and regulations, Executive Orders, or administrative land use plan designation, or have not been specifically excluded by 

reasons, will be available for application for commercial leasing. The acreage estimate presented here represents those lands not excluleasing under Alternative B. 

Specify that applications for commercial leases using surface mining technologies will only be accepted within an area of 248,000 acr

geologically prospective oil shale area where the overburden is 0 to 500 ft thick (see Figure 2.3-1). Applications for commercial leasintechnologies will not be accepted in any other areas. 
TABLE A-1 Approved Changes and Rationales for Land Use Plan Amendments Associated with Alternative B for Rationale: As described in Section 2.3.1, surface mining will only be allowed in areas where the overburden is 0 to 500 ft thick, becau

be the maximum amount of overburden where surface mining can occur economically using today’s technologies. Kemmerer RMP, Kemmerer Field Office Designate 143,987 acres of land within the most geologically prospective oil shale area as available for application for leasing for com

development in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations and BLM policies. Rationale: As described in Section 2.3.3, all lands within the most geologically prospective oil shale area that are not excluded from c

existing laws and regulations, Executive Orders, or administrative land use plan designation, or have not been specifically excluded by 

reasons, will be available for application for commercial leasing. The acreage estimate presented here represents those lands not excluleasing under Alternative B. Specify that applications for commercial leases using surface mining technologies will not be accepted in the planning area. Rationale: As described in Section 2.3.1, surface mining will only be allowed in areas where the overburden is 0 to 500 ft thick, beca

be the maximum amount of overburden where surface mining can occur economically using today’s technologies. Within the Kemmethere are no areas where the overburden is 0 to 500 ft thick (see Figure 2.3-1).d

a Abbreviations: BLM = Bureau of Land Management; FLPMA = Federal Land Policy and Management Act; MFP = management 

NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act; PEIS = programmatic environmental impact statement; RD&D = research, developm

RMP = resource management plan. 

b Commercial leasing as used herein includes both commercial and RD&D leasing. c The most geologically prospective oil shale resources in Colorado were defined on the basis of digital data provided by the U.S. G

from Pitman and Johnson (1978), Pitman (1979), and Pitman et al. (1989). In Utah, the most geologically prospective oil shale resdigital data provided by the BLM Utah State Office. In Wyoming, the most geologically prospective oil shale resources were defindetailed analyses of available oil shale assay data (Wiig 2006a,b). As discussed in Section 1.2, the oil shale resource is not of as hi

as it is in Colorado and Utah; therefore, the most geologically prospective oil shale resources were defined on the basis of a lower 

d The areas within the most geologically prospective oil shale areas where the overburden is 0 to 500 ft thick were mapped on the ba

sources of information. In Colorado, the area was defined on the basis of data published in Donnell (1987). In Utah, the area was mdata provided by the Utah Geological Survey (Tabet 2007). In Wyoming, the area was mapped on the basis of data provided by W
TABLE A-2 Approved Changes and Rationales for Land Use Plan Amendments Associated with Alternatives B foAmendments Common to All Land Use Plans Identify the most geologically prospective tar sand areas within the planning unit. Rationale: In accordance with the requirements of Section 369(d)(1) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the BLM has identified the mo

prospective tar sand resources in Utah as those deposits on public lands (including federal split estate) within the boundaries of the Sp

Specify that while the PEIS refers to “application for leasing for commercial oil shale and tars sands development,” the BLM could pu

Register one or more additional requests for expressions of interest in RD&D leasing within the state of Utah. Any new RD&D lease consistent with the applicable BLM land use plans. Rationale: In Section 369(c) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress expressly authorized the Secretary to make land available fo

R&D activities with respect to technologies for the recovery of liquid fuels from oil shale and tar sands. The impacts of new RD&D l

be qualitatively similar to those of commercial tar sands leasing as analyzed in this PEIS. The RD&D impacts, however, are anticipatthan those of commercial projects, at least until any RD&D lease might be converted to a commercial tar sands lease and expanded to 

acreage. Therefore, the analysis in the PEIS for commercial tar sands projects also provides sufficient analysis of RD&D projects for 

land use plans. New RD&D leases would be issued, if at all, only after site-specific analysis under NEPA. Conversion to commercial an individualized NEPA document. 

Specify that commercial leasing will require that additional NEPA analysis be conducted prior to lease issuance. Information collecte

application process will be incorporated into the NEPA analysis Specify that approval of the project-specific plans of operation will require NEPA review to consider site-specific and project-specific 

review for the plan of operations may be incorporated into NEPA for the lease application if adequate operational data are provided b

Rationale: Conducting additional NEPA review prior to approval of project- specific plans of operation will allow the BLM to identif

mitigation measures as needed to control impacts beyond those established in the lease stipulations 

Specify that the BLM will consider and give priority to the use of land exchanges, where appropriate and feasible, to consolidate land 

interests within the STSAs. Rationale: Section 369(n) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires the Secretary of the Interior (the “Secretary”) to consider and giv

land exchanges to facilitate the recovery of unconventional fuels. The Act states “...to facilitate the recovery of oil shale and tar sandswhere Federal, State, and private lands are intermingled, the Secretary shall consider the use of land exchanges where appropriate and 
TABLE A-2 Approved Changes and Rationales for Land Use Plan Amendments Associated with Alternatives B foland ownership and mineral interests into manageable areas.” The Act also dictates that any land exchange undertaken shall be implem

with Section 206 of FLPMA.. Book Cliffs RMP, as amended by the 2008 Vernal Field Office RMP, Vernal Field Office Designate the following amounts of land within the specific STSAs as available for application for leasing for commercial tar sands d

accordance with applicable federal and state regulations and BLM policies: Hill Creek STSA: 56,506 acres P.R. Spring STSA: 153,003 acresd Raven Ridge STSA: 14,364 acres Rationale: As described in Section 2.4.3, all lands within the designated STSAs that are not excluded from commercial leasing by exi

regulations, Executive Orders, or administrative land use plan designation, or have not been specifically excluded by the BLM for othavailable for application for commercial leasing. The acreage estimates presented here represent those lands not excluded from comm

Alternative B. 

