Appendices
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix A

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A 

Monument Proclamation 

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix A

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 1

Establishment of the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

June 9, 2000 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A PROCLAMATION 

Containing the highest known density of archaeological sites in the Nation, the Canyons of the Ancients National 

Monument holds evidence of cultures and traditions spanning thousands of years. This area, with its intertwined 

natural and cultural resources, is a rugged landscape, a quality that greatly contributes to the protection of its 

scientific and historic objects. The monument offers an unparalleled opportunity to observe, study, and 

experience how cultures lived and adapted over time in the American Southwest. 

The complex landscape and remarkable cultural resources of the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

have been a focal point for archaeological interest for over 125 years. Archaeological and historic objects such as 

cliff dwellings, villages, great kivas, shrines, sacred springs, agricultural fields, check dams, reservoirs, rock art 

sites, and sweat lodges are spread across the landscape. More than five thousand of these archaeologically 

important sites have been recorded, and thousands more await documentation and study. The Mockingbird Mesa 

area has over forty sites per square mile, and several canyons in that area hold more than three hundred sites 

per square mile. 

People have lived and labored to survive among these canyons and mesas for thousands of years, from the 

earliest known hunters crossing the area 10,000 years ago or more, through Ancestral Puebloan farmers, to the 

Ute, Navajo, and European settlers whose descendants still call this area home. There is scattered evidence that 

Paleo-Indians used the region on a sporadic basis for hunting and gathering until around 7500 B.C. During the 

Archaic period, generally covering the next six thousand years, occupation of the Four Corners area was 

dominated by hunters and gatherers. 

By about 1500 B.C., the more sedentary Basketmakers spread over the landscape. As Ancestral Northern 

Puebloan people occupied the area around 750 A.D., farming began to blossom, and continued through about 

1300 A.D., as the area became part of a much larger prehistoric cultural region that included Mesa Verde to the 

southeast. Year-round villages were established, originally consisting of pit house dwellings, and later evolving to 

well-recognized cliff-dwellings. Many archaeologists now believe that throughout this time span, the Ancestral 

Northern Puebloan people periodically aggregated into larger communities and dispersed into smaller community 

units. Specifically, during Pueblo I (about 700-900 A.D.) the occupation and site density in the monument area 

increased. Dwellings tended to be small, with three or four rooms. Then, during Pueblo II (about 900-1150 A.D.), 

settlements were diminished and highly dispersed. Late in Pueblo II and in early Pueblo III, around 1150 A.D., the 

size and number of settlements again increased and residential clustering began. Later pueblos were larger 

multi-storied masonry dwellings with forty to fifty rooms. For the remainder of Pueblo III (1150-1300 A.D.), major 

aggregation occurred in the monument, typically at large sites at the heads of canyons. One of these sites 

includes remains of about 420 rooms, 90 kivas, a great kiva, and a plaza, covering more than ten acres in all. 

These villages were wrapped around the upper reaches of canyons and spread down onto talus slopes, enclosed 

year-round springs and reservoirs, and included low, defensive walls. The changes in architecture and site 

planning reflected a shift from independent households to a more communal lifestyle. 

Farming during the Puebloan period was affected by population growth and changing climate and precipitation 

patterns. As the population grew, the Ancestral Puebloans expanded into increasingly marginal areas. Natural 

resources were compromised and poor soil and growing conditions made survival increasingly difficult. When dry 

conditions persisted, Pueblo communities moved to the south, southwest, and southeast, where descendants of 

these Ancestral Puebloan peoples live today. 

Soon after the Ancestral Puebloans left the monument area, the nomadic Ute and Navajo took advantage of the 

natural diversity found in the variable topography by moving to lower areas, including the monument's mesas and 

canyons, during the cooler seasons. A small number of forked stick hogans, brush shelters, and wickiups are the 

most obvious remnants of this period of occupation. 

The natural resources and spectacular land forms of the monument help explain why past and present cultures 

have chosen to live in the area. The geology of the monument evokes the very essence of the American 

Southwest. Structurally part of the Paradox Basin, from a distance the landscape looks deceptively benign. From 

the McElmo Dome in the southern part of the monument, the land slopes gently to the north, giving no indication 

of its true character. Once inside the area, however, the geology becomes more rugged and dissected. Rising 
Appendix A Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 2

sharply to the north of McElmo Creek, the McElmo Dome itself is buttressed by sheer sandstone cliffs, with mesa 

tops rimmed by caprock, and deeply incised canyons. 

The monument is home to a wide variety of wildlife species, including unique herpetological resources. Crucial 

habitat for the Mesa Verde nightsnake, long-nosed leopard lizard, and twin-spotted spiny lizard can be found 

within the monument in the area north of Yellow Jacket Canyon. Peregrine falcons have been observed in the 

area, as have golden eagles, American kestrels, red-tailed hawks, and northern harriers. Game birds like 

Gambel's quail and mourning dove are found throughout the monument both in dry, upland habitats, and in lush 

riparian habitat along the canyon bottoms. 

Section 2 of the Act of June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 225, 16 U.S.C. 431), authorizes the President, in his discretion, to 

declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic 

or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States 

to be national monuments, and to reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall 

be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.

WHEREAS it appears that it would be in the public interest to reserve such lands as a national monument to be 

known as the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument: 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested 

in me by section 2 of the Act of June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 225, 16 U.S.C. 431), do proclaim that there are hereby set 

apart and reserved as the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, for the purpose of protecting the objects 

identified above, all lands and interests in lands owned or controlled by the United States within the boundaries of 

the area described on the map entitled "Canyons of the Ancients National Monument" attached to and forming a 

part of this proclamation. The Federal land and interests in land reserved consist of approximately 164,000 acres, 

which is the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected. 

All Federal lands and interests in lands within the boundaries of this monument are hereby appropriated and 

withdrawn from all forms of entry, location, selection, sale, or other disposition under the public land laws, 

including but not limited to withdrawal from location, entry, and patent under the mining laws, and from disposition 

under all laws relating to mineral leasing, other than by exchange that furthers the protective purposes of the 

monument, and except for oil and gas leasing as prescribed herein. 

For the purpose of protecting the objects identified above, the Secretary of the Interior shall prohibit all motorized 

and mechanized vehicle use off road, except for emergency or authorized administrative purposes. 

Lands and interests in lands within the proposed monument not owned by the United States shall be reserved as 

a part of the monument upon acquisition of title thereto by the United States. 

Because most of the Federal lands have already been leased for oil and gas, which includes carbon dioxide, and 

development is already occurring, the monument shall remain open to oil and gas leasing and development; 

provided, the Secretary of the Interior shall manage the development, subject to valid existing rights, so as not to 

create any new impacts that interfere with the proper care and management of the objects protected by this 

proclamation; and provided further, the Secretary may issue new leases only for the purpose of promoting 

conservation of oil and gas resources in any common reservoir now being produced under existing leases, or to 

protect against drainage. 

The Secretary of the Interior shall prepare a transportation plan that addresses the actions, including road 

closures or travel restrictions, necessary to protect the objects identified in this proclamation. 

The Secretary of the Interior shall manage the monument through the Bureau of Land Management, pursuant to 

applicable legal authorities, to implement the purposes of this proclamation. 

The establishment of this monument is subject to valid existing rights. 

Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to enlarge or diminish the jurisdiction of the State of Colorado with 

respect to fish and wildlife management. 

This proclamation does not reserve water as a matter of Federal law. Nothing in this reservation shall be 

construed as a relinquishment or reduction of any water use or rights reserved or appropriated by the United 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix A

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 3

States on or before the date of this proclamation. The Bureau of Land Management shall work with appropriate 

State authorities to ensure that any water resources needed for monument purposes are available. 

Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to enlarge or diminish the rights of any Indian tribe. 

Laws, regulations, and policies followed by the Bureau of Land Management in issuing and administering grazing 

permits or leases on all lands under its jurisdiction shall continue to apply with regard to the lands in the 

monument. 

Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to affect the management of Hovenweep National Monument by 

the National Park Service (Proclamation 1654 of March 2, 1923, Proclamation 2924 of May 1, 1951, and 

Proclamation 2998 of November 26, 1952). 

Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to revoke any existing withdrawal, reservation, or appropriation; 

however, the national monument shall be the dominant reservation. 

Warning is hereby given to all unauthorized persons not to appropriate, injure, destroy, or remove any feature of 

this monument and not to locate or settle upon any of the lands thereof. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ninth day of June, in the year of our Lord two 

thousand, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-fourth. 

WILLIAM J. CLINTON 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix B

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 

Appendix B 

Wild and Scenic River Eligibility 

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix B

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

1 

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS REVIEW 

OF WATERWAYS IN THE 

CANYONS OF THE ANCIENTS NATIONAL MONUMENT 

June 2006 

INTRODUCTION 

As part of the effort to develop the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument (the 

Monument) Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(DRMP/DEIS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) planning team initiated a Wild 

and Scenic Rivers (WSR) review of all BLM-administered public surface land (public 

lands) along waterways within the planning area. The planning team has completed the 

first step of the Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) review, by determining if public lands and 

rivers with in the planning area meet the WSR eligibility criteria, as identified in the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA). 

Authorities and Guidelines 

The following documents guide the wild and scenic process: 

• BLM 1M 2004-196, Clarification of Policy in the BLM Manual Section 8351, Wild 

and Scenic Rivers, with respect to Eligibility Criteria and Protective Management, 

June 21, 2004; 

• BLM, Instruction Memorandum No. 98-129, dated June 25, 1998, Protective 

Management Policy and Guidance for Identified BLM Eligible River Segments 

Evaluated Pursuant to the WSRA, with attachment (Solicitor Memo, dated 

11/12/97); 

• BLM Memorandum, MS 8351, Clarification of Policy in the BLM Manual 8351 

Related to Eligibility of River Segments Evaluated Pursuant to Section 5 (d) (1) 

for the WSRA and their protections afforded under the NEPA and Section 202 

and 302 of the FLPMA, WO, April 8, 2004; 

• BLM Wild and Scenic Rivers Manual 8351 (December 22, 1993); 

• Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordination Council, 1982, which contains 

various technical papers relating to evaluation of Wild and Scenic Rivers (see 

website at: www.nps.gov/rivers/publications.html); 

• U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI)-U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

Guidelines for Eligibility, Classification, and Management of River Areas, 

September 7, 1982 (until 1988, this was the only guidance available to the BLM); 

• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, P.L. 90-542, as amended; and 

• Congressional legislative direction for Wild and Scenic River planning. 
Appendix B Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2 

Eligibility Determination 

The purpose of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) of 1968 is to preserve the 

free-flowing condition, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values of select 

rivers. The most important provision of the WSRA is to protect rivers from the harmful 

impacts of water resource projects. In order to protect this free-flowing character, the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the agency that licenses non-Federal 

hydropower projects) is not allowed to license the construction of dams, water conduits, 

reservoirs, powerhouses, transmission lines, and/or other project works on, or directly 

affecting, wild and scenic rivers (WSRs).Other Federal agencies may not assist (by loan, 

grant, license, or otherwise) any water resources project that may have a direct and 

adverse impact on the values for which a river was designated. 

The WSRA also directs that each river in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

(National System) be administered in a manner that protects and enhances a river's 

outstanding natural and cultural values. The existing uses of a river are allowed to 

continue, and future uses may be considered, so long as existing or proposed uses do 

not conflict with the goal of protecting river values. The WSRA also directs building 

partnerships among landowners, river users, tribal nations, and all levels of government. 

Beyond the immediate protection afforded to the eight rivers in the enabling legislation, 

the WSRA established a process for building a legacy of protected rivers. Rivers may be 

identified for study by an act of Congress, under Section 5(a), or through Federal 

agency-initiated study, under Section 5(d) (1). By the end of 2002, Congress had 

authorized 138 rivers for study. Section 5(d) (1) directs Federal agencies to consider the 

potential of WSRs in their planning processes, which has resulted in numerous individual 

rivers being designated, as well as State and area-specific legislation. 

Both Sections 5(a) and 5(d) (1) studies require determinations to be made regarding a 

river's eligibility, classification, and suitability. Eligibility and classification represent an 

inventory of existing conditions. Eligibility is an evaluation of whether or not a river is 

free- flowing, and whether or not it possesses one or more outstandingly remarkable 

value. If found eligible, a river is then analyzed as to its current level of development 

(e.g., water resources projects, shoreline development, and accessibility), and a 

recommendation is made that it be placed into one or more of three classes: 1) wild, 2) 

scenic, and/or 3) recreational. 

The definitions of two key terms, "waterway" and "public lands," as used in this WSR 

review process, are: 

• Waterway: A flowing body of water, or estuary, or a section, portion, or tributary 

thereof, including rivers, streams, creeks, runs, kills, rills, and/or small lakes. For 

the purposes of this review, a waterway is not required to have water in it yearround, and may be ephemeral or intermittent. 

• Public lands: The BLM-administered public land surface along waterways within 

a DRMP/DEIS planning area. Those "split-estate lands," where the land surface 

is State or privately owned, and where the Federal mineral estate is administered 

by the BLM, are not involved with these reviews. Other references to segments, 

parcels, corridors, and/or waterways all represent public lands, which is the basis 

for this review. 

1. The BLM WSR review for the Monument’s DRMP/DEIS planning area includes a 

three-step process of: 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix B

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3 

2. Determining if public lands along waterways meet the WSR eligibility criteria in 

order to be tentatively classified as wild, scenic, or recreational. 

3. Determining if any of the public lands that meet the eligibility criteria also meet 

the WSR suitability factors. 

4. Determining how any of the public lands that meet the suitability factors would be 

managed. 

This report only address the first step of this process: determining if public lands along 

waterways meet the WSR eligibility criteria in order to be tentatively classified as wild, 

scenic, or recreational. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility Criteria Review and Tentative 

Classification 

To meet the eligibility criteria, a waterway must be "free-flowing" and, along with the 

adjacent land area, must possess one or more "outstandingly remarkable" values. As 

part of the eligibility review, the BLM planning team members reviewed all waterways in 

the planning area to see if it contained any public lands that meet the eligibility criteria. 

Only those portions of waterways flowing through public lands were considered. The 

following are the guidelines used in applying the eligibility criteria on public lands on the 

Monument: 

• Free Flowing: Free flowing is defined in the WSRA as "existing or flowing in 

natural condition without impoundment, diversion, straightening, rip-rapping, or 

other modification of the waterway." The existence of small dams, diversion 

works, and/or other minor structures at the time the waterway is being 

considered do not automatically disqualify it for possible addition to the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS). A waterway need not be "boatable or 

floatable" in order to be eligible. There is no "minimum flow" requirement. (A 

further discussion on “minimum flow” is contained in the policy clarification 

section below.) 

• Outstandingly Remarkable Value: The public lands must also possess one or 

more outstandingly remarkable value to be eligible for further consideration. 

Outstandingly remarkable values relate to scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and 

wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar resource values. 

The term "outstandingly remarkable value" is not precisely defined in the WSRA; 

however, these values must be directly waterway-related. The criteria for 

outstandingly remarkable values used for the review of public lands on the 

Monument are as follows: 

- Scenic: The landscape elements of landform, vegetation, water, color, 

and/or related factors must result in notable or exemplary visual features 

and/or attraction. Additional factors, such as seasonal variations in 

vegetation, scale of cultural modifications, and length of time negative 

intrusions are viewed, must also be considered when analyzing scenic 

values. Scenery and visual attractions must be highly diverse over the 

majority of the public lands involved, not common to other waterways in 

the geographic region, and must be of a quality to attract visitors from 

outside the area. 
Appendix B Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4 

- Recreational: Recreational opportunities on the public lands must be 

unique enough to attract visitors from outside the area (with visitors willing 

to travel long distances in order to use the waterway resources on the 

public lands for recreational purposes). 

Waterway-related opportunities may include, but are not limited to, 

sightseeing, wildlife observation, camping, photography, hiking, fishing, 

hunting, and/or boating. Interpretive opportunities must be exceptional 

and attract visitors from outside the area. The waterway must provide 

settings for national or regional commercial usage and/or competitive 

events. 

- Geologic: The public lands must provide an example(s) of a geologic 

feature, process, and/or phenomenon that is rare, unusual, and/or unique 

to the area. The feature(s) may be in an unusually active stage of 

development, and/or may represent a "textbook" example and/or 

represent a unique or rare combination of geologic features (e.g., 

erosional, volcanic, glacial, and/or other geologic structures). 

- Fisheries: The fishery values of the waterway or waterway segment(s) 

on public lands may be judged on the relative merits of either fish 

populations or habitat, or a combination of these conditions. 

+ Populations: The waterway or waterway segment(s) on public lands 

must be a contributor to one of the top producers of resident and/or 

indigenous fish species, either nationally or regionally. Of particular 

significance may be the presence of wild or unique stocks, or 

populations of Federally listed or candidate threatened and 

endangered species. Diversity of species is also an important 

consideration. 

+ Habitat: The waterway or waterway segment(s) on public lands must 

contribute to exceptionally high-quality habitat for fish species 

indigenous to the region. Of particular significance is habitat for 

Federally listed or candidate threatened and endangered species. 

- Wildlife: Wildlife values on public lands may be judged on the relative 

merits of either wildlife populations or habitat, or a combination of these 

conditions. 

+ Populations: The public lands must be contributing to populations of 

resident or indigenous wildlife species important in the area, or 

nationally. Of particular significance are species considered to be 

unique, or populations of Federally listed or candidate threatened and 

endangered species. Diversity of species is also an important 

consideration. 

+ Habitat: The public land must contribute to exceptionally high-quality 

habitat for wildlife species important to the area, or nationally, or must 

provide unique habitat, or a critical link in habitat conditions, for 

Federally listed or candidate threatened and endangered species. 

Contiguous habitat conditions must be such that the biological needs 

of the species are met. Adjacent habitat conditions must be such that 

the biological needs of the species are met. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix B

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

5 

- Cultural: The public lands must contain examples of outstanding cultural 

sites, which have unusual characteristics relating to prehistoric use. Sites 

may be important in the area, or nationally, for interpreting prehistory; 

may be rare and represent an area where culture or cultural period was 

first identified and described; may have been used concurrently by two or 

more cultural groups; and/or may have been used by cultural groups for 

rare or sacred purposes (see Appendix B for a more complete discussion 

of the process used to identify outstandingly remarkable values). 

- Historical: The public lands must contain a site(s) or feature(s) 

associated with a significant event, an important person, or a cultural 

activity of the past that was rare or unusual in the area. 

- Similar Values: Other values may include significant hydrological, 

paleontological, botanical, scientific, and/or ecological resources, as long 

as they are waterway-related. 

Region of Comparison 

All rivers within the Monument planning area were evaluated under the eligibility criteria; 

however, only those that met the free-flowing criteria and that had the presence of 

outstandingly remarkable values received intensive study. 

The Monument planning area is located in southwestern Colorado, in the eastern edge 

of the Colorado Plateau Physiographic Province, which is a large geographic region 

encompassing portions of four states: Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona. The 

Interdisciplinary (ID) Team determined that the regional comparison would be based on 

the Colorado Plateau area. In terms of cultural/historic resources, the general regions of 

comparison may vary slightly, depending on the time period and culture, but would 

generally be within the Colorado Plateau for prehistoric resources, and generally within 

southwestern Colorado and/or the Four Corners region for historic resources. 

Tentative Classification 

Public lands and streams that meet the eligibility criteria are given a tentative 

classification (wild, scenic, or recreational), as required by the WSRA. Tentative 

classification is based on the type and degree of human development(s) associated with 

the public lands involved, as well as with adjacent lands, at the time of the review. Actual 

classification is a Congressional legislative determination. 

The tentative classifications are further defined as follows: 

• Wild Waterway Areas: These are waterways, or sections of waterways, on 

public lands that are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible, except by 

trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. 

These represent vestiges of primitive America. Wild means undeveloped. Roads, 

dams, or diversion works are generally absent from a quarter mile corridor on 

both sides of the waterway. 

• Scenic Waterway Areas: These are waterways, or sections of waterways, on 

public lands that are generally free of impoundments, with watersheds still largely 

primitive, and shorelines still largely primitive and largely undeveloped, but still 

accessible by roads. Scenic does not necessarily mean that the public lands 

have to have scenery as an outstandingly remarkable value; however, it does 
Appendix B Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

6 

mean that the public lands may contain more development (except for major 

dams or diversion works) than a wild waterway segment, and less development 

than a recreational waterway segment. For example, roads may cross the 

waterway in places but are not generally found to run parallel to it. In certain 

cases, however, if a parallel road is unpaved and well screened from the 

waterway (by vegetation, a hill, and/or other obstruction), it could qualify for 

scenic waterway area classification. 

• Recreational Waterway Areas: These are the waterways, or sections of 

waterways, on public lands that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that 

may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have 

undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past. Parallel roads or 

railroads, as well as the existence of small dams or diversions, may be allowed in 

this classification. A recreational waterway area classification does not imply that 

the waterway or section of waterway, on pubic lands would be managed or 

prioritized for recreational use or development. 

Clarification of Policy 

The Monument’s planning team reviewed IM 2004-196, Clarification of Policy in the BLM 

Manual Section 8351, Wild and Scenic Rivers, with respect to Eligibility Criteria and 

Protective Management, June 21, 2004, and incorporated the guidance described: 

"Policy Clarification/Action: the guidance clarifies policy contained in the BLM 

Manual 8351 and, until incorporated into the Manual, is applicable to all river 

segments determined eligible and/or suitable. 

Judgment is required in determining eligibility of watercourses that are free 

flowing and have associated outstandingly remarkable values. As a general rule, 

the segment should contain regular and predictable flows (even though 

intermittent, seasonal, or interrupted). This flow should derive from naturally 

occurring circumstances, e.g., aquifer recharge, seasonal melting from snow or 

ice, normal precipitation, in stream flow from spillways or upstream facilities. 

Caution is advised in applying the...criterion to water courses which only flow 

during flash floods or unpredictable events. The segment should not be 

ephemeral (flow lasting only a few days of a year). Evaluation of flows should 

focus on normal water years, with consideration of drought or wet years during 

the inventory." 

Final Eligibility 

Streams identified as ephemeral have been dropped from WSR eligibility consideration, 

based on updated guidance (IM 2004-196), and on consultation with the Monument 

Manager and the ID team (see Table A for the segments found not eligible). 

Nine streams that flow on a perennial or intermittent basis were studied for outstandingly 

remarkable values. Four streams (25.3 miles) were considered to be eligible and will be 

further studied for suitability in the DRMP/DEIS. Table A: Canyons of the Ancients 

Resource Management Plan: Wild and Scenic Eligibility Review Summary, shows all the 

waterways that were reviewed, the eligibility determinations made for the public lands 

involved, and the tentative classification (either wild, scenic, or recreational) for each of 

the public land acres that met the eligibility criteria. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix B

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

7 

Public Involvement and Coordination 

This DRMP/DEIS is a new planning effort, based on the Presidential Proclamation dated 

June 9, 2000. This WSR review is being conducted in conjunction with the DRMP/DEIS 

planning process, and will follow the applicable review process. This will result in a WSR 

review report that will support the land use plan efforts currently underway on the 

Monument. The results of this WSR review are part of the Analysis of the Management 

Situation (AMS) activities for DRMP/DEIS effort. 

The formal scoping process for the Monument began on April 24, 2002 with the 

publishing of a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register. Under Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) regulations, the public comment period must continue for at least 30 days; 

however, the BLM extended this public comment period until November 28, 2003, This 

provided over 200 days for comment submittal. The BLM hosted three public scoping 

workshops in order to further provide the public an opportunity to become involved and 

to offer comments. These workshops were advertised in a brochure that was mailed to 

more than 350 individuals and organizations, and e-mailed to approximately 280 

addresses. The workshops were also advertised through media releases, public service 

announcements, and flyers that were posted in various locations. 

Comments regarding Wild and Scenic Rivers were lumped under the category of 

“Wilderness and Special Areas”. Based on comments received during scoping, the 

following issue statement was identified: 

How will Wild and Scenic River values be managed on the Monument? 

Following initial scoping, the BLM initiated a review of all public lands along waterways 

within the Monument for possible wild and scenic river considerations. The results of this 

analysis, along with a range of alternatives, are represented in the DRMP/DEIS, which is 

planned for public review in 2007. Reports and recommendations to Congress for 

inclusion of BLM-administered public lands in the WSR system would be dependent 

upon public sentiment, and upon WSR eligibility criteria. Public involvement is required 

by law, regulations, and as deemed necessary by the BLM, Colorado State Office. 

Table A: Canyons of the Ancients Resource Management Plan: Wild and Scenic Eligibility Review 

Summary 

Waterway 

Reviewed 

FreeFlowing? Ephemeral?

Outstandingly 

Remarkable 

Values on Public 

Lands? 

Eligible? Tentative 

Classification 

Dove Creek Yes No No No 

Cross Canyon Yes No Yes – Cultural Yes Scenic 

Cottonwood 

Creek No Yes No No No 

Cahone 

Canyon No No No No No 

Papoose 

Canyon No Yes No No No 
Appendix B Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

8 

Table A: Canyons of the Ancients Resource Management Plan: Wild and Scenic Eligibility Review 

Summary 

Waterway 

Reviewed 

FreeFlowing? Ephemeral?

Outstandingly 

Remarkable 

Values on Public 

Lands? 

Eligible? Tentative 

Classification 

Cow Canyon No Yes No No No 

Ruin Canyon No Yes No No No 

Hovenweep 

Canyon Yes Yes No No No 

Negro Canyon No Yes No No No 

Yellowjacket 

Canyon No Yes No No No 

Mclean Basin No Yes No No No 

Woods Canyon No Yes No No No 

Hovenweep 

Tributary Yes No Yes-Cultural Yes Scenic 

Yellow Jacket 

Tributary Yes Yes No No No 

Goodman 

Canyon No Yes No No No 

Burro Canyon No Yes No No No 

Moccasin 

Canyon No Yes No No No 

Rock Creek No Yes No No No 

Risley Canyon No Yes No No No 

Trail Canyon Yes No No No No 

Alkali Canyon No No No No No 

East Fork of 

Rock Creek No Yes No No No 

McElmo Creek Yes No No No No 

Blue Water 

Basin No No No No No 

Rincon Canyon No Yes No No No 

Squaw Canyon No Yes No No No 

Sandstone 

Canyon Yes No Yes-Cultural Yes Recreational 

Negro Canyon No Yes No No No 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix B

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

9 

Table A: Canyons of the Ancients Resource Management Plan: Wild and Scenic Eligibility Review 

Summary 

Waterway 

Reviewed 

FreeFlowing? Ephemeral?

Outstandingly 

Remarkable 

Values on Public 

Lands? 

Eligible? Tentative 

Classification 

Tributary 

Bridge Canyon No Yes No No No 

Bowdish 

Canyon Yes No Yes-Cultural Yes Scenic 

Table B: Canyons of the Ancients Resource Management Plan: Eligible Segments 

Waterway 

Reviewed 

Free-Flowing? Outstandingly 

Remarkable 

Values on Public 

Lands? 

Eligible/Tentative 

Classification 

Miles 

Cross Canyon Yes Yes – Cultural Yes/Scenic 4.24 

Hovenweep 

Tributary 

Yes Yes-Cultural Yes/Scenic 5.28 

Sandstone 

Canyon 

Yes Yes-Cultural Yes/Recreational 1.15 

Bowdish 

Canyon 

Yes Yes-Cultural Yes/Scenic 19.86 

TOTAL 30.53 
Appendix B Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

10 

ATTACHMENT A 

MAP 
Lowry 

Pueblo

Sand 

Canyon 

Pueblo

Painted 

Hand 

Pueblo

Sand 

Canyon 

Trailhead

Anasazi 

Heritage 

Center

Cutthroat 

Castle 

Trailhead

H-O 

Spring

Dove 

Spring

Old 160 

Spring

Lonesome 

Spring

Braven 

Spring

Wagon Box 

Spring

Bluewater 

Spring

 Miller 

Spring

 Frothy 

Spring

Lowry Ruin 

Spring

Pedro Point 

Spring

Hymenopteza 

Spring

E Mockingbird 

Spring

W Mockingbird 

Spring

Packrat Midden 

Spring

Cannonball Ruin 

Spring

Confluence Ruin 

Spring

CORTEZ

C.R. G

C.R. 10

C.R. CC

C.R. BB

C.R. P

C R. . 15

C.R. Y

C.R. 20

C.R. N

C.R. W

C.R. 1

C R. . 18

C.R. 8

C.R. 16

C R. . 12

C.R. J

C.R. U

C.R. 11

C.R. Z

C.R. H.8

C.R. DD

C.R. 17

C.R. 14

C.R. 6

C R. . 18

C.R. P C.R. P

C.R. Y

C R. . 16

C.R. Z

McElmo Creek

Cross Canyon

Yellowjacket

N

Canyon egro

Canyon

Squaw

Canyon

Sandstone

Canyon

Rincon

Canyon

Papoose

Canyon

Cahone

Canyon

MCPHEE RESERVOIR

NARRAGUINNEP

Hovenweep Canyon

Woods Canyon

Dolores County

Utah

Montezuma County

Colorado

Hovenweep

National

Monument

Hovenweep

National

Monument

San Juan National Forest

01234

Miles

Legend

Monument Boundary

County Roads

Painted Hand Road

Sand Canyon Road

Bureau of Land Management

Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers

Perennial Streams

Spring

Appendix B-1 Water Resources

Note: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) conducts 

land use planning only in the areas administered by BLM. 

BLM has no planning authority under the municipal or county

 planning legislation of the State of Colorado.

No warranty is made by BLM for the use of this map for 

purposes not intended by BLM, or to the accuracy, reliability 

or completeness of the information shown. Spatial 

information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. 

This information may be updated without notification.

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

September 2007

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix B

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

1 

ATTACHMENT B 

Analysis Procedures and Rationale for Cultural Resources 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Planning 

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Analysis Procedures 

1. Analysis of cultural resources (prehistoric and historic) will be conducted using 

existing data only. This information will be derived from the databases maintained by 

the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and by the BLM. Review of 

the existing data will be facilitated by the use of USGS 7.5 minute maps, with site 

locations and site data tables produced using GIS; examination of existing site forms; 

and other related documentation. Some previously recorded sites may be revisited in 

the field, if necessary. 

2. The area of analysis will be 1⁄4 mile on either side of the main stem of the stream. 

3. Cultural resources are defined as including prehistoric and historic sites. 

Protohistoric and historic Native American sites will be included with historic sites. 

Historic sites, in most cases, will be 50 years or older. The analysis will examine 

resources classified as sites only. (Protohistoric is considered the transition period 

between prehistoric and historic.) 

Rationale for Analysis and Outstandingly Remarkable Values Evaluation 

Criteria 

Defining River-Related Resources

For the purposes of this analysis, all archaeological and historic sites located 1⁄4 mile 

from either side of the existing streambed will be considered “river-related” resources. 

The reason for this is that it is nearly impossible to determine if sites, particularly the 

prehistoric sites, are river-related or not. Moreover, it can be assumed that sites located 

within 1⁄4 mile of an existing streambed had dependency on the water resource in this 

semi-arid region. 

Regions of Comparison

The general regions of comparison may vary slightly depending on the time period and 

culture, but will generally be within the Colorado Plateau for prehistoric resources, and 

within southwestern Colorado and/or the Four Corners region for historic resources. 

Comparison on a national level may also be considered, as appropriate. 

Determining which Sites are Outstandingly Remarkable Values

For the purposes of this analysis, any site that is eligible for, or listed on, the National 

Register of Historic Places will be considered a potential outstandingly remarkable value. 

Based on the fact that the analysis will be conducted with existing data only, sites that 

are unevaluated or that require additional data in order to determine their eligibility for 

the National Register will not be considered. 
Appendix B Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2 

Criteria for Determining Stream Eligibility (solely or in combination with other 

resources) Based on Cultural Resources

A stream may be considered eligible based on cultural resource outstandingly 

remarkable values if one or more of the following criteria apply: 

• The stream contains one or more sites that are: 

- exemplary examples of a culture group or time period; 

- rare on a regional and/or national level; 

- represent multiple cultural groups, or represent exemplary examples of 

sites from multiple time periods within the same cultural group; 

- represent significant persons or events on a regional and/or national 

level; and 

- represent an area where a culture or time period was first identified and 

defined. 

• The stream is included entirely or partially within an existing National Register 

District. 

• The stream is known, based on existing data, to contain a grouping of sites that 

have National Register District potential. 

• The stream contains one or more eligible sites that are directly associated with 

water use or development on the stream, and where the evidence of that use is 

still present and/or visible. 

Exemplary and rare examples of a culture group or time period may include, but are not 

be limited to, the following: 

• sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places; 

• rock art panels (with or without other features); 

• sites with public architecture (which can be isolated features, such as public 

architecture including great kivas, D-shaped structures, tri-wall structures, bi-wall 

towers, great houses, roads, shrines, and/or large reservoirs); 

• Chaco outliers sites (sites connected to Chaco site through architecture, artifacts, 

and road system but are outside the main Chaco Canyon); 

• Chacoan roads; 

• prehistoric sites with standing architectural features that retain good integrity 

(standing towers, rooms/roomblocks, granaries etc.); 

• Paleoindian sites or components; 

• single-component archaic sites, or sites with intact/datable archaic components 

and features; 

• Basketmaker II campsites and habitations; 

• Basketmaker III villages or hamlets (with more than 2 residences); 

• Pueblo I villages; 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix B

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3 

• Pueblo I field houses; 

• Pueblo II aggregate villages; 

• Pueblo III aggregate villages, or residences with or without public architecture; 

• protohistoric and historic Native American sites; 

• historic homesteads with standing architecture and features; and/or 

• historic roads and trails (e.g. Old Spanish Trail). 