Specify that the Ute Indian Tribe will be consulted regarding potential leasing for commercial tar sands development on split estate laCreek Extension of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation prior to considering any parcel for leasing. These lands fall entirely within the 

Rationale: During the tribal consultation process conducted in conjunction with this PEIS, the Ute Indian Tribe requested that such co

Diamond Mountain RMP, as amended by the 2008 Vernal Field Office RMP, Vernal Field Office Designate the following amounts of land within the specific STSAs as available for application for leasing for commercial tar sands daccordance with applicable federal and state regulations and BLM policies: Argyle Canyon STSA: 11,226 acres Asphalt Ridge STSA: 5,435 acres Sunnyside STSA: 16,101 acres Rationale: As described in Section 2.4.3, all lands within the designated STSAs that are not excluded from commercial leasing by exiregulations, Executive Orders, or administrative land use plan designation, or have not been specifically excluded by the BLM for oth
TABLE A-2 Approved Changes and Rationales for Land Use Plan Amendments Associated with Alternatives B foavailable for application for commercial leasing. The acreage estimates presented here represent those lands not excluded from comm

Alternative B.. Henry Mountain MFP, as amended by the 2008 Richfield Field Office RMP, Richfield Field Office Designate 24,938 acres of land within the Tar Sand Triangle STSA as available for application for leasing for commercial tar sands d

accordance with applicable federal and state regulations and BLM policies. Rationale: As described in Section 2.4.3, all lands within the designated STSAs that are not excluded from commercial leasing by exiregulations, Executive Orders, or administrative land use plan designation, or have not been specifically excluded by the BLM for othavailable for application for commercial leasing. The acreage estimate presented here represents those lands not excluded from commAlternative B. Price River Resource Area MFP, as amended by the 2008 Price Field Office RMP, Price Field Office Designate the following amounts of land within the specific STSAs as available for application for leasing for commercial tar sands d

accordance with applicable federal and state regulations and BLM policies: San Rafael STSA: 125 acres Sunnyside STSA: 62,076 acres Rationale: As described in Section 2.4.3, all lands within the designated STSAs that are not excluded from commercial leasing by exi

regulations, Executive Orders, or administrative land use plan designation, or have not been specifically excluded by the BLM for othavailable for application for commercial leasing. The acreage estimates presented here represent those lands not excluded from comm

Alternative B. 

San Rafael Resource Area RMP, as amended by the 2008 Price Field Office RMP, Price Field Office Designate 70,348 acres of land within the San Rafael STSA as available for application for leasing for commercial tar sands developm

applicable federal and state regulations and BLM policies. Rationale: As described in Section 2.4.3, all lands within the designated STSAs that are not excluded from commercial leasing by exiregulations, Executive Orders, or administrative land use plan designation, or have not been specifically excluded by the BLM for othavailable for application for commercial leasing. The acreage estimate presented here represents those lands not excluded from commAlternative B. 
TABLE A-2 Approved Changes and Rationales for Land Use Plan Amendments Associated with Alternatives B foSan Juan Resource Area RMP, as amended by the 2008 Richfield and Monticello Field Office RMPs, Monticello Field Office Designate 7,001 acres of land within the White Canyon STSA as available for application for leasing for commercial tar sands develowith applicable federal and state regulations and BLM policies. Rationale: As described in Section 2.4.3, all lands within the designated STSAs that are not excluded from commercial leasing by exi

regulations, Executive Orders, or administrative land use plan designation, or have not been specifically excluded by the BLM for othavailable for application for commercial leasing. The acreage estimate presented here represents those lands not excluded from commAlternative B. 

a Abbreviations: BLM = Bureau of Land Management; FLPMA = Federal Land Policy and Management Act; MFP = management 

NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act; PEIS = programmatic environmental impact statement; RD&D = research, developm

RMP = resource management plan; STSA = Special Tar Sand Area. 

b Commercial leasing as used herein includes both commercial and RD&D leasing. c The tar sands resources available for application for leasing under Alternatives B and C include deposits located in the designated 

geologic reports (minutes) prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 1980 (USGS 1980a

−k) and formalized by Congres

Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-78). The boundaries of the designated STSAs were determined by the Secretary of November 20, 1980 (Volume 45, pages 76800

−76801 [45 FR 76800

−76801]), and January 21, 1981 (46 FR 6077

−6078). 

d A portion of the P.R. Spring STSA extends south from the Vernal Field Office boundary into the Moab Field Office boundary; ho

administered by the Vernal Field Office under a Memorandum of Understanding with the Moab Field Office. Under this agreemenOffice administers all resources and programs, including land use planning, for the entire P.R. Spring STSA. Therefore, the Moab 

impacted by this PEIS. Under Alternative B, the acreage in the P.R. Spring STSA includes 14,406 acres of land within the Moab F

Under Alternative C, the acreage in the P.R. Spring STSA includes 1,874 acres of land within the Moab Field Office boundary. 
A-15 

REFERENCES 

Note to Reader: This list of references identifies Web pages and associated URLs where 

reference data were obtained. It is likely that at the time of publication of this PEIS, some of 

these Web pages may no longer be available or their URL addresses may have changed. 

BLM (Bureau of Land Management), 1982, Hanksville-Henry Mountains Management 

Framework Plan, Richfield District, Utah. 

BLM, 1985, Record of Decision and Rangeland Program Summary for the Book Cliffs Resource 

Management Plan, Vernal District Office, Utah, May. 

BLM, 1986, Record of Decision for the Kemmerer Resource Management Plan and Rangeland 

Program Summary Document, Kemmerer Resource Area, Rock Springs District, Wyo., June. 

BLM, 1987, Grand Junction Resource Area Resource Management Plan and Record of 

Decision, Grand Junction District, Colo., Jan. 

BLM, 1988, Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan, Glenwood Springs Resource 

Area, Grand Junction District, Colo., June. 

BLM, 1989, Decision Record and Finding of No Significant Impact for Amendment to the 

Management Framework Plan for the Price River Resource Area, Moab District, Price River 

Resource Area, Utah, June. 