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix C

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 

Appendix C 

Recreation Analysis Process 

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix C

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 1 

Basic Recreation Land Use and Implementation Planning Decisions 

Nearly everyone can attest to the life-enriching qualities of recreation. However, most people 

also realize that its positive effects cannot simply be assumed; that, in fact, those experiences 

can often be enhanced when they are planned and managed for. It often takes more than 

accommodating user desires for a recreation activity to ensure that it actually occurs. Given that 

it is the duty of land managers to provide recreation opportunities for the visiting public; it makes 

sense that it is also part of their ongoing mission to implement a variety of programs designed, 

from the outset, to achieve the desired outcomes of the visiting public. Otherwise, specific 

experiences may not be realized. 

Recreation outcomes matter. Recreation can provide satisfying experiences, strengthen family 

and community life, stabilize economies, and safeguard community and natural environments. It 

can also, however, if done poorly, be less than satisfying and lead to undesirable experiences. 

Additional negative impacts can also occur, such as family life may be degraded, communities 

may lose their distinctive character, economies may be adversely impacted, and the integrity of 

natural and cultural features may be diminished. 

To ensure positive recreation-tourism development and use, land management agencies, such 

as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), must plan and manage not only for recreation 

activities but, more importantly, for positive outcomes resulting from those recreation activities. 

Such outcomes include setting the stage for satisfying experiences for visitors, as well as 

maintaining the essential character of the recreation settings (see attached table) in which the 

activities occur—and upon which sustainable attainment of the desired outcomes depends. 

This job is not as simple as it might, at first, appear. The potential impacts from managing a 

recreation program extend beyond on-site participants. Impacts may include adverse effects to 

households within adjoining communities, economies, and the environment. Not all those 

seeking recreation desire the same kinds of outcomes; different people often desire different 

recreation settings for the same recreation management units. Thus, customer desires for 

activity, experience, and other benefits must be assessed for all relevant recreation-tourism 

markets (i.e. customers) and compared with available supplies. Land managers must decide 

which recreation opportunities to provide in which recreation management zone, for which 

market niches or customers. 

The initial recreation management decision now facing public lands managers is that of deciding 

whether or not there is a significant, identifiable structured recreation-tourism market demand1

for each unit of public lands and, if so, whether or not they want to commit the intensive 

management investments required in order to support them. Such areas are currently managed 

by the BLM as Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs). In contrast, all public lands 

where these conditions are not satisfied (i.e., either specific markets having structured 

recreation-tourism demands that cannot be identified or where there is a lack of commitment to 

responsively accommodate for it) are managed only for custodial care and do not accommodate 

new recreation demands. Such areas are identified as Extensive Recreation Management 

Areas (ERMAs). There are no ERMAs within the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument; 

therefore, such areas will not be discussed in this document. 

Detailed management, marketing, monitoring, and supporting administrative actions are not 

land use allocation decisions; rather, they are implementation decisions. As such, they can be 

 

1

 “Structured recreation-tourism market demand” describes desires for specific experiences and other benefits and 

accompanying maintenance of recreation setting characteristics upon which attainment of those desired 

outcomes depends. For recreation participants, this includes recreation activities; however, in the case of resident 

customers, it may only include preferences for setting characteristics upon which those outcomes depend.
Appendix C Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 2 

adaptively adjusted at any phase of plan implementation, as necessary, in order to achieve 

management objectives and setting prescriptions. A graphic representation of SRMAs is as 

follows: 

For SRMAs 

Land Use Plan Decisions:

Intent: To respond to identified market demand for structured recreation (i.e., 

experience and other benefit outcomes and the maintenance of recreation setting character) 

Context: Here, the BLM has been able to identify both specific recreation-tourism markets and 

their explicit differing recreation experience and other benefit outcomes and the maintenance of 

setting character upon which sustained attainment of those outcomes depends. 

Content: 1. Identify markets/niches; 

 2. Write benefits-based management objectives; 

 3. Prescribe essential recreation setting conditions; and 

 4. Outline implementation framework. 

Post-Land Use Plan Implementation Decisions:

a. Management actions; 

b. Marketing actions; 

c. Monitoring action; and, 

d. Administrative support actions. 

The significance of the decision to identify SRMAs is that the BLM now authorizes more than 

custodial recreation management, enabling managers to now identify structured recreation 

markets and their demands, and to proactively accommodate for selected market niches. 

Unless reasons for accommodating recreation are carefully articulated in terms of 

desired/targeted experience and other benefit outcomes–and corresponding essential setting 

characteristics upon which those outcomes depend–activities alone do not provide sufficient 

direction and rationale (i.e., they do not explain “why?”). Thus, recreation management 

objectives for SRMAs are written in terms of explicitly stated benefit-based management 

outcomes (i.e., targeted to selected recreation-tourism markets and niches). Increased 

recreation activity participation is therefore accommodated only where managers can associate 

that demand with identifiable markets and specific desired outcomes. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix C

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 3 

Outcomes Checklist 

From which to Select or Craft Items for Visitor/Resident Customer Preference Studies 

and for Benefits-Based Recreation Management Objectives 

I. Experiential Benefits to Recreation Participants: 

A: Achievement/Stimulation 

! Developing your skills and abilities 

! Having others think highly of you for doing this 

! Testing your endurance 

! Gaining a greater sense of self-confidence 

! Being able to tell others about the trip 

B: Autonomy/Leadership 

! Experiencing a greater sense of independence 

! Enjoying going exploring on my/our own 

! Being in control of things that happen 

 

C: Risk-Taking 

! Enjoying risk-taking adventure 

D: Equipment 

! Talking to others about your equipment 

E/F/G: Family Togetherness/Similar People/New People 

! Enjoying the closeness of friends and family 

! Relishing group affiliation and togetherness 

! Enjoying meeting new people with similar interests 

! Enjoying participating in group outdoor events 

H: Learning 

! Learning more about things here 

! Enjoying having access to hands-on 

environmental learning 

! Enjoying learning outdoor social skills 

I: Enjoy nature 

! Savoring the total sensory--sight, sound, and 

smell--experience of a natural landscape 

! Enjoying having easy access to natural landscapes 

J: Introspection 

! Enjoying being more contemplative 

! Reflecting on my own character and personal values 

! Thinking about and shaping my own spiritual values 

! Contemplating man’s relationship with the land 

K: Creativity 

! Doing something creative 

! Enjoying artistic expression of nature 

L: Nostalgia 

! Bringing back pleasant memories 

M: Exercise-Physical Fitness 

! Enjoying getting some needed physical exercise 

! Enjoying strenuous physical exercise 

! Enjoying having a wide variety of environments 

within a single park or recreation area 

! Enjoying having access to close-to-home 

outdoor amenities 

! Enjoying being able to frequently participate in 

desired activities in the settings I like 

N: Physical Rest 

! Enjoying getting some needed physical rest 

O: Escape Personal-Social Pressures 

! Releasing or reducing some built-up mental tensions 

! Escaping everyday responsibilities for awhile 

P: Escape Physical Pressure 

! Feeling good about solitude, 

isolation, and being independent 

! Enjoying an escape from crowds of people 

Q: Social Security 

! Being near more considerate people 

R: Escape Family 

! Getting away from family for awhile 

S: Teaching-Leading Others 

! Enjoying teaching others about the outdoors 

T: Risk Reduction 

! Having others nearby who could help you if needed 

! Having a greater understanding about what 

will happen while I am here 

Adapted from Driver, B.L.; Tinsley, H.E.A., and Manfredo, M.J. “The Paragraphs about Leisure and Recreation Experience Preference Scales: Results 

from Two Inventories Designed to Assess the Breadth of the Perceived Psychological Benefits of Leisure.” 1991. In Driver, B.L.; Brown, P.J., and 

Peterson, G.L. (Eds). Benefits of Leisure (p. 276). State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.
Appendix C Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 4 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

II. Experiential Benefits to Community Residents: 

 (i.e., related to other’s recreation-tourism engagements) 

A: Lifestyle 

! Enjoying the hustle and bustle of having new 

people in town 

! Enjoying the peace and quiet 

of this small-town community 

! Enjoying maintaining out-of-town country solitude 

! Living a slower pace of life 

! Avoiding compromising the quality of life here 

B: Sense of Place 

! Feeling like I belong to this community and liking it 

! Avoiding having outsiders make me feel 

alienated from my own community 

! Observing visitors treat our community with respect 

! Feeling that this community is a special place to live 

! Just knowing this attraction is here, 

in or near my community 

C: Personal/Character 

! Nurturing my own spiritual values and growth 

! Developing a greater understanding of outsiders 

D: Interacting with People 

! Appreciating personal interaction with visitors 

! Enjoying telling visitors what makes this community 

a special place to live and work 

 ! Encouraging visitors to help safeguard 

our lifestyle and quality of life 

 ! Sharing our cultural heritage with new people 

! Seeing visitors get excited about this area 

! Communicating our cultural heritage with 

those already living here 

E: Change 

! Liking change and new growth here 

! Knowing that things are not going to 

change too much 

F: Stewardship and Hospitality 

! Feeling good about the way our cultural 

heritage is being protected 

! Feeling good about how visitors are being managed 

! Feeling good about how natural resources 

and facilities are being managed 

! Feeling good about how this attraction is 

being used and enjoyed 

Adapted from work done for the BLM by Marty Lee, Northern Arizona University by D. Bruns and BLM colleagues 

III. Other Personal Benefits: 

 A. Psychological

 1. Better mental health and health maintenance 

! A more holistic sense of wellness 

! Restored mind from unwanted stress 

! Diminished mental anxiety 

! Improved mental well-being 

! More committed to close-to-home recreation 

 for consistent health improvement 

! Greater commitment to pay more to re-create 

 now to avoid paying more for health 

 care later 

 2. Personal development and growth 

! Greater self-reliance 

! Confirmation/development of my own values 

! Improved academic and cognitive performance 

! Improved sense of control over one’s life 

! Improved skills for outdoor enjoyment 

! Improved skills for enjoying the outdoors alone 

! Improved skills for outdoor enjoyment with others 

! Improved leadership abilities 

! Improved teamwork and cooperation 

! Improved outdoor knowledge and self-confidence 

! Improved outdoor recreation skills 

! Deeper sense of personal humility 

! More balanced competitive spirit 

! Improved competence from being challenged 

! Greater sensitivity to/awareness of outdoor 

 aesthetics, nature’s art and its elegance 

! Enlarged sense of wonder 

! Greater spiritual growth 

! Greater cognitive efficiency 

! Increased capacity for artistic expression 

! Improved ability to think things through and 

solve problems 

! Increased adaptability 

! Stronger ties with my family and friends 

! Greater sensitivity to/respect for other visitors 

! Increased understanding and tolerance of others 

! Greater respect for my cultural heritage 

! Enhanced awareness and understanding of nature 

! Improved sensitivity and know-how to use 

 and enjoy without adverse impact 

! Greater understanding of the importance of 

recreation and tourism to our community 

! Better sense of my place within my community 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix C

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 5 

! Improved ability to relate to local cultures 

! More well-informed and responsible visitor 

! Greater sense of responsibility 

for my own quality of life 

! Improved balance of work and play in my life 

! Greater personal accountability and know-how in 

avoiding or causing conflict with others 

! Enlarged understanding of my responsibility to 

help care for this community and keep 

it clean 

! Improved sense of personal accountability for 

 control of domestic pets and livestock 

3. Personal appreciation and satisfaction 

! Closer relationship with the natural world 

! A more outdoor-oriented lifestyle 

! Improved reconnection to my rural roots 

! Enhanced sense of personal freedom 

! Greater sense of personal security 

! Greater sense of adventure 

! Improved appreciation of nature’s splendor 

! Improved opportunity to view wildlife close-up 

! Greater appreciation of the arts 

! Better understanding of wildlife’s contribution to 

 my own quality of life 

! Greater freedom from urban living 

! Greater appreciation for my wildland and 

 Parkland heritage and how 

 managers care for it 

! Greater personal enrichment through 

involvement with other people 

! Improved personal awareness, learning and 

 appreciation of others’ cultural values 

! Increased acceptance of others who are different 

! Greater cultivation of natural resource 

 stewardship ethic 

! Increased appreciation of area’s cultural history 

! Greater awareness that this community 

 is a special place 

! Better understanding of my community’s 

cultural identity 

! Greater respect for private property 

 and local lifestyles 

! An improved stewardship ethic towards 

 adjoining/host communities 

! Improved understanding of how this community’s 

 rural-urban interface impacts its quality of life 

! Improved understanding of this/our community’s 

 dependence and impact on public lands 

 B. Psychophysiological

 ! Improved physical fitness and health maintenance 

 ! Restored body from fatigue 

 ! Improved cardiovascular health 

 ! Reduced hypertension 

 ! Improved capacity for outdoor physical activity 

 ! Improved physical capacity to do my favorite 

 recreation activities 

 ! Greater opportunity for people with different 

 skills to exercise in the same place 

 ! Decreased body fat and obesity 

 ! Improved muscle strength and connective tissue 

 ! Increased lung capacity 

 ! Reduced incidence of disease 

IV. Household and Community Benefits: 

! Heightened sense of community satisfaction 

! Increased community sense of place 

! Greater household awareness of and 

 appreciation for our cultural heritage 

! More informed citizenry about where to go for different 

 kinds of recreation experiences and benefits 

! Reduced social isolation 

! Improved community integration 

! Improved functioning of individuals in family 

 and community 

! Greater family bonding 

! Improved parenting skills 

! More well-rounded childhood development 

! Improved group cooperation 

! Greater community involvement in recreation 

 and other land use decisions 

! Increased community involvement reducing erosion 

 of our community’s small-town, rural character 

! Reduced numbers of at-risk youth 

! Less juvenile delinquency 

! Higher school class attendance 

! Lower school drop-out rates 

! More highly motivated students/improved scholarship 

! Reduced social alienation 

! Increased compassion for others 

! Lifestyle improvement or maintenance 

! Enhanced lifestyle 

! Enlarged sense of community dependency 

 on public lands 

! Increased nurturance/tolerance of others 

! Increased independence/autonomy among seniors 

! Increased community interdependence and 

 friendliness 

! Greater interaction with visitors from different cultures 

! Greater community valuation of its ethnic diversity 
Appendix C Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 6 

V. Economic Benefits: 

! Reduced health maintenance costs 

! Increased work productivity 

! Reduced absenteeism from work 

! Decreased job turnover 

! Improved local economic stability 

! More positive contributions to local-regional 

economy 

! Increased local tax revenue from visitors 

! Increased local job opportunities 

! Greater value-added local services/industry 

! Increased desirability as a place to live or retire 

! Enhanced ability for visitors to find areas providing 

 wanted recreation experiences and benefits 

! Maintenance of community’s distinctive 

 recreation-tourism market niche 

 or character 

! Increased local tourism revenue 

! Greater diversification of local job offerings 

! Increased property values 

! Greater fiscal capacity to maintain essential 

 infrastructure and services 

VI. Environmental Benefits: 

! Greater retention of community’s distinctive 

 architecture and structures 

! Maintenance of distinctive small-town atmosphere 

! Maintenance of distinctive recreation setting 

 character 

! Improved maintenance of physical facilities 

! Reduced looting and vandalism of historic/ 

 prehistoric sites 

! Greater community ownership and stewardship 

 of park, recreation, and natural resources 

! Greater retention of distinctive natural 

 landscape features 

! Reduced wildlife harassment by recreation users 

! Reduced wildlife disturbance from recreation 

 facility development 

! Reduced wildlife predation by domestic pets 

! Greater protection of area historic structures 

 and archaeological sites 

! Sustainability of community’s cultural heritage 

! Improved respect for privately-owned lands 

! Improved care for community aesthetics 

! Improved soil, water, and air quality 

! Greater protection of fish, wildlife, and plant habitat 

 from growth, development, and 

 public use impacts 

! Increased awareness and protection of 

 natural landscapes 

! Reduced negative human impacts such as litter, 

 vegetative trampling, and unplanned trails 

! Increased ecologically friendly tourism operations 

! Reduced spread of invasive species such as 

 plants, insects, and aquatic organisms 

! Greater recycling 

! Conservation of entire sustainable ecosystems 

! Improved maintenance of distinctive community 

 character and identity

 Adapted from Moore, Roger L. and Driver, B.L. “Benefits of Leisure and Its Roles in Society.” 2005. In Introduction to Outdoor Recreation. (p. 29). State 

College, PA: Venture Publishing, 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix C

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 7 

Negative Outcomes Checklist 

From which to Select or Craft Additional Items for Resident Customer Preference Studies 

I. Personal Negative Outcomes: 

 (i.e., worsened conditions) 

 A. Psychological

! Increased personal stress 

! Loss of an important sense of place 

! Loss of control over one’s desired future 

! Loss of control over my way of life 

 B. Personal development and growth

! Reduced ability to cultivate 

outdoor-oriented lifestyle 

! Greater sense of residents being 

 alienated from one’s own 

 community 

II. Social and Cultural Negative Outcomes: 

! Decreased family solidarity 

! Reduced ability to cultivate outdoor- 

 oriented lifestyle 

! Increased exposure of at-risk youth to 

 delinquency 

! Increased erosion of community’s 

small-town atmosphere 

! Increased erosion of our sense of 

 community 

! Diminished sense of community 

cohesion/friendliness 

! Increased crime 

! Greater conflict with outsider attitudes 

 towards community 

! Greater sense of resignation among local 

 residents towards continued 

 growth and development 

! Increased personal disregard for local 

 residents 

! Increased personal disregard for other 

 visitors 

! Increased conflict with a new residents 

 whose culture conflicts with our 

 lifestyles 

III. Economic Negative Outcomes: 

! Higher cost of living 

! Increased property taxes 

! Loss of economic productivity 

! Loss of family legacy (e.g., family ranch 

 or other business) 

! Loss of recreation-tourism product 

 Character and our community’s 

 market share 

! Decreased tourism revenue 

! Inability to cover costs of basic household 

 necessities 

IV. Environmental Negative Outcomes: 

! More rapid loss of distinctive community 

 architecture 

! Loss of environmental quality within the 

recreation area 

! Increased disregard for natural resources 

! Increased visitor disregard for 

 stewardship of 

 community infrastructure 

! Increased urbanization of the natural 

 landscape 

! Loss of community’s defining, distinctive 

 character 

! Increased pollution, litter, and traffic noise 

! Transformation of community by growth, 

 development, and 

 modernization

Adapted from real-life observations by D. Bruns and BLM colleagues 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix C

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

8

NATURAL RESOURCE RECREATION SETTINGS MATRIX Criteria for Classification and Prescriptions

PHYSICAL – LAND & FACILITIES: character of the natural landscape  Primitive Back Country Middle Country Front Country Rural Urban 

 Pristine Transition 

a. Remoteness: More than 10 miles from any road More than 3 miles from any road More than 1⁄2 mile from any kind of road, but not as distant as 3 miles, and no road is in sight On or near four-wheel drive roads, but at least 1⁄2 mile from all improved roads, though they may be in sight On or near improved gravel roads, but at least 1⁄2 mile from highways On or near paved primary highways, but still within a rural area Municipal street and roads within towns or citiesb. Naturalness: Undisturbed natural landscape Naturally-appearing landscape having modifications not readily noticeable Naturally-appearing landscape except for obvious primitive roads Landscape partially modified by roads, utility lines, etc., but none overpower natural landscape features Natural landscape substantially modified by agriculture or industrial development Urbanized developments dominate landscape c. Facilities: None Some primitive trails made of native materials such as log bridges and carved wooden signs Maintained and marked trails, simple trailhead developments, improved signs, and very basic toilets Improved yet modest, rustic facilities such as campsites, restrooms, trails, and interpretive signs Modern facilities such as campgrounds, group shelters, boat launches, and occasional exhibits Elaborate full-service facilities such as laundry, restaurants, and groceries.

SOCIAL – VISITOR USE & USERS: character of recreation-tourism use  Primitive Back Country Middle Country Front Country Rural Urban 

d. Contacts (with other groups): Fewer than 3 encounters/day at camp sites and fewer than 6 encounters/day on travel routes 3-6 encounters/day off travel routes (e.g., campsites) and 7-15 encounters/day on travel routes 7-14 encounters/day off travel routes(e.g., staging areas) and 15-29 encounters/ day en route 15-29 encounters/day off travel routes(e.g., campgrounds) and 30 or more encounters/day in route People seem to be generally everywhere. Busy place with other people constantly in view.e. Group Size  (other than your 

own):

Fewer than or equal to 3 people per group 4-6 people per group 7-12 people per group 13-25 people per group 26-50 people per group Greater than 50 people per group 

f. Evidence of Use:

Only footprints observed. No noise or litter. Footprints and bicycle tracks observed. Noise 

and litter infrequent. Slight vegetation 

trampling at campsites and popular areas. 

Fire rings seen.

Vehicle tracks observed. Occasional noise 

and litter. Vegetation and soils becoming worn at campsites and at high-use areas. 

Vehicle tracks common. Some noise and 

litter. Vegetation and soils commonly worn at 

campsites, along travel routes and at popular 

areas.

Frequent noise and litter. Large but localized 

areas with vegetation damage and soil 

compaction.

Unavoidable noise, music and litter. 

Widespread vegetation damage and soil 

compaction.

ADMINISTRATIVE – ADMINISTRATION & SERVICES: How Public Land Managers, Cooperative Agencies and Local Businesses Care for the Area and Serve Visitors Primitive Back Country Middle Country Front Country Rural Urban 

g. Mechanized  Use:

None whatsoever. Mountain bikes and perhaps other 

mechanized use, but all is non-motorized 

Four-wheel drives, all-terrain vehicles, dirt 

bikes, or snowmobiles in addition to nonmotorized, mechanized use. 

Two-wheel drive vehicles predominant, but 

also four wheel drives and non-motorized, 

mechanized use. 

Ordinary highway auto and truck traffic is 

characteristic.

Wide variety of street vehicles and highway 

traffic is ever-present. 

h. Visitor Services:

None is available on-site. Basic maps, but area personnel seldom 

available to provide on-site assistance 

Area brochures and maps, plus area 

personnel occasional present to provide onsite assistance. 

Information materials describe recreation 

areas and activities. Area personnel are 

periodically available. 

Information described to the left, plus 

experience and benefit descriptions. 

Area personnel do on-site education. 

Information described to the left, plus 

regularly scheduled on-site outdoor skills 

demonstrations and clinics. 

i. Management  Controls:

No visitor controls apparent. No use limits. 

Enforcement presence very rare. 

Signs at key access points on basic user 

ethics. May have back country use 

restrictions. Enforcement presence rare 

Occasional regulatory signing. Motorized and 

mechanized use restrictions. Random 

enforcement presence. 

Rules clearly posted with some seasonal or 

day-of-week use restrictions. Periodic 

enforcement presence. 

Regulations prominent. Total use limited 

by permit, reservation, etc. Routine 

enforcement presence. 

Continuous enforcement to redistribute use 

and reduce user conflicts, hazards, and 

resource damage. 

Recreation Management Zone __________________________ EXISTING SETTING PRESCRIBED SETTING

03/20/2006
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix D 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix D 

BLM Colorado Standards for Public Land Health and 

Guidelines for Livestock Management 
 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix D 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

1 

BLM Colorado's Standards and Guidelines 

In response to public concern about management of livestock grazing on western public lands, 

BLM began developing new regulations for livestock grazing administration. This process, which 

was characterized by the preparation of an environmental impact statement and extensive public 

involvement, resulted in new livestock grazing regulations that became effective August 21, 1995. 

One of the requirements of the regulations was that each BLM State Director, would, in 

consultation with the Resource Advisory Councils in that state, develop standards for public land 

health and guidelines for livestock grazing management. The Secretary of the Interior approved 

BLM Colorado’s Standards and Guidelines on February 3, 1997. 

Standards for Public Land Health 

Standards describe conditions needed to sustain public land health, and relate to all uses of the 

public lands. Standards are applied on a landscape scale and relate to the potential of the 

landscape. 

Standard 1: Upland soils exhibit infiltration and permeability rates that are appropriate to soil 

type, climate, landform, and geologic processes. Adequate soil infiltration and permeability 

allows for the accumulation of soil moisture necessary for optimal plant growth and vigor, and 

minimizes surface runoff. 

Indicators: 

• Expression of rills, soil pedestals are minimal. 

• Evidence of actively eroding gullies (incised channels) is minimal. 

• Canopy and ground cover are appropriate. 

• There is litter accumulating in place and is not sorted by normal overland water 

flow. 

• There is appropriate organic matter in soil. 

• There is diversity of plant species with a variety of root depths. 

• Upland swales have vegetation cover or density greater than that of adjacent 

uplands. 

• There are vigorous, desirable plants. 

Standard 2: Riparian systems associated with both running and standing water function 

properly and have the ability to recover from major disturbance such as fire, severe grazing, or 

100-year floods. Riparian vegetation captures sediment, and provides forage, habitat and biodiversity. Water quality is improved or maintained. Stable soils store and release water slowly. 

Indicators: 

• Vegetation is dominated by an appropriate mix of native or desirable introduced 

species. 

• Vigorous, desirable plants are present. 

• There is vegetation with diverse age class structure, appropriate vertical 

structure, and adequate composition, cover, and density. 

• Streambank vegetation is present and is comprised of species and communities 

that have root systems capable of withstanding high streamflow events. 

• Plant species present indicate maintenance of riparian moisture characteristics. 

• Stream is in balance with the water and sediment being supplied by the 

watershed ( e.g., no headcutting, no excessive erosion or deposition). 

• Vegetation and free water indicate high water tables. 

• Vegetation colonizes point bars with a range of age classes and successional 

stages. 
Appendix D Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 2 

• An active floodplain is present. 

• Residual floodplain vegetation is available to capture and retain sediment and 

dissipate flood energies. 

• Stream channels with size and meander pattern appropriate for the stream's 

position in the landscape, and parent materials. 

• Woody debris contributes to the character of the stream channel morphology. 

Standard 3: Healthy, productive plant and animal communities of native and other desirable 

species are maintained at viable population levels commensurate with the species and habitat's 

potential. Plants and animals at both the community and population level are productive, resilient, 

diverse, vigorous, and able to reproduce and sustain natural fluctuations, and ecological 

processes. 

Indicators: 

• Noxious weeds and undesirable species are minimal in the overall plant 

community. 

• Native plant and animal communities are spatially distributed across the 

landscape with a density, composition, and frequency of species suitable to 

ensure reproductive capability and sustainability. 

• Plants and animals are present in mixed age classes sufficient to sustain 

recruitment and mortality fluctuations. 

• Landscapes exhibit connectivity of habitat or presence of corridors to prevent 

habitat fragmentation. 

• Photosynthetic activity is evident throughout the growing season. 

• Diversity and density of plant and animal species are in balance with 

habitat/landscape potential and exhibit resilience to human activities. 

• Appropriate plant litter accumulates and is evenly distributed across the 

landscape. 

• Landscapes composed of several plant communities that may be in a variety of 

successional stages and patterns. 

Standard 4: Special status, threatened and endangered species (federal and state), and other 

plants and animals officially designated by the BLM, and their habitats are maintained or 

enhanced by sustaining healthy, native plant and animal communities. 

Indicators: 

• All the indicators associated with the plant and animal communities standard 

apply. 

• There are stable and increasing populations of endemic and protected species in 

suitable habitat. 

• Suitable habitat is available for recovery of endemic and protected species. 

Standard 5: The water quality of all water bodies, including ground water where applicable, 

located on or influenced by BLM lands will achieve or exceed the Water Quality Standards 

established by the State of Colorado. Water Quality Standards for surface and ground waters 

include the designated beneficial uses, numeric criteria, narrative criteria, and anti-degradation 

requirements set forth under State law as found in (5 CCR 1002-8), as required by Section 303(c) 

of the Clean Water Act. 

Indicators: 

• Appropriate populations of macro invertebrates, vertebrates, and algae are 

present. 

• Surface and ground waters only contain substances (e.g. sediment, scum, 

floating debris, odor, heavy metal precipitates on channel substrate) attributable 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix D 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3 

to humans within the amounts, concentrations, or combinations as directed by 

the Water Quality Standards established by the State of Colorado (5 CCR 1002-

8). 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management 

Guidelines are the management tools, methods, strategies, and techniques (e.g., best 

management practices) designed to maintain or achieve healthy public lands as defined by the 

standards. Currently, the only guidelines for BLM Colorado that have been developed in concert 

with the Resource Advisory Councils are livestock grazing management guidelines. 

1. Grazing management practices promote plant health by providing for one or more of the 

following: 

• periodic rest or deferment from grazing during critical growth periods; 

• adequate recovery and regrowth periods; 

• opportunity for seed dissemination and seedling establishment. 

2. Grazing management practices address the kind, numbers, and class of livestock, season, 

duration, distribution, frequency and intensity of grazing use and livestock health. 

3. Grazing management practices maintain sufficient residual vegetation on both upland and 

riparian sites to protect the soil from wind and water erosion, to assist in maintaining appropriate 

soil infiltration and permeability, and to buffer temperature extremes. In riparian areas, vegetation 

dissipates energy, captures sediment, recharges ground water, and contributes to stream 

stability. 

4. Native plant species and natural revegetation are emphasized in the support of sustaining 

ecological functions and site integrity. Where reseeding is required, on land treatment efforts, 

emphasis will be placed on using native plant species. Seeding of non-native plant species will be 

considered based on local goals, native seed availability and cost, persistence of non-native 

plants and annuals and noxious weeds on the site, and composition of non-natives in the seed 

mix. 

5. Range improvement projects are designed consistent with overall ecological functions and 

processes with minimum adverse impacts to other resources or uses of riparian/wetland and 

upland sites. 

6. Grazing management will occur in a manner that does not encourage the establishment or 

spread of noxious weeds. In addition to mechanical, chemical, and biological methods of weed 

control, livestock may be used where feasible as a tool to inhibit or stop the spread of noxious 

weeds. 

7. Natural occurrences such as fire, drought, flooding, and prescribed land treatments should be 

combined with livestock management practices to move toward the sustainability of biological 

diversity across the landscape, including the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of habitat 

to promote and assist the recovery and conservation of threatened, endangered, or other special 

status species, by helping to provide natural vegetation patterns, a mosaic of successional 

stages, and vegetation corridors, and thus minimizing habitat fragmentation. 

8. Colorado Best Management Practices and other scientifically developed practices that 

enhance land and water quality should be used in the development of activity plans prepared for 

land use. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix E 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E 

Best Management Practices 
 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix E 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

1 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

and Applicable BLM Standards and Guidelines* 

Environmental Best Management Practices 

1. Begin interim reclamation of the well and access road as soon as practicable after the 

well is placed in production. Group facilities in order to allow for maximum interim 

reclamation. Interim reclamation would include road cuts and fills, and would extend to 

within a close proximity of the wellhead and production facilities. 

2. Paint all aboveground facilities, including power boxes, building doors, roofs, and/or any 

visible equipment a color that best allows the facility to blend into the background 

(color(s) would be selected from the latest national color chart). 

3. Design and construct all new roads to a safe and appropriate standard that is “no higher 

than necessary” in order to accommodate intended vehicular use. Roads would follow 

the contour of the land, where practical. 

4. Recontour all disturbed areas, including access roads, to the original contour or to a 

contour that blends with the surrounding topography and revegetate all disturbed areas 

as part of final reclamation. 

5. Install raptor perch avoidance devices on all new powerlines and on all existing 

powerlines that present a potential hazard to raptors. 

6. Bury all powerlines and flow lines in, or immediately adjacent to, the access roads. 

7. Centralize production facilities in order to avoid placing tanks and associated facilities on 

each well pad. 

8. Evaluate the use of submersible pumps, especially in VRM Class I, II or III areas, as well 

as in any area visible to the visiting public. 

9. Evaluate placing wellheads below ground in high visibility areas. 

10. Drill multiple wells from a single well pad. 

11. Utilize noise reduction techniques and designs in order to reduce noise. 

General Construction Activities 

1. Limit construction in riparian areas and in wetlands. Avoid locating new concentrateduse sites in these areas. 

2. Avoid crossing streams, wetlands, and/or riparian areas during the construction of 

infrastructure (including pipelines, roads, power lines, etc.) to the extent practicable. In 

the event that a wetland or a riparian area must be crossed or disturbed, additional (sitespecific) mitigation would be required. The mitigation measures would be identified by a 

hydrologist, riparian ecologist, road engineer, and/or other specialist, as appropriate, and 

would address long-term wetland function. 

3. When construction is necessary, roads and infrastructure within riparian areas should 

not directly parallel the stream channel. 

4. Maintain or restore at least 80 percent of potential groundcover within 100 feet from the 

edges of all perennial streams, lakes, and/or other bodies of water. Maintain or restore at 
Appendix E Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 2 

least 80 percent of potential groundcover to the outer margin of the riparian ecosystem, 

where it is wider than 100 feet. 

5. Locate drilling mud pits outside active floodplains, unless alternate locations are more 

environmentally damaging. If location is unavoidable, seal and dike all pits in order to 

prevent leakage. 

6. All crossings of wetlands and/or of other waters of the U.S. should comply with the 

appropriate United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulations (for example, 

Nationwide Permits 12 and 14). If potential effects exceed the limits of the nationwide 

permits (NWPs), then individual permits (IPs) must be obtained. 

7. Develop site-specific mitigation plans during the application for permit to drill (APD) plan 

of development or Sundry Notice approval process for all proposed disturbance to 

wetlands and/or to riparian areas. 

8. Avoid, when possible, using heavy equipment in areas that are easily compacted and/or 

susceptible to soil rutting and/or surface water accumulations. 

9. Keep heavy equipment out of streams, swales, and lakes, except when crossing at 

designated points, building crossings, or when completing restoration work; or when 

such bodies of water are protected by at least 1 foot of packed snow or 2 inches of 

frozen soil. Keep heavy equipment out of streams during fish spawning, incubation, 

and/or emergence periods. Do not disrupt water supply or drainage patterns flowing into 

wetlands. 

10. Do not excavate material from, or store excavated material in, any stream, swale, lake, 

or wetland. 

11. Implement construction practices that do not encroach on fills and limit sedimentation 

into streams, swales, lakes, and/or wetlands. 

12. Prohibit the depositing of soil material from drilling, processing, and/or site preparation 

into natural drainages. 

13. Locate the lower edge of disturbed and/or deposited soil banks outside of active 

floodplains. 

14. Locate mineral removal activities away from the waters edge or to outside of the riparian 

area. 

15. Begin reclamation of disturbed wetlands and/or riparian areas (or replacement, if 

necessary) immediately after project activities are complete. 

16. Limit construction of well pads, roads, and/or pipelines on slopes greater than 30 

percent. 

17. Retain stabilizing vegetation on unstable soils. Avoid new road construction and/or 

heavy equipment use on unstable or highly erodible soils. 

18. Avoid disturbance of unstable stream banks and/or of headwall areas. 

19. Minimize erosion at sites located in steep terrain during the construction phase by 

measures such as contouring, water bars, temporary ditches, and or/ detention basins, 

and minimize the period of disturbance. 

20. Key sediment traps into the ground and maintain them regularly in order to ensure 

proper function. Deposit removed sediment in an appropriate location, such as a stable, 

gentle, upland site, and revegetate, if applicable. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix E 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3 

21. Implement BMPs in order to slow or reduce the flow of surface-water runoff across 

disturbed areas, including the diversion of surface runoff around facilities and/or the 

installation of erosion-control devices in order to prevent sedimentation of nearby water 

bodies. 

22. Maintain roads, as needed, in order to keep the road surface drained during thaws 

and/or breakups during winter operations. Perform snow removal in a manner that 

protects the road and other adjacent resources. Do not use riparian areas, wetlands, or 

streams for snow storage or disposal. Remove snow berms where they would result in 

accumulation or concentration of snowmelt runoff on the road or erodible fill slopes. 

Install snow berms where such placement would preclude concentration of snowmelt 

runoff and would serve to rapidly dissipate melt water. 

23. Close roads, pads, and/or drill sites that are found to no longer be meeting BLM 

management objectives, and decommission them, as appropriate. Decommissioning 

may include: blocking the road’s entrance, recontouring the disturbed surface and side 

slopes, revegetating disturbed surfaces, removing culverts and/or other material 

drainage structures and crossings, and restoring stream channels and natural flow 

paths. Disturbed and/or exposed surfaces should be revegetated to a minimum of 80 

percent of potential groundcover following the first year of closure. 

24. Prepare a Stormwater Management Plan for all construction sites, as required by law, 

statute, regulation, permit, and/or policy. 

25. Route surface runoff from well pads into reserve pits, where appropriate. 

Roads and Crossings 

(NOTE: For the purpose of this DRMP/DEIS, a “road” is defined as a route for designated 

travel, regardless of the type of travel; and “off-road” is defined as cross-country travel 

between designated roads. All off-road travel by motorized and/or mechanized vehicles is 

prohibited on the Monument.) 

1. Roads should be constructed to the minimum dimensions needed in order to function 

properly, and should roll with the terrain, when possible, in order to minimize excavation 

and reduce surface runoff. 

2. Renovate existing roads, as a preferred BMP, rather than construct new roads, where 

such renovations would sufficiently reduce environmental impacts as compared with new 

construction. 

3. Renovate/reconstruct roads in order to reduce erosion and improve drainage. Such 

practices may include resurfacing; crowning or outsloping of the road prism; revegetating 

cut and fill slopes and ditchlines; and/or replacing undersized, deteriorating, and/or 

damaged crossings. 

4. Establish vegetation groundcover on disturbed areas (excluding running surface) to at 

least 60 percent of potential within two years. On low productivity sites, establish to at 

least 4 percent of potential groundcover. 

5. Grade roads at 2 to 10 percent, with a maximum grade of 15 percent, when possible. 

Steeper grades may be considered where they would result in lesser environmental 

impact. Avoid road grades of less than 2 percent. 

6. Conduct road construction activities during dry or frozen soil conditions, as practicable. 
Appendix E Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 4 

7. Consider using drain dips and/or water bars on roads that have gradients of less than 

10 percent, and avoid dips on road gradients of over 10 percent. 

8. Revegetate all disturbed surfaces using certified local native plants, where practicable. 

9. Use dust control measures, as needed, in order to minimize the production of fugitive 

dust during the construction phase. Dust control measures used during the production 

phase would be assessed on a site-specific basis, and implemented as needed. 

10. Design road ditches and crossdrains in order to limit flow to ditch capacity and to prevent 

ditch erosion and failure. 

11. Design placement of all crossdrains in a manner that avoids discharge onto erodible 

and/or unprotected slopes, including slumps, side-cast fills, and headwalls, and that 

avoids discharge directly into stream channels. Provide a buffer or sediment basin 

between the crossdrain outlet and stream channels, where needed. Stabilize the road 

surface between crossdrains in order to limit erosion and sediment entering surface 

runoff. 

12. Provide energy dissipaters (i.e., rock weirs) at culvert outlets and/or drain dips where 

water is discharged onto loose and/or erodible material. 

13. Install road-grade culverts in areas of excessive runoff and follow construction BMPs in 

order to minimize runoff and erosion. 

14. Space crossdrains according to road grade and soil type, as indicated below. Do not 

divert water from one stream to another. 

Maximum Cross-Drain Spacing in Feet, Based on Soil Types 

Road Grade 

(%) 

ML, SM 

Extra Erodible 

Silts-Sands with 

Little or No 

Binder 

MH, SC, CL 

Highly Erodible 

Silts-Sands with 

Moderate Binder

SW, SP, GM, GC 

Moderately 

Erodible 

Gravels, Plus 

Fines and Sands 

with Little or No 

Fines 

GW, GP 

Low Erodible

Gravels with 

Little or No 

Fines 

1 - 3 600 1000 1000 1000 

4 - 6 300 540 680 1000 

7 - 9 200 360 450 670 

10 - 12 150 270 340 510 

13 - 15 120 220 270 410 

Note: These are maximum spacing. They should be reduced, if warranted, by onsite factors such as 

expected road use, downslope stability, erosion hazards, and/or filter strip capability in order to trap runoff 

and sediment and to conserve ground cover integrity given the extra water. Combine these spacing with 

additional measures in order to minimize damage to ditches, slopes, and/or streams. For example, 

shorten or extend the spacing, where needed, in order to move a crossdrain outlet from a stream headwall 

to a convex slope. 

15. Consider the natural width-to-depth ratio of the stream when constructing, renovating, 

and/or replacing channel crossings. 

16. Design culverts and/or bridges in a manner designed to not inhibit the natural passage of 

debris and/or materials downstream, under typical conditions. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix E 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

5 

17. Install, where practicable, stream crossings on straight and resilient stream reaches, as 

perpendicular to flow as practicable, and provide for the passage of fish and other 

aquatic life, where present. 

Livestock Management 

1. Design grazing management systems that require a minimum investment in range 

improvements, but that will meet grazing and management objectives. 

2. Provide rest from grazing in order to allow for the establishment of vegetation in 

rehabilitated areas. Install cattle guards and fences, as needed, in order to control 

livestock movement into these areas. 

3. Manage livestock use through control of timing, intensity, and duration/frequency of use 

in riparian areas and wetlands in order to maintain or improve long-term stream health. 

Exclude livestock from riparian areas and wetlands that are not meeting, or moving 

towards meeting, desired condition objectives or where monitoring information shows 

continued livestock grazing would prevent attainment of those objectives. 

4. Monitor livestock use and resulting levels of utilization in order to determine the proper 

carrying capacity of allotments. 

5. Locate and store stock tanks, salt supplements, and similar features out of riparian areas 

and/or wetlands. Keep stock driveways out of riparian areas, except to cross at 

designated points. Armor water gaps and designated stock crossings, where needed 

and as feasible. 

6. Do not allow livestock to graze an entire growing season in pastures that contain riparian 

areas and/or wetlands. Apply short-duration grazing, as practicable (generally less than 

20 days). During warm weather, manage livestock herds in a manner that avoids their 

concentration in riparian areas and/or wetlands. 

7. Design grazing systems to limit utilization of woody species, especially in riparian areas. 

Where woody species have been historically suppressed, or where the plant community 

is below its desired condition and livestock are a key contributing factor, manage 

livestock through control of time/timing, intensity, and duration/frequency of use, to allow 

for riparian hardwood growth extension and reproduction. 

8. Consider, when timing livestock moves between units, the degree of livestock trampling 

and riparian vegetation utilization on or immediately adjacent to stream banks. Strive to 

maintain the extent of stable banks in stream reaches at 74 percent or more of reference 

conditions. 

9. Manage pastures in order to minimize soil compaction and restore soil structure, 

especially in riparian areas and wetlands. Increase productivity of these sites through 

mechanical treatment and/or through seeding with native species or well-adapted and 

desirable introduced species. 

10. Emphasize natural stabilization processes consistent with the stream type and capability 

(Rosgen and Proper Functioning Condition processes) when restoring damaged 

streambanks. Use native vegetation for streambank stabilization, where practicable. 

11. Minimize grazing conflicts with recreation activities by limiting use levels and season of 

use, providing fences designed to exclude livestock from high-use areas, and siting 

water sources and/or other facilities away from recreation-use areas. 
Appendix E Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 6 

12. Fence specific archaeological sites, as necessary. Continue to perform site-specific 

clearance on range improvements projects. 

Fire Management 

1. Maintain organic groundcover, where possible, in order to minimize the formation of 

pedestals, rills, and/or surface runoff. 

2. Do not build firelines in or around wetlands, unless they are needed to protect life, 

property, and/or wetland resources. Use natural features as preferred firebreaks over 

constructed firelines. When possible, use hand crews to construct firelines within, or 

adjacent to, wetlands and/or riparian areas. 

3. Retain organic groundcover in filter strips during prescribed fires. As a firebreak, build 

firelines outside filter strips, unless tied into a stream, lake, and/or wetlands. 

4. Build firelines with rolling grades and minimum downhill convergence, where practicable. 

Outslope or backblade, permanently drain, and revegetate firelines shortly after the burn. 

Use certified local native plants, where practicable, to revegetate burned areas. 

5. Conduct prescribed fires in a manner that minimizes the residence time on the soil while, 

at the same time, conducting them in a manner that meets the burn objectives (such as 

when soils are moist). 

6. Locate temporary labor, spike, logging, and/or fire camps in a manner that protects 

surface and subsurface water resources. Consideration should be given to the disposal 

of human waste, wastewater, garbage, and/or other solid wastes. 

Noxious Weed Management 

1. Inspect and clean off-road motorized equipment of all soil, plant, and/or other organic 

materials before entering into relatively weed-free areas. In areas of heavy noxious 

weed infestations, equipment must be cleaned prior to leaving the area. 

2. Include monitoring provisions for reclamation, revegetation, and post-reclamation in all 

soil-disturbing project proposals. 

3. Seed all disturbed soil (except traveled roadways) upon work completion at each site, 

unless ongoing disturbance at the site would prevent seed establishment, for all 

construction, reconstruction, and/or maintenance activities. In the case of continued 

disturbance, seed upon completion of final disturbance. Seed mixes must be approved 

by the Authorized Officer. Seed must be certified weed-free and/or analyzed (as deemed 

appropriate by the Authorized Officer) before purchase in order to ensure minimum 

weed content. 

4. Use weed-free sources for gravel and fill to be placed in relatively weed-free areas, as 

approved by the Authorized Officer. 

5. All pack and/or saddle stock feed and straw brought into the Monument must be certified 

weed-free. 

6. Time pasture rotations in order to prevent livestock movement from infested to noninfested pastures. 

7. Use broadcast burning, where appropriate, rather than dozer piles, during prescribed fire 

operations in order to prevent excessive heat transfer to the soil. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix E 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

7 

8. Resource Coordinators on Incident Overhead Teams and Fire Rehabilitation Teams will 

consider weed-risk factors and weed-prevention measures in developing resource 

protection recommendations. 

9. Do not allow bare-ground treatments around oil and gas and/or pipeline production 

facilities during the 12-month period prior to abandonment. 

Mineral Operations 

1. Require pre-permitting meetings with the BLM, proper construction techniques, the 

maintenance of production facilities, and full-site reclamation at the final abandonment 

stage for all mining and energy operations. 

2. Promptly plug and retire non-productive wells, and associated flowlines and equipment, 

in order to avoid leaks, breaks, and/or subsequent spills. 

3. Require operations to develop and implement Spill Prevention Control and 

Countermeasure (SPCC) and emergency response plans in order to prevent, contain, 

and/or remediate spills. Workers should also be well trained in the implementation of 

these plans. 

4. Conduct routine inspections of facilities, pipelines, and/or well sites in order to evaluate 

whether or not there are spills and/or leaks; take corrective actions, as appropriate. 

5. Use non-toxic, non-hazardous drilling fluids, when practicable. 

6. Report spills and appropriate clean-up actions taken, in accordance with applicable 

State and Federal laws, rules, and regulations. Remove contaminated soil and/or other 

material from the Monument and dispose of it, in accordance with applicable State and 

Federal laws, rules, and regulations. 

7. Minimize wildlife habitat fragmentation by mining operations by: minimizing the number 

and extent of roads, utilities and well pads; drilling multiple wells from a single pad; 

mitigating hazards to wildlife; reducing noise in sensitive areas; monitoring production 

facilities remotely; and conducting intermediate and full reclamations. 

8. Reduce Impacts on visual resources from activities by: repeating elements of form, line, 

color, and texture found in the landscape; considering visual elements in the location of 

roads and well pads, and the selection of structures; reducing unnecessary 

disturbances; and by reclaiming and restoring abandoned sites. 

9. Conduct archaeological surveys, in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act, prior to resource development; minimize road and surface disturbance; 

appropriately locate roads and well pads; and install temporary fencing designed to 

protect site boundaries, in order to minimize impacts to cultural resources. 

* Allowances and consideration for human health and property safety must be included in 

every instance of application of BMPs. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix F

Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix F 

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Advisory Committee Considerations and Guidance for 

Management Decisions 

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix F

Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

 1

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Advisory Committee Considerations and Guidance for 

 Management Decisions 

Considerations and Guidance Common to All Management Actions 

1. Manage all Monument uses and resources consistent with principles of community-based 

stewardship. 

2. Identify areas, land uses, and/or types of actions that are likely to have disproportionate 

impacts on disadvantaged groups. 

3. Develop and distribute educational and interpretative materials in order to reach minority 

and low-income populations in the planning area, particularly regarding planned or pending 

actions that could affect them. 

4. Consider negative impacts to disadvantaged populations when planning and/or 

implementing significant changes in land use or management. Discuss the proposed uses 

and/or actions with representatives of these populations and develop a community outreach 

process for significant changes. 

Considerations and Guidance Common to Visitor Facility and 

Infrastructure Implementation 

1. Consult with stakeholders, including adjacent landowners where appropriate to identify 

potential sites for the construction of visitor contact stations. 

2. Use existing fluid-mineral infrastructure (e.g., roads, abandoned well pads) when developing 

new recreation facilities and/or new infrastructure (e.g., pullouts, parking areas, trailheads, 

picnic sites, toilets, primitive camping areas), where practicable. 

3. Consider water-saving technologies when developing water resources for visitor safety 

and/or for resource protection (e.g. composting toilets, automatic sinks). 

4. Consider light pollution minimizing and energy-saving technology (e.g., light hoods) in 

reconstructed and/or new outdoor lighting. Encourage all private in-holders and 

edge-holders to use light pollution minimizing technology in their outdoor lighting. 

5. Consider the potential impacts of vehicle traffic, noise pollution, light pollution, and degraded 

scenic value on adjacent and nearby landowners in the location of facilities and 

infrastructure, where applicable. 

6. Construct visitor facilities and/or infrastructure with the minimum footprint needed to meet 

their intended objectives. Consider blending the look/design of facilities and/or infrastructure 

into the natural landscape and/or the use of historic styles in their construction/renovation, in 

order to enhance the visitor experience. 

7. Consider, and mitigate for, impacts to wildlife habitat, migration roads, riparian areas, and 

other sensitive habitats in siting facilities and/or infrastructure. 

8. Support commercial recreational facility development outside of the Monument. 
Appendix F Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

 2 

Considerations and Guidance Common to Developing Cultural Sites 

for Education and Interpretation 

1. Determine the suitability of potential sites for education and/or interpretation (including 

access) based on the Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) 

documentation and on the Monument Education and Interpretation Plan. 

2. Contact any potential Native American tribal stakeholders for comments on new education 

and/or interpretation site(s) under consideration and establish coordination on any further 

project development prior to initiating education and/or interpretation projects. 

3. Determine if additional site documentation is needed in order to complete NEPA analysis 

and Section 106 compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act. 

Techniques/methods would include all or part of the following methods/techniques: updating 

the OAHP records, documenting Historic American Building Survey (HABS) standard 

architecture data, completing surface mapping, completing in-field artifact analysis, and/or 

preparing a site condition/preservation assessment. 

4. Prepare a project proposal that would detail how the site would be accessed and/or 

developed, as well as describe any associated activities such as: physical alterations (e.g., 

trail development, fencing); site-area hardening; interpretation (e.g., signing, brochures); site 

monitoring and protection; maintenance; and/or staffing. 

5. Complete Section 106 compliance. Compliance would include the incorporation of additional 

mitigation recommendations, including testing/data recovery on all or portions of the site, 

additional detailed documentation of the site, and/or other measures, as determined on a 

case-by-case basis. 

6. Conduct and complete NEPA analysis. 

Considerations and Guidance Common to Livestock Management 

1. Implement management strategies designed to minimize the detrimental environmental 

impacts of grazing, such as: developing additional water sources in order to distribute 

livestock more evenly, constructing fences to alter grazing patterns, specifying the 

placement of salt and mineral supplements, changing the season of use and/or the class or 

kind of livestock, requiring the herding of livestock, and/or implementing rotational or 

deferred grazing systems that would meet plant maintenance requirements. 

2. Encourage discussions with range users and other parties who would benefit from 

adjustments to grazing management. 

3. Design grazing management systems that would require a minimum investment in range 

improvements but that would also meet the stated objectives. 

4. Provide range improvements that are compatible with Wilderness Study Area (WSA) 

guidelines. 

5. Encourage cooperative range improvements with the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix F

Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

 3

Considerations and Guidance Common to Fluid Mineral and Energy 

Resource Development 

1. Collaborate with fluid-mineral and energy operators on the Monument in order to resolve 

issues relating to fluid minerals, as well as issues relating to energy research, exploration, 

production, reclamation, and/or resource impacts. 

2. Consider the social and economic impacts of fluid mineral management decisions on local 

and regional economies. Work with fluid-mineral and energy operators with regard to 

informing Montezuma and Dolores Counties, nearby towns, and Native American tribes of 

the projected short-term and long-term fluid-mineral development in the Monument on an 

annual basis. 

3. Encourage the use of the latest technologies (e.g., advanced muffler systems and/or 

enclosures) in sound abatement for pumpjack engines and compressors in order to reduce 

noise levels where there are conflicts with other Monument uses and users. 

4. Encourage the use of the latest technologies in lighting fixtures to reduce light pollution from 

fluid-mineral facilities. Encourage fluid-mineral and energy operators to turn off lights when 

their use is not absolutely necessary for facility operations, security, and/or employee safety. 

5. Hold an annual workshop designed to educate fluid-mineral and energy operators about 

other Monument uses and users, Monument resources, and/or how they can assist the BLM 

in managing and protecting such resources. 

6. Utilize the field presence of fluid-mineral and energy operators in the Monument to further 

the protection of Monument resources (e.g., of cultural resources). Encourage fluid-mineral 

and energy operators to report illegal activities (e.g., vandalism) and resource degradation 

occurring in the Monument. 

7. Encourage fluid-mineral and energy operators to comply with new lease stipulations and/or 

management objectives. 

8. Work with all interested parties to identify strategies (e.g., well-field development plans), and 

to complete the application permit to drill (APD) and environmental compliance processes in 

a timely manner. 

9. Work with fluid-mineral and energy operators in order to develop a schedule and list of 

maintenance requirements for managing fluid-mineral facilities. These maintenance 

requirements would meet, at a minimum, BLM Onshore Orders. 

10. Encourage fluid-mineral and energy operators to form a Self Audit Assessment Team. This 

team would inspect facilities and infrastructure across the Monument, resolve operations 

issues, and develop strategies to mitigate resource impacts. 

11. Work with fluid-mineral and energy operators to incorporate BLM best management 

practices (BMPs) into all aspects of their work on the Monument. Develop specific 

approaches designed to minimize the impacts resulting from fluid-mineral and energy 

exploration and/or production on natural and cultural resources. 

12. Encourage the use of the least invasive technologies (e.g., 3-D Seismic) to reduce impacts 

resulting from fluid-mineral exploration. 

13. Encourage the use of directional drilling from existing well pads to avoid conflict with cultural 

and/or natural resources. 
Appendix F Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

 4 

14. Encourage the use of tubing-less completions in new wells for the extraction of CO2 to 

increase production rates. 

15. Encourage CO2 operators to pursue casing-liner technology. Casing-liner technology could 

transform tubing completions into tubing-less completions, which would increase production 

rates at old CO2 wells and extend the life of the well. 

16. Encourage the practice of re-entering old fluid mineral well bores that are declining in 

production, to increase production from existing wells (e.g., horizontal drilling). 

17. Encourage fluid-mineral and energy operators to use already disturbed areas (e.g., areas 

that have been chained) in the development of new well pads and to share well pads and 

associated infrastructure (e.g., roads), where practicable. 

18. Work with fluid-mineral and energy operators to incorporate new and/or evolving strategies 

for reclaiming disturbed and old well pad sites, such as using new methods for stimulating 

plant growth. 

19. Encourage fluid-mineral and energy operators to use underground plug and abandonment 

(P&A) markers to remove all signs of the well from the ground surface. 

Considerations and Guidance Common to Producing the Monument 

Education and Interpretation Plan 

1. Develop public outreach and educational materials in a manner that: 

• develops and encourages the “Leave No Trace” philosophy; 

• incorporates the “outdoor museum” concept, as well as the values of in-situ resources 

and self-discovery, into all public messages, contact opportunities, and/or 

interpretive/education materials; 

• promotes the educational use of Monument resources in order to enhance public 

understanding and enjoyment of the past, as well as of cultural diversity, without 

compromising qualities, such as the remote character and lack of commercialization in 

the Monument; 

• encourages archaeological research that achieves multiple management objectives and 

contributes significant new knowledge, and that requires researchers to share 

information with the public through lectures, site tours, and/or other means; 

• stresses the “positives” of cultural resource protection (e.g., what can be learned from 

them, the responsibility to preserve them for future generations, their cultural heritage 

value to Native Americans and to other groups, etc.) in resource protection messages 

and contacts; 

• develops exhibits, videos, print materials, etc., that interpret Monument resources and 

that can be delivered in a variety of venues (e.g., at the Anasazi Heritage Center, in 

schools, through talks to interested groups, etc.) in cooperation with other education 

specialists and partners; 

• addresses interpretation/public education regarding Pueblo, Navajo, Ute, 

Spanish/Hispanic, and Euro-American history in the Monument area; 

• increases awareness and appreciation for wildlife and vegetation within the Monument; 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix F

Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

 5

• incorporates cultural resource protection messages in exhibits, handouts, and 

interpretive programs at the Anasazi Heritage Center, the Cortez Cultural Center, the 

Lowry Pueblo, and at the Hovenweep National Monument Visitor Center; 

• ensures that the BLM personnel who regularly meet with the public are knowledgeable 

about the importance of protecting cultural resources and about cultural resource laws; 

• develops a training program in archaeological interpretation, cultural resource law, site 

etiquette, and cultural heritage sensitivity for guides, outfitters and educational trip 

leaders; and that 

• develops and distributes educational materials (e.g., via newsletters, the Monument 

website), as needed, to landowners that address the issues, concerns, and Monument 

policies and programs relevant to them (this newsletter can be distributed to area 

realtors). 

2. Encourage partnerships in a manner that: 

• creates innovative cooperation with local and State governments, Native American 

tribes, qualified organizations, and appropriate Federal agencies in order to manage 

lands and/or programs for mutual benefit, consistent with the goals and objectives of this 

DRMP/DEIS; 

• collaborates with other entities (e.g., with local chapters of the Colorado Archaeological 

Society, the Colorado Historical Society, the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, the 

Kelly Place, and with other community groups, such as 4-H) to design and deliver 

educational materials and programs about the Monument to the general public; 

• works with members of Native American descendant communities to ensure that visitor 

education plans are culturally sensitive and appropriate; 

• encourages researchers to incorporate a public outreach/education component into 

projects; 

• develops interpretive and education materials for the McElmo Research Natural Area to 

enhance its function as a resource for educational institutions and as an outdoor 

classroom; 

• works with communities; counties; local, State, and other Federal agencies; Native 

American tribal agencies; private citizens; and interested organizations with regard to 

seeking non-traditional sources of funding, including challenge cost-share programs, 

grants, in-kind contributions, and allowable fee systems that support specific projects 

needed to achieve DRMP/DEIS objectives; 

• considers, where appropriate, contracting with private sector businesses; non-profit 

organizations; academic institutions; local, State, and other Federal agencies; Native 

American tribal agencies; private citizens; and interested organizations to accomplish 

essential studies, monitoring, and/or project development; 

• increases the use of citizen and organizational volunteers to provide greater monitoring 

of resource conditions and to complete on-the-ground developments for resource 

protection, effective land management, and human use and enjoyment; 

• creates cooperative agreements or MOUs with local, State, and other Federal agencies; 

Native American tribal agencies; private citizens; and interested organizations in order to 

manage lands and/or programs consistent with the goals and policies of the DRMP/DEIS 

(such agreements could provide for the sharing of human and/or material resources, the 
Appendix F Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

 6 

management of specific purposes, and/or the adjustment of management responsibilities 

on prescribed lands); and that 

• allows, encourages, and/or invites non-profit organizations, individual citizens, and user 

groups that have adequate resources and/or the expertise to enter into cooperative 

agreements that assist in the management of public lands in the Monument (such 

assistance could include, but would not be limited to, resource monitoring, site 

clean-ups, and/or the construction of authorized projects). 

3. Manage backcountry visitors and permittees in a manner that: 

• includes information for potential backcountry visitors in public educational programs 

delivered outside the Monument (e.g., at the Anasazi Heritage Center, in schools, in 

presentations to groups, on the Monument website); 

• establishes a training program addressing site-visit etiquette and cultural resource law 

targeted at backcountry educational and recreational permittees, and other organized 

groups; 

• provides informational/educational materials for individual backcountry visitors at main 

entry points to backcountry areas (both at roads and at trailheads); and that 

• ensures that Monument boundaries are clearly outlined for backcountry visitors and that 

all visitors are informed that the permission of landowners is required if they wish to visit 

cultural resources on private lands in, or adjacent to, the Monument. 

4. Address multiple uses in the Monument in a manner that: 

• considers local and regional economic effects of management decisions and actions on 

traditional uses (e.g., grazing, recreation) while, at the same time, giving priority to 

maintaining and/or providing access to the Monument’s research, educational, and 

cultural heritage values; 

• educates visitors on the history of multiple-use management in the Monument through a 

cooperative effort with users (e.g., fluid-mineral operators, livestock-grazing permittees, 

outfitters and guides, recreationists); 

• includes the development of a brochure on multiple-use activities that discusses their 

culture and heritage, environmental stewardship, and economic impacts on local and 

regional economies (this brochure would be distributed to visitors before they enter the 

Monument); 

• includes the development of a museum exhibit, presented at the Anasazi Heritage 

Center and at Hovenweep National Monument, that describes multiple-use activities that 

occur on the Monument, as well as the unique resources that they rely on (e.g., geologic 

formations); 

• educates Monument users about stewardship practices, with respect to other multiple 

users, such as closing gates, avoiding travel under muddy conditions, and/or avoiding 

damage to archaeological sites; 

• includes the construction of interpretive signs at accessible fluid-mineral development 

facilities (these signs would convey to the public a description of the equipment; safety 

issues; how resources produced at the facility are used within the United States; and 

how fluid-mineral operators comply with applicable laws, rules, guidelines, and policies 

in order to protect natural and cultural resources); 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix F

Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

 7

• educates interested parties with regard to rangeland management within the Monument; 

and that 

• works with user groups (e.g., grazing, oil and gas, Off-Highway Vehicle users, 

recreationists, hunters) in order to promote the understanding of cultural resource law 

and to enlist their support for cultural resource protection. 

5. Manages transportation in a manner that: 

• includes the development and distribution of maps and supporting information for the 

transportation system, including educational materials (e.g., maps, travel restrictions) 

targeted at eliminating unauthorized cross-country travel by motorized and mechanized 

vehicles (these materials would be distributed at the Anasazi Heritage Center, 

Hovenweep National Monument, local bike and motorbike retail stores, and trailheads, 

and would also be distributed to local user groups); 

• works with landowners to provide educational materials to users on Monument travel 

restrictions; and that 

• installs the least amount of signage, i.e. only that signage necessary for informing users 

about cross-country travel restrictions. 

Considerations and Guidance Common to Producing a Monument 

Law Enforcement Plan 

1. Outline strategies in order to ensure Monument law enforcement personnel diligently, 

effectively, and consistently enforce rules and regulations that are designed to protect 

Monument resources, ensure safe operations for permittees, and ensure safe experiences 

for recreationists. 

2. Evaluate the need for additional Federal law enforcement staffing to adequately protect 

cultural resources. 

3. Ensure that Federal law enforcement staff working in the Monument is knowledgeable about 

cultural resource law and investigative procedures, as well as skillful in dealing with resource 

users and the general public. 

4. Establish a liaison with county law enforcement personnel for cultural resource law 

enforcement. 

5. Assist county law enforcement personnel in receiving cultural resource law enforcement 

training. 

6. Work with local law enforcement officials and landowners within, and adjacent to, the 

Monument to improve the enforcement of trespass actions on private property. 

7. Ensure that law enforcement personnel diligently and consistently monitor the Monument in 

order to detect vandalism, damage, trash dispersal, and/or the illegal use of Monument 

resources. 

Considerations and Guidance Common to Producing a Monument 

Community-based Stewardship Strategy 

1. Enlist the cooperation of interested groups and individuals in order to develop a sense of 

community stewardship. 
Appendix F Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

 8 

2. Establish and implement plans for formal, periodic, and consistent communication with 

adjacent landowners and commercial operators to ensure that they are aware of issues and 

decisions that might impact them, to solicit their comments, and to encourage their active 

participation in Monument stewardship. 

3. Work with Native American and other descendant groups to design ways to protect sites 

and/or areas having high cultural heritage values. 

4. Ask user groups (e.g., ranchers, the fluid minerals industry, recreationists, hunters) to assist 

in publicizing the stewardship message and to report violators. 

5. Protect valid existing rights of landowners within, or adjacent to, the Monument, and 

promote cooperation and communication between the BLM and landowners to further the 

protection of Monument resources. 

6. Work together with the Monument Advisory Committee and landowners to identify and 

prioritize issues, concerns, and/or to resolve misinformation issues. 

7. Work with landowners to protect and enhance natural resources on public lands in the 

Monument and on their private land. Provide technical assistance to landowners, as 

requested, in order to restore disturbed areas on their private property. Work with 

landowners and local governments in identifying incentives and options for interested 

landowners to protect cultural resources located on their private property. 

8. Develop and implement plans with other government agencies to achieve efficiency, 

effectiveness, and consistency in managing recreational activities and resources, and to 

deal with various stakeholders. 

9. Collaborate with the National Park Service at Hovenweep National Monument to develop 

public education and stewardship programs and to resolve conflicts in management 

between the two monuments. Coordinate management efforts, such as by encouraging 

personnel associated with both monuments to share functional responsibilities, such as 

monitoring, enforcement, and/or interpretation. 

10. Create opportunities for education and alliances that lead to interagency and community 

involvement in the stewardship of the Monument and its resources. 

11. Work closely with the Site Stewardship Program with regard to methodical monitoring, 

training, and/or education. 

12. Work with regional youth groups and educational institutions and programs to involve them 

in stewardship and educational programs. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix G

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix G 

Travel Management Network Methodology 

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix G

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

1 

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Transportation Planning Process 

1. Classify roads, including: 

(NOTE: For the purpose of this DRMP/DEIS, a “road” is defined as a route for designated travel, 

regardless of the type of travel; and “off-road” is defined as cross-country travel between 

designated roads. All off-road travel by motorized and/or mechanized vehicles is prohibited on 

the Monument.) 

• designated roads; 

• roads with public destinations (e.g., viewpoints, ruins, towns, trailheads); 

• unplanned roads (e.g., user-created roads); 

• reasonable access roads to valid and existing rights; 

• roads needed for “emergency or authorized administrative purposes” 

• road conditions (e.g., needs reconstruction, needs maintenance, needs frequent 

maintenance, high clearance/4WD); and 

• road type (e.g., reclaiming, single track, primary road unpaved, secondary road 

unpaved, tertiary road unpaved). 

2. Assemble resource data, including: 

• biological data: 

- Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) special element data; 

- CNHP potential conservation areas; 

- Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) game coverages; 

- McElmo Research Natural Area (RNA); 

- unique habitats (e.g., riparian or wetland areas, and/or areas with unique geology, 

such as hanging gardens); 

- occurrences/habitats of biologic objects identified in the Monument Proclamation; 

- other relevant data sets (e.g., endangered or threatened species, special status 

species); and 

- expert opinion on likely occurrences/habitat for important biological resources that do 

not have existing data coverages. 

• cultural data: 

- cultural site locations; 

- historic/prehistoric cultural landscapes; and 

- historic trails. 