BLM, 1990, Great Divide Resource Area Record of Decision and Approved Resource 

Management Plan, Rawlins District Office, Great Divide Resource Area, Wyo., Nov. 

BLM, 1991a, San Rafael Final Resource Management Plan, Moab District, San Rafael Resource 

Area, Utah, May. 

BLM, 1991b, Resource Management Plan Record of Decision and Rangeland Program 

Summary for the San Juan Resource Area, Moab District, Utah, prepared by the Bureau of Land 

Management, Utah, March. 

BLM, 1994, Diamond Mountain Resource Area Resource Management Plan and Record of 

Decision, Vernal District Office, Utah. 

BLM, 1997a, White River Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan, White 

River Resource Area, Colo., Craig District, Meeker, Colo., July. 

BLM, 1997b, Record of Decision and Green River Resource Management Plan, Green River 

Resource Area, Rock Springs District Office, Wyo., Oct. 

BLM, 2006a, Roan Plateau Planning Area, Including Former Naval Oil Shale Reserves 

Numbers 1 & 3, Resource Management Plan Amendment & Environmental Impact Statement, 

Final, Colorado State Office, Aug. Available at http://www.blm.gov/rmp/co/roanplateau/ 

final_eis_document.htm. 
A-16 

BLM, 2006b, Record of Decision and Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan/Proposed 

BLM, 2007, Record of Decision for the Approval of Portions of the Roan Plateau Management 

Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement, Glenwood Springs Field Office, Colo., 

June. 

BLM, 2008, Record of Decision for the Resource Management Plan Amendment for Portions of 

the Roan Plateau Planning Area Designated as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Public 

Lands in Garfield County, CO, March 13, 2008. 

Donnell J.R., 1987, “Storehouse of Energy Minerals in the Piceance Basin,” in Oil Shale, Water 

Resources, and Valuable Minerals of the Piceance Basin, Colorado: The Challenge and Choices 

of Development, O.J. Taylor, ed., U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1310. 

Pitman, J.K., 1979, Isopach, Structure Contour, and Resource Maps of the R-6 Oil Shale Zone, 

Green River Formation, Piceance Creek Basin, Colorado, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Miscellaneous Field Investigations Map MF-1069. 

Pitman, J.K., and R.C. Johnson, 1978, Isopach, Structure Contour, and Resource Maps of the 

Mahogany Oil-Shale Zone, Green River Formation, Piceance Creek Basin, Colorado, 

U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Field Investigations Map MF-958. 

Pitman, J.K., et al., 1989, Thickness, Oil-Yield, and Kriged Resource Estimates for the Eocene 

Green River Formation, Piceance Creek Basin, Colorado, U.S. Geological Survey, Oil and Gas 

Chart OC-132. 

Tabet, D., 2007, personal communication from Tabet (Utah Geological Survey, Salt Lake City, 

Utah) to S.J. Thompson (Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C., Office), Dec. 14. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 1980a, Argyle Canyon−Willow Creek, Utah Tar Sand Leasing 

Minutes No. 9, Minutes of the Mineral Land Evaluation Committee, Nov. 10. 

USGS, 1980b, Asphalt Ridge−Whiterocks and Vicinity, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes No. 3, 

Minutes of the Mineral Land Evaluation Committee, Sept. 23. 

USGS, 1980c, Circle Cliffs East and West Flanks, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes No. 5,

Minutes of the Mineral Land Evaluation Committee, Sept. 23. 

USGS, 1980d, Hill Creek, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes No. 6, Minutes of the Mineral Land 

Evaluation Committee, Nov. 10. 
B-1 

APPENDIX B: 

POTENTIAL CONSERVATION MEASURES 

FOR FUTURE OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS LEASING AND 

DEVELOPMENT 
B-2 

PROPOSED CONSERVATION MEASURES 

FOR OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS 

LEASING AND DEVELOPMENT 

CONSERVATION MEASURES 

The following conservation measures were developed for the oil shale and tar sands program 

through consultation between the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. FWS) to support the conservation of 

species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). For purposes of the programmatic 

environmental impact statement (PEIS), and to provide the public and any potential lessees with 

some sense of what conservation measures might be imposed, if warranted, the conservation 

measures that have been developed pursuant to the Agreement are presented in Appendix B and 

are assumed to be generally consistent with existing conservation agreements, recovery plans, 

and completed consultations. It is the intent of the BLM and the U.S. FWS to ensure that the 

conservation measures presented here are consistent with those currently applied to other land 

management actions where associated impacts are similar. However, it is presumed that potential 

impacts from development alternatives described in the PEIS are likely to vary in scale and 

intensity when compared with land management actions previously considered (e.g., oil and gas 

exploration and production, surface mining, and underground mining). Hence, final conservation 

measures will be developed commensurate with the anticipated level of impact on the selected 

alternatives and will be consistent with agency policies. For instance, current BLM guidance on 

similar actions (e.g., projects involved in development of fluid mineral resources) requires that 

the least restrictive stipulation that effectively accomplishes the resource objectives or resource 

uses for a given alternative should be used in order that a project remain in compliance with the 

ESA. 

Conservation Measures Generally Applicable to All Listed Species 

1. Surveys will be required prior to operations unless species occupancy and distribution 

information for the area is complete and available. All surveys must be conducted by 

qualified individual(s) approved by BLM. For bald eagles and Mexican spotted owls (and 

other raptors), surveys should be conducted up to 1 mi from the proposed disturbance to 

determine nest and roost status and will be conducted in accordance with existing guidelines. 

2. Lease activities, upon initiation of implementation, will require monitoring throughout the 

duration of the project. To ensure that the desired results are being achieved, mitigation 

measures will be evaluated and, if necessary, Section 7 consultation reinitiated. 

3. Water production will be managed to ensure maintenance or enhancement of riparian habitat 

and surface water quality. 

4. Avoid loss of riparian and wetland habitats where possible with mining and in situ processing. 

Minimize loss of riparian and wetland habitat with roads, pipelines, and other ancillary 

facilities. Restore wetland and riparian habitat when avoidance with facilities is not possible. 
B-3 

Any incidental take statement (if warranted) will need to be based on an estimate of 

avoidance and if unavoidable, quantify extent of potential take. 