• physical data: 

- soil types; 

- watersheds, stream segments, and/or sites with perennial water; and 

- unique geologic occurrences and/or structures, including: 
Appendix G Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2 

+ paleontological site locations and/or likely paleo-rich formations; and 

+ springs and/or seeps. 

• roadless areas (e.g., WSAs, CWPAs); and 

• landscape health, including: 

- BLM Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

Management in Colorado; and 

- proper functioning condition (PFC) assessments for streams and springs. 

3. Identify geographic sub-units that constitute logical distinct recreation planning areas and 

define existing conditions, including: 

• summarizing the existing character of each sub-unit, in terms of: 

- current transportation and recreation opportunities/facilities; and 

- the type and character of the experience that the sub-unit offers. 

4. Develop a visitor access vision for each sub-unit, derived from the overall recreation and 

transportation goals, considering the sub-units’ existing character, the mandate to protect 

Monument objects, predicted management capacity, and public desires. 

5. Develop a desired future condition for each sub-unit, including: 

• defining experiential conditions; 

• defining resource conditions; 

• identifying transportation facilities that will exist; and 

• identifying transportation facilities that will be removed. 

6. Develop transportation/recreation goals and objectives, derived from the desired future 

condition. 

7. Ask the following questions, in order to help to determine whether to add or remove 

additional roads from the transportation management network in the future. If all answers 

are “no,” the road would be closed. If any answer is “yes,” consideration for keeping the 

road open should be made by the Monument Manager (with mitigation). 

• Is the road officially recognized as a County road by both the BLM and the by County it 

is located within? 

• Does the road lead to developments that have an administrative purpose, where the 

BLM or some permitted user (not including private land access) must have access for 

regular maintenance and/or operation? 

• Is the road a primary or secondary unpaved road? 

• If so, does the road have a destination? 

• If so, does it contribute to the management objectives, and framework, and setting 

prescriptions of the Recreation Management Zone (RMZ) in which it is located? 

• If so, does the road avoid impacts to Monument objects and/or other resources? 

8. Assess supplemental roads for roads classified as providing “reasonable access to valid and 

existing rights” or as roads necessary for “emergency or authorized administrative 

purposes”: 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix G

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3 

• Is the road the only reasonable access to valid and existing rights, or is it critical for 

“emergency or authorized administrative purposes?” 

• If not, and if the road would be closed or subject to limitations under 3-C, then close the 

road. If yes, were any of the answers in No. 4 (above) “no”? 

• If not, keep the road open. If yes, then limit access to administrative or authorized 

purposes only, and consider seasonal closure or rerouting to protect Monument objects 

and/or resources. 

9. Landscape level review. Review the final road assessment in order to: 

• ensure that recreation and transportation goals and objectives are being met; 

• ensure that BLM Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

Management in Colorado are not being exceeded; 

• ensure that the transportation and recreation system can be reasonably managed, 

based on current and predicted law enforcement and monitoring efforts; and 

• ensure that Monument objects and resources are adequately protected. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix H

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix H 

Terrestrial and Aquatic Vertebrate Wildlife Species Known to 

Occur, or with a Reasonable Potential to Occur, as Residents 

or Breeding Migrants 
 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix H

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 1

Terrestrial and Aquatic Vertebrate Wildlife Species Known to Occur, or with a Reasonable 

Potential to Occur, as Residents or Breeding Migrants 

Common Name Scientific Name Primary Habitat Special 

Status? 

Mammals 

Shrews 

Merriam’s shrew Sorex merriami Shrub-grass, pinyon-juniper 

Desert shrew Notiosorex crawfordi Shrub-grass, pinyon-juniper 

Bats 

California myotis Myotis californica Caves, crevices, trees, 

structures 

Western small-footed myotis M. ciliolabrum Caves, crevices, trees, 

structures 

Long-eared myotis M. evotis Caves, crevices, trees, 

structures 

Little brown bat M. lucifugus Caves, crevices, trees, 

structures 

Fringed myotis M. thysanodes Caves, crevices, trees, 

structures √

Long-legged myotis M. volans Caves, crevices, trees, 

structures 

Yuma myotis M. yumanensis Caves, crevices, trees, 

structures √

Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus Caves, crevices, trees, 

structures 

Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans Caves, crevices, trees, 

structures 

Western pipistrelle Pipistrellus hesperus Caves, crevices, trees, 

structures 

Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus Caves, crevices, trees, 

structures 

Spotted bat Euderma maculatum Caves, crevices, trees, 

structures √

Townsend’s big-eared bat Plecotus townsendii Caves, crevices, trees, 

structures √

Mexican big-eared bat Idionycteris phyllotis Caves, crevices, trees, 

structures √

Brazilian free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis Caves, crevices, trees, 

structures 

Big free-tailed bat Nyctinomops macrotis Caves, crevices, trees, 

structures √
Appendix H Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2

Rabbits and Hares 

Desert cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii Shrub-grass, pinyon-juniper 

Black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus Shrub-grass, pinyon-juniper 

Rodents 

Least chipmunk Tamias minimus Canyons, pinyon-juniper, 

mixed conifers, oak 

Hopi chipmunk T. rufus Canyons 

White-tailed antelope squirrel Ammospermophilus 

leucurus Shrub-grass, pinyon-juniper 

Spotted ground squirrel Spermophilus spilosoma Shrub-grass 

Rock squirrel S. variegatus Canyons, riparian 

Gunnison’s prairie dog Cynomys gunnisoni Shrub-grass 

[Apache] Plains pocket 

mouse Perognathus flavescens Shrub-grass 

[Hopi] Silky pocket mouse P. flavus Shrub-grass 

Ord’s kangaroo rat Dipodomys ordii Shrub-grass 

American beaver Castor canadensis Aquatic, riparian 

Western harvest mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis Shrub-grass 

Brush mouse Peromyscus boylii Canyons 

Canyon mouse P. crinitus Canyons 

Deer mouse P. maniculatus Ubiquitous 

Pinyon mouse P. truei Pinyon-juniper 

Northern grasshopper mouse Onychomys leucogaster Shrub-grass 

White-throated woodrat Neotoma albigula Canyons, pinyon-juniper 

Bushy-tailed woodrat N. cinerea Canyons, pinyon-juniper, 

mixed conifers 

Mexican woodrat N. mexicana Canyons, pinyon-juniper 

Long-tailed vole Microtus longicaudus Riparian 

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus Aquatic, riparian 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix H

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 3

Common porcupine Erethizon dorsatum Pinyon-juniper, mixed 

conifers 

Carnivores 

Coyote Canis latrans Ubiquitous 

Kit fox Vulpes macrotis Shrub-grass √

Red fox V. vulpes Pinyon-juniper, shrub-grass 

Gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus Riparian 

Black bear Ursus americanus Canyons, mixed conifers 

Ringtail Bassariscus astutus canyons 

Raccoon Procyon lotor Riparian 

Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata Ubiquitous 

American badger Taxidea taxus Shrub-grass 

Western spotted skunk Spilogale gracilis Canyons, mixed conifers 

Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis Riparian 

Mountain lion Felis concolor Canyons, woodlands 

Bobcat Lynx rufus Canyons, woodlands 

Hoofed Mammals 

Rocky Mountain elk Cervus elaphus nelsoni Shrub-grass, woodlands 

Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus Ubiquitous 

Pronghorn Antilocapra americana Shrub-grass 

Birds 

“Waterbirds” (various unrelated groups) 

Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps Perennial ponds 

Great blue heron Ardea herodias Streams and ponds 

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Streams and ponds 

Green-winged teal A. crecca Ponds 

Virginia rail Rallus limicola Wetlands 

Sora Porzana carolina Wetlands 
Appendix H Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4

American coot Fulica americana Perennial ponds 

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Shorelines 

Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularia Shorelines 

Vultures, Hawks, Eagles, and Falcons 

Turkey vulture Cathartes aura Ubiquitous 

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus Shrub-grass 

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Ubiquitous 

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Riparian, shrub-grass √

Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus Mixed conifers, riparian 

Cooper’s hawk A. cooperii Mixed conifers, riparian 

Northern goshawk A. gentilis Mixed conifers 

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis Pinyon-juniper, shrub-grass 

Swainson’s hawk B. swainsoni Pinyon-juniper, shrub-grass 

Ferruginous hawk B. regalis Shrub-grass, pinyon-juniper, 

canyons 

√

American kestrel Falco sparverius Canyons, riparian 

Prairie falcon F. mexicanus Shrub-grass, pinyon-juniper 

Peregrine falcon F. peregrinus Canyons, riparian √

Upland Fowl 

Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo Canyons, mixed conifers, oak 

Greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus Sagebrush, shrub-grass 

Gunnison sage-grouse C. minimus Sagebrush, shrub-grass √

Gambel’s quail Callipepla gambelii Riparian, pinyon-juniper, oak 

Scaled quail C. squamata Shrub-grass, pinyon-juniper 

Pigeons and Doves 

Band-tailed pigeon Columba fasciata Oaks, mixed conifers 

Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Ubiquitous 

Cuckoos 

Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus 

occidentalis Riparian √
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix H

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 5

Owls 

Great horned owl Bubo virginianus Riparian, canyons 

Long-eared owl Asio otus Riparian, mixed conifers 

Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida Canyons, mixed conifers √

Western screech-owl Otus kennicottii Riparian, mixed conifers 

Flammulated owl O. flammeolus Mixed conifers, oak 

Northern pygmy-owl Glaucidium gnoma Woodlands 

Burrowing owl Athene cunnicularia Shrub-grass 

Nightjars 

Common poorwill Phalaenoptilus nuttallii Canyons, pinyon-juniper 

Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor Ubiquitous 

Swifts and Hummingbirds 

White-throated swift Aeronautes saxatalis Canyons 

Black-chinned hummingbird Archilochus alexandri Pinyon-juniper 

Broad-tailed hummingbird A. platycercus Mixed conifers 

Kingfishers 

Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon Riparian 

Woodpeckers 

Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Riparian 

Northern flicker Colaptes auratus Riparian, pinyon-juniper, 

mixed conifers 

Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens Riparian, mixed conifers 

Hairy woodpecker P. villosus Riparian, mixed conifers 

New World Flycatchers 

Western wood-pewee Contopus sordidulus Mixed conifers 

Southwestern willow 

flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus Riparian √

Hammond’s flycatcher E. hammondii Mixed conifers 

Dusky flycatcher E. oberholseri Pinyon-juniper, oak 

Gray flycatcher E. wrightii Pinyon-juniper 
Appendix H Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

6

Cordilleran flycatcher E. occidentalis Riparian, mixed conifers 

Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya Canyons, pinyon-juniper 

Ash-throated flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens Pinyon-juniper 

Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis Shrub-grass, pinyon-juniper 

Cassin’s kingbird T. vociferans Shrub-grass, pinyon-juniper 

Shrikes 

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Shrub-grass, pinyon-juniper 

Northern shrike L. excubitor Shrub-grass, pinyon-juniper 

Vireos 

Plumbeous vireo Vireo plumbeus Riparian, mixed conifers, oak 

Gray vireo V. vicinior Pinyon-juniper 

Warbling vireo V. gilvus Riparian 

Jays and Crows 

Steller’s jay Cyanocitta stelleri Mixed conifers 

Clark’s nutcracker Nucifraga columbiana Mixed conifers, pinyonjuniper 

Western scrub-jay Aphelocoma californica Pinyon-juniper, riparian, oak 

Pinyon jay Gymnorhinus 

cyanocephalus Pinyon-juniper 

Yellow-billed magpie Pica hudsonia Pinyon-juniper 

American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Riparian, mixed conifers 

Common raven C. corax Ubiquitous 

Larks 

Horned lark Eremophila alpestris Shrub-grass 

Swallows 

Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor Mixed conifers 

Violet-green swallow T. thalassina Canyons, mixed conifers 

Northern rough-winged 

swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Riparian banks 

Bank swallow Riparia riparia Riparian banks 

Barn swallow Hirundo rustica Canyons, structures 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix H

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 7

Cliff swallow H. pyrrhonota Canyons, structures 

Titmice and Chickadees 

Juniper titmouse Baeolophus griseus Pinyon-juniper 

Black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapillus Riparian 

Mountain chickadee P. gambeli Mixed conifers 

Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus Pinyon-juniper, riparian, oak 

Nuthatches 

White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis Pinyon-juniper, riparian 

Red-breasted nuthatch S. canadensis Mixed conifers 

Pygmy nuthatch S. pygmaea Mixed conifers 

Wrens 

House wren Troglodytes aedon Riparian 

Bewick’s wren Thryomanes bewickii Pinyon-juniper, riparian 

Marsh wren Cistothorus palustris Wetlands 

Rock wren Salpinctes obsoletus Canyons (rock crevices) 

Canyon wren Catherpes mexicanus Canyons (rock crevices 

Gnatcatchers 

Blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea Pinyon-juniper, riparian, oak 

Thrushes 

Western bluebird Sialia mexicanus Pinyon-juniper, mixed 

conifers 

Mountain bluebird S. currucoides Pinyon-juniper, mixed 

conifers 

Townsend’s solitaire Myadestes townsendi Canyons, woodlands 

American robin Turdus migratorius Riparian, mixed conifers 

Thrashers 

Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Pinyon-juniper 

Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus Sagebrush 

Starlings 

European starling Sturnus vulgaris Riparian, mixed conifers 
Appendix H Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

8

New World Warblers 

Orange-crowned warbler Vermivora celata Mixed conifers, oak 

Virginia’s warbler V. virginiae Pinyon-juniper, mixed 

conifers, oak 

Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata Mixed conifers 

Black-throated gray warbler D. townsendi Pinyon-juniper 

Grace’s warbler D. graciae Mixed conifers 

Yellow warbler D. petechia Riparian 

MacGillivray’s warbler Oporornis tolmiei Oak, riparian 

Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Wetlands 

Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens Oak 

Tanagers 

Western tanager Piranga ludoviciana Mixed conifers 

New World Sparrows 

Green-tailed towhee Pipilo chlorurus Pinyon-juniper, shrub-grass 

Spotted towhee P. maculatus Oak, riparian 

Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina Mixed conifers 

Brewer’s sparrow S. breweri Sagebrush 

Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus Pinyon-juniper, shrub-grass 

Black-throated sparrow Amphispiza bilineata Pinyon-juniper, shrub-grass 

Sage sparrow A. belli Sagebrush 

Song sparrow Melospiza melodia Riparian 

Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus Shrub-grass 

Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis Mixed conifers 

Grosbeaks and Buntings 

Black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus 

melanocephalus Mixed conifers, oak 

Blue grosbeak Guiraca caerulea Riparian 

Lazuli bunting Passerina amoena Riparian, oak 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix H

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 9

Blackbirds and Orioles 

Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Shrub-grass 

Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus 

xanthocephalus Wetlands 

Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Wetlands, riparian 

Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus breweri Riparian 

Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater Woodlands 

Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii Riparian 

Scott’s oriole I. parisorum Pinyon-juniper, riparian 

Finches 

House finch Carpodacus mexicanus Pinyon-juniper, riparian 

Red crossbill Loxia curvirostra Mixed conifers 

Pine siskin Carduelis pinus Mixed conifers 

American goldfinch C. tristis Riparian 

Lesser goldfinch C. psaltria Riparian 

Evening grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus Mixed conifers 

Reptiles 

Squamata: Lizards and Snakes 

Collared lizard Crotaphytus collaris Canyons 

Long-nose leopard lizard Gambelia wislizenii Shrub-grass √

Lesser earless lizard Holbrookia maculata Shrub-grass 

Short-horned lizard Phrynosoma hernandesi Shrub-grass 

Sagebrush lizard Sceloporus graciosus Shrub-grass, pinyon-juniper 

Desert spiny lizard S. magister Canyons, riparian √

Plateau swift (fence lizard) S. undulatus elongatus canyons 

Tree lizard S. ornatus pinyon-juniper, shrub-grass 

Side-blotched lizard Uta stansburiana Canyons 

Many-lined skink Eumeces multivirgatus Riparian 
Appendix H Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

10

Western whiptail Cnemidophorus tigris Pinyon-juniper, shrub-grass, 

canyons 

Plateau striped whiptail C. velox Pinyon-juniper, shrub-grass, 

canyons 

[Mesa Verde] Night snake Hypsiglena torquata Pinyon-juniper, shrub-grass, 

canyons 

Common kingsnake Lampropeltis getula Riparian, canyons √

Milk snake L. triangulum Riparian, canyons 

Striped whipsnake Masticophis taeniatus Pinyon-juniper, shrub-grass 

Smooth green snake Liochlorophis vernalis Riparian 

Bullsnake (gopher snake) Pituophis catenifer Pinyon-juniper, shrub-grass 

Western garter snake Thamnophis proximus Riparian 

Western rattlesnake Crotalus viridis Shrub-grass, canyons, 

pinyon-juniper 

Amphibians 

Salamanders 

Tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Aquatic 

Frogs and Toads 

New Mexico spadefoot Spea multiplicata Seasonal aquatic 

Plains spadefoot S. bombifrons Seasonal aquatic 

Red-spotted toad Bufo punctatus Canyons/aquatic 

Woodhouse’s toad B. woodhousii Seasonal aquatic 

Canyon treefrog Hyla arenicolor Canyons/aquatic 

Western chorus frog Pseudacris triseriata Wetlands/seasonal aquatic 

Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens Perennial aquatic √

Bullfrog R. catesbiana Perennial aquatic 

Fishes 

Minnows, Dace, and Chubs 

Carp Cyprinus carpio Perennial streams, ponds 

Speckled dace Cyprinella osculus Perennial streams, ponds 

Fathead minnow Pimephales promelas Perennial streams, ponds 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix H

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 11

Suckers 

Bluehead sucker Catostomus discobolus Perennial streams √

White sucker C. commersoni Perennial streams 

Flannelmouth sucker C. latipinnis Perennial streams √

Topminnows 

Plains killifish Fundulus zebrinus Perennial streams 

Sculpins 

Mottled sculpin Cottus bairdi Perennial streams 

Sunfish 

Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus Perennial streams, ponds 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix I

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix I 

Socioeconomics 

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix I

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 i 

Table of Contents 

Study Area Description .....................................................................................................1

Population......................................................................................................................2 

Jobs and Income...............................................................................................................3

Economic Assessment and Key Planning Issues .............................................................7

Fluid Minerals Development..............................................................................................8

Estimating Economic Impacts for Fluid Mineral Management Actions ........................10 

Rangeland Resource Management ................................................................................11

Estimating Economic Impacts of Rangeland Management Actions.............................13 

Recreation and Transportation Management..................................................................13

Estimating Economic Impacts of Recreation Management Actions.............................15 

Social Impact Assessment and Key Study Areas ...........................................................15

Social Assessment and Cultural Resource Management............................................15 

Social Assessment and Fluid Minerals Management ..................................................16 

Social Assessment and Rangeland Resource Management.......................................17 

Social Assessment and Recreation and Transportation Management........................19 

Estimating Social Impacts...............................................................................................20

References......................................................................................................................21

List of Tables 

Table I-1 Jobs and Income Summary for Montezuma County 2005...............................4

Table I-2 Jobs and Income Summary for Dolores County 2005 .....................................5

Table I-3 Montezuma County Economic Base Analysis for 2005 ..................................7

Table I-4 Summary of Economic Impacts ......................................................................8

Table I-5 Montezuma County Agriculture Land Subdivision Trends............................18

List of Figures 

Figure I-1 Montezuma County Population.....................................................................2

Figure I-2 Dolores County Population...........................................................................4

Figure I-3 Total Personal Income in Montezuma County 2005 ($687,312,000) ...........5

Figure I-4 Dolores County Total Personal Income 2005 ($45,500,000)........................6

Figure I-5 Montezuma County Tax Revenue ................................................................9

Figure I-6 Dolores County Tax Revenue.....................................................................10

Figure I-7 County Revenue Distribution 2005.............................................................10

Figure I-8 Montezuma County Farm Income ..............................................................12

Figure I-9 Dolores County Farm Income.....................................................................12

Figure I-10 Montezuma County Tourism Trends ..........................................................14

Figure I-11 Private Land in Montezuma County Owned by BLM Grazing Permittees. .18

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix I

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

1 

Socioeconomics 

This appendix summarizes additional background information and data that comprise 

the baseline social and economic conditions for the socioeconomic study area. The 

baseline socioeconomic assessment is designed to establish the social and economic 

trends that can be used to measure potential impacts of alternative management plans 

for the Monument. In this socioeconomic assessment, the following variables are 

evaluated: 

 economic assessment: population, employment, and personal income; 

 social assessment: land use patterns, community resources; and 

 environmental justice: poverty rates and minority populations. 

In each assessment, a baseline scenario described under Alternative I (the No-Action 

Alternative) is used to evaluate changes to these variables caused by proposed 

management actions for the Monument. 

Study Area Description 

As defined in the AMS, the socioeconomic study area (the study area) covers 

Montezuma and Dolores Counties. From a human geography perspective, these 

counties comprise the Montelores Human Resource Unit (HRU) within the Four Corners 

Social Resource Unit. Cultural descriptors, such as settlement patterns, networks, work 

routines, support services, recreational activities, and geographic features, define HRUs 

(Kent 1999). These descriptors are analyzed for Montezuma and Dolores Counties in 

Productive Harmony Analysis: Interpretive Framework for Social and Economic 

Assessment of Southwest Colorado Communities and San Juan Public Lands (Preston 

2005). The AMS includes extensive excerpts from this report. Additionally, analysis by 

the Sonoran Institute for the BLM on population, employment, earnings, and personal 

income trends of Montezuma and Dolores Counties, which was completed in 2003, also 

describes the social and economic conditions of the study area (Sonoran Institute 2003). 

For this baseline assessment, data from these references are updated and augmented 

with data from the Colorado State Demography Office (CSDO), the U.S. Census Bureau, 

and the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis. 

The socioeconomic study area for the Monument includes some distinctive geographic 

features that have shaped local communities for over 1,000 years. As shown in Figures 

2-1, 2-2, 2-3, major defining features for the study area include the Dolores River, as 

well as the surrounding mesas, canyons, and mountains. 

Montezuma County is located in the southwestern corner of Colorado and contains 

approximately 1.3 million acres. Less than one-third of the land area in Montezuma 

County is privately owned. Land ownership is as follows: 30 percent private land, 33 

percent Ute Mountain Ute land, and 37 percent state and Federal lands (the largest part 

of which is managed by the BLM). Commercial, governmental, and social activities are 

centered in the City of Cortez. Cortez serves as the county seat for Montezuma County, 

and has a population of about 8,600 (CSDO 2006). The towns of Dolores [population 

900] and Mancos [population 1,200] provide some limited tourist and resident services. 

Dolores is the closest town to the Anasazi Heritage Center (AHC), which is the primary 

visitor center for the Monument. 
Appendix I Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 2 

Population 

Population trends for Montezuma County are shown in Figure I-1. The population of 

Montezuma County dropped between 1985 and 1990, as construction on McPhee 

Reservoir and the carbon-dioxide fields located inside the Monument were completed. 

Since that time, the population of Montezuma County has grown steadily, and the 

Colorado State Demography Office forecasts that county population will increase at a 

rate greater than one percent per year for the next 20 years (CSDO 2006). Future 

population growth in Montezuma County is expected to be faster than that of the U.S. or 

of Colorado, due to the “attractiveness of cities of the Western Slope to small businesses 

and telecommuters wanting to get away from large metropolitan areas” (Preston 2005). 

Preston notes that ‘relative remoteness’ and ‘reserves of natural beauty and cultural 

diversity’, have proven to be assets that have driven a large share of the migration to 

Southwest Colorado since 1970” (Preston 2005). The State Demography Office, 

Preston, and the AMS generally refer to this trend as “amenity migration”. 

Figure I-1 Montezuma County Population 

As the “Montelores” moniker suggests, Dolores County is often considered together with 

Montezuma County. However, Dolores County has some unique challenges and 

opportunities that are very different than those experienced in Montezuma County. Most 

of the residents of Dolores County rely on cities and towns outside the county for all but 

the most basic services, which creates close ties with neighboring Montezuma and San 

Miguel Counties. Dolores County contains 674,000 acres, with 42 percent private land 

and 58 percent State and Federal land (with Federal lands primarily managed by the 

USFS San Juan National Forest). Dolores County is split into two distinct physical and 

human geographic units. The eastern part of the County surrounding the Town of Rico 

(population 230) has a high mountain character with a hard-rock mining heritage. 

Recent development of Telluride resort has accelerated growth in Rico as a bedroom 

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

1940194519501955196019651970197519801985199019952000200520102015202020252030

Year

Population
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix I

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3 

community. These residents generally work and use services in San Miguel County and 

in Telluride. 

The western part of Dolores County including, Dove Creek (population 680) and the 

areas adjacent to the Monument, were settled around dry-land farming. These 

agricultural roots remain strong, as Dolores County is the only county in the region to 

experience continued growth in agricultural employment and revenue. Recent domestic 

water and irrigation projects, however, are changing this pattern. The availability of rural 

domestic water has prompted an increase in residential development of 35-acre parcels. 

According to the AMS, the primary appeal of western Dolores County is its wide-open 

vistas. 

With a county population base of less than 2,000 people, Dolores County’s government 

struggles to maintain the physical infrastructure and services required by residents 

spread across its expansive and diverse jurisdiction. A recent Housing Needs 

Assessment for Dolores County characterizes the challenges faced by this small rural 

county (Dolores County 2007): 

“Currently, economic development county-wide has been stymied by the low 

population, which does not provide enough critical mass to sustain goods and 

services in small communities. In addition, the wide geographic separation of the 

incorporated Towns of Dove Creek and Rico makes it difficult to provide services or 

economic development that could benefit both communities. It may be advisable to 

consider the problem from the perspective of a “regional economy”. 

Population trends for Dolores County are shown in Figure I-2. Historically, population 

trends have been greatly affected by mining activity, such as uranium mining and milling 

activities near the western part of Dolores County. In the late 1970s, these projects shut 

down, which resulted in the most recent population decline. Given its small population 

and sensitivity to individual construction or mining projects, the population forecast for 

Dolores County, as developed by the Colorado Demography Office and plotted in Figure 

I-2, could be grossly inaccurate. However, as the county shifts from agriculture and 

resource development to amenity migration and tourism as an economic base, a 

smoother population trend may be more likely. 

Jobs and Income 

Jobs and average wages in Montezuma County for 2005 are shown in the Table I-1. The 

unemployment rate in Montezuma County in 2005 was 5.3 percent, just slightly higher 

than the State and the national unemployment rates of 5.0 and 5.1 percent, respectively 

(CEDS 2007). 

Although agriculture jobs play an important part Montezuma County’s culture and 

tradition, they make up only seven percent of all jobs and, due to the low wages, only 

two percent of total income. The fastest growing job sector in Montezuma County is 

services. However, due to low wages in this sector, one in three jobs in Montezuma 

County equal only one in four dollars of income. In 2005, the ten top employers in 

Montezuma County were: Cortez School District RK-1 (568 employees), Ute Mountain 

Ute Casino (513), Wal-Mart (411), Ute Mountain Tribe (391), Southwest Memorial 

Hospital (309), Weminuche Construction (226) City of Cortez (211), Montezuma County 

(181), Nielsons Skanska, Inc. [Construction] (226), and Western Excelsior Corp 

[Manufacturing] (137) (CEDS 2006). The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and its Enterprises 

(Weeminuche Construction) support over 1,100 jobs in the region (CEDS 2007). 
Appendix I Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 4 

Figure I-2 Dolores County Population 

Table I-1 Jobs and Income Summary for Montezuma County 2005

Category Jobs 

Percent of 

Total Jobs 

Average Wage Percent of 

Total Income 

Agriculture 839 7 $8,500 2 

Mining and Utilities 217 2 $69,000 4 

Construction 1,116 9 $43,400 13 

Manufacturing 493 4 $29,400 4 

Transportation and 

Warehousing 

239 2 $49,000 3 

Trade 1,900 15 $24,800 12 

Finance, Insurance, and Real 

Estate 

613 5 $31,400 5 

Services 4,051 31 $29,100 25 

Government 3,205 25 $37,600 32 

Total/Average 12,673 

(Source: CEDS 2006) 

Total personal income is the sum of all income accruing to residents from sources such 

as employment income, transfer payments, dividends, interest and rent, and residency 

adjustments (for commuters). The components of total personal income for Montezuma 

County in 2005 are shown in Figure I-3. 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

1940

19451950

19551960

1965

1970

1975198019851990

1995

2000

2005201020152020

20252030

Year

Population
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix I

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

5 

Figure I-3 Total Personal Income in Montezuma County 2005 ($687,312,000) 

The largest share of total personal income in Montezuma County is primarily from 

employment income related to government and service jobs. According to the AMS, the 

fastest growing income source is from retirees. Payments to retirees amounted to about 

14 percent of total personal income in Montezuma County in 2005 (CEDS 2006). In 

2004, per capita personal income in Montezuma County was just under $25,000 (CEDS 

2006). 

Jobs and wages in Dolores County for 2005 are shown in Table I-2. The labor force 

unemployment rate in Dolores County in 2005 was 6.9 percent, which was considerably 

higher than the State and the national rates of close to five percent (CEDS 2007). The 

small numbers of jobs in the manufacturing and transportation sectors have likely 

skewed the average wage results reported in Table I-5. Nevertheless, the results for the 

agriculture sector are even more dramatic for Dolores County than they are for 

Montezuma County. Almost one-third of all jobs in Dolores County are related to 

agriculture, yet they amount to only five percent of total income due to the drastically low 

average wages. 

Table I-2 Jobs and Income Summary for Dolores County 2005 

Category Jobs 

Percent of 

Total Jobs 

Average 

Wage 

Percent of 

Total Income 

Agriculture 228 27 $4,100 5 

Mining and Utilities 29 3 $42,300 5 

Construction 82 10 $26,000 11 

Manufacturing 5 1 $68,200 2 

Transportation and Warehousing 9 1 $84,800 4 

Trade 106 11 $18,500 10 

Finance, Insurance, and Real 

Estate 

29 3 $50,000 8 

Services 168 20 $26,600 24 

Employment 

Earnings

55% Residency 

Adjustment

11%

Dividends, 

Interest & Rent

17%

Transfer 

Payments

17%
Appendix I Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 6 

Table I-2 Jobs and Income Summary for Dolores County 2005 

Category Jobs 

Percent of 

Total Jobs 

Average 

Wage 

Percent of 

Total Income 

Government 202 24 $29,000 31 

Total/Average 858 

(Source: CEDS 2007) 

Unlike for other counties in the region, agriculture is a significant and growing sector of 

employment and income in Dolores County. In 2005, the major employers in Dolores 

County were: Dolores County (69 employees), Dolores County School District (65), 

Dove Creek Superette [retail] (27), Dove Creek Implement [service retail] (14), Dolores 

County Health (13), Dunton Hot Springs [resort] (12), James Tree Farm [agriculture] 

(11), Midland Bean Company (9), Rico Country Store (8), and Adobe Milling (8) (CEDS 

2006). Figure I-4 shows the composition of total personal income for Dolores County in 

2005. 

Figure I-4 Dolores County Total Personal Income 2005 ($45,500,000) 

The largest portion of total personal income in Dolores County primarily comes from 

employment income related to government, services, and agriculture. As it is in 

Montezuma County, the fastest growing source of income is from retirees. In 2005, 

payments to retirees accounted for almost 17 percent of total personal income in 

Dolores County. Per capita personal income (PCPI) in Dolores County was just under 

$25,000 in 2005. This is well below the State ($36,100) and national ($33,050) PCPI for 

that year. 

Economic development continues to be a top priority for the study area. Both 

Montezuma and Dolores Counties meet the economic distress criteria, which makes 

them eligible as Enterprise Zones (Colorado Statute 39-30 CRS). According to this 

statute, in order to be designated an Enterprise Zone, an area must have a population of 

less than 80,000 and must meet one of the following criteria: 

 an unemployment rate at least 25% above the state average; 

Employment 

Earnings

42%

Residency 

Adjustment

17%

Dividends, 

Interest & Rent

19%

Transfer 

Payments

22%
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix I

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

7 

 a population growth rate at least 25% less than the state average; and/or. 

 a per capita income (PCI) at least 75% less than of the state average. 

Montezuma County meets the PCI criteria. Dolores County meets all three criteria. As a 

result, Montezuma County has received annual tax credits totaling over $3.3 million 

since 1992. These tax credits have generated over $180 million in investment and 

created 1,319 jobs. In Dolores County, Enterprise Zone tax credits have amounted to 

over $207,000 since 1992, and have generated almost $7.5 million in investment and 30 

jobs (CEDS 2006). 

Economic Assessment and Key Planning Issues 

In order to quantify changes to the economy in the study area related to management 

actions, it is necessary to consider the base analysis of Montezuma County completed 

by the Colorado Division of Local Government – Demography Section, using Bureau of 

Economic Analysis and Labor Market Data (CEDS 2006). Base analysis identifies 

industries that are basic to the economy and that drive growth and change. Base 

industries bring outside dollars into the local economy. Base industries in Montezuma 

County include agriculture, mining, tourism, and government. Local resident services 

(those industries not included in the base) re-circulate the dollars within the local 

economy. Base industries are the most important part of an economy, and management 

actions that affect these industries will have impacts throughout the economy. In addition 

to the base analysis, the RIMS II economic model was implemented in order to estimate 

multipliers that estimate the indirect jobs and income generated by base industries. For 

example, the RIMS II multipliers estimated that every mining job supports 2.6 additional 

jobs and 1.1 times its income in the local economy. Table I-3 shows the percentage of 

base jobs in Montezuma County, and the percentage of jobs and income generated by 

agriculture, mining, and tourism industries. In addition, Table J-3 shows the RIMS II 

multipliers for jobs and income for each of these industries. 

Table I-3 Montezuma County Economic Base Analysis for 2005 

Parameter Jobs Income 

(millions) 

RIMS II 

Multiplier 

Base Jobs (percentage of total jobs) 8,500 (67%) - 

Base Income (percentage total employment) $250 (66%) - 

Agriculture jobs (percentage of base) 1,020 (12%) 0.6 

Agriculture income (percentage of base) $12.5 (5%) 1.1 

Mining Jobs (percentage of base) 85 (1%) 2.6 

Mining income (percentage of base) $7.5 (3%) 1.1 

Tourism jobs (percentage of base) 1,450 (17%) 0.4 

Tourism income (percentage of base) $28 (11%) 0.6 

(Source: CEDS 2006) 

The values in Table I-7 are used to quantify economic impacts triggered by management 

actions. They indicate the relative importance of each of the key planning sectors on the 

greater economy. For instance, even though mining jobs make up only 1 percent of base 

employment, as high wage jobs in a key sector they support 2.6 additional jobs in the 

economy. Comparatively, tourism jobs make up 17 percent of base jobs; however, as 
Appendix I Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 8 

low-wage jobs, they only make up 11 percent of base income, and support an additional 

0.4 jobs. 

The base analysis for Dolores County is not included in the impact analysis because 

potential impacts from management actions in the Monument are likely to be dominated 

by other influences. For example, tourism jobs and income in Dolores County are 

primarily found in eastern Dolores County and are related to activities for mountain 

communities and Telluride resort. Similarly, mining jobs and income in Dolores County 

are linked to hard-rock mining and fluid-minerals development in Utah. Therefore, 

management activities on the Monument cannot be reliably measured using the base 

analysis for Dolores County. Furthermore, Dolores County’s economy is less than onetenth the size of Montezuma County’s (based on total personal income), so combining 

these economies is not feasible. Therefore, direct impacts to Dolores County’s economy 

could not be quantified with this analysis. However, the general size and direction 

(positive/negative) of the impacts to Montezuma County are relevant for Dolores County. 

In the economic impact analysis, management actions for the key planning issues (fluid 

minerals, rangeland resources, and recreation/transportation) are linked to one of the 

base industries (mining, agriculture, tourism) in order to estimate potential impacts to 

employment and income in Montezuma County. These individual impacts are summed 

to estimate changes in total jobs, total personal income, and population from the 

baseline scenario/No-Action Alternative. These results are summarized in Table I-4, and 

discussed in detail below. 

Table I-4 Summary of Economic Impacts 

Percentage Change from Alternative I (No-Action Alternative)

Measure Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IV Alternative V 

Total Jobs (-) 2%-4% No change (+) 5%-10% (+) 4%-8% 

Total Personal 

Income (-) 0.15%-0.3% No change (+) 1%-2% No change 

Population No change No change No change No change 

Fluid Minerals Development 

McElmo Dome, one of the world’s largest deposits of nearly pure carbon dioxide (CO2), 

is located, in part, on Monument lands (K-M 2007). Estimated ultimate recovery of CO2 

from McElmo Dome is 15.3 trillion cubic feet, of which, approximately 4.4 trillion cubic 

feet have been produced to date (BLM 2005a). Currently, Kinder Morgan CO2 operates 

44 wells that produce CO2 from McElmo Dome at a rate of about 1 billion cubic feet per 

day. At current production rates, McElmo Dome will be able to produce CO2 for 50 years 

or longer (see RFD). The CO2 produced by Kinder Morgan is transported in a pipeline 

650 miles to Denver City, Texas, from where it is distributed for advanced oil-recovery 

operations (BLM 2005a). 

In January 2007, Kinder Morgan CO2 announced a $200 million expansion project to 

increase CO2 production and transport pipeline capacity to 1.35 billion cubic feet per day. 

This project includes development of a new 54,000-acre CO2 source in Dolores County 

with 6 CO2 wells, 1 salt-water disposal well, and a compression facility (Cortez Journal 

2007). This project also includes eight new CO2 production wells at the McElmo Dome 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix I

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

9 

Unit. Seven of these new wells will be located inside the Monument. Two new pump 

stations and 10 miles of new pipe will be added to the Cortez-to-Denver City pipeline. 

The economic impacts associated with this project include 150 to 200 new construction 

jobs, five new permanent jobs, and an increase in county property tax revenues (Cortez 

Journal 2007). Currently, CO2 operations in Montezuma County generate 40 percent of 

property tax revenues. After the expansion project is complete, this could increase to 50 

percent. 

Relative to CO2, oil and gas production has a relatively small economic impact on the 

study area. About 90 percent of the fluid-minerals production in Montezuma County is 

from CO2 production (Cortez Journal 2006). The relatively small oil and gas reserves 

inside the study area are mostly played out, with only three percent of estimated ultimate 

recovery remaining (BLM 2005a and Table 3-26). Notably, most of the land area in the 

Monument was leased prior to the Proclamation and is managed under existing lease 

agreements. 

Jobs and income from fluid-minerals development are important to the study area 

because they increase employment diversity and pay some of the highest wages, as 

shown in Tables I-3 and I-4. In addition, tax revenues related to fluid-minerals production 

and property are critical to Montezuma and Dolores Counties. Figures I-5 and I-6 

illustrate the share of county tax revenues generated by fluid-minerals properties 

(Montezuma County 2006, Dolores County 2006). Note that taxes from CO2 

development are included in the commercial, industrial, and oil and gas revenue source 

categories listed in the figures. Figure I-7 shows revenue distribution for Montezuma and 

Dolores Counties in 2005. 

Figure I-5 Montezuma County Tax Revenue 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Millions of Dollars

Oil & Gas Public Utilities Vacant Land Residential

Commercial Industrial Agriculture Natural Resources
Appendix I Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 10 

Figure I-6 Dolores County Tax Revenue 

Figure I-7 County Revenue Distribution 2005 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Dolores Montezuma

County Schools Cities & Towns Special Districts

Estimating Economic Impacts for Fluid Mineral Management Actions 

Estimates for economic impacts for fluid-minerals management actions are directly 

related to the production of oil, gas, and carbon dioxide on the Monument. It is important 

to note that most fluid-minerals production on the Monument would be completed under 

leases negotiated before the Proclamation. Management actions resulting from the 

planning process would not affect these leases or production levels. Therefore, fluidminerals management actions would only have a small impact on fluid-minerals 

production levels. Furthermore, oil and gas resources in the Monument are more than 90 

percent depleted. Unless new resources are discovered, oil and gas production will 

$-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Thousands of Dollars

Oil & Gas State Assessed Vacant Land Residential

Commercial Industrial Agriculture Natural Resources
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix I

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

11 

continue to decline for the next ten years (BLM 2005a). Unlike oil and gas production, 

carbon-dioxide production is limited by pipeline capacity, rather than by resource 

capacity. Carbon-dioxide wells have a longer lifetime than oil and gas wells, and new 

wells are drilled in order to maintain production levels and to keep the pipeline full. There 

is no motivation to significantly increase carbon-dioxide production beyond pipeline 

capacity, even though there is more than enough resource base to expand. Given this 

resource production scenario, estimating economic impacts for fluid-minerals 

development focuses on carbon-dioxide production. If management actions affect 

carbon-dioxide production, then there would be economic impacts related to county 

revenues, as well as to mining jobs and, in turn, to income. Unless fluid-minerals 

management actions create the opportunity to locate and develop a major new oil and 

gas field, these impacts are insignificant relative to carbon-dioxide production. In the 

analysis, potential changes to carbon-dioxide production levels from the baseline 

scenario are estimated. Most carbon-dioxide production is on existing leases; therefore, 

large changes are unlikely. Additionally, county tax revenues from fluid-minerals 

development are a function of production levels and price. Although carbon-dioxide 

production levels have remained steady, prices for carbon dioxide have been increasing, 

and, as a result, so have county tax revenues. Although, fluid-minerals development is 

an important factor in the study area’s economy, the fact that most development is 

conducted on existing leases and the fact that commodity prices have a large influence, 

the economic impacts associated with fluid-minerals management actions are likely to 

be relatively minor or negligible. 

Rangeland Resource Management 

Employment and income for agriculture in the study area are illustrated in Tables I-3 and 

I-4. The agriculture sector supplied over 1,000 jobs in the study area in 2005, making up 

about 8 percent of total employment. However, due to the low average wages in the 

agricultural sector (about $8,500 in Montezuma County, and less than $5,000 in Dolores 

County), agricultural jobs contributed only 2 percent of total income. The economic 

forecast for the study area predicts that the percentage of income will drop to less than 

one percent during the next 20 years (CSDO 2006). 

Farm incomes have been trending negative for the past 20 years in both counties. 

Figures I-8 and I-9 show farm income for Montezuma and Dolores Counties, 

respectively. In Montezuma County, net farm income (including ranching and farming 

operations) has been near zero for the past 20 years (CSDO 2006). Dolores County has 

maintained positive net income. However, recent drought years have been negative. 

Taking a closer look at farm income in the study area, crops and livestock make up 

about half of total income, with government payments and other farm income (such as 

custom tilling and other services) comprising the other half. Farm income has indirect 

benefits to the study area in that it adds to the total productivity of the local economy. A 

recent input-output model analysis of Montezuma County estimated that the agriculture 

sector has a multiplier of 1.20 (The Colorado Trust 2005). Based on this multiplier 

estimate, every dollar in farm income generates an additional 20 cents in the 

Montezuma County economy. This is probably due to the fact that production expenses 

for seed and feed tend to stay in the local economy. In 1997, the U.S. Bureau of 

Economic Analysis, Farm Data Report estimated $59 million in total production 

expenses for Montezuma County (USDA 2000). 
Appendix I Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 12 

Figure I-8 Montezuma County Farm Income 

Figure I-9 Dolores County Farm Income 

-$2,000

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

$1000

Income Production Expenses Net Income

-$5,000

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

19821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004

$ (000)

Income Production Costs Net Income
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix I

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

13 

Estimating Economic Impacts of Rangeland Management Actions 

Management actions for Alternative II and V would reduce active AUMs by about 25 

percent, bringing grazing activity closer to pasture carrying capacity and recent actual 

use. Reducing AUMs by up to 25 percent would reduce agricultural income in 

Montezuma County by about one-half of one percent. This is estimated by considering 

the options available to ranch operators when faced with fewer AUMs. They could either 

sell the livestock that would use those AUMs (2,055 AUMs support about 430 cattle) or 

they could pasture the livestock elsewhere (and likely increase their production costs). In 

the first case, the 430 cattle represent about 2 percent of the 18,000 cattle and calves 

reported in Dolores and Montezuma Counties in 2005 (CAS 2005). Comparing livestock 

receipts to cattle inventories for 2001 and 2003, each cattle inventory unit is equivalent 

to about $500 in livestock receipts for that year. This does not imply that each cattle unit 

is sold in that year; it merely demonstrates the relationship between livestock receipts 

and cattle inventory. Using this relationship, a two-percent reduction in cattle inventory 

would reduce livestock receipts by about $220,000, or one to two percent. Total 

agricultural receipts (livestock plus crops) for Montezuma and Dolores Counties 

amounted to almost $50 million in 2003, with livestock receipts making up about onequarter of that amount. Therefore, a two-percent reduction in livestock receipts would 

reduce total agricultural income by about 0.5 percent. In the case of higher production 

costs, a recent analysis completed for Park County, Wyoming on the impacts of reducing 

AUMs on ranch income and viability found that each AUM amounted to $185 of livestock 

production (UWYO 2006). Therefore a reduction of 2,055 AUMs would reduce livestock 

production income by about $380,000. Using the same figure for total livestock and 

agricultural receipts, this would amount to a reduction in total agricultural receipts of 

about 0.5 percent. 

Recreation and Transportation Management 

Tourism is one of the study area’s most important economic sectors. A study by the 

University of Colorado found that tourism contributes to local economies as follows: 

 The nature of the tourism industry allows businesses to operate in remote areas. 

These areas often lack a diversified economy, and the jobs that such an economy 

creates. 

 Economically, tourism provides employment and wages that help to decrease 

unemployment and increase the circulation of money through the community. 

 Tourism means money for capital investment and local and State tax revenues 

(CEDS 2002) 

In the study area, tourism is a key component of economic development. It is one of the 

four local economic objectives measured for Enterprise Zone progress for Montezuma 

and Dolores Counties. One dimension of these economic development efforts is to 

transform the City of Cortez into a tourist destination. Currently, many tourists visiting 

area attractions drive through Cortez or Mancos for one night on their way to, or from, 

Mesa Verde National Park. These same visitors may then move on to Durango or 

Telluride, staying in one of the local resorts or hotels for up to a week. Local chambers of 

commerce and other economic development agencies are leveraging Enterprise Zone 

funding in order to increase promotion of local attractions and events in Cortez to create 

a destination platform. 
Appendix I Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 14 

Recent studies of tourism employment in the study area found that 20 percent of total 

employment in Montezuma County and 11 percent in Dolores County are related to 

tourism (CEDS 2002). In Montezuma County, 12 percent of total employment is related 

to public lands (Colorado State Parks 2004). Tourism also has important indirect 

economic impacts in the study area. One study found that tourism has a higher 

economic multiplier than manufacturing, agriculture or mining (The Colorado Trust 

2005). In Dolores County, it is estimated that $1,705,000 in tourism employment wages 

support $853,000 of wages in related industries. The 37 tourism jobs support 15 other 

jobs (The Colorado Trust 2005). In Montezuma County, it is estimated that $26,397,000 

in tourism employment wages support $13,199,000 of wages in related industries. The 

1,431 tourism jobs support 572 jobs. Furthermore, tourism generates tax income through 

sales and lodging taxes. In 2000, travel-related sources generated six percent of State 

and local taxes in Dolores County, and 38 percent of these taxes in Montezuma County 

(Colorado State Parks 2004). 

Tourism in the study area has been linked to visits to the largest regional attraction: 

Mesa Verde National Park. Figure I-10 Montezuma County Tourism Trends compares 

visits to Mesa Verde National Park to travel spending in Montezuma County, as well as 

visits to the Anasazi Heritage Center (Dean Runyan 2005, Colorado State Parks 2007). 

The chart in Figure I-10 shows that all three trend lines show the same general pattern 

over the 10-year period. This is probably due to national economic trends, as well as to 

local weather patterns (such as drought and fires that caused reductions in visits and 

travel spending from 2002 to 2004). Tourism spending in Dolores County has generally 

not been linked to Mesa Verde National Park, due to the distance to the Park entrance. 

Overall, Dolores County has been regarded as a transit point between Grand Circle 

destinations, such as Arches and Canyonlands National Parks and Mesa Verde National 

Park or, on the east side of Dolores County, between southern population centers and 

Telluride. 

Figure I-10 Montezuma County Tourism Trends 

0

200

400

600

800

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Mesa Verde NP Visits (thousands) Travel Spending Montezuma County ($10,000)

Anasazi Heritage Center Visits (hundreds)
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix I

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

15 

Estimating Economic Impacts of Recreation Management Actions 

Looking at recent tourism trends, as shown in Figure I-9, tourism jobs are directly 

correlated to Mesa Verde visits. Between 1999 and 2000, visits to Mesa Verde National 

Park and Hovenweep National Monument dropped by one third. During that same 

period, tourism jobs in Montezuma County dropped by one third (NPS 2007, Dean 

Runyan 2005). Similarly, between 2004 and 2005, visitation to national parks increased 

by 10 percent. Tourism jobs in Montezuma County also increased by 10 percent. 

Therefore, this relationship between visits to nearby National Parks and tourism jobs is 

used to estimate economic impacts of management actions. For the analysis, it is 

assumed that minor changes to recreational use of the Monument would result in a 5 to 

10 percent change in tourist visits, and moderate changes to recreational use of the 

Monument would have 10 to 25 percent change in tourist visits. 

Social Impact Assessment and Key Study Areas 

From a social perspective, the study area is being affected by larger social trends that 

are impacting local settlement patterns and community groups in the following ways: 

 Newcomers are moving in to the area in order to take advantage of the unique 

natural resources, quality of life, and other amenities that the region offers (“amenity 

migration”). Many of these newcomers are retirees or second homeowners that bring 

along their pensions and other retirement benefits. This "new" money affects the 

local economy (primarily in the construction and real estate sectors) as it is spent on 

new homes, goods, and services. As non-labor income, it also serves to diversify 

and stabilize total personal income in the area (CEDS 2002). 

 Traditional ranching and agricultural lands are being converted to low-density rural 

residential subdivisions. In Dolores County, the average farm size has decreased 

from 1,266 acres in 1992, to 734 acres in 2002, which is a 42 percent reduction. 

Montezuma County experienced a 22 percent reduction in average farm size during 

the same time period, from 1,262 acres to 988 acres (The Colorado Trust 2005). 

 Rising land value in the area is a double-edged sword. On one hand, rising land 

prices make it difficult for existing agricultural operations to expand, and for a new 

generation of farmers and ranchers to get established. On the other hand, those who 

have land equity have seen it grow, providing them with forbearance and credit to 

ride out rough times, as well as the opportunity to sell off pieces of land, when the 

need for cash dictates. However, land values tend to have less impact on a family’s 

choice to sell their ranch than do retirement needs or a lack of interested heirs 

(Preston 2005). 

Together, these trends will shape future settlement patterns and community resources. 

Potential social impacts related to each of the key planning issues are discussed below. 

Social Assessment and Cultural Resource Management 

Twenty-five Native American tribes and Pueblos claim cultural and/or landscape 

affiliation with the Monument (SWCA 2002). These claims are based on ancestral links 

or traditional and ceremonial use of Monument resources. Some of the traditional uses 

noted by the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe include collecting minerals for white paint, 

harvesting willows for Sun Dance, and harvesting juniper branches for cleansing 

ceremonies. Monument resource management preferences for these groups were 
Appendix I Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 16 

collected by the BLM at Intertribal Meetings held in November 2003 and March 2004 

(BLM 2003 and 2004). These preferences can be generalized as: 

 increase public education about Native American history and traditional resource use 

in the Monument; 

 leave archaeological sites undisturbed, and allow them to return to the Earth, rather 

than develop them; 

 prevent vandalism and looting of archaeological sites (Monument policy regarding 

human remains should strive to leave them untouched and to rebury them in same 

location as soon as possible); 

 ensure access to resources for traditional use and to sites for religious/ceremonial 

purposes (locations of sacred sites should not be revealed to the public); 

 increase partnerships/collaborations on Monument resource decisions; and 

 consider the concerns of tribes in designing and conducting research on the 

Monument. 

In addition to these general preferences, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe requested 

continued access to lands inside the Monument designated for hunting under the Brunot 

Treaty (see Section 3.1.7 Recreationally or Economically Important Game Species). 

Social Assessment and Fluid Minerals Management 

Montezuma and Dolores Counties are highly dependent upon tax revenues generated 

by CO2 production from McElmo Dome to fund schools and other county services. The 

quality and availability of social services and schools have been evaluated periodically 

by Operation Healthy Communities (The Colorado Trust 2005). Using an index system 

that compiles survey and focus group data from community members, The Colorado 

Trust strives to measure the overall health and quality of life for the five counties in 

Southwest Colorado. The indicators that The Colorado Trust has tracked include 

community health care (measured by the number of emergency room patients without 

insurance), the number of children enrolled in child health plans, as well as many others. 

The Colorado Trust also tracks services to seniors, economic health and diversity, art 

and culture, energy and conservation, growth, and the environment. Results from the 

most recent index show that Montezuma and Dolores Counties are consistently below 

regional and State averages in almost all categories, especially those related to social 

services. These low scores are generally due to lack of services, rather than to poor 

service quality. If CO2 production from McElmo Dome were reduced, county social 

service programs would probably be cut due to a lack of funding, which would further 

degrade the level of social services in the study area. 

In addition to county tax payments, fluid-minerals producers also pay lease fees, 

severance taxes, and other fees that are returned, in part, to the county where the 

minerals were removed in order to compensate for mineral development impacts. 

Colorado has a convoluted severance tax distribution system that distributes Federal 

and State severance tax and lease revenues through four or more different “pots” of 

money. In 2004, Montezuma County received over $166,000 from the Local Government 

Mineral Impact fund (DOLA 2005). This money was distributed to local municipalities in 

Montezuma County on the basis of employee residence reports. The Town of Dolores 

used this money to help fund street and sewer system improvements. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix I

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

17 

Social Assessment and Rangeland Resource Management 

Recent analysis by the BLM notes that livestock grazing is an important aspect of the 

local custom, culture, and of the economy in Montezuma County (BLM 2005b). Colorado 

Agricultural Statistics from 2004 show that cattle and calve numbers have dropped 

dramatically from 2001 to 2004, due to the worst recorded drought in Colorado history. 

During that time, Montezuma County reported a 30 percent decline in cattle and calf 

inventories, and Dolores County reported a 50 percent decline (CAS 2005). These 

drastic herd reductions represented both economic and stewardship considerations (i.e. 

ranchers cut back their herds, recognizing the inability for the land to support their 

operations). Reports for 2006 show an increase in cattle operations in both counties, 

with 34,000 cattle and calves in Montezuma and Dolores Counties (6,000 in Dolores 

County and 28,000 in Montezuma County) as drought conditions have eased (CAS 

2005). 

Private mid-elevation “transitional pasture,” combined with public land grazing permits, 

plays a key role in the ongoing viability of many ranches in the study area. Grazing, as 

well as grain and hay production, is for many ranches part of a rotation that involves 

summer grazing on the National Forest land and winter/spring grazing on lower elevation 

BLM land (Preston, 2005).There are currently about 8,300 Animal Unit Months (AUMs) 

permitted in the Monument, although only about 85 percent of these AUMs are 

considered active. 

About one-third of the land base in Montezuma and Dolores Counties (638,000 acres) is 

in private ownership (BLM 2005d). The map included in Figure I-11 illustrates the portion 

of private ranchland in Montezuma County owned by ranchers with Monument grazing 

permits (BLM 2005d). These ranchers own 35,250 acres of private land in Montezuma 

(shown in red on the map in Figure I-11). There are currently about 20 ranch operations 

that hold grazing permits in the Monument (BLM 2004d). If permittees for other BLM 

lands in the region are included, 10 percent of all private land in Montezuma County is 

owned by BLM grazing permittees. This pattern of land ownership has been relatively 

stable for more than 75 years. 

Agriculture represents a number of non-quantifiable economic and social benefits in the 

study area (Preston 2005). The agricultural landscape, shaped in part by ranching, is a 

key aesthetic asset that supports base employment and earnings from tourism and 

amenity migration. The wildlife habitat, particularly winter range, is a key resource in 

supporting the substantial hunting industry. Maintaining a mix of agricultural and 

residential land use patterns is a critical factor in the quality life in the study area. Recent 

trends in land subdivision for Montezuma County shown in Table I-5. 
Appendix I Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 18 

Figure I-11 Private Land in Montezuma County Owned by BLM Grazing 

Permittees. 

Table I-5 Montezuma County Agriculture Land Subdivision Trends 

1950/60s 1970s 1980s 1990s Total 

Agricultural Parcels Subdivided 6 25 29 68 128 

Acres Subdivided 402 3,672 2,171 12,781 19,026 

Average Agricultural Parcel Size 67 147 75 188 149 

Subdivision Lots Created 237 531 623 704 2,095 

Average Subdivision Parcel Size 1.69 6.92 3.48 18.15 9.08 

(Source: BLM 2005d) 

Increased subdivision of agricultural land in Montezuma County was one factor that led 

the establishment of the Landowner Initiated Zoning (LIZ) system. One goal of LIZ is to 

“encourage cluster development and facilitate the establishment of zoning to protect 

neighborhoods that wish to remain agricultural.” The Montezuma County 

Comprehensive Land Use Plan emphasizes the public’s desire to sustain the rural 

character, as well as wildlife populations, in the county. The plan specifically states that 

“Declines in federal grazing, will result in the declines in ranching and agriculture, which 

will result in declines in privately maintained open space and wildlife” (BLM 2005b). 

There are several factors that may affect the rate at which private agricultural lands are 

converted to other land uses, including economic viability, land ownership status, and 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix I

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

19 

personal choice to continue traditional lifestyles. During 2001, ranch families were asked 

to identify key variables affecting the viability of ranching in southwestern Colorado 

(USDA 2000). These factors include: 

 concern regarding increasing subdivision and sale of agricultural land; 

 concern regarding potential changes in fees and stocking rates on Federal land; 

 concern regarding residential subdivisions in agricultural areas, which generate 

conflicts with essential farm practices (e.g. nighttime farming, aerial spraying, etc); 

 concern regarding high land prices, which enhance the opportunity (and the 

temptation) for people to get out of ranching; 

 concern regarding the fact that once agricultural land is subdivided into residential 

parcels, it will never return to agricultural use; and 

 concern regarding the fact that private grazing lands for lease are becoming 

increasingly scarce. 

In January and February 2004, the BLM conducted interviews in order to discuss 

livestock grazing in the Monument (BLM 2004d). The overall response from participants 

was positive; however, ranchers felt that they lacked a comfortable communication 

process with the BLM. Based on these findings, one of the most important and 

productive mitigation strategies for preserving ranching in the study area would be a joint 

public/private collaborative stewardship path based on solid and practical range science 

and monitoring. If the BLM and ranchers can find the “productive harmony” between 

livestock grazing and ranch survival, the outcomes would likely be positive in all spheres, 

versus increasing polarization with energy channeled into resistance (Preston 2005). 

The foundation for this path has been created through the Range Stewardship 

Committee and Goal B of the Rangeland Resource alternatives for the Monument. In 

2001, ranch families joined together with leadership from Montezuma County in order to 

form the Rangeland Stewardship Committee. The group’s mission is to “promote the 

health and viability of the ranching and farming community in Montezuma County, and 

the stewardship of the resources upon which the long-term viability of this community 

depends” (Durango Herald 2002). 

Social Assessment and Recreation and Transportation Management 

In 2002, Colorado State Parks developed a Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor 

Recreation Plan (SCORP). As part of this plan’s development process, data from the 

National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE), relevant to Colorado, was 

collected and indicated the following: 

 more than 94 percent of Coloradans participate in outdoor recreation; 

 more than 90 percent of Coloradans are trail users (the average Colorado family 

uses trails 78 times per year); 

 at least 69 percent of Coloradans own at least one bicycle; 

 OHV registration has increased 223 percent since 1995; and 

 of the eight mountain states within the USFWS Mountain Region, Colorado attracts 

the most hunters and anglers. 

Relevant trends uncovered by the NSRE found that the fastest growing recreation 

activities include walking and day hiking, wildlife viewing, bicycling, picnicking, and 
Appendix I Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 20 

visiting historic sites (The Abonmarche Group 2004). Moderate growth was reported in 

off-road driving, visiting archaeological sites, and in primitive camping. 

The Monument Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee), which is made up of local 

residents and stakeholders, developed a list of recommendations for Monument 

management actions related to key issue areas, including recreation and transportation. 

The Advisory Committee found that transportation access in the Monument would be 

needed for the following uses: archaeology, fluid minerals, grazing, rescue operations, 

maintenance, hiking, wheeled vehicles, motorized vehicles, horseback, hunting, wood 

cutting, law enforcement, camping, native traditional/ceremonial, communications, 

pipelines, power lines, and livestock transportation. In addition, the Advisory Committee 

revealed some preferences regarding recreation and transportation management 

actions: 

 Recreation Objective 3: Create opportunities for education and alliances that lead 

to interagency and community involvement in the stewardship of the Monument and 

its resources. 

 Recreation Objective 4: Encourage opportunities for private enterprise in order to 

provide services for recreational activities, maintain a local presence and flavor, and 

contribute to the local economy. 

 Transportation Objective 3: Avoid detrimental impacts to the resources by 

designating 6 to 10 access points in the Monument. 

 Transportation Objective 3.1: Use existing fluid-minerals infrastructure (e.g., roads, 

abandoned well pads) that have been through the environmental compliance 

process as sites for visitor parking and associated infrastructure (e.g. picnic tables, 

toilets). 

 Transportation Objective 8: Stop the proliferation of unauthorized cross-country 

travel by motorized and mechanized vehicles (BLM Advisory Committee 2004). 

With respect to transportation management actions, a regional transportation plan was 

recently completed for the study area (Southwest 2030 Regional Transportation Plan 

2004). The forecast for the major highways leading to primary Monument access points, 

particularly the segment of US Highway 160 south of Cortez, shows a volume-tocapacity ratio of 60 percent or higher by 2030. This indicates that this segment of 

highway could experience traffic flow problems. All other transportation routes feeding 

Monument access points are not expected to be at high capacity levels by 2030. 

Estimating Social Impacts 

The social impact analysis uses two variables: settlement patterns and community 

resources. Settlement patterns measure the rate at which land is converted from existing 

uses (such as agricultural) to a different land use (such as residential). This may impact 

the quality of life in the region, due to the fact that open space amenities are highly 

valued in the community (BLM 2005b). Community resources measure impacts to social 

services and to the organizations that support the rural lifestyle that defines communities 

in Montezuma and Dolores Counties. Social impacts are summarized in Table I-6, in 

terms of their relative size and direction (positive or negative), when compared to a 

baseline or No-Action scenario. 

Under the No-Action Alternative, rising land values, amenity migration, and increased 

agricultural input costs will result in conversion of about one-third of existing private 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix I

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

21 

agricultural land in the study area into residential or other land uses during the next 20 

years. This was estimated from historical land conversion rates, shown in Table I-5, and 

from planning forecasts for the study area (CSDO 2006). Assuming that development 

rates keep accelerating at the same rate as for the past 20 years, and that land prices 

will continue to rise, then it is expected that about one third of existing private agricultural 

land in the study area will be developed during the planning period. 

Community resources, especially county social services, would be maintained at present 

levels of availability and quality of service under the No-Action Alternative. With 

increased tax revenues from higher CO2 production, county-funded social services 

would be able to keep up with increased demands associated with the population growth 

forecasted under the No-Action Alternative. A further consideration is the mix of social 

services demanded by a changing demographic. More than half of the population growth 

forecasted for the study area by 2010 will be 50 years or older (CSDO 2006). The 

consequences of this shift are already being felt in the local school districts. School 

enrollment is dropping, even though population is growing. Therefore, it is assumed that 

although the mix of county social services may change over the planning period, the 

overall quality and availability of these services will remain the same. 

References 

The Abonmarche Group. 2004. McPhee Lake Marina Feasibility Study. September 

2004. Available on the Internet: www.co.montezuma.co.us/documents/mcphee 

/final%20 marina %20report.pdf. Accessed on November 5, 2006. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2003. Notes from Monument Intertribal Meeting 

held in Cortez, Colorado. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management. Canyons of the Ancients National Monument. Dolores, Colorado. 

November 3-5, 2003. 

BLM. 2004a. Initial Contact Effort, Monument Rangeland Interest Group. Whittekiend, 

J.C., Rangeland Consultant. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management. Canyons of the Ancients National Monument. Dolores, Colorado. 

February 14, 2004. 

BLM. 2004b. Notes from Monument Intertribal Meeting held at Pojoaque, New Mexico. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Canyons of the 

Ancients National Monument. Dolores, Colorado. March 4, 2004. 

BLM. 2004c. Monument Advisory Committee Recreation Final Report. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Canyons of the Ancients 

National Monument. Dolores, Colorado. May 2004. 

BLM. 2004d. Monument Advisory Committee Transportation Final Report. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Canyons of the Ancients 

National Monument. Dolores, Colorado. May 2004. 

BLM. 2005a. Reasonable, Foreseeable Development: Oil, Natural Gas, and Carbon 

Dioxide in Canyons of the Ancients National Monument. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Canyons of the Ancients National Monument. 

Dolores, Colorado. April. 
Appendix I Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 22 

BLM. 2005b. Analysis of the Management Situation, Canyon of the Ancients National 

Monument. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Canyons 

of the Ancients National Monument. Dolores, Colorado. August. 

BLM. 2005d. Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, Environmental Assessment. 

Livestock Grazing Permit Renewal for Yellow Jacket, Cahone Mesa, Goodman 

Gulch, Sand Canyon East, Sand Canyon West, Flodine Park and Hamilton Mesa 

Allotments. EA#: CO-SJPLC-03-099. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management. Canyons of the Ancients National Monument. Dolores, 

Colorado. January. 

Center for Business and Economic Forecasting, Colorado Agricultural Statistics (CAS). 

2005. Available on the Internet: http:/www.cbef-colorado.com/pubs/FCSUM902.PDF. 

Accessed on February 20, 2007. 

Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS). 2006. Region 9. CEDS 

Update 2006. Region 9 Economic Development District. Comprehensive Economic 

Development Strategy. 2006 Update for Montezuma and Dolores Counties. 

Available on the Internet: http://www.scan.org. Accessed on February 22, 2007. 

CEDS. 2002. Region 9 Tourism Report. Graves, D. Region 9 Economic Development 

District. Gaining Ground or Shaky Ground? A Detailed Look at Tourism 

Employment in the Southwest Colorado Travel Region. Final Report, December 2, 

2002. Available on the Internet: http://www.scan.org. Accessed on November 5, 

2005. 

CEDS. 2007. 2007 Region 9 Economic Development District. Available on the Internet: 

http://www.scan.org. Accessed on February 22, 2007. 

CEDS. 2007. Region 9 Enterprise Zone Update 2006. Region 9 Economic 

Development District. January 31. Available on the Internet: http://www.scan.org. 

Accessed on February 22, 2007. 

Colorado State Demography Office (CSDO). 2006. Economic Data by County. 

Available on the Internet: http://www.dola.state.co.us/demog/. Accessed on 

November 05, 2005 and February 20, 2007. 

Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA). 2005. Letter from Michael Beasley, 

Executive Director, dated January 31, 2005. Subject: 2004 Direct Distribution of 

Federal Mineral Lease Funds. 

Colorado State Parks. 2004. Profile of Tourism and the Outdoors. A Report on the 

Proceedings of the Southwest Colorado Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 

Partnership Forum. July 2004. Available on the Internet: 

http://parks.state.co.us/Trails/LandandWaterConservationFund/SCORPPlan/. 

Accessed on February 22, 2007. 