5. Transportation management plans should be developed and used as a means for minimizing 

habitat fragmentation and destruction. 

Species Specific Conservation Measures 

Colorado River Endangered Fishes—Bonytail, Colorado Pikeminnow, Humpback Chub, 

Razorback Sucker 

1. Within 0.5 mi of critical habitat; a) avoid all mining and drilling activities and, b) minimize 

surface disturbance and vegetation removal for roads, pipelines, water diversion and 

acquisition facilities, and other ancillary facilities. When surface disturbance for any of the 

features in item b above is necessitated within 0.5 mi of critical habitat, the BLM should 

confer with U.S. FWS to minimize potential impacts to critical habitat and/or endangered 

fish. 

2. For tributaries to the major rivers that contain listed fish species or their designated critical 

habitat, drilling or mining will not occur within the 100-year floodplains or riparian corridors 

that are within the zone of influence of the major rivers. 

3. To avoid excessive stream sedimentation during the spawning period, avoid construction 

activities (e.g., for roads, pipelines, utilities) within critical habitat from April 1 through 

September 30 of any year. 

4. Avoid the installation of water diversion structures that may pose a risk to the Colorado River 

fishes or their critical habitat (e.g., minimize entrainment or impingement by using screens, 

baffles). 

5. Avoid the release of selenium into surface waters, and where possible, implement measures to 

reduce selenium concentrations in the Upper Colorado River Basin. For example, decrease 

erosion in areas with selenium-rich soils (e.g., shale-derived soils), maintain adequate 

vegetation cover on work areas where possible, control ephemeral streamflow with water 

spreading structures, do not irrigate in areas with selenium-rich soils, and avoid impacting 

selenium-rich soils on steep slopes (>50%). If selenium-rich slag/waste piles are created, they 

should be isolated and located so that this material does not reach critical habitat. 

6. All new pipelines and other controlled surface uses crossing any critical or occupied habitat of 

the Colorado River fishes will adhere to the following stipulations: 

a. Pipelines shall not be constructed in known spawning sites or backwaters. 

b. No work in the active river channel will take place between July 1 and September 30. This 

will avoid adverse affects from sedimentation during spawning, and when larval fishes 

are drifting in the river channel. 

c. After construction, the streambed will be returned to preconstruction contours. 

d. Pipelines transporting substances other than water will have automatic shut-off valves. 

e. Pipelines transporting substances other than water will be double-walled where they cross 

the 100-year floodplain and river. 

f. A spill/leak contingency plan will be developed prior to pipeline use. 
B-4 

7. Implement the Utah Oil and Gas Pipeline Crossing Guidance (from BLM National Science 

and Technology Center). 

8. If water is obtained for project-related activities from any surface water source (stream, pond, 

etc.), or from any groundwater source that has a connection to surface water, the BLM will 

require that all water withdrawals undergo appropriate Section 7 consultation in accordance 

with procedures existing at the time of the proposed action. Any applicant for a water 

withdrawal less than the Colorado River Recovery Program sufficient progress threshold (in 

2007, 4,500 ac-ft/yr) shall pay the appropriate depletion fee, depending on whether the 

depletion is a historical or new depletion. Only new depletions over 100 ac-ft/yr are subject 

to the fee requirement. Projects withdrawing more than the sufficient progress threshold shall 

complete an additional item from the Colorado River Recovery Implementation Plan 

Recovery Action Plan as agreed to by the U.S. FWS (new depletions would also be subject to 

the depletion fee). 

Colorado River Cutthroat Trout 

1. Maintain a minimum 0.25-mi buffer (both sides) of occupied Colorado River cutthroat trout 

streams and upstream tributaries. The buffer would be extended beyond the 0.25-mi 

minimum in areas where slopes exceed 50%; the buffer would extend out to where the land is 

relatively level. The idea is to keep any sediment from reaching the occupied Colorado River 

cutthroat trout reaches by making sure that mining and drilling take place on flat ground in 

areas where Colorado River cutthroat trout occur. Linear features such as roads and pipelines 

may be allowed within the buffer zones. Keep in mind that there are only a handful of known 

Colorado River cutthroat trout populations in the oil shale and tar sands planning area, and 

these conservation measures would affect only a very small portion of the area proposed for 

leasing (5% or less). 

2. No water withdrawals will occur from waters occupied by Colorado River cutthroat trout, 

based on current information. 

3. Oil shale and tar sands activities will be consistent with the “Conservation Agreement for 

Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkia pleuriticus)” for the states of 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming (June 2006). 

Bald Eagle 

1. A year-round avoidance of 0.5-mi of known bald eagle nests if topographic and/or vegetative 

buffers exist or of areas within 1 mi if nest is in line of sight of activity will be established. 

This avoidance requirement may be adjusted based on a demonstration of nonoccupancy 

during the last 7 years. Any modification will be in coordination with U.S. FWS. 

2. A year-round avoidance of 0.25-mi if topographic and/or vegetation buffers exist to 

3. 1-mi if roost is in line of sight of activity will be established for all known bald eagle winter 

roost sites. This avoidance requirement may be adjusted based on a demonstration of 

nonoccupancy during the last 7 years. Any modification will be in coordination with the U.S. 

FWS. 

4. Avoid loss or disturbance to riparian habitats containing cottonwoods, conifers, or other tree 

species that, when mature, may provide roost or nest trees for bald eagles. Minimize loss of 

any other riparian plant species (including box elders, willows, and river birch). 
B-5 

5. The U.S. FWS recommends that the BLM and contractors be informed of the risk or potential 

for wildlife vehicle collision (particularly bald eagles) in the project area and requested to 

limit vehicle speed to reduce such potential. In addition, contractors should move any big 

game carcasses found along project area roads away from the roadway by 30 ft (generally 

60-ft-wide ROWs) to minimize the potential for bald eagle and vehicle collisions while 

eagles feed on roadside carrion. Furthermore, the BLM and contractors, in an additional 

effort to protect bald eagles, will coordinate with appropriate officials for necessary removal 

of any big game carcasses along county or state roads. 