Cortez Journal. 2006. Crane, J.R. Kinder Morgan proposes wells in Canyons. 

November 2, 2006. Available on the Internet: http://cortezjournal.com. Accessed on 

February 22, 2007. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix I

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

23 

Cortez Journal. 2007. Crane, J.R. Kinder Morgan plans $200M gas expansion. 

February 3, 2007. Available on the Intenet: http://cortezjournal.com. Accessed on 

February 22, 2007. 

Dolores County. 2006. Dolores County Clerk. Abstract of Assessments. 1994-2006. 

Dolores County Commissioners and Region 9 Economic Development. 2007. Dolores 

County Housing Needs Assessment Final Report January 12. Available on the 

Internet: www.ricocolorado.org/gov/. Accessed on February 22, 2007. 

Durango Herald. 2002. Ranchers Squeezed over Public Lands. Matt, J. January 20, 

2002. Available on the Internet: http://www.durangoherald.com/aspbin/article_generation.asp?article_type=news&article_path=news/02/news020120_1.

htm. Accessed on February 22, 2007. 

Kent, J.A. and K. Preister. 1999. Methods for the Development of Human Geographic 

Boundaries and their Use. June, 1999. Available on the Internet: 

http://www.naturalborders.com/publications/index.html. Accessed on November 5, 

2006. 

Kinder Morgan CO2, Inc. (K-M). 2007. Available on the Internet: About Us, 

http://www.kindermorgan.com/about_us/about_us_kmp_co2.cfm. Accessed on 

February 22, 2007. 

Montezuma County. 2006. Montezuma County Clerk. Abstract of Assessments 1994-

2006. 

National Park Service (NPS). 2007. History of Total Annual Visits for Hovenweep 

National Monument and Mesa Verde National Park. U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Washington, D.C. Available on the Internet: 

http://www2.nature.nps.gov/NPstats/dspAnnualVisits.cfm. Accessed on April 7, 

2007. 

The Colorado Trust. 2005. Operation Healthy Communities Pathways to Healthier 

Communities 2005. Available on the Internet: www.scan.org. Accessed on 

November 5, 2006 

Preston. M. 2005. Office of Community Services, Fort Lewis College. Productive 

Harmony Analysis: Interpretive Framework for Social and Economic Assessment of 

Southwest Colorado Communities and San Juan Public Lands. Available on the 

Internet: http://ocs.fortlewis.edu/forestplan/productiveHarmonyAnalysis.htm. 

Accessed October 28, 2005. 

Runyan, D. 2005. Dean Runyan Associates. County Overnight Visitors Impacts, 1996-

2005. Colorado. Available on the Internet: http://www.deanrunyan.com. Accessed 

on February 22, 2007. 

Sonoran Institute. 2003. Sonoran Institute. Population, Employment, Earnings and 

Personal Income Trends. Montezuma County, Colorado. December 4. 

Southwest 2030 Regional Transportation Plan. 2004. Draft Modified June 8, 2004. 
Appendix I Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 24 

SWCA Environmental Consultants. 2002. Cultural Affiliation Study for Canyons of the 

Ancients National Monument, Southwest Colorado. Two Rivers Report. October. 

USDA, Forest Service. 2000. San Juan National Forest 2000. Social and Economic 

Assessment for San Juan National Forest Boggy Draw Allotment Management 

Planning. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. San Juan National 

Forest. August 2000. 

University of Wyoming (UWYO). 2006. University of Wyoming. Department of 

Agricultural and Applied Economics. Foulke, T, and R. Coupal, D, Taylor. 

Implications for the Regional Economy from Changes in Federal Grazing: Park 

County, Wyoming. Rural Communities and the Changing Rangeland User. 

Presentation. Available on the Internet: http://agecon.uwyo.edu/EconDev/. 

Accessed on January 31, 2007. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix J

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix J 

Air Quality Assessment 

Technical Support Document 

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix J

Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

 

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Resource Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Air Quality Assessment 

Technical Support Document 

DRAFT

Prepared for 

Bureau of Land Management 

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Dolores, Colorado 

Prepared by 

Ecology & Environment, Inc. 

4888 Pearl East Circle, Suite 108 

Boulder, CO 80301 

RTP Environmental Associates Inc. 

2031 Broadway, Suite 2 

Boulder, CO 80302 

July 2006 

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix J 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................1

1.1 Site Description .............................................................................................................1

1.2 Project Description ........................................................................................................2

1.3 Regulatory Framework for Air Quality Analysis.............................................................3

1.4 Relationship to Other Plans and Documents ................................................................5

2.0 EMISSION INVENTORY.......................................................................................................6

2.1 Potential CO2 Development ..........................................................................................6

2.2 Potential Oil and Natural Gas Development..................................................................6

2.3 Project Emissions..........................................................................................................7

2.3.1 Construction Emissions.........................................................................................7

2.3.2 Production Emissions..........................................................................................10

2.4 Cumulative Emission Inventory...................................................................................11

3.0 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY......................................................................14

3.1 Model Selection...........................................................................................................14

3.2 Class I Impact Analysis Procedures............................................................................14

3.3 Background Air Quality and AQRV Data.....................................................................15

3.4 AERMOD Source and Receptor Configurations .........................................................16

3.4.1 Near-field Configuration ......................................................................................16

3.4.2 Mid-field Configuration ........................................................................................19

3.4.3 Class I Configuration ...........................................................................................20

3.5 Meteorological Data ....................................................................................................20

3.6 NO2 Conversion Methodology.....................................................................................20

4.0 ASSESSMENT OF STANDARDS AND CLASS II IMPACTS .............................................22

4.1 AERMOD Impact Analysis ..........................................................................................22

5.0 ASSESSMENT OF CLASS I IMPACTS..............................................................................24

6.0 HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT ANALYSIS RESULTS ....................................................26

7.0 REFERENCES....................................................................................................................26
Appendix J Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 ii 

List of Figures 

Figure 1 - Regional Map ...............................................................................................................2

Figure 2 - Near-field AERMOD Layout of Emission Sources and Receptors .............................18

Figure 3 - Mid-field AERMOD Layout of Emission Sources and Receptors ...............................20

Figure 4 - Class 1 AERMOD Layout of Emission Sources and Receptors.................................21

List of Tables 

Table 1 - Air Quality Standards, Increments, Significant Impact Levels, and AQRV Criteria........4

Table 2 - Summary of Gross Surface Disturbance .......................................................................8

Table 3 - Summary of Construction Emissions.............................................................................9

Table 4 - Summary of Production Emissions..............................................................................12

Table 5 - Summary of Project Emissions....................................................................................13

Table 6 - Background Air Quality and AQRV Data .....................................................................15

Table 7 - Point Source Stack Parameters...................................................................................16

Table 8 - Comparison of Direct Project Impacts to Class II Significant Impact Levels................22

Table 9 - Comparison of Project and Cumulative Impacts to Class II PSD Increments..............22

Table 10 - Comparison of Project and Cumulative Impacts to NAAQS ......................................23

Table 11 - Comparison of Direct Project Impacts to Class I Significant Impact Levels...............24

Table 12 - Comparison of Project and Cumulative Impacts to Class I PSD Increments.............24

Table 13 - Sulfur and Nitrogen Deposition Impacts ....................................................................25

List of Appendices 

Appendix A – Detailed Project Emission Calculation Tables 

Appendix B – Colorado Cumulative Inventory Sources 

Appendix C – VISCREEN Modeling Results 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix J 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 iii 

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standard 

AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Level 

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

AQRV Air Quality Related Value 

BACT Best Achievable Control Technology 

bbls barrels 

bscf billion standard cubic feet 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment-Air Pollution 

Control Division 

CO carbon monoxide 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

FLAG Federal Land Managers Air Quality Related Values Workgroup 

FLM Federal Land Managers 

GRI Gas Research Institute 

HAP hazardous air pollutant 

IDLH immediately dangerous to life or health 

IWAQM Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling 

kg/ha/yr kilograms per hectare per year 

LAC level of acceptable change 

LOP life of project 

MEI maximally exposed individual 

MLE most likely exposure 

mmscf million standard cubic feet 

Monument Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

MRL minimal risk level 

MVNP Mesa Verde National Park 

N nitrogen 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

NMED New Mexico Environmental Department 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

NO3 nitrate ion 

NOX oxides of nitrogen 

NPS National Park Service 

NSR new source review 

NWS National Weather Service 

O3 ozone 

Operators CO2, Oil, and natural gas companies operating in the Monument 

PM10 particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in size 

PM2.5 particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in size 

ppb parts per billion 

Project Canyons of the Ancients National Monument fluid-minerals development 

Protocol Air Quality Impact Analysis Protocol 
Appendix J Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 iv 

PSD prevention of significant deterioration 

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control 

RfC reference concentration 

RFD reasonable foreseeable development: oil, natural gas, and carbon 

dioxide in Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

RMP Resource Management Plan 

ROD Record of Decision 

S sulfur 

SILs significant impact levels 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SO4 sulfate 

TSD technical support document 

UDEQ-AQD Utah Department of Environmental Quality-Air Quality Division 

VOC volatile organic compound 

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix J

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

Oil, natural gas, and carbon dioxide (CO2) development activities may occur within Canyons of 

the Ancients National Monument (the Monument) over the next 20 years. The Monument 

encompasses approximately 165,000 acres of public lands in Montezuma and Dolores Counties, 

and is located about 90 miles west of Durango, 3 miles west of Cortez and 12 miles west of 

Mesa Verde National Park (see Figure 1). The BLM has prepared a Reasonable Foreseeable 

Development: Oil, Natural Gas, and Carbon Dioxide in Canyons of the Ancients National 

Monument document (RFD) that discusses the potential for fluid-minerals development activities 

within the Monument. 

A Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DRMP/DEIS) is 

being prepared to evaluate alternatives and potential impacts of fluid-minerals development (the 

Project), including impacts to air quality resources. This document is the Draft Air Quality 

Assessment Technical Support Document (TSD), and presents the air quality impact analyses. 

The methodologies used were described in an air quality impact analysis protocol (the Protocol) 

prepared by Ecology & Environment, Inc. and by RTP Environmental Associates Inc. (2006), with 

input from the lead agency, U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and 

project stakeholders, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National 

Park Service (NPS), and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). 

This TSD supplements the Protocol with respect to analysis methodologies and data, as 

necessary, and presents the findings of the air quality analyses. 

1.1 Site Description 

The Monument is located within the geologic region known as the Paradox Basin. Approximately 

81 percent of the Federal minerals within the Monument are leased, with 334 oil, natural gas, 

and CO2 gas leases. Since the 1940s, 185 oil, natural gas, and CO2 wells have been drilled in 

the Monument. Economic deposits of oil and natural gas occur in the Ismay and Desert Creek 

members at depths of about 6,000 feet. Large portions of the Monument are underlain by the 

largest CO2 gas field in the United States. Monument lands remain open to continued oil and gas 

development under existing leases. 

Total annual oil production in the Monument since 1970 has ranged from 200,000 to 1,200,000 

barrels per year (bbls/yr), with 2000-2002 production averaging approximately 200,000 bbls/yr. 

Total natural gas production has ranged from 600 to 3,400 million cubic feet per year (MMcf/yr), 

with 2000-2002 production averaging approximately 2,200 MMcf/yr. Total CO2 production since 

1987 has ranged from approximately 0.5 to 1.0 billion cubic foot per day (bcf/day) with 2000-

2002 production averaging approximately 0.75 bcf/day. There are currently approximately 125 

operating wells within the Monument, about half of which are oil and gas wells. Historically, fluidminerals development has resulted in approximately 1,165 acres of gross surface disturbance. 

The BLM estimates that 740 acres have been reclaimed, while 425 acres of surface disturbance 

remains in place. These 425 acres include producing well sites, access roads, and production 

facilities. The reclaimed areas include wells that have been plugged and abandoned, reclaimed 

access roads and pipelines, and portions of active well pads that have undergone interim 

reclamation. 
Appendix J Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 2 

Figure 1 - Regional Map 

1.2 Project Description 

For the purposes of this TSD, the RFD estimates that 150 additional wells may be developed in 

the Monument over the next 20 years, including 69 CO2 wells and 81 oil and natural gas wells. 

The RFD estimates the potential oil and natural gas reserves that could be developed at up to 23 

million bbls of oil and 72 bcf of natural gas. Over a 20 year period, this would result in annual 

production rates of 1.15 million bbls of oil per year and 3,600 MMcf of natural gas per year. 

These production rates are equal to the maximum annual production rates that have occurred 

during the lifetime of the field. CO2 production is expected to increase by 40% over the current 

maximum annual production rate of 1.0 bcf/day. 

The 150 new wells would require approximately 70 miles of new access roads, and 50 miles of 

new pipeline right-of-way. Gross surface disturbance would be approximately 882 acres for well 

pads, facilities, roads, and pipelines. The BLM also estimates that up to eight new production 

facilities will be built within the Monument to treat, store, compress, and transport the produced 

natural gas and CO2 (four for CO2, four for natural gas). It is important to note that the actual 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix J

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3

level of future oil and gas development will depend on the alternative selected, the specifics of 

lease stipulations, and on other protective measures associated with that alternative. 

1.3 Regulatory Framework for Air Quality Analysis 

Federal and State governments have established ambient-air-quality standards for criteria air 

pollutants, including carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in size (PM10), particulate matter less than or 

equal to 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5), ozone, and lead. Ozone is typically not emitted directly from 

emission sources, but at ground level it is created by a chemical reaction between ozone 

precursors, including oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic compounds (VOC). Therefore, the 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also regulates emissions of VOCs. 

The EPA classifies all locations in the United States as either “attainment” (including 

“unclassified”), “non-attainment”, or “maintenance” areas, with respect to National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS). These classifications are determined by comparing actual 

monitored air pollutant concentrations to their applicable Federal standards. Most counties in the 

Four Corners region are classified as attainment for all pollutants (only a small area around the 

city of Telluride, CO, is a PM10 Maintenance Area). 

Through the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Congress established a system for the 

prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) in order to protect areas that are not classified as 

non-attainment (i.e., cleaner than the NAAQS). A “PSD increment” classification system was 

implemented based on the amounts of additional NO2, particulate matter (PM), and SO2 

degradation that would be allowed above existing baseline levels for various areas. A Class I 

area would have the greatest limitations, where virtually any degradation would be considered 

unacceptable. A Class II area would permit moderate deterioration and controlled growth. 

National Parks of more than 6,000 acres, and wilderness areas and memorial parks of more than 

5,000 acres were defined as Mandatory Federal Class I areas under the 1977 Amendments. In 

addition to more stringent ambient air increments, Class I areas are also protected by the 

regulation of Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs) by the Federal Land Managers (FLMs) 

responsible for the areas. Typically, two impacts are used by FLMs to assess AQRVs: visibility, 

and the deposition of acidic species (e.g., nitrogen and sulfur). The mandatory Federal Class I 

areas closest to the Monument, and approximate distances from the locations in the Monument 

where development is likely to occur, are: 

• Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado (40 kilometers [km]); 

• Weminuche Wilderness Area, Colorado (112 km); and 

• Canyonlands National Park, Utah (190 km). 

The air quality impact analysis described in this TSD has compared the predicted direct and 

cumulative air impacts of the Project to State ambient air quality standards (AAQS), NAAQS, 

PSD Class I and II increments, significant impact levels (SILs), and AQRV criteria presented in 

Table 1. 
Appendix J Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Draft Resource 

Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4 

Table 1 - Air Quality Standards, Increments, Significant Impact Levels, and AQRV Criteria 

Pollutant/AQRV Averaging Interval EPA Class II SILs (μg/m3) NAAQS (μg/m3) 

Class II 

PSD 

Incremen

t 

(μg/m3) 

EPA 

Propose

d Class I

SILs 

(μg/m3) 

Class I 

PSD 

Incremen

t 

(μg/m3) 

AQRV 

Thresholds 

NO2 Annual 1 100 25 0.1 2.5 -- 

SO2

3-Hour 

24-Hour 

Annual 

25 

5 1 

1300 

365 

80 

512 

91 20 

1.0 0.2 0.1 

25 

5 2 

-- -- -- 

PM10

24-Hour 

Annual 

5 1 

150 

50 

30 17 

0.3 0.2 

10 

5 

-- -- 

PM2.5

24-Hour 

Annual 

-- -- 

65 15 

-- -- 

-- -- 

-- -- 

-- -- 

CO 

1-Hour 8-Hour 

2,000 

500 

40,000 10,000 

-- -- 

-- -- 

-- -- 

-- -- 

Ozone 8-Hour 100 tpy VOC 0.08 ppm -- -- -- -- 

Lead Quarterly 0.1 1.5 -- -- -- -- 

Visibility 

(deciviews) 

24-Hour -- -- -- -- -- 1.0 

Nitrogen Deposition 

(kg/ha-yr) Annual -- -- -- -- -- 3.0 

Sulfur Deposition 

(kg/ha-yr) Annual -- -- -- -- -- 5.0 

NOTE: The State of Colorado has also established a 3-hour SO2 ambient air quality standard of 700 μg/m3, as well as a program similar to the Federal PSD 

increments limiting additional amounts of SO2 above baseline conditions. The FLAG Guideline (FLAG 2000) has established visibility AQRV thresholds. The 

FLAG “just noticeable change” 1.0 deciview threshold is used to assess the significance of potential visibility impacts. The USDA Forest Service has established 

cumulative deposition impacts thresholds of concern (Fox et al. 1989). 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix J

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

5

The air quality analysis consists of several sequential steps: 

1. A Protocol has been prepared so that the BLM and other parties can comment on the 

methods and data that are proposed for the analysis. 

2. An emission inventory was compiled that represents a reasonable, although 

conservative, scenario for each relevant development alternative. 

3. Representative meteorological, background air quality, and AQRV monitoring data were 

obtained. The background air quality and AQRV monitoring data are used to define the 

existing air quality impacts from sources in operation as of the date of the monitoring 

data. 

4. A cumulative emission inventory within the study area was compiled. This inventory 

includes emissions from existing oil and gas production sources in the Monument. It also 

includes emissions from other existing sources and reasonably foreseeable proposed 

emission sources within the study area, whose impacts are not already represented in the 

background air quality and AQRV monitoring data (i.e., sources that were not yet in 

operation as of the date of the monitoring data). 

5. Air quality dispersion models were used to estimate potential direct air quality impacts for 

each analyzed alternative, as well as the cumulative impacts. 

6. The predicted impacts have been compared to relevant significance criteria, standards, 

PSD increments, and AQRV thresholds. 

7. If the predicted impacts warrant consideration of mitigation measures, further modeling 

analyses may be conducted in order to evaluate the benefits of mitigation alternatives. 

This National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis compares potential air quality impacts 

from the proposed Project to applicable air quality standards, PSD increments, SILs, and 

AQRVs; however, it does not represent a regulatory air quality permit analysis. Comparisons to 

the PSD Class I and II increments are intended to evaluate a “threshold of concern” for 

potentially significant direct Project impacts; however, they do not represent a cumulative 

regulatory PSD Increment Consumption Analysis. Such a regulatory PSD increment analysis is 

the responsibility of the State air quality agency (under EPA oversight), and would be conducted 

during the permitting process. 

1.4 Relationship to Other Plans and Documents 

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 calls for the preparation of a 

Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the Monument. As part of the DRMP/DEIS development, 

the BLM has prepared an Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS) and the RFD that 

discuss the potential for oil, natural gas, and CO2 development activities within the Monument. 

The NEPA requires an EIS to analyze and disclose anticipated impacts of the development 

alternatives being considered. This TSD describes the methodologies and data that were used to 

evaluate direct and cumulative air quality impacts from potential fluid-minerals development on 

the Monument. The TSD will be included in the DRMP/DEIS as a stand-alone appendix. 
Appendix J Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 6 

2.0 EMISSION INVENTORY 

Two inventories of air emissions were developed. The Project inventory considered foreseeable 

oil, natural gas, and CO2 development activities in the Monument, and includes air emissions 

from both construction and production operations. The cumulative inventory considered 

emissions from other existing sources and reasonably foreseeable future sources within the 

study area that are not already represented in the background air quality and AQRV data. The air 

emissions of the following pollutants were inventoried: NOx (including NO2), CO, SO2, VOC, 

PM10, PM2.5, and the Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) formaldehyde. 

2.1 Potential CO2 Development 

The existing Cortez CO2 pipeline capacity of 1.0 bcf/day may be increased by 40% in order to 

meet future demand. This level of development could require up to 69 new CO2 wells and 4 new 

processing facilities. The processing facilities would include dehydration units and gas 

compressors. Operator data on current CO2 compression indicates that approximately 55,000 

horsepower (hp) or 41 megawatts (MW) of compressor power is required for the existing 

production capacity of 1.0 bcf/day. Assuming a future capacity of 1.4 bcf/day, the increase in 

compression power requirements is 22,000 hp or 17 MW. According to the CO2 operators, both 

the current and future compression power will be provided by electrically driven compressors 

using purchased power from the utility grid. Therefore, there will not be any air emissions 

associated with CO2 compression. 

Based on the RFD document and discussions with the BLM, a reasonable and conservative 

estimate for the construction schedule of the new CO2 wells and processing facilities is: 

• 14 new wells will be drilled in order to increase the capacity of the existing pipeline from 1.0 

billion cubic feet per day (bcf/day) to 1.4 bcf/day (these wells will be drilled between Years 5 

and 7 of the project); 

• 40 new wells will be drilled over the 20-year period in order to sustain the existing CO2

production; 

• 15 new wells will be drilled over the 20-year period in order to sustain the increase in 

production; and 

• four additional transmission/processing facilities will be built over the 20-year period in order 

to service the new wells. 

Based on the above well-construction schedule, the peak construction activity would occur in 

Year 6, with 17 new CO2 wells and one processing facility being constructed. A more typical level 

of construction activity would include three new CO2 wells per year. 

2.2 Potential Oil and Natural Gas Development 

The BLM estimates that approximately 81 new oil and gas wells and 4 new gas-processing 

facilities could be developed over the next 20 years. The gas processing facilities would include 

separation and dehydration units, and gas compressors. The RFD estimates the potential oil and 

natural gas reserves that could be developed at up to 23 million bbls of oil and 72 bcf of natural 

gas. Over a 20-year period this would result in annual production rates of 1.15 million bbls of oil 

per year, and 3,600 MMcf of natural gas per year. Future increased natural gas compression 

requirements above the approximately 1,000 hp of installed capacity are estimated by the BLM 

at 350 hp. Assuming the new wells and processing facilities are built throughout the 20-year 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix J

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

7

project period, a reasonable estimate of the construction schedule is four new oil and gas wells 

and one new processing facility in a year (it is conservatively assumed that this would occur 

during the same year as the peak CO2 construction activity). 

2.3 Project Emissions 

Project activities that could potentially result in air emissions include both construction activities 

and production activities. The Project emission inventory was developed using reasonable, 

although conservative, scenarios for each activity. Based on the potential development schedule, 

Project construction emissions were calculated for the peak year in which the maximum level of 

construction activity would occur. Project production emissions were calculated based on full 

production activity. The annual Project emission inventory will sum the construction and 

production emissions, thereby reasonably and conservatively estimating the overall Project 

emissions. In addition to the annual emission calculations, short-term (hourly and/or 24-hour) 

emissions will be calculated for the air-modeling analyses based on estimated equipment 

capacities and on the reasonable and conservative operating assumptions. 

2.3.1 Construction Emissions 

Potential construction emission sources include: 

• fugitive PM10/PM2.5 emissions (including wind erosion emissions) and large equipment 

tailpipe emissions from general construction activities (grading, scraping, etc.) for 

construction of well pads, processing facility pads, access roads, and pipelines; 

• well drilling and completion, including drill-rig emissions and flaring emissions during 

completion activities; and 

• Fugitive PM10/PM2.5 emissions and truck tailpipe emissions from vehicle travel during 

construction, drilling, and completion operations. 

Fugitive PM10/PM2.5 emissions from general construction activities were calculated using AP-42 

Section 13.2.3, "Heavy Construction Operations" factors and the estimated total gross 

disturbance area for well pads, facility pads, roadways, and pipelines listed in Table 2 (this is 

derived from Tables 10 and 11 of the RFD document). Fugitive PM10/PM2.5 emissions from wind 

erosion at construction areas were calculated using equations in EPA’s “Control of Open Fugitive 

Dust Sources”, Section 4.1.3, EPA-450/3-98-008. Fugitive PM10/PM2.5 emissions from vehicle 

travel during construction, drilling, and completion operations were calculated using AP-42 

Section 13.2.2 "Unpaved Roads" equations. The round-trip travel distance for new “resource 

roads” (i.e., roads constructed to access the new wells and facilities) was estimated at 1.1 miles, 

and for the primary access roads it was conservatively estimated at 25 miles. It was assumed 

that adequate dust suppression (watering and/or dust suppressants) would be applied to 

resource roads and construction areas in order to achieve a fugitive PM emission control 

efficiency of 50%. It was also assumed that magnesium chloride dust suppressants (or similar 

treatment) would be applied to primary access roads in order to achieve a fugitive PM emission 

control efficiency of 85%. For all fugitive PM emission sources, PM2.5 emissions were estimated 

as 10% of the calculated PM10 emissions, based on data in "Analysis of the Fine Fraction of PM 

in Fugitive Dust”, MRI Report 110397, October 12, 2005. Tailpipe emissions from construction 

and vehicle equipment for the pollutants CO, NOx, SO2, VOC, and PM10 were calculated using 

emission factors for large diesel equipment listed in AP-42 Volume II Mobile Sources. 

Drilling-rig emissions were calculated using AP-42 Section 3.3 emission factors (Table 3.3-1, 

"Emission Factors for Uncontrolled Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines”). These AP-42 
Appendix J Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 8 

factors are very conservative and overstate the actual expected emissions. For example, the AP42 NOx emission factor is equivalent to 14 gr/hp-hr, whereas NOx emissions from Tier 2 diesel 

engines likely to be found on new drill rigs are on the order of 4.8 gr/hp-hr. The size of rigs used 

to drill CO2 wells are larger than those used to drill oil and gas wells, with total engine capacity of 

approximately 2100 hp. To simplify the emission calculations, it was conservatively assumed that 

all wells were drilled with these large 2100 hp rigs. Also, it was assumed that all wells were 

conventional, “straight drilled” wells. Flaring emissions for oil and gas wells were calculated 

based on AP-42 Section 13.5 factors for NOx and CO, assumed gas constituent analysis for 

VOC with a 50% flare-destruction efficiency, and operator data on flaring volumes. 

Appendix A presents detailed emission calculation tables for each of the construction emission 

sources, and Table 3 presents a summary of construction emissions for both oil and gas and 

CO2 development. 

Table 2 - Summary of Gross Surface Disturbance 

Resource and Type of 

Activity Number sites Acres/site Total acres 

OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT

Pads 81 2.1 170.1 

Pipelines 11.5 2.0 23.1 

Roads 81 3.0 241.0 

Oil and Gas Pads, Pipelines, Roads Subtotal 434.2 

Oil and Gas Pads, Pipelines, Roads Subtotal/81 wells 5.4 per well 

Facility Sites 4 3.0 12 

Facility Pipelines 4 18.2 72.8 

Oil and Gas Facility Subtotal 84.8 

Oil and Gas Facility Subtotal/4 facilities 21.2 per facility 

CO2 DEVELOPMENT

Pads 40 3.5 140.0 

Pipelines 10 2.0 20.0 

Roads 40 3.0 119.0 

CO2 Pads, Pipelines, Roads Subtotal 279.0 

CO2 Pads, Pipelines, Roads Subtotal/40 wells 7.0 per well 

Facility Sites 4 3.0 12.0 

Facility Pipelines 4 18.2 72.8 

CO2 Facility Subtotal 84.8 

CO2 Facility Subtotal / 4 facilities 21.2 per facility 

TOTAL OIL AND GAS AND CO2 GROSS DISTURBANCE 882.8 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix J

Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

9

Table 3 - Summary of Construction Emissions 

Oil and Gas Well Construction Emissions - Peak Construction Year 

No. of New Wells/yr 4 No. of New Processing Facilities/yr = 1 

Pad, Road, Pipeline 

Construction Rig Move and Drilling Completion and Flaring Subtotals per well pad Facility Construction TOTAL 

(lb/hr) (tons/well) (lb/hr) (tons/well) (lb/hr) (tons/well) (lb/hr) (tons/well) (lb/hr) (tons/plant) (tons/yr) 

NOx 12.27 0.25 27.53 9.91 30.03 1.21 69.83 11.36 12.50 0.64 46.1 

CO 3.82 0.08 5.96 2.14 163.33 6.54 173.10 8.76 4.12 0.23 35.3 

SO2 1.46 0.03 1.82 0.65 0.0005 0.000137 3.28 0.68 1.47 0.07 2.8 

PM10 6.95 0.38 2.42 0.87 0.32 0.09 9.68 1.34 22.72 3.68 9.1 

PM2.5 1.82 0.06 2.02 0.73 0.05 0.01 3.89 0.81 2.32 0.44 3.7 

VOC 0.92 0.02 2.23 0.80 4,472 58.78 4,476 59.60 1.03 0.06 238.5 

Formaldehyde NA NA 1.05 0.38 NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.5 

CO2 Well Construction Emissions - Peak Construction Year 

No. of New Wells/yr 17 No. of New Processing Facilities/yr = 1 

Pad, Road, Pipeline 

Construction Rig Move and Drilling Completion Subtotals per well pad Facility Construction TOTAL 

 (lb/hr) (tons/pad) (lb/hr) (tons/pad) (lb/hr) (tons/pad) (lb/hr) (tons/well) (lb/hr) (tons/plant) (tons/yr) 

NOx 12.50 0.28 27.53 9.91 0.02 0.00 40.05 10.19 12.50 0.64 173.9 

CO 4.12 0.12 5.96 2.14 0.02 0.01 10.10 2.27 4.12 0.23 38.8 

SO2 1.47 0.03 1.82 0.65 0.0005 0.000137 3.29 0.69 1.47 0.07 11.7 

PM10 9.39 0.74 2.42 0.87 0.32 0.09 12.13 1.71 22.72 3.68 32.7 

PM2.5 2.11 0.12 2.02 0.73 0.05 0.01 4.18 0.86 2.32 0.44 15.0 

VOC 1.03 0.03 2.23 0.80 0.01 0.00 3.27 0.84 1.03 0.06 14.3 

Formaldehyde NA NA 1.05 0.38 NA NA NA NA NA NA 6.4 
Appendix J Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 10 

2.3.2 Production Emissions 

Potential production emission sources include: 

• combustion source emissions at well heads and processing facilities (central gas compressor 

engines, small well head engines, and heaters for separators and dehydrators); 

• Fugitive PM10/PM2.5 emissions and truck tailpipe emissions from vehicle travel related to well 

servicing and truck transport of oil and water; and 

• VOC flashing emissions from separators, dehydrators and tank batteries. 

IC engine emissions will be calculated using AP-42 Section 3.2 (Natural Gas-fired Reciprocating 

Engines) emission factors. These emission factors are very conservative and overstate the 

actual expected emissions. For example, the AP-42 NOx emission factor for a 350 hp engine is 

equivalent to 12 gr/hp-hr, whereas NOx emissions from 350 hp lean-burn 4-stroke natural gas 

fired compressor engines are typically on the order of 3 gr/hp-hr. In addition to the gas 

compressor engines, some of the new oil and gas wells may use small (50 hp) well head 

engines. Current operators have indicated that only a fraction of the existing wells are equipped 

with small well head IC engines; therefore, a reasonable and conservative assumption was made 

that 25% of the new oil and gas wells would include a 50 hp gas-fired well head engine. 

The exact configuration of separator and dehydration heaters is not known. Some of these units 

may be at well head locations, while others may be centralized at the processing facilities. A 

reasonable and conservative assumption was made that one 0.25 MMBtu/hr gas-fired heater 

would be located at each of the 81 new oil and gas wells (heaters are not used at CO2 wells, 

and it is assumed that the separator and dehydration heaters at the CO2 production facilities 

would be electrically powered as are the current units). The annual operating level of well head 

heaters was adjusted so that the annual fuel consumption matched the existing typical well head 

fuel consumption of approximately 15 mcf/month per well, based on discussions with BLM staff. 

Fugitive PM10/PM2.5 emissions from vehicle travel related to well servicing and truck transport of 

oil and water were calculated using AP-42 Section 13.2.2 "Unpaved Roads" equations. It was 

assumed that adequate dust suppression (watering and/or dust suppressants) would be applied 

to “resource roads” in order to achieve a control efficiency of 50%, and that magnesium chloride 

dust suppressants (or similar treatment) would be applied to primary access roads in order to 

achieve a fugitive PM emission control efficiency of 85%. The round-trip travel distance for 

resource roads was estimated at 1.1 miles, and for the primary access roads it was 

conservatively estimated to be 25 miles. The number of truck trips per oil and gas well was 

based on: 

• maximum projected oil production rates of 1,150,000 bbls/yr for the 81 new wells; 

• the capacity of a haul truck at 180 bbls; 

• the assumption that water production rates are equal to oil production rates, and that all 

water is trucked offsite for disposal (some water would likely be disposed of via water 

disposal wells). 

The calculated number of oil and water haul truck trips per well is 158 per year. The general well 

servicing (pickup truck) traffic assumed that each well was visited once per week (52 times per 

year); however, it was also assumed that each service trip included visits to multiple wells. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix J

Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

11

Therefore, the vehicle travel emissions were calculated assuming 52 roundtrips per year per well 

on each access road, but 10 roundtrips per year per well on each primary road. 

Tailpipe emissions from oil and water haul trucks were calculated using the emission factors for 

large diesel equipment listed in AP-42 Volume II Mobile Sources. 