6. To preclude bald eagles or other raptors from nesting on human-made structures such as cell 

phone towers and condensate tanks and to avoid impeding operation or maintenance 

activities, install antiperching devices on structures to discourage use by eagles and other 

raptors. 

7. Bury electric lines, where practicable, especially in areas of high bald eagle use. If lines 

cannot be buried, power lines will be built at a minimum, to standards identified by the Avian 

Power Line Interaction Committee (2006) to minimize electrocution potential (see Suggested 

Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006; available at 

http://www.eei.org/products_and_services/descriptions_and_access/suggested_pract.htm). 

Moreover, power lines will be built according to the additional specifications listed below. 

The project proponent should ensure that these additional standards to minimize bald eagle 

mortality associated with electric utility distribution lines will be incorporated into the 

stipulations for all project actions. It should be noted that these measures vary in their 

effectiveness to minimize mortality, and may be modified as they are tested in the field and 

laboratory. Local habitat conditions should be considered in their use. The U.S. FWS does 

not endorse any specific product that can be used to prevent and/or minimize mortality. The 

following recommendations should be incorporated into the design plan of new distribution 

lines or when modifying existing facilities. 

For new distribution lines and facilities: 

a. Raptor-safe structures (e.g., with increased conductor-conductor spacing) that address 

adequate spacing for bald eagles (i.e., minimum of 60 in. for bald eagles) are to be used. 

b.Equipment installations (e.g., overhead service transformers, capacitors, reclosers) should 

be made bald-eagle safe (e.g., by insulating the bushing conductor terminations and by 

using covered jumper conductors). 

c. Jumper conductor installations (e.g., corner and tap structures) should be made bald-eagle 

safe by using covered jumpers or providing adequate separation. 

d. Arrestor and cutout covers should be employed when necessary. 

e. Lines should avoid high avian-use areas such as wetlands, prairie dog towns, and grouse 

leks. 

For modification of existing facilities: 

a. Problem structures that include dead ends, tap or junction poles, transformers, reclosers 

and capacitor banks, or other structures with less than 60 in. between conductors or a 

conductor and ground should be identified and rectified. 

b.Exposed jumpers should be covered. 
B-6 

c. Any pole-top ground wires should be capped. 

d. Grounded guy wires should be isolated by installing an insulating link. 

e. On transformers, install insulated bushing covers, covered jumpers, and cutout covers and 

arrestor covers, if necessary. 

f. When bald eagle mortalities occur on existing lines and structures, bald eagle protection 

measures should be applied (e.g., modify for raptor-safe construction, install safe perches 

or perching deterrents, nesting platforms or nest-deterrent devices). 

g.In areas where midspan collisions are a problem, install line-marking devices that have 

been proven effective. All transmission lines that span streams and rivers should maintain 

proper spacing and have markers installed. 

h. Poles will be moved if topographic issues or impacts to vegetative or wildlife resources 

were identified at the construction site. 

8. When constructing communication towers, refer to the U.S. FWS Guidance on the Siting, 

Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning of Communication Towers, which can be 

found at http://www.fws.gov/migratory birds/issues/towers/comtow.html. 

Mexican Spotted Owl 

1. Within the range of the Mexican spotted owl, avoid surface disturbance where suitable 

nesting habitat for the species occurs (steep-walled, rocky canyons, typically with a closedcanopy of mature, mixed coniferous forest) (see the recovery plan [U.S. FWS 1995] for the 

spotted owl, particularly Table III.B.1). (The range of the Mexican spotted owl published in 

the recovery plan should be extended to include the individuals observed within Dinosaur 

National Monument.) 

2. Within areas of oil shale and tar sands potential in Utah and Colorado, prior to leasing of 

mineral rights, the Bureau will develop a map of BLM lands with Mexican spotted owl 

habitat that is comprised of areas with steep slopes (>40% slope), canyons and rocky 

outcrops overlapping dense, mixed-conifer vegetation (canopy cover greater than 40% if data 

are available). This mapping effort would be considered a broad-based approach from which 

more specific and intensified habitat analyses could be initiated. 

3. Where possible, conduct field surveys for the Mexican spotted owl in areas of suitable habitat 

in order to gain a better understanding of Mexican spotted owl distribution and status 

throughout areas of oil shale and tar sands potential in Utah and Colorado. Field surveys 

should emphasize areas that have not been previously or recently surveyed. Areas of 

particular interest include the Book Cliffs and areas surrounding Dinosaur National 

Monument. 

4. Unless species occupancy and distribution information is complete and available, field 

surveys shall occur in areas where proposed human activities may remove or modify 

Mexican spotted owl habitat or otherwise adversely affect the species. Current U.S. FWS 

survey protocol will be followed. Existing protocols require that four surveys be conducted 

each season for two consecutive seasons. All surveys must be conducted by a qualified 

individual(s) approved by BLM. 

5. Assess habitat suitability for both nesting and foraging using accepted habitat models in 

conjunction with field reviews. Apply the conservation measures below if project activities 

occur within 0.5 mi of suitable owl habitat. Determine potential effects of actions to owls and 
B-7 

their habitat. Document type of activity, acreage and location of direct habitat impacts, and 

type and extent of indirect impacts relative to location of suitable owl habitat. Document if 

action is temporary or permanent. A temporary action is completed prior to the following 

breeding season leaving no permanent structures and resulting in no permanent habitat loss. 

A permanent action continues for more than one breeding season and/or causes a loss of owl 

habitat or displaces owls through disturbances (i.e., creation of a permanent structure). 

6. For all temporary actions that may impact owls or suitable habitat: 

a. If the action occurs entirely outside of the owl breeding season (e.g., March 1 to August 31 

in Utah), and leaves no permanent structure or permanent habitat disturbance, action can 

proceed without an occupancy survey. 

b.If action will occur during a breeding season, a survey for owls should be performed prior 

to commencing activity. If owls are found, activity must be delayed until outside of the 

breeding season. 

c. Rehabilitate access routes created by the project through such means as raking out scars, 

revegetation, gating access points, etc. 