The “per-well” fugitive VOC emissions for separator to storage tank flashing were estimated at 20 

tpy per well. This estimate is based on the emission level that would require the storage tank 

battery to comply with upcoming CDPHE requirements to control VOC emission by 95%, and 

therefore, is a reasonable and conservative upper estimate on the future VOC emissions from 

condensate storage tanks. The fugitive VOC emissions from wellhead dehydrator still vents were 

estimated using emission test results and Gas Research Institute (GRI) GLYCalc estimates 

presented in “Glycol Dehydrator BTEX and VOC Emission Testing Results at Two Units in Texas 

and Louisiana”, EPA/600/SR-95/046 (these reported VOC emission rates were ratioed-down for 

the lower gas production rates per well at the Monument). 

Appendix A presents detailed emission calculation tables for each of the production emission 

sources, and Table 4 presents a summary of production emissions for both oil and natural gas, 

and CO2 development. Table 5 presents the overall summary of Project emissions. 

2.4 Cumulative Emission Inventory 

The cumulative inventory includes emissions from other existing sources and reasonably 

foreseeable proposed emission sources within the study area whose impacts are not already 

represented in the background air quality and AQRV monitoring data (i.e., sources that were not 

in operation as of the end date of the monitoring data, which was December 2004). The EPA 

recommends that the cumulative inventory includes nearby major or minor sources that result in 

a significant concentration gradient in the project area. The CDPHE recommends considering 

sources with emission rates greater than 100 tons per year as candidates for the cumulative 

source inventory, and sources with lower emission rates if they are within 5 kilometers of the 

project area. 

The cumulative inventory area has been defined as the region within 50 km from the center of 

the Monument (approximate UTM coordinates 685 km E and 4145 km N, Zone 12, NAD83). The 

rational for the 50 km definition is: 

• given the nature of the Project emission sources (stack heights on the order of 10 meters or 

less and ground-level fugitive releases), any significant Project impacts will be very localized 

near the emission sources, typically within a kilometer of the emission units; 

• the 50 km distance will ensure that impacts even from distant large emission sources will be 

considered; 

• the maximum transport distance recommended by the EPA for steady-state gaussian 

models, such as AERMOD is 50 km; and 

• other, more distant, existing sources would be accounted for in the background concentration 

data. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix J 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

12 

Table 4 - Summary of Production Emissions 

Oil and Gas and CO2 Production Emissions Summary

No. of Oil and Gas (O&G) wells = 81 No. of CO

2 wells = 69 

O&G Production 

Truck 

-per well 

CO2 Production 

Truck 

- per well 

Wellhead Heaters

and Flashing 

Wellhead 

Small Engines 

O&G 

Compression TOTAL 

(lb/hr) (tons/well) (lb/hr) (tons/well) (lb/hr) (tons/well) (lb/hr) (tons/well) (lb/hr) (tons/yr) (tons/yr)

NOx 0.040 0.0520 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.015 1.105 4.840 9.4 41.3 144.7 

CO 0.052 0.0670 0.000 0.000 0.291 0.127 1.860 8.147 0.7 3.2 183.9 

SO2 0.001 0.0015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0003 0.001 0.0014 0.0060 0.2 

PM10 0.501 0.6511 0.013 0.017 0.003 0.001 0.010 0.042 0.0229 0.1003 55.0 

PM2.5 0.077 0.0998 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.001 0.010 0.042 0.0229 0.1003 9.3 

VOC 0.020 0.0259 0.000 0.000 4.701 20.584 0.015 0.065 0.27 1.19 1671.9 

Formaldehyde NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.010 0.045 0.122 0.53 2.4 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix J

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

13

Table 5 - Summary of Project Emissions 

Project Maximum Annual Emissions

Construction emissions 

(tpy) 

Production emissions 

(tpy) Total emissions (tpy)

NOx 215.3 144.7 360.0 

CO 48.7 183.9 232.6 

SO2 14.5 0.2 14.7 

PM10 41.8 55.0 96.8 

PM2.5 18.7 9.3 28.0 

VOC 22.4 1671.9 1694.3 

Formaldehyde 7.9 2.4 10.3 

The inventory for other existing sources was developed using data obtained from the CDPHE 

and Utah Department of Environmental Quality-Air Quality Division (UDEQ). Only emission 

sources that were not operational as of the end of 2004 were included in the cumulative 

inventory. UDEQ data indicated that the only new source or modification in the area since 2004 

was at a uranium processing mill in Blanding, located approximately 50 km from the Monument. 

The increase in emissions was 7.4 tpy of NOx, and less than 2 tpy for all other criteria 

pollutants. Given the large distance and the small emissions, this source was not included in 

the cumulative analysis. The CDPHE provided inventory data on seven new or modified 

emission units since the end of 2004. These sources included three new emission sources in 

the Monument (permitted by one of the oil and gas operators), a 261 hp compressor, a 142 hp 

engine, and a 170 kw generator, all natural gas fired IC engines. Other CDPHE cumulative 

sources included a Saturn T-1300 gas-fired turbine located 45 km distant (NOx emissions of 16 

tpy), a 3.6 MMBtu boiler located 21 km distant (emissions less than 10 tpy of all pollutants), a 

concrete batch plant located 29 km distant (PM10 emissions less than 6 tpy), and a sand and 

gravel operation located 47 km distant (PM10 emissions less than 7 tpy). Based on the CDPHE 

cumulative inventory criteria, only the three emission sources located within the Monument were 

included in the cumulative emission inventory. 

The cumulative inventory also addressed existing production emission sources in the Monument 

as follows. The maximum historical natural gas compression capacity in the Monument is known 

to be approximately 1,000 hp, therefore emissions for three 350-hp compressors were modeled 

to conservatively represent existing natural gas production (along with one new 350 hp 

compressor to represent increased Project natural gas production). The estimated Project oil 

production rates are five times greater than current oil production rates and equal to the 

historical maximum annual production rates for the Monument; in addition, it is known that many 

of the new oil wells would replace exhausted wells that cease production during the 20 year 

period. Therefore, the Project oil production emissions (including fugitive emissions from oil haul 

trucks and well servicing) effectively include existing oil production emissions. Finally, because 

existing CO2 compression is electrical driven from the utility grid, there are no significant existing 

CO2 production emissions. 

Proposed BLM development projects within the cumulative inventory area that were not in 

operation as of the end of 2004 (these projects are classified as reasonable foreseeable 

development) were also considered in the cumulative inventory. Based on discussions with 

Colorado and the Utah State BLM offices, there is one reasonable foreseeable development 

project in the cumulative inventory area, the Monticello NEPA project in Utah (located 
Appendix J Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 14 

approximately 50 km west of the Monument). The projected level of well development described 

in the Monticello RFD is five to 21 wells per year for 20 years over a 3.6 million acre 

management area. The Monticello EIS document will not include a compilation of air emissions 

or an air quality impact analysis, because air quality was not an area of concern during the EIS 

scoping process. Therefore, a simplified approach was used to include the Monticello NEPA 

project in the Monument cumulative analysis. Since the well-development rate and the total 

number of wells are similar between the Monticello and Monument projects, the total emissions 

for construction and production in the Monument were assigned to a 10 km square volume 

source located 50 km west of the Monument in order to represent emissions from the Monticello 

NEPA project. Note that the San Juan Basin NEPA project in New Mexico and the Moab NEPA 

project in Utah are outside of the cumulative inventory area; therefore, they were not included in 

the Monument cumulative analysis (the Moab project is approximately 80 km distant, and the 

San Juan project is approximately 100 km distant). 

3.0 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 

3.1 Model Selection 

The pollutants PM10, PM2.5, NOX, SO2, CO, and formaldehyde were modeled using the EPAapproved air dispersion model AERMOD. Due to the complexity of the ozone formation at 

ground-level, ozone impacts cannot be predicted with a dispersion model. Therefore, ozone 

impacts were estimated from NOX and VOC emissions using a screening methodology 

developed by Scheffe (1988). 

3.2 Class I Impact Analysis Procedures 

The nearest Class I area to the Monument is Mesa Verde National Park, which is located 

approximately 40 km to the east of the locations on the Monument where development may 

occur. The next closest Class I area is the Weminuche Wilderness Area, which is located about 

112 km from the Monument. Given the close proximity of Mesa Verde, versus the other Class I 

areas, it is highly likely that the Class I impacts of the Project will be the greatest at Mesa Verde. 

Therefore, the Class I analyses was performed only for Mesa Verde. Since Mesa Verde is within 

50 km, AERMOD was used to evaluate both direct Project and cumulative Class I increment 

impacts and deposition AQRV analyses at Mesa Verde. VISCREEN was used to evaluate 

visibility impacts. The Class I PSD increment modeling included emissions only from production 

sources (EPA policy is that temporary construction sources do not consume increment), while 

the Class I sulfur and nitrogen deposition analysis included emissions from both construction 

and production sources. 

The method for performing deposition AQRV analyses using AERMOD was based on the 

conservative Level 1 methodologies described in section 5.1.3 of the “Interagency Workgroup 

on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM) Phase 1 Recommendations” (1993). The conservative 

assumption was made that all SO2 is converted to SO4 and all NOX is converted to NO3. The 

annual deposition rates of sulfur (S) and nitrogen (N) were then calculated using deposition 

velocities of 0.005 m/s for SO4 and 0.05 m/s for NO3, and were compared to threshold effects 

levels. 

The Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Workgroup (FLAG) recommends that 

visibility analyses for sources located within 50 km of the Class I area use the VISCREEN 

model. However, VISCREEN is only designed to model one emission source at a time; 

whereas, the Project consists of numerous emission sources located throughout the Monument. 

Therefore, based on discussions with the NPS, VISCREEN was used to estimate Project 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix J

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

15

visibility impacts at Mesa Verde using a “virtual point source” approach1 in order to better 

account for the geographic separation of emissions. Given that the separation of Project 

emission sources is on the order of 10 kilometers, using the sigma y curve for F stability results 

in an increase in downwind distance of 80 km to account for the separation of emissions. 

Background visual range was based upon FLAG average reconstructed natural conditions; the 

natural background extinction value is 15.6 Mm-1, equivalent to a visual range of 251 km. A 

background 1-hour ozone concentration of 77 ppb was used, and primary sulfate emissions 

were estimated as two percent of the SO2 emissions2

. The cumulative visibility analysis 

included VISCREEN analyses for other cumulative sources (with distances adjusted, as 

necessary, in order to account for geographic separation of emission units at each source). The 

cumulative visibility impacts were then determined by summing the frequencies of impacts that 

are above the VISCREEN thresholds for all sources. 

3.3 Background Air Quality and AQRV Data 

The background air quality and AQRV monitoring data are used to define the current air quality 

impacts from sources in operation as of the date of the monitoring data. Modeled direct and 

cumulative impacts are added to these background concentration values in order to evaluate 

total impacts with respect to State AAQS and NAAQS. The background air quality and AQRV 

data are also used to define which sources will be included in the cumulative emission inventory 

(i.e., sources that were not yet in operation as of the date of the monitoring data, and, therefore, 

whose impacts are not already represented in the background data). 

There are no air quality monitors operating in the Monument, but background air quality 

conditions in the project area can be determined from monitoring data collected at other 

representative locations throughout the region. All criteria air pollutants are monitored in the 

region by State and local air quality regulatory agencies, and AQRV monitoring in Mesa Verde 

is conducted by the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) 

program. Table 2 summarizes the background air quality and AQRV data that were used for the 

air quality analyses. The background data has been conservatively selected from the monitoring 

station with the highest concentrations during the reporting period. 

Table 6 - Background Air Quality and AQRV Data 

Pollutant/AQRV Parameter Background 

Data 

Monitoring 

Station 

NO2 – Annual Concentration (ppb) 9 La Plata CO 

SO2 – Annual Concentration (ppb) 2 Farmington NM 

SO2 – 24-hour High-2nd High Concentration (ppb) 8 Farmington NM 

SO2 – 3-hour High-2nd High Concentration (ppb) 26 Farmington NM 

CO – 8-hour High-2nd High Concentration (ppm) 1.6 Ignacio CO 

CO – 1-hour High-2nd High Concentration (ppm) 2.0 Ignacio CO 

PM10 – Annual Concentration (μg/m3) 21 La Plata CO 

PM10 – 24-hour High-2nd High Concentration (μg/m3) 64 La Plata CO 

PM2.5 – Annual Concentration (μg/m3) 6.9 Farmington NM 

PM2.5 – 24-hour High-2nd High Concentration (μg/m3) 22.5 MVNP 

 

1

 Refer to Chapter 5, section on Area Sources in “Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates”, Bruce Turner, 

AP-26, 1974. 

2

 See “Phase I Interim Data Report No. 3: Diesel Fuel Sulfur Effects on Particulate Matter Emissions”, Diesel 

Emission Control–Sulfur Effects (DECSE) Program, U.S. Department of Energy, November, 1999. 
Appendix J Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 16 

Pollutant/AQRV Parameter Background 

Data 

Monitoring 

Station 

Ozone – 8-hour High-2nd Concentration (ppb) 71 MVNP 

Ozone – 1-hour High-2nd Concentration (ppb) 77 MVNP 

Nitrogen Deposition (kg/ha-yr) 2.3 MVNP 

Sulfur Deposition (kg/ha-yr) 1.2 MVNP 

Mesa Verde Visibility (annual average deciview) 23.6 MVNP 

3.4 AERMOD Source and Receptor Configurations 

Three source-receptor configurations were modeled, a near-field configuration (3 km by 3 km 

sized receptor grid), a mid-field configuration (25 km by 25 km sized receptor grid), and a Class 

I configuration (using a receptor grid in Mesa Verde provided by the National Park Service). 

3.4.1 Near-field Configuration 

Given the nature of the emission sources associated with oil and gas development, it is known 

that the stack heights of the combustion sources are approximately 10 meters or less above 

ground level, and that the majority of PM emissions will occur as ground-level fugitive releases. 

Therefore, maximum air quality impacts are typically localized near the emission sources. Also, 

the exact location and layout of the new emission sources is not know with any certainty. 

Therefore, a near-field source-receptor configuration was developed using a generic layout of 

well pad, roadway, and processing facility sources, which represents a reasonable and 

conservative configuration. Due to the fact that this configuration focuses on near-field impacts 

and that the exact locations of the sources are not known, source and receptor elevations were 

not considered in the analysis. 

Based on the discussion of potential future development levels in Section 2, and given that the 

typical well spacing density in the Monument is no greater than 160 acres per well (four wells 

per section), a conservative assumption for the density of construction is two new wells, two 

existing wells, and one new production facility per section. The construction emission sources 

for two new wells and a central processing facility were combined with production emissions 

from two existing wells in order to fully define the worst-case construction scenario. A separate 

production scenario was analyzed that considered emissions from four producing wells and 

from one central processing facility. 

Point sources were used to model combustion source emissions from construction sources (drill 

rigs, flares, and heavy construction equipment tailpipe emissions) and production sources (well 

head IC engines and heaters, and central compressor emissions at the production facility). The 

well head IC engine and heater emissions were combined and modeled through an IC engine 

stack (this is a reasonable and conservative assumption based on the fact that the majority of 

the emissions are from the IC engine). Stack parameters used for these various point sources 

are presented in Table 7. 

Table 7 - Point Source Stack Parameters 

Source Type Stack Height 

(m) 

Temperature 

(K) 

Exit Velocity 

(m/s) 

Stack Diameter 

(m) 

Drill Rig 6 750 20.0 0.2 

Flare 5 1273 20.0 1.0 

Dozer Tailpipe 2 750 20.0 0.2 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix J

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

17

350 hp Compressor 6 750 20.0 0.2 

Well Head IC engine 2 500 4.0 0.2 

Volume sources were used to model fugitive PM construction emissions, including general 

construction emissions at well pad, processing facility, pipeline, and roadway areas, as well as 

wind erosion emissions, at these construction areas. The construction emissions from a CO2

well were conservatively used, since the disturbed area for a CO2 well is slightly larger than for 

an oil and gas well (seven acres per well for total well pad, pipeline, and road disturbed area). 

Volume sources were also used to represent “line sources” of fugitive PM and tailpipe emissions 

from construction and production vehicle traffic. Hourly emission factors were applied to 

construction fugitive sources for the hours of 08:00 through 17:00 to represent the typical 

construction period (note that drill rigs were assumed to operate 24-hours per day). 

The generic source-receptor configuration was laid out as illustrated in Figure 2. The two new 

well pads were arranged in the northwest and southeast corners of a 640-acre section, the 

existing wells were arranged in the northeast and southwest corners, and the processing facility 

pad was located in the center. Each new pad was modeled as a 100m by 100m volume source 

for fugitive PM construction emissions. Two line sources, representing the access roads for the 

two new wells, and for the two existing production wells, were modeled as a series of equally 

spaced volume sources. The separation of the volume sources that represent these two roads 

was one-half of the lateral dimension of 12.2 m (equivalent to a 40-foot-wide road), based on 

guidance in Table 3-1 of the AERMOD User’s Guide. The combustion point sources 

representing drill rig engines, flares, the heater and well head engines at the existing wells, the 

central compressor, and construction equipment tailpipe emissions were located at the center of 

the well pads and the processing facility. 

The total “per-well” fugitive PM construction and wind erosion emissions from pad, access road, 

and pipeline ground disturbance (corresponding to seven acres of total disturbance per well), 

and from “per-well” construction vehicle traffic, were allocated to the construction pad and 

roadway volume sources as follows. First, the 100m by 100m well pad volume source is 2.5 

acres in size; therefore, the portion of the total fugitive PM emissions assigned to each well pad 

was 2.5/7. The remainder of the fugitive PM emissions were allocated to the roadway volume 

sources (along with construction tailpipe emissions). The second line source, representing the 

service road for the two existing production wells, was modeled using production vehicle fugitive 

PM and tailpipe emissions. Since the facility pad is the same size as the well pads in this 

generic layout, the same fugitive PM emission rates were used for the new facility pad. 

For PM10 and PM2.5 analyses, the layout was modeled (for a single meteorological year) once at 

each of eight orientations (at 22.5 degree intervals), to ensure that impacts from all directional 

layouts and meteorological conditions were assessed. Since the layout is symmetrical, it was 

only necessary to model through 180 degrees in order to assess all possible wind direction 

effects. 

Model receptors were located a minimum of 100 m from all emission sources, and a 100 m grid 

spacing was used throughout the section (3 km by 3 km total grid size). 

Two source groups were defined to properly group the emission sources, CONSTRUC for the 

Project construction scenario, and PRODUCE for the Project and existing source production 

scenario. 
Appendix J Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 18 

Figure 2 - Near-field AERMOD Layout of Emission Sources and Receptors 

NOTE: Distance units are meters relative to center of layout. Receptor locations are presented 

in blue. Roadway sources are represented by northwest/southeast red line (consisting of 

multiple volume sources). Red area sources at ends of roadway are new well pads. Red area 

source in center of layout is new processing facility. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix J

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

19

3.4.2 Mid-field Configuration 

The mid-field analysis assessed Project and cumulative impacts at locations within the 

Monument, as well as at other nearby PSD Class II areas. It expanded the geographical extent 

of the near-field analysis by utilizing a 25 km by 25 km sized receptor grid, centered in the 

Monument. Mid-field model receptors were based on a 1 km grid spacing, and were located a 

minimum of three km from all emission sources (impacts within this three km zone are assessed 

by the near-field analysis). USGS DEM elevation data was processed with AERMAP in order to 

derive elevation and hill height scale data. The mid-field source-receptor configuration is 

illustrated in Figure 3. 

The mid-field Project construction source configuration is based on the peak year construction 

scenario of 17 new CO2 wells, four new oil and gas wells, and two new processing facilities, 

along with full production emissions. Given that the duration for constructing a well (site 

preparation, drilling, and completion) is approximately two months per well, the average level of 

construction at any one time is four wells. Using the same assumption for well density as was 

used in the near-field analysis (two new wells per section and two existing wells per section), 

new well construction sources were located at two separate sections in the Monument where 

development is likely to occur (the Island Butte unit for oil and gas wells, and the Cutthroat area 

for CO2 wells). The construction point sources (drill rigs, flares, and heavy construction 

equipment tailpipe emissions) were modeled at each of these two locations, along with two km 

square volume sources with fugitive PM construction emissions for the four new wells and the 

two new processing facilities. 

The mid-field Project production source configuration is based on full production levels. 

Production point sources (central compressors and well head IC engines and heaters) were 

modeled at each of the two sections described above. Each of the two sections included two 

central 350 hp compressors, for a total of 1,400 hp total compression. Each of the two sections 

also included four well head heaters/IC engines, with the total emissions for the 81 new wells 

equally allocated to the eight engines (this modeling approach conservatively concentrates the 

production emissions from about 10 wells into one, and results in a modeling analysis with fewer 

sources). Finally, each of the two sections also included two km square volume sources with 

production fugitive PM emissions (oil and water haul trucks and well servicing traffic) for the full 

potential oil production rates. 

The cumulative sources considered in the mid-field analysis included the three sources 

identified in the CDPHE cumulative inventory data, and in the Monticello NEPA project. A 

simplified methodology was used to model the Monticello air emission sources. The well 

development rate and total number of wells are similar between the Monticello and Monument 

projects; therefore, the Monticello total emissions were set equal to the Monument peak 

construction and full production in emissions, and were assigned to a 10 km square volume 

source located 50 km west of the Monument. 

Four source groups were defined to properly group the emission sources: ProjNAQS for the 

Project construction scenario, ProjPSD for the Project production scenario, NAAQS for the 

cumulative analysis with Project construction emissions, and PSD for the cumulative analysis 

with Project production emissions. 
Appendix J Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 20 

Figure 3 - Mid-field AERMOD Layout of Emission Sources and Receptors 

NOTE: Blue circles are receptors (25 by 25 km grid at one km density), and red circles are 

modeled sources. The northernmost sources are in the Island Butte unit, and the southernmost 

sources, along with the CDPHE cumulative sources, are in the Cutthroat Unit area. The one 

source located to the west of the main receptor grid is the Monticello Project. 

3.4.3 Class I Configuration 

The configuration and grouping of emission sources for the Class I AERMOD analysis was 

identical to the mid-field analysis. The receptor grid was based on the National Park Service 

receptor grid for Mesa Verde National Park. The AERMOD Class I source-receptor 

configuration is illustrated in Figure 4. 

3.5 Meteorological Data 

The Protocol described the data sets and processing procedures used for the meteorological 

data. Based on the Protocol analysis, the Mesa Verde National Park meteorological data was 

determined to be representative of conditions on the Monument. Since the Mesa Verde National 

Park meteorological data includes the data required by AERMET (10 m wind speed and 

direction and SRDT measurements at two and 10 meter levels), and meets a data capture rate 

goal of 90 percent or greater for the three-year period from 2001 through 2003, this three-year 

period of meteorological data was used for the AERMET data. 

3.6 NO2 Conversion Methodology 

The majority of NOX emissions from combustion sources are in the form of nitric oxide (NO), for 

which the EPA has established AAQS for NO2. Therefore, an approved methodology must be 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix J

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

21

used to convert model estimates of ambient NO concentrations into equivalent ambient NO2

concentrations. The EPA provides a three-tiered approach to calculating annual average NO2

impacts. Tier 1 is the most conservative method, and assumes that all NOX emissions are in the 

form of NO2. Tier 2 is the "Ambient Ratio Method” or ARM, and multiplies the Tier 1 impact by 

either an empirically-derived, annual national default ratio of 0.75, or by a site specific ratio 

determined with a pre-construction monitoring program. Tier 3 allows for the use of the most 

refined method, the “Ozone Limiting Method” or OLM, on a case-by-case basis. 

The Tier 2 ARM method with the default ratio of 0.75 was used for the NO2 modeling analyses. 

Figure 4 - Class 1 AERMOD Layout of Emission Sources and Receptors 

NOTE: Blue circles are receptors in Mesa Verde National Park, and red circles are modeled 

sources. The northernmost sources are in the Island Butte unit, and the southernmost sources, 

along with the CDPHE cumulative sources, are in the Cutthroat Unit area. The one source 

located to the west of the main Project area is the Monticello Project. 
Appendix J Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 22 

4.0 ASSESSMENT OF STANDARDS AND CLASS II IMPACTS 

4.1 AERMOD Impact Analysis 

The air quality analyses compare the predicted direct Project and cumulative air impacts to the 

Class II SILs, the PSD Class II increments, and to the State AAQS and NAAQS. The EPA and 

the State of Colorado have established the SILs in order to define a deminimus impact level that 

is considered “insignificant” and does not warrant further review. Under the PSD review 

process, a project that demonstrates, via modeling, that project-only emissions result in impacts 

that are below the SILs is exempt from additional modeling analyses for that pollutant. For this 

NEPA air quality analysis, the PSD review criteria are not directly applicable. However, the 

direct Project impacts are compared to the Class II SILs in Table 8 to evaluate the relative 

magnitude of the impacts. The NO2, PM10, and SO2 impacts are greater than the Class II SILs. 

Table 8 - Comparison of Direct Project Impacts to Class II Significant Impact Levels 

Pollutant/Avg Project NearField MaximumProject Mid-Field 

Maximum 

Class II 

SILs 

Greater than 

SIL? 

CO - 1-hour 357 802 2000 No 

CO - 8-hour 184 147 500 No 

NOx - Annual 20.5 3.7 1 Yes 

PM10 - 24-hour 70.6 28.3 5 Yes 

PM10 - Annual 12.6 3.9 1 Yes 

SO2 - 3-hour 94.5 12.5 5 Yes 

SO2 - 24-hour 26.9 2.7 25 Yes 

SO2 - Annual 3.6 0.2 1 Yes 

NOTE: Concentrations are in ug/m3. 

The direct Project impacts (excluding temporary construction sources) were also evaluated by 

comparison to the Class II PSD Increments, and these results are presented in Table 9. This 

increment analysis is for information purposes only, and does not represent a cumulative 

regulatory PSD Increment Consumption Analysis. A regulatory PSD increment analysis is the 

responsibility of the State air quality agency, and would be conducted during the permitting 

process. The impacts are all less than the Class II PSD increments. Finally, the model’s 

predicted direct Project and cumulative impacts were added to the background data and then 

compared to the NAAQS in Table 10. The impacts are all less than the applicable NAAQS. 

Table 9 - Comparison of Project and Cumulative Impacts to Class II PSD Increments 

Pollutant/Avg Project 

Near -Field 

Maximum 

Project 

Mid-Field 

Maximum

Cumulative 

Mid-Field 

Maximum 

Overall 

Maximum

Class II PSD 

Increment 

Percent 

(%)Increment

NOx - Annual 20.0 1.7 4.9 20.0 25 80% 

PM10 - 24-hour 0.47 28.0 29.5 29.5 30 98% 

PM10 - Annual 0.11 3.6 4.0 4.0 17 23% 

SO2 - 3-hour 0.078 0.037 11.5 11.5 91 13% 

SO2 - 24-hour 0.025 0.0051 2.9 2.9 512 1% 

SO2 - Annual 0.004 0.0005 0.3 0.3 20 1% 

NOTE: Concentrations are in ug/m3. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

23

Table 10 - Comparison of Project and Cumulative Impacts to NAAQS 

Pollutant/Avg Project 

Near-Field 

Maximum 

Project 

Mid-Field 

Maximum

Cumulative 

Mid-Field 

Maximum 

Overall Max 

Impact 

Background 

Concentrati

on 

Total 

Concentratio

n 

NAAQS Percent 

(%) of 

NAAQS 

CO - 1-hour 357 802 1613 1612.8 2288 3901.2 40000 10% CO - 8-hour 184 147 300 300.5 1831 2131.1 10000 21% NOx - Annual 20.5 3.7 6.8 20.5 16.9 37.4 100 37% PM10 - 24-hour 70.6 28.3 30.1 70.6 64.0 134.6 150 90% PM10 - Annual 12.6 3.9 4.3 12.6 21.0 33.6 50 67% PM25 - 24-hour 29.7 5.9 6.7 29.7 22.5 52.2 65 80% PM25 - Annual 4.3 0.8 0.9 4.3 6.9 11.2 15 75% SO2 - 3-hour 94.5 12.5 12.6 94.5 68 162 365 45% SO2 - 24-hour 26.9 2.7 2.9 26.9 21 48 1300 4% SO2 - Annual 3.6 0.2 0.3 3.6 5 8.8 80 11% NOTE: Concentrations are in ug/m3. 
Appendix J Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 24 

5.0 ASSESSMENT OF CLASS I IMPACTS 

The Class I air quality impact analyses compare the predicted direct and cumulative air impacts 

of the Project to the Class I SILs, the PSD Class I increments, and to the AQRV threshold 

values. 

The EPA has proposed and Colorado has established Class I SILs in order to define a 

deminimus impact level for Class I areas that is considered “insignificant” and does not warrant 

further review under the PSD permitting process. For this NEPA air quality analysis, the PSD 

review criteria are not directly applicable. However, the direct Project impacts are compared to 

the Class I SILs in Table 11 in order to evaluate the relative magnitude of the impacts. The 24-

hour PM10, 3-hr SO2, and annual NO2 impacts are greater than the Class I SILs. 

The direct Project impacts (excluding temporary construction sources) were also evaluated by 

comparison to the Class I PSD Increments, and these results are presented in Table 12. This 

increment analysis is for information purposes only, and does not represent a cumulative 

regulatory PSD Increment Consumption Analysis. The impacts are all substantially less than the 

Class I PSD increments. 

Table 11 - Comparison of Direct Project Impacts to Class I Significant Impact Levels 

Pollutant/Avg Project Maximum Class I SILs Greater than SIL?

NOx - Annual 0.15 0.1 Yes 

PM10 - 24-hour 1.1 0.3 Yes 

PM10 - Annual 0.1 0.2 No 

SO2 - 3-hour 0.5 0.2 Yes 

SO2 - 24-hour 0.1 1.0 No 

SO2 - Annual 0.01 0.1 No 

NOTE: Concentrations are in ug/m3. 

Table 12 - Comparison of Project and Cumulative Impacts to Class I PSD Increments 

Pollutant/Avg Project 

Maximum 

Cumulative 

Maximum

Overall 

Maximum 

Class I PSD 

Increment 

Percent (%) 

Increment 

NOx - Annual 0.034 0.360 0.360 3 14% 

PM10 - 24-hour 1.02 1.019 1.019 10 10% 

PM10 - Annual 0.07 0.162 0.162 5 3% 

SO2 - 3-hour 0.00061 0.967 0.967 5 19% 

SO2 - 24-hour 0.00008 0.126 0.126 25 0.5% 

SO2 - Annual 0.00001 0.017 0.017 2 0.8% 

NOTE: Concentrations are in ug/m3.
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix J

Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

25

Direct and cumulative visibility impacts were determined using VISCREEN Level 1 with a “virtual 

point source” approach in order to better account for the geographic separation of emissions. 

Given that the separation of Project emission sources is on the order of 10 kilometers, using the 

sigma y curve for F stability results in an increase in downwind distance of 80 km to account for 

the separation of emissions (added to the actual distance of 35 km). Background visual range 

was based upon FLAG reconstructed natural background extinction of 15.6 Mm-1 (visual range 

of 251 km). A background 1-hour ozone concentration of 77 ppb was used, and primary sulfate 

emissions were estimated as two percent of the SO2 emissions. The total Project emissions 

(peak construction plus full production) were input to VISCREEN in order to conservatively 

assess visibility impacts. Appendix C presents the VISCREEN output results for the Monument 

analysis, which indicate that impacts are less than the screening criteria. 

The cumulative visibility analysis also used VISCREEN to assess impacts for other cumulative 

sources (with distances adjusted, as necessary, in order to account for geographic separation of 

emission units at each source). Because the only cumulative source outside of the Monument 

was the Monticello NEPA project, it was modeled using an actual distance of 85 km added to a 

virtual point source increase in downwind distance of 80 km. Appendix C presents the 

VISCREEN output results for the Monticello analysis, which indicate that impacts are less than 

the screening criteria. Conservatively adding the Monument and Monticello impacts together in 

order to estimate cumulative impacts still results in cumulative visibility impacts less than the 

screening criteria. 

Direct and cumulative Class I deposition impacts were determined using the Level 1 method 

described in section 5.1.3 of the “Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM) 

Phase 1 Recommendations” (1993). This method uses the maximum modeled Project and 

cumulative PSD increment concentrations at Mesa Verde National Park with the conservative 

assumption that all SO2 and NOx are converted and deposited. Table 13 compares deposition 

impacts to U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service levels of concern, defined as 

five kilograms per hectare per year (kg/ha-yr) for Sulfur (S) and 3 kg/ha-yr for Nitrogen (N). All 

direct Project deposition impacts and the cumulative S deposition impact are less than the levels 

of concern. The cumulative N deposition impact is greater than the level of concern, but this is 

likely the result of the extremely conservative methodology used in this deposition analysis. 

Table 13 - Sulfur and Nitrogen Deposition Impacts 

Direct 

Project 

Sulfur 

Deposition

Direct 

Project 

Nitrogen 

Deposition

Cumulative 

Sulfur 

Deposition 

Cumulative 

Nitrogen 

Deposition 

SO2 PSD Class I Annual Conc. (ug/m3) 0.00971 NA 0.017 NA 

NO2 PSD Class I Annual Conc. (ug/m3) NA 0.034 NA 0.360 

Mole Weight Adjustment Factor 0.5 0.30 0.5 0.30 

Number seconds/year 3.1536E+07 3.1536E+07 3.1536E+07 3.1536E+07 

Deposition Velocity 0.005 0.05 0.005 0.05 

Dry Deposition (kg/ha/yr) 0.05 1.1 0.09 12.1 

Effects Threshold (kg/ha/yr) 5.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 
Appendix J Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 26 

6.0 HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT ANALYSIS RESULTS 

The Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAPs) analysis evaluated the formaldehyde direct Project impacts 

for both short-term (acute) and long-term (chronic) exposure assessment, as well as evaluated 

formaldehyde cancer risks. 

Formaldehyde emissions for both the construction and production phases were modeled. The 

modeling methodology used the same near-field source layout and receptor configuration as 

previously described in Section 3.4. The maximum modeled hourly formaldehyde concentration 

was 16.9 ug/m3, and the maximum annual average concentration was 0.116 ug/m3. 

The short-term analysis evaluated modeled impacts against the EPA Acute Exposure Guideline 

Level3

 (AEGL) level-1, 1-hour concentration threshold for formaldehyde of 0.90 ppm, equivalent 

to 1,107 ug/m3. The maximum modeled 1-hour concentration is 1.5% of the AEGL 

concentration. 

The long-term analysis evaluates modeled annual impacts against a chronic threshold of 

concern. The EPA has not established a long-term Reference Concentration (RfC) for 

formaldehyde. However, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has 

established a chronic inhalation minimal risk level (MRL) of 0.003 ppm, which is equivalent to 3.7 

ug/m3 (ATSDR 1997). The MRL is an estimate of the daily human exposure to a hazardous 

substance that is likely to be without appreciable risk of adverse non-cancer health effects over a 

specified duration of exposure. The maximum modeled annual concentration is 3.1% of the MRL 

concentration. 

The incremental risk analysis considered exposure over a 70-year lifetime using the EPA’s unit 

risk factor (ATSDR 1997) for formaldehyde (1.3x10-5). The most likely exposure (MLE) scenario 

was considered. The duration of exposure for the MEI scenario is assumed to be 50 years, in 

order to represent the project (well-field) lifetime, corresponding to an exposure adjustment factor 

of 50/70 = 0.71. A second adjustment can be made for time spent at home versus time spent 

elsewhere, but the MEI scenario assumes that the individual is at home 100% of the time, for a 

final MEI adjustment factor of (0.71 x 1.0) = 0.71. To calculate the excess cancer risk, the 

maximum annual predicted formaldehyde concentration was multiplied by the adjustment factors, 

then by the unit risk factor. The resulting estimated cancer risk is 1.07x10-6, which is at the very 

low end of the generally accepted cancer risk range of 1 x 10-6 to 100 x 10-6 presented in the 

“Superfund” National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (EPA 1990). 

7.0 REFERENCES 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1997. Toxicological Profile for 

Formaldehyde (Draft). Public Health Service. U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services. Atlanta, Georgia. 

Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Workgroup (FLAG). 2000. Phase I Report 

(dated December 2000). USDOI-National Park Service, Air Resources Division. Denver, 

Colorado. 

 

3

 The AEGLs are intended to describe the risk to humans resulting from short-term (acute) exposure to airborne 

chemicals. Three different levels of AEGLs have been developed that represent varying degrees of severity of toxic 

effects. AEGL level-1 is the airborne concentration of a substance above which it is predicted that the general 

population, including susceptible individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or certain asymptomatic 

nonsensory effects (Source: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/aegl/index.htm 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix J

Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

27

IWAQM. 1993. Interagency Workshop on Air Quality Modeling Phase 1 Report. EPA-454/R-93-

015. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 

Scheffe, R. D. 1988. VOC/NOx Point Source Screening Tables. EPA Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards. Technical Support Division, Source Receptor Analysis Branch. 

September 

Turner, D.B. 1970. Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates. PHS Publication No 999-

AP-26. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Air Pollution Control 

Administration. Cincinnati, Ohio. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1985. Compilation of Air Pollution Emission 

Factors, Volume I. Stationary Point and Area Sources (AP-42). Fourth Edition (with 

subsequent supplements and updates). Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

(OAQPS). Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix J

Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

APPENDIX A 

Detailed Project Emission Calculation Tables 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

CANM Air Quality TSD - Appendix A - Detailed Project Emission Calculation Tables - Table of Contents

Table # Title

A-1 Oil and Gas Well - Well Pad, Resource Road (Access Road), and Pipeline Construction

A-2 Oil and Gas Well - Pad/Road/Pipeline Construction Heavy Equipment Tailpipe

A-3 Oil and Gas Well - Pad/Resource Road/Pipeline Construction Traffic

A-4 Oil and Gas Well - Pad/Resource Road/Pipeline Construction Traffic Tailpipe 

A-5 CO2 Well - Well Pad, Resource Road (Access Road), and Pipeline Construction

A-6 CO2 Well - Pad/Road/Pipeline Construction Heavy Equipment Tailpipe

A-7 CO2 Well - Pad/Resource Road/Pipeline Construction Traffic

A-8 CO2 Well - Pad/Resource Road/Pipeline Construction Traffic Tailpipe 

A-9 Rig Move and Drilling Truck

A-10 Rig Move and Drilling Truck Tailpipe

A-11 Drilling Rig Emissions

A-12 Completion/Testing Traffic

A-13 Completion/Testing Heavy Equipment Tailpipe

A-14 Completion Flaring

A-15 Processing Facility Construction

A-16 Facility Construction Heavy Equipment Tailpipe

A-17 Processing Facility Construction Traffic

A-18 Processing Facility Construction Truck Tailpipe 

A-19 Oil and Gas Production Traffic 

A-20 Oil and Gas Production Heavy Equipment Tailpipe 

A-21 Natural Gas Compressor Facility

A-22 CO2 Production Traffic 

A-23 Well Head Separator/Tank Flashing and Dehydrator Still Vent VOC Emissions

A-24 Well Head IC Engines

A-25 Well Head Heaters

A-26 Construction Wind Erosion 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Project: Canyons of the Ancients

Activity: Well Pad, Resource Road (Access Road), and Pipeline Construction and Wind Erosion

Emissions: Fugitive Particulate Emissions 

Date: 7/10/2006

Ave. Disturbance 

per well 1 TSP Emission Factor2

Construction Activity 

Duration

Construction 

Activity Duration

Emission Control 

Efficiency

PM10 Emissions 

(controlled)3

PM2.5 Emissions 

(controlled)4

(acres) (tons/acre-month) (days/well) (hours/day) (%) (lb/pad) (lb/pad)

General Construction Activity

5.4 1.2 10 10 50 536.00 53.60

Wind Erosion

5.4 0.0289 10 10 50 12.91 1.29

Construction Emissions (lb/pad ) 548.91 54.89

Construction Emissions (lb/hr/pad ) for hours of activity 5.49 0.55

1 Area = Total Pad, Roadway, and Pipeline Disturbance of 434.16 acres divided by 81 total wells; TSP = total suspended particulates.2 For construction, AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.3, "Heavy Construction Operations".

 For Wind Erosion, Control of Open Fugitive Dust Sources, Section 4.1.3, EPA-450/3-98-008, Silt = 5.1, 5% of time WS > 5.4 m/s

3 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.2 "Unpaved Roads". The PM10 factor is calculated as 25% of the TSP factor.4 Assuming 10% of the PM10 is PM2.5, based on "Analysis of the Fine Praction of PM in Fugitive Dust, MRI Report 110397, Oct. 12 2005.

Table A-1

Oil and Gas Well - Well Pad, Resource Road (Access Road), and Pipeline Construction
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Project: Canyons of the Ancients

Activity:

Emissions: Diesel Combustion Tailpipe Emissions From Heavy Construction Traffic

Date:

Heavy Equipment

Engine 

Horsepower

Number 

Required

Operating Load 

Factor1 Pollutant Emission Factor2

Operation 

Duration

Construction 

Activity Duration Pollutant Emissions Pollutant Emissions4

(hp) (g/hp-hr) (days/ (hours/day) (lb/pad) (lb/hr/pad)

CO NOx SO2 VOC PM10 equipment type) CO NOx SO2 VOC PM105 CO NOx SO2 VOC PM105

Scraper 700 2 0.4 2.45 7.46 0.901 0.55 0.789 4 10 120.99 368.40 44.49 27.16 38.96 3.02 9.21 1.11 0.68 0.97Motor Grader 250 1 0.4 1.54 7.14 0.874 0.36 0.625 4 10 13.58 62.96 7.71 3.17 5.51 0.34 1.57 0.19 0.08 0.14D8 Dozer3 210 1 0.4 2.15 7.81 0.851 0.75 0.692 4 10 15.93 57.85 6.30 5.56 5.13 0.40 1.45 0.16 0.14 0.13

Total Heavy Equipment Tailpipe Emissions 150.49 489.21 58.50 35.89 49.60 3.76 12.23 1.46 0.90 1.24

1 Taken from "Surface Mining" (Pfleider 1972) for average service duty.2 AP-42 (EPA 1985), Volume II Mobile Sources. 3 Emission factor for track-type tractor.4 Calculated as lb/well; days/equipment type; 10 hours/day.5 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for combustion sources.

Pad/Road/Pipeline Construction 

Table A-2

Oil and Gas Well - Pad/Road/Pipeline Construction Heavy Equipment Tailpipe

7/10/2006
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Project: Canyons of the Ancients

Activity: Well Pad/Resource Road/Pipeline Construction Traffic

Emissions: Fugitive Particulate Emissions from Traffic on Unpaved Roads

Date:

Vehicle Type Road Type

Dust Control Method

Average 

Vehicle 

Weight 1

Average 

Vehicle 

Speed

Silt 

Content2

Moisture 

Content3

RTs per 

Well

RT 

Distance VMT 4

Emission 

Control 

Efficiency

PM10 

Emission 

Factor5

PM2.5 

Emission 

Factor5

PM10 

Emissions6 

(controlled)

PM2.5 

Emissions6 

(controlled)

(lb) (mph) (%) (%) (miles) (VMT/pad) (%) (lb/VMT) (lb/VMT) (lb/well) (lb/well)

Primary Access magnesium 

chloride

35,000 20 5.1 2.4 16 25 400 85 1.54 0.24 92.14 14.13

Resource water 35,000 15 5.1 2.4 16 1.1 18 50 1.54 0.24 13.51 2.07Primary Access magnesium 

chloride

7,000 25 5.1 2.4 24 25 600 85 0.51 0.076 45.88 6.86

Resource water 7,000 15 5.1 2.4 24 1.1 26 50 0.39 0.059 5.21 0.78

Total Unpaved Road Traffic Emissions (lb/well) 156.75 23.84

Total Unpaved Road Traffic Emissions (lb/hr/well) 7 0.22 0.03

Total Unpaved Access Road Traffic Emissions (lb/hr/well) 7 0.026 0.0040

1 Average weight for gravel and semi trucks estimated at 35,000 lbs used for calculations2 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Table 13.2.2-1, "Typical Silt Content Values of Surface Material on Industrial and Rural Unpaved Roads."3 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Table 11.9-3, "Typical Values for Correction Factors Applicable to the Predictive Emission Factor Equations."4 Calculated as Round Trips per Vehicle Type x Round Trip Distance.5 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.2 "Unpaved Roads", equations 1a and 1b.6 Calculated as lb/VMT x VMT/pad x control efficiency.7 Calculated as (lb/well); 30 days/well; 24 hours/day.

Table A-3

Oil and Gas Well Pad/Resource Road/Pipeline Construction Traffic

Gravel haul/Semis/transport, boom, equipment, trucksLight trucks/pickups

7/10/2006
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Project: Canyons of the Ancients

Activity: Well Pad/Resource Road/Pipeline Construction Traffic Tailpipe

Emissions: Diesel Combustion Tailpipe Emissions From Heavy Construction Traffic

Date: 7/10/2006

Pollutant

Pollutant 

Emission Factor1

Total Haul 

Truck RTs RT Distance

Total Haul

Truck Miles 

Traveled

Haul Activity 

Duration

Haul Activity 

Duration Emissions Emissions3

(g/mile) (RTs/well) (miles/RT) (miles/well) (days/well) (hours/day) (lb/well) (lb/hr/well)

CO 14.74 16 26.1 417.6 10 24 13.57 0.06

NOx 11.44 16 26.1 417.6 10 24 10.53 0.04

SO22 0.32 16 26.1 417.6 10 24 0.29 0.0012

VOC 5.69 16 26.1 417.6 10 24 5.24 0.02

1 AP-42 (EPA 1985), Volume II Mobile Sources. Heavy duty diesel engine powered trucks, high altitude, 20 mph, "aged" with 50,000 miles, 1997+ model. 2 The SO2 emission factor is calculated assuming 10 mpg fuel consumption, with 0.05% sulfur content of #2 diesel fuel, and fuel density of 7.001 lb/gal. 3 Calculated as lb/well dividied by haul duration days/well and hours/day.

Table A-4

Oil and Gas Well Pad/Resource Road/Pipeline Construction Traffic Tailpipe 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Project: Canyons of the Ancients

Activity: Well Pad, Resource Road (Access Road), and Pipeline Construction

Emissions: Fugitive Particulate Emissions 

Date: 7/10/2006

Ave. Disturbance 

per well 1

Construction Activity TSP 

Emission Factor2

Construction Activity 

Duration

Construction 

Activity Duration

Emission Control 

Efficiency

PM10 Emissions 

(controlled)3

PM2.5 Emissions 

(controlled)4

(acres) (tons/acre-month) (days/well) (hours/day) (%) (lb/well) (lb/well)

General Construction Activity

7.0 1.2 10 10 50 697.50 69.75

Wind Erosion

7.0 0.0289 10 10 50 16.80 1.68

Construction Emissions (lb/pad ) 714.30 71.43

Construction Emissions (lb/hr/pad ) for hours of activity 7.14 0.71

1 Area = Total Pad, Roadway, and Pipeline Disturbance of 279 acres divided by 40 new well pads; TSP = total suspended particulates.2 For construction, AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.3, "Heavy Construction Operations".

 For Wind Erosion, Control of Open Fugitive Dust Sources, Section 4.1.3, EPA-450/3-98-008, Silt = 5.1, 5% of time WS > 5.4 m/s

3 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.2 "Unpaved Roads". The PM10 factor is calculated as 25% of the TSP factor.4 Assuming 10% of the PM10 is PM2.5, based on "Analysis of the Fine Praction of PM in Fugitive Dust, MRI Report 110397, Oct. 12 2005.

Table A-5

CO2 Well - Well Pad, Resource Road (Access Road), and Pipeline Construction
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Managment Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Project: Canyons of the Ancients

Activity:

Emissions: Diesel Combustion Tailpipe Emissions From Heavy Construction Traffic

Date:

Heavy Equipment

Engine 

Horsepower

Number 

Required

Operating Load 

Factor1 Pollutant Emission Factor2

Operation 

Duration

Construction 

Activity Duration Pollutant Emissions Pollutant Emissions4

(hp) (g/hp-hr) (days/ (hours/day) (lb/pad) (lb/hr/pad)

CO NOx SO2 VOC PM10 equipment type) CO NOx SO2 VOC PM105 CO NOx SO2 VOC PM105

Scraper 700 2 0.4 2.45 7.46 0.901 0.55 0.789 4 10 120.99 368.40 44.49 27.16 38.96 3.02 9.21 1.11 0.68 0.97Motor Grader 250 1 0.4 1.54 7.14 0.874 0.36 0.625 4 10 13.58 62.96 7.71 3.17 5.51 0.34 1.57 0.19 0.08 0.14D8 Dozer3 210 1 0.4 2.15 7.81 0.851 0.75 0.692 4 10 15.93 57.85 6.30 5.56 5.13 0.40 1.45 0.16 0.14 0.13

Total Heavy Equipment Tailpipe Emissions 150.49 489.21 58.50 35.89 49.60 3.76 12.23 1.46 0.90 1.24

1 Taken from "Surface Mining" (Pfleider 1972) for average service duty.2 AP-42 (EPA 1985), Volume II Mobile Sources. 3 Emission factor for track-type tractor.4 Calculated as lb/well; days/equipment type; 10 hours/day.5 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for combustion sources.

Pad/Road/Pipeline Construction 

Table A-6

CO2 Well - Pad/Road/Pipeline Construction Heavy Equipment Tailpipe

7/10/2006
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Project: Canyons of the Ancients

Activity: Well Pad/Resource Road/Pipeline Construction Traffic

Emissions: Fugitive Particulate Emissions from Traffic on Unpaved Roads

Date:

Vehicle Type Road Type

Dust Control Method

Average 

Vehicle 

Weight 1

Average 

Vehicle 

Speed

Silt 

Content2

Moisture 

Content3

RTs per 

Well

RT 

Distance VMT 4

Emission 

Control 

Efficiency

PM10 

Emission 

Factor5

PM2.5 

Emission 

Factor5

PM10 

Emissions6 

(controlled)

PM2.5 

Emissions6 

(controlled)

(lb) (mph) (%) (%) (miles) (VMT/pad) (%) (lb/VMT) (lb/VMT) (lb/well) (lb/well)

Primary Access magnesium 

chloride

35,000 20 5.1 2.4 100 25 2,500 85 1.54 0.24 575.88 88.30

Resource water 35,000 15 5.1 2.4 100 1.1 110 50 1.54 0.24 84.46 12.95Primary Access magnesium 

chloride

7,000 25 5.1 2.4 30 25 750 85 0.51 0.076 57.36 8.57

Resource water 7,000 15 5.1 2.4 30 1.1 33 50 0.39 0.059 6.51 0.97

Total Unpaved Road Traffic Emissions (lb/well) 724.22 110.80

Total Unpaved Road Traffic Emissions (lb/hr/well) 7 1.01 0.15

Total Unpaved Access Road Traffic Emissions (lb/hr/well) 7 0.126 0.0193

1 Average weight for gravel and semi trucks estimated at 35,000 lbs used for calculations2 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Table 13.2.2-1, "Typical Silt Content Values of Surface Material on Industrial and Rural Unpaved Roads."3 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Table 11.9-3, "Typical Values for Correction Factors Applicable to the Predictive Emission Factor Equations."4 Calculated as Round Trips per Vehicle Type x Round Trip Distance.5 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.2 "Unpaved Roads", equations 1a and 1b.6 Calculated as lb/VMT x VMT/pad x control efficiency.7 Calculated as (lb/well); 30 days/well; 24 hours/day.

Table A-7

CO2 Well Pad/Resource Road/Pipeline Construction Traffic

Gravel haul/Semis/transport, boom, equipment, trucksLight trucks/pickups

7/10/2006
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Project: Canyons of the Ancients

Activity: Well Pad/Resource Road/Pipeline Construction Traffic Tailpipe

Emissions: Diesel Combustion Emissions from Heavy Equipment Tailpipes

Date: 7/10/2006

Pollutant

Pollutant 

Emission Factor1

Total Haul 

Truck RTs RT Distance

Total Haul

Truck Miles 

Traveled

Haul Activity 

Duration

Haul Activity 

Duration Emissions Emissions3

(g/mile) (RTs/well) (miles/RT) (miles/well) (days/well) (hours/day) (lb/well) (lb/hr/well)

CO 14.74 100 26.1 2610 10 24 84.81 0.35

NOx 11.44 100 26.1 2610 10 24 65.83 0.27

SO22 0.32 100 26.1 2610 10 24 1.83 0.0076

VOC 5.69 100 26.1 2610 10 24 32.74 0.14

1 AP-42 (EPA 1985), Volume II Mobile Sources. Heavy duty diesel engine powered trucks, high altitude, 20 mph, "aged" with 50,000 miles, 1997+ model. 2 The SO2 emission factor is calculated assuming 10 mpg fuel consumption, with 0.05% sulfur content of #2 diesel fuel, and fuel density of 7.001 lb/gal. 3 Calculated as lb/well dividied by haul duration days/well and hours/day.

Table A-8

CO2 Well Pad/Resource Road/Pipeline Construction Traffic Tailpipe 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Project: Canyons of the Ancients

Activity: Rig Move and Drilling Truck Emissions

Emissions: Fugitive Particulate Emissions from Traffic on Unpaved Roads

Date: 7/10/2006

Vehicle Type Road Type

Dust Control Method

Average 

Vehicle 

Weight

Average 

Vehicle 

Speed

Silt 

Content2

Moisture 

Content3

RTs per 

Well

RT 

Distance VMT 4

Emission 

Control 

Efficiency

PM10 

Emission 

Factor5

PM2.5 

Emission 

Factor5

PM10 

Emissions6 

(controlled)

PM2.5 

Emissions6 

(controlled)

(lb) (mph) (%) (%) (miles) (VMT/pad) (%) (lb/VMT) (lb/VMT) (lb/well) (lb/well)

Primary Access magnesium 

chloride

44,000 20 5.1 2.4 10 25 250 85 1.70 0.26 63.83 9.79

Resource water 44,000 15 5.1 2.4 10 1.1 11 50 1.70 0.26 9.36 1.44

Logging/mud trucks Primary Access magnesium 

chloride

48,000 20 5.1 2.4 10 25 250 85 1.77 0.27 66.38 10.18

Resource water 48,000 15 5.1 2.4 10 1.1 11 50 1.77 0.27 9.74 1.49

Primary Access magnesium 

chloride

7,000 30 5.1 2.4 80 25 2,000 85 0.56 0.083 167.56 25.05

Resource water 7,000 20 5.1 2.4 80 1.1 88 50 0.46 0.068 20.06 3.00

Total Unpaved Road Traffic Emissions (lb/well) 336.94 50.94

Total Unpaved Road Traffic Emissions (lb/hr/well)7 0.47 0.07

Total Unpaved Access Road Traffic Emissions (lb/hr/well)7 0.054 0.0082

1 Semi vehicle weight range is 28,000-60,000 lbs; average weight of 44,000 lbs used for calculations. 2 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Table 13.2.2-1, "Typical Silt Content Values of Surface Material on Industrial and Rural Unpaved Roads."3 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Table 11.9-3, "Typical Values for Correction Factors Applicable to the Predictive Emission Factor Equations."4 Calculated as Round Trips per Vehicle Type x Round Trip Distance.5 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.2 "Unpaved Roads", equations 1a and 1b.6 Calculated as lb/VMT x VMT/pad x control efficiency.7 Calculated as (lb/well); 30 days/well; 24 hours/day.

Table A-9

Rig Move and Drilling Truck

Semis-tractor/ trailer/mud/water/ fuel/cement trucksVendors/marketers/ various

1
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Project: Canyons of the Ancients

Activity: Rig Move and Drilling Trucks - Tailpipe

Emissions: Diesel Combustion Emissions from Heavy Equipment Tailpipes

Date: 7/10/2006

Pollutant

Pollutant 

Emission Factor1

Total Haul 

Truck RTs RT Distance

Total Haul

Truck Miles 

Traveled

Haul Activity 

Duration

Haul Activity 

Duration Emissions Emissions3

(g/mile) (RTs/well) (miles/RT) (miles/well) (days/well) (hours/day) (lb/well) (lb/hr/well)

CO 14.74 20 26.1 522 22 24 16.96 0.03

NOx 11.44 20 26.1 522 22 24 13.17 0.02

SO22 0.32 20 26.1 522 22 24 0.37 0.0007

VOC 5.69 20 26.1 522 22 24 6.55 0.01

1 AP-42 (EPA 1985), Volume II Mobile Sources. Heavy duty diesel engine powered trucks, high altitude, 20 mph, "aged" with 50,000 miles, 1997+ model. 2 The SO2 emission factor is calculated assuming 10 mpg fuel consumption, with 0.05% sulfur content of #2 diesel fuel, and fuel density of 7.001 lb/gal. 3 Calculated as lb/well dividied by haul duration days/well and hours/day.

Table A-10

Rig Move and Drilling Truck Tailpipe
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Project: Canyons of the Ancients

Activity: Drilling Rigs

Emissions: Diesel Combustion Emissions from Drilling Engines - EPA AP-42

Date: 7/10/2006

Pollutant

Pollutant 

Emission Factor1

Total Horsepower 

(hp) All Engines2

Overall Load 

Factor3

Drilling Activity 

Duration

Drilling Activity 

Duration Emissions Emissions

(lb/hp-hr) (hp) (days/well) (hours/day) (lb/well) (lb/hr/well)

CO 6.68E-03 2,100 0.42 30 24 4,267.32 5.93NOx 0.031 2,100 0.42 30 24 19,803.42 27.50

SO24 2.05E-03 2,100 0.42 30 24 1,309.58 1.82

VOC 2.50E-03 2,100 0.42 30 24 1,597.05 2.22

PM105 2.20E-03 2,100 0.42 30 24 1,405.40 1.95

Formaldehyde 1.18E-03 2,100 0.42 30 24 753.81 1.05

Stack ParametersHeight 5 mTemperature 700 KelvinDiameter 0.2 mVelocity 25 m/s5 x 5 x 5 m structure used to determine downwash parameters for the drilling rigs.

1 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 3.3, "Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines. Table 3.3-1, "Emission Factors for Uncontrolled Gasoline 

 and Diesel Industrial Engines"; lb/hp-hr = pounds per horsepower-hour.

2 Drilling engine horsepower based on three engines, two at 800 hp and one at 500 hp.3 The overall load factor is calculated based on average throttle setting of 65% and a load factor of 65%.

 Therefore, the overall load factor = 0.65 * 0.65 = 0.42.

4 The SO2 emission factor is calculated assuming 26.4 gal/hr fuel consumption, with 0.05% sulfur content of #2 diesel fuel, and fuel 

 density of 7.001 lb/gal. Fuel consumption rate calculated from Caterpillar's specification sheet for G3412, gas petroeleum drilling engine.

5 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

Table A-11

Drilling Rig Emissions
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Project: Canyons of the Ancients

Activity: Completion/Testing Traffic

Emissions: Fugitive Particulate Emissions from Traffic on Unpaved Roads

Date: 7/10/2006

Vehicle Type Road Type

Dust Control Method

Average 

Vehicle 

Weight

Average 

Vehicle 

Speed

Silt 

Content2

Moisture 

Content3

RTs per 

Well

RT 

Distance VMT4

Emission 

Control 

Efficiency

PM10 

Emissions5

PM2.5 

Emissions5

PM10 

Emissions6 

(controlled)

PM2.5 

Emissions6 

(controlled)

(lb) (mph) (%) (%) (miles) (VMT/well) (%) (lb/VMT) (lb/VMT) (lb/well) (lb/well)

Primary Access magnesium 

chloride

54,000 20 5.1 2.4 10 25 250 85 1.87 0.29 70.00 10.73

Resource water 54,000 15 5.1 2.4 10 1.1 11 50 1.87 0.29 10.27 1.57Primary Access magnesium 

chloride

48,000 20 5.1 2.4 5 25 125 85 1.77 0.27 33.19 5.09

Resource water 48,000 15 5.1 2.4 5 1.1 6 50 1.77 0.27 4.87 0.75

Primary Access magnesium 

chloride

7,000 30 5.1 2.4 30 25 750 85 0.56 0.08 62.83 9.39

Resource water 7,000 20 5.1 2.4 30 1.1 33 50 0.46 0.07 7.52 1.12

 Total Unpaved Road Traffic Emissions (lb/well) 188.68 28.66

Total Unpaved Road Traffic Emissions (lb/hr/well)7 0.32 0.05

Total Unpaved Access Road Traffic Emissions (lb/hr/well)7 0.031 0.0048

1 Semi vehicle weight range is 28,000-80,000 lbs; average weight of 54,000 lbs used for calculations. 2 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Table 13.2.2-1, "Typical Silt Content Values of Surface Material on Industrial and Rural Unpaved Roads."3 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Table 11.9-3, "Typical Values for Correction Factors Applicable to the Predictive Emission Factor Equations."4 Calculated as Round Trips per Vehicle Type x Round Trip Distance.5 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.2 "Unpaved Roads", equations 1a and 1b.6 Calculated as lb/VMT x VMT/pad x control efficiency.7 Calculated as lb/well; 35 days/well; 17 hours/day; and represents emissions for 9.5-mile segment of road.

Light trucks/ pick-ups

Table A-12

Completion/Testing Traffic

Semis/transport/ water/sand/frac trucks1Large Haul Trucks
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Managment Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Project: Canyons of the Ancients

Activity: Completion/Testing Tailpipe

Emissions: Diesel Combustion Emissions from Heavy Equipment Tailpipes

Date: 7/10/2006

Pollutant

Pollutant Emission 

Factor1

Total Haul Truck 

RTs RT Distance

Total Haul Truck 

Miles Traveled

Haul Activity 

Duration

Haul Activity 

Duration Emissions Emissions3

(g/mile) (RTs/well) (miles/RT) (miles/well) (days/well) (hours/day) (tons/well) (lb/hr/well)

CO 14.74 15 26.1 391.5 35 17 6.4E-03 0.021

NOx 11.44 15 26.1 391.5 35 17 4.9E-03 0.017

SO22 0.32 15 26.1 391.5 35 17 1.4E-04 0.0005

VOC 5.69 15 26.1 391.5 35 17 2.5E-03 0.008

1 AP-42 (EPA 1985), Volume II Mobile Sources. Heavy duty diesel engine powered trucks, high altitude, 20 mph, "aged" with 50,000 miles, 1997+ model. 2 The SO2 emission factor is calculated assuming 10 mpg fuel consumption, with 0.05% sulfur content of #2 diesel fuel, and fuel density of 7.001 lb/gal. 3 Calculated as lb/well dividied by haul duration days/well and hours/day.

Table A-13

Completion/Testing Heavy Equipment Tailpipe
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Project: Canyons of the Ancients

Activity: Oil and Gas Well Completion/Testing Flaring

Emissions: NOx, CO, and VOC

Date: 7/12/2006

Flaring Specifications:

Total Volume of Gas Emitted 1,000 mcf

Total Volume of Condensate Emitted (seperator) 0 bbls

Average Heat Content 1,093 BTU/scf

Flaring/Flowback Activity Duration 0 hrs/well No Fracturing

Flaring Duration 24 hrs/well

Pre-ignition Flow-back Duration 0 hrs/well

Pre-ignition Flow-back Time Involving a Gas Stream 0 %

Actual Hours Gas is Vented 0 hrsTotal Hours in which Gas is Vented or Flared1 24 hrs 

Average Flowrate of Gas2 41.67 mcf/hr

Total Volume of Gas Vented3 166.67 mcf

Total Volume of Flared Gas4 1,000.00 mcf

Average Flowrate of Condensate 0.00 bbls/hr

Pre-flare Volume of Condensate 0.00 bbls Volume of Condensate Flared 0.00 bblsActivity Volume Volume Pollutant Emission Emission Emission Factor Source Total Duration Hourly 

(tons) (hours) (lb/hr)

Flaring - Natural Gas 1,000.00 mcf NOx 0.068 lb / 10^6 BTU AP-42 Section 13.5 0.04 24 3.10

CO 0.37 lb / 10^6 BTU AP-42 Section 13.5 0.20 24 16.85VOC 2.35 lb / 1000 scf Estimated Analysis 

- 50% Destruction

1.17 24 97.84

TOTAL FLARING EMISSIONS NOx 0.04 24 3.10

CO 0.20 24 16.85

NOTE: Sweet Gas without sulfur, so no SO2 emissions. VOC 1.17 24 97.84

Table A-14

Completion Flaring
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Project: Canyons of the Ancients

Activity: Treatment Facility and Associated Pipelines Construction 

Emissions: Fugitive Particulate Emissions 

Date: 7/10/2006

Ave. Disturbance 

per facility 1 TSP Emission Factor2

Construction Activity 

Duration

Construction 

Activity Duration

Emission Control 

Efficiency

PM10 Emissions 

(controlled)3

PM2.5 Emissions 

(controlled)4

(acres) (tons/acre-month) (days/facility) (hours/day) (%) (lb/facility) (lb/pad)

General Construction Activity

21.2 1.2 30 10 50 6360.00 636.00

Wind Erosion

21.2 0.0289 30 10 50 153.17 15.32

Construction Emissions (lb/pad ) 6513.17 651.32

Construction Emissions (lb/hr/pad ) for hours of activity 21.71 2.17

1 Area = 3 acres facility plus 18.2 acres pipeline; TSP = total suspended particulates.2 For construction, AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.3, "Heavy Construction Operations".

 For Wind Erosion, Control of Open Fugitive Dust Sources, Section 4.1.3, EPA-450/3-98-008, Silt = 5.1, 5% of time WS > 5.4 m/s

3 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.2 "Unpaved Roads". The PM10 factor is calculated as 25% of the TSP factor.4 Assuming 10% of the PM10 is PM2.5, based on "Analysis of the Fine Praction of PM in Fugitive Dust, MRI Report 110397, Oct. 12 2005.

Table A-15

Processing Facility Construction
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Project: Canyons of the Ancients

Activity:

Emissions: Diesel Combustion Tailpipe Emissions From Heavy Construction Traffic

Date:

Heavy Equipment

Engine 

Horsepower

Number 

Required

Operating Load 

Factor1 Pollutant Emission Factor2

Operation 

Duration

Construction 

Activity Duration Pollutant Emissions Pollutant Emissions4

(hp) (g/hp-hr) (days/ (hours/day) (lb/pad) (lb/hr/pad)

CO NOx SO2 VOC PM10 equipment type) CO NOx SO2 VOC PM105 CO NOx SO2 VOC PM105

Scraper 700 2 0.4 2.45 7.46 0.901 0.55 0.789 10 10 302.47 920.99 111.23 67.90 97.41 3.02 9.21 1.11 0.68 0.97Motor Grader 250 1 0.4 1.54 7.14 0.874 0.36 0.625 10 10 33.95 157.41 19.27 7.94 13.78 0.34 1.57 0.19 0.08 0.14D8 Dozer3 210 1 0.4 2.15 7.81 0.851 0.75 0.692 10 10 39.81 144.63 15.76 13.89 12.81 0.40 1.45 0.16 0.14 0.13

Total Heavy Equipment Tailpipe Emissions 376.23 1223.02 146.26 89.73 124.00 3.76 12.23 1.46 0.90 1.24

1 Taken from "Surface Mining" (Pfleider 1972) for average service duty.2 AP-42 (EPA 1985), Volume II Mobile Sources. 3 Emission factor for track-type tractor.4 Calculated as lb/well; days/equipment type; 10 hours/day.5 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for combustion sources.

Processing facility Pad/Road/Pipeline 

Table A-16

Facility Construction Heavy Equipment Tailpipe

7/12/2006
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Project: Canyons of the Ancients

Activity