7. For all permanent actions that may impact owls or suitable habitat: 

a. Survey two consecutive years for owls according to accepted protocol prior to 

commencing activities. 

b.If owls are found, no actions will occur within 0.5 mi of identified nest site. If the nest site 

is unknown, no activity will occur within the designated protected activity center. 

c. Avoid drilling and permanent structures within 0.5 mi of suitable habitat unless surveyed 

and not occupied. 

d.Reduce noise emissions (e.g., use hospital-grade mufflers) to 45 dBA at 0.5-mi from 

suitable habitat, including canyon rims. Placement of permanent noise-generating 

facilities should be determined by a noise analysis to ensure that noise does not encroach 

upon a 0.5-mi buffer for suitable habitat, including canyon rims. 

e. Limit disturbances to and within suitable habitat by staying on approved routes. 

f. Limit new access routes created by the project. 

8. Avoid surface disturbance (e.g., facilities, roads, pipelines) and vegetation removal within 

designated critical habitat where any of the primary constituent elements are present at the 

project scale. 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 

1. In project areas potentially occupied by the southwestern willow flycatcher, surveys for the 

southwestern willow flycatcher should be conducted. 

2. Project activities will maintain a 300-ft buffer from suitable riparian habitat year long. 

3. Project activities within 0.25 mi of occupied breeding habitat will not occur during the 

breeding season of May 1 to August 15. 

4. The U.S. FWS recommends postactivity surveys for southwestern willow flycatchers for any 

project or mitigation areas authorized by the BLM. Surveys must be conducted by 

individuals who have been properly trained in approved survey protocol. Surveyors must be 

familiar with and adhere to the general survey techniques and guidelines in Sogge et al. 
B-8 

(1997). Flycatcher survey training must be completed prior to being permitted to conduct 

surveys. All reporting requirements must be followed. 

5. For projects that may alter or destroy habitat that are in or near occupied, suitable, potentially 

suitable, or potential habitat, the U.S. FWS recommends using fencing instead of flagging to 

delineate the project area. Fencing is more visible to construction workers and more clearly 

demarcates the construction zone. 

6. If nest parasitism is monitored, when flycatcher nest parasitism exceeds 10% of surveyed 

nests, consult with U.S. FWS to implement measures to reduce parasitism rates. 

Black-footed Ferret 

1. Prairie dog towns potentially occupied by black-footed ferrets or within 1.5 km of prairie dog 

towns occupied by black-footed ferrets should be surveyed and mapped by qualified 

individuals approved by BLM before surface-disturbing activities are conducted. Surveys 

should be in accordance with the 1989 Black Footed Ferret Survey Protocol or other methods 

upon U.S. FWS review and approval. Mapping should be conducted in accordance with 

Biggins et al. (1993). Should black-footed ferrets or signs of them be observed within a 

prairie dog town or complex where project-related activities are proposed, the federal agency 

shall coordinate Section 7 consultation or conferencing with the U.S. FWS on the proposed 

action. This measure applies to: (1) all habitats occupied by ferrets and (2) all suitable 

habitats within the oil shale and tar sands area. The BLM will confer with the appropriate 

U.S. FWS Field Office for definitions of suitable habitat within each state. 

In Wyoming (non-10(j) populations), in the event that no ferrets or signs of them are 

observed during the survey, ground-disturbing activities may occur within 1 year of the date 

of survey completion within the town surveyed. However, surveys should be completed as 

close to the date of project initiation as possible to avoid the possibility of a ferret moving 

into the area after surveys have cleared the area. Alternatively, all suitable habitat within the 

entire complex in which the town is located may be surveyed and, if no ferrets or sign are 

found, the complex will be designated “ferret-free” and no further Section 7 review for the 

black-footed ferret will be required for activities occurring within any prairie dog town 

within the complex. Future observations of ferrets or their sign shall, however, require 

reinitiation of Section 7 consultation. The BLM and the project proponent are encouraged to 

work with the U.S. FWS to block clear all prairie dog towns within or contiguous with the 

analysis area. Future actions, including maintenance, work over, and reclamation within 

towns previously cleared of ferrets may require additional survey work unless the entire 

complex containing the town has been block cleared. 

Results of all surveys shall be reported to the appropriate U.S. FWS Field Office, including 

maps of areas surveyed, surveyor qualifications, method of survey, and length of survey, 

date, weather, snow cover, survey results, and copies of field data sheets. 

2. Where possible, avoid placement of structures that provide suitable nest or perch sites for 

avian predators within ferret habitat. Ensure that garbage is contained to prevent attraction by 

coyotes, skunks, and other predators. This measure applies to: (1) all habitats occupied by 

ferrets and (2) all suitable habitat within the oil shale and tar sands area. The BLM will 

confer with the appropriate U.S. FWS Field Office definitions of suitable habitat within each 

state. 
B-9 

3. Where possible, post and encourage reduced vehicle speeds at night on roads in or near 

occupied habitat to reduce chances of vehicular mortalities. 

4. Ensure that reclamation is conducted so that impacts to active prairie dog colonies are 

minimized. This measure applies to all suitable habitats within the oil shale and tar sands 

area. The BLM will confer with the appropriate U.S. FWS Field Office for definitions of 

suitable habitat within each state. 

5. In areas where black-footed ferrets could be encountered, employees, operators, and 

contractors shall be educated on the natural history of the black-footed ferret, identification 

of ferrets and their sign, potential impacts for disease transmission from dogs to ferrets, 

activities that may affect ferret behavior, and ways to minimize these effects. This measure 

applies to all suitable habitats within the oil shale and tar sands area. The BLM will confer 

with the appropriate U.S. FWS Field Office for definitions of suitable habitat within each 

state. 

6. Observations of black-footed ferrets, their sign, or carcasses shall be reported to the nearest 

BLM and U.S. FWS office within 24 hours. This measure applies throughout the oil shale 

and tar sands area. 

7. Encourage the use of White-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Measures (as revised), in whitetailed prairie dog habitat. 

8. Whenever possible, project activities will be designed to avoid adverse influence on prairie 

dog habitat occupied by black-footed ferrets. If adverse impacts to occupied prairie dog 

habitat are unavoidable, activities will be designed in coordination with the U.S. FWS to (1) 

impact the smallest area practicable, (2) impact those areas with the lowest prairie dog 

densities, and (3) minimize habitat fragmentation in prairie dog towns occupied by blackfooted ferrets or those towns suitable for reintroduction. Offsite mitigation may also be 

recommended. Impacts to black-footed ferret habitat will be monitored to evaluate 

cumulative effects. 

9. Whenever possible, project activities will be designed to not adversely impact black-footed 

ferret populations. A monitoring program will be developed, when necessary, to evaluate 

impacts. This measure applies to all habitats occupied by ferrets within the oil shale and tar 

sands area. 

10. Project activities in Uintah and Duchesne Counties, Utah, will be conducted consistent with 

the Division of Wildlife Resources’ 2007 Northeastern Region Black-Footed Ferret 

Management Plan and the BLM’s 1999 Book Cliffs Resource Area Management Plan 

Amendment for Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction, Coyote Basin Area, Utah. 

11. This measure applies specifically to the black-footed ferret management area and 

subcomplexes described by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources’ 2007 Northeastern 

Region Black-Footed Ferret Management Plan. Within the boundaries of the three 

subcomplexes (Coyote Basin, Snake John Reef, Bohemian Bottom), activities involving the 

development or construction of permanent surface disturbances will be prohibited within 

one-eighth mi of the home range of any black-footed ferret. Within the boundaries of the 

management area, if a ferret observation is recorded, or has been recorded within the last 5 

years, no surface disturbance will be allowed within 0.44 mi (about 700 m) of the 

observation location if the following two criteria are met: (1) the ferret is/was observed in 

suitable habitat (the BLM will confer with the appropriate U.S. FWS Field Office for 
B-10 

definitions of suitable habitat within the management area) and (2) the ferret has established 

residency in the immediate locale (i.e., a documented home range has been established). The 

appropriate size of the protected area surrounding a ferret’s home range may be adjusted in 

coordination with the U.S. FWS according to future research and new information, and 

pursuant to the relevant local, site-specific species management plan, if available. 

Canada Lynx 

1. Within a Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU), ensure that mapping of lynx habitat, nonhabitat, and 

denning habitat occurs. Also map foraging habitat, and topographic features important for 

lynx movement. Identify whether all lynx habitat within an LAU is in suitable or unsuitable 

condition. May involve interagency coordination where LAUs cross administrative 

boundaries. 

2. Limit disturbance within each LAU to 30% of the suitable habitat within the LAU. If 30% of 

the habitat within an LAU is currently in unsuitable condition, no further reduction of 

suitable conditions shall occur as a result of management activities. Map oil and gas 

production and transmission facilities, mining activities and facilities, dams, timber harvest, 

and agricultural lands on public lands and evaluate projects on adjacent private lands, in 

order to assess cumulative effects. This will involve interagency coordination where LAUs 

cross administrative boundaries, primarily with the U.S. Forest Service. 

3. Management actions shall not change more than 15% of lynx habitat within an LAU to an 

unsuitable condition within a 10-year period. This will involve interagency coordination 

where LAUs cross administrative boundaries. 

4. Maintain denning habitat in patches generally larger than 5 acres, composing at least 10% of 

lynx habitat. Where less than 10% is currently present within an LAU, defer any 

management actions that would delay development of denning habitat structure. This will 

involve interagency coordination where LAUs cross administrative boundaries. 

5. Ensure that key linkage areas that may be important in providing landscape connectivity 

within and between geographic areas across all ownerships are identified, using best 

available science. 

6. Ensure that habitat connectivity within and between LAUs is maintained. 

7. Document lynx observations (tracks, sightings, along with date, location, and habitat) and 

provide these to the state natural heritage database, and request an annual update from them 

on all sightings for review. 

8. In the event of a large wildfire, ensure that a postdisturbance assessment prior to salvage 

harvest is conducted, particularly in stands that were formerly in late successional stages, to 

evaluate potential for lynx denning and foraging habitat. 

9. On projects where over-snow access is required, ensure that use is restricted to designated 

routes. 

Within lynx habitat, the BLM shall ensure that key linkage areas and potential highway 

crossing areas are identified, using best available science. 

10. The BLM shall ensure that proposed land exchanges, land sales, and special use permits are 

evaluated for effects on key linkage areas. 
B-11 

11. If activities are proposed in lynx habitat, the BLM shall ensure that stipulations and 

conditions of approval for limitations on the timing of activities and surface use and 

occupancy are developed for leasing, and that more site-specific conditions of approval are 

developed at the permitting stage. Examples include requiring that activities not be 

conducted at night, when lynx are active; and avoiding activity near denning habitat during 

the breeding season (April or May to July) to protect vulnerable kittens. 

12. Provide for the continuation of foraging habitat in proximity to denning habitat. 

13. Provide habitat conditions through time that support dense horizontal understory cover and 

high densities of snowshoe hares. This includes, for example, mature multistoried conifer 

vegetation. Focus vegetation management, including timber harvest and the use of prescribed 

fire, in areas that have potential to improve snowshoe hare habitat (dense horizontal cover) 

but that presently have poorly developed understories that have little value to snowshoe 

hares. 

14. Determine where high total road densities (>2 mi per mi2) coincide with lynx habitat, and 

prioritize roads for seasonal restrictions or reclamation in those areas. 

15. Limit public use on temporary roads constructed for project activities. Design new roads, 

especially the entrance, for effective closure upon completion of project activities. Upon 

project completion, reclaim or obliterate these roads. 

16. Minimize building of roads directly on ridgetops or areas identified as important for lynx 

habitat connectivity. 

17. Where needed, develop measures such as wildlife fencing and associated underpasses or 

overpasses to reduce mortality risk. 

18. Protect existing snowshoe hare and red squirrel habitat. 

19. Use remote sensing equipment and bunch maintenance activities to reduce activity in the area 

as well as reduce the compaction of snow. 

Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Plants 

1. Surveys for listed plants will be conducted prior to ground disturbance wherever there is the 

potential for their occurrence in projects areas. Surveys in suitable habitat should be 

conducted when the plant can be detected, and during appropriate flowering periods. 

Documentation should include, but not be limited to, individual plant locations and suitable 

habitat distributions, and all surveys must be conducted by qualified individuals approved by 

the BLM. Surveys should extent at least 200 m beyond the perimeter of work areas. Surveys 

are generally valid for one year. 

2. Consistent with existing or current recovery plans, the proposed action will be designed to 

support recovery objectives. For example: 

a. Designs will prevent surface runoff from work areas from entering plant occupied habitat. 

b.Construction will occur below and away from the slope of occupied habitat, where 

feasible, to avoid slope failure or accelerated erosion; 

c. No surface disturbance will occur within 100 m of a listed plant. If an area that is closer 

than 200 m from a listed plant must be disturbed (e.g., for mining, drilling, roads, 

pipelines), the edge of any area to be disturbed that is between 100 to 200 m of any listed 

plant should be temporarily fenced to keep disturbance from further approaching the 
B-12 

listed plant’s habitat. To avoid working in listed plant habitat and drawing attention to 

listed plants, the edge of disturbance should be fenced, not the nearby plant population. 

This measure could be modified with the approval of BLM and U.S. FWS. 

d.If a surface disturbance must be located less than 200 m from a listed plant, appropriate 

dust-abatement actions, commensurate with the level of use, must be taken in 

consultation with the U.S. FWS and BLM. 

3. If ground-disturbing activities occur within 200 m of listed plants, the plants should be 

monitored in accordance with the Measuring and Monitoring of Plant Populations, BLM 

Technical Reference 1730-1, 1998, during the blooming period for plant health, vigor, and 

the occurrence of transported dust from project activities. Data should also include a site 

description with GPS coordinates, size of the area occupied, estimated number and age range 

of plants, and evidence of habitat disturbance, plant damage, or mortality. Post-construction 

monitoring for invasive species must also be conducted. Annual reports should be provided 

to the BLM and the U.S. FWS. 

4. “Translocation” (transplanting) shall not be used as a rationale to defend a “not likely to 

adversely affect” or a “no effect” determination for endangered or threatened species. 

5. Vehicle travel will avoid suitable and occupied habitat. 

6. In consultation with U.S. FWS, evaluate projects that remove topsoil in areas of suitable 

habitat for listed species shall set aside and replace the topsoil when ground work is 

completed to preserve the seed bank and associated mycorrhizal species, and to discourage 

invasive species. 

7. When possible, revegetation should be limited to native species that will not compete with the 

rare species at that site. Revegetation projects should require a site-specific plan for areas 

with listed plant species, to be developed in consultation with the BLM and the U.S. FWS. 

8. Protective stipulations for endangered or threatened species should include appropriate 

measures to protect pollinator species that have been identified. 

9. When listed plant species are near project areas, dust control measures should be employed to 

minimize fugitive dust deposition on plant surfaces. 

10. When listed plants are near project areas, appropriate dust control measures will be 

determined in consultation with the BLM and the U.S. FWS to minimize fugitive dust 

deposition on plant surfaces. 

11. For riparian and wetland-associated species (e.g., Ute ladies’-tresses), ensure that water 

extraction or disposal practices do not result in a change of hydrologic regime outside of the 

range of natural variability. 

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

habitat. Overspray from evaporation ponds should be located such that it falls at least 200 m 

from listed plant locations, if these are necessary. 

Species Determined Not To Be within the Action Area 

Gray Wolf (Per discussion with U.S. FWS, wolves are not within the action area, so they will not 

be addressed in the PEIS or biological assessment [BA].) 

Candidate Animal Species Determined To Be within the Action Area 
B-13 

Yellow-Billed Cuckoo (This species is within the action area only in Utah, and because it is a 

candidate species, it will not be addressed in the BA, but these conservation measures will be in 

the PEIS.) 

1. Construction of roads, pipelines, and power lines in riparian habitat should not occur from 

June 1 through August 1. 

2. Prohibit permanent surface-disturbing activities within 0.25 mi of any suitable yellow-billed 

cuckoo habitat. Exceptions should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to avoid adverse 

impacts. 

3. To avoid direct impacts or changes in riparian habitat, do not adversely modify stream 

channel morphology or annual streamflow regimes in suitable habitat. 

4. Prohibit non-surface-disturbing activities within yellow-billed cuckoo habitat that will have 

adverse effects to the yellow-billed cuckoo or its habitat (e.g., boat and raft landings, 

outfitting camps, firewood collection) within 0.25 mi of occupied habitat. 

5. Chemical insecticides shall not be applied within 0.25 mi of yellow-billed cuckoo occupied 

habitat. 

6. Prohibit herbicide application for grasshopper control in yellow-billed cuckoo habitat within 

0.25 mi of any active nests. 

7. If technically feasible, biological control should be used in place of chemical pest control. 

References

USGS, 1980e, Pariette, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes, Minutes of the Mineral Land 

Evaluation Committee, Nov. 10. 

USGS, 1980f, P.R. Spring, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes, Minutes of the Mineral Land 

Evaluation Committee, Sept. 23. 

USGS, 1980g, Raven Ridge−Rim Rock and Vicinity, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes No. 8, 

Minutes of the Mineral Land Evaluation Committee, Nov. 10 

USGS, 1980h, San Rafael Swell, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes No. 7, Minutes of the Mineral 

Land Evaluation Committee, Nov. 10. 

USGS, 1980i, Sunnyside and Vicinity, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes No. 4, Minutes of the 

Mineral Land Evaluation Committee, Sept. 23. 

USGS, 1980j, Tar Sand Triangle, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes No. 2, Minutes of the Mineral 

Land Evaluation Committee, Sept. 23. 

USGS, 1980k, White Canyon, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes No. 11, Minutes of the Mineral 

Land Evaluation Committee, Nov. 10. 

Wiig, S., 2006a, personal communication from Wiig (BLM Rock Springs Field Office, Wyo.) to 

P. Perlowitz (BLM Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne), June 13.
B-14 

Wiig, S., 2006b, personal communication from Wiig (BLM Rock Springs Field Office, Wyo.) to 

K.P. Smith (Argonne National Laboratory, Lakewood, Colo.), June 27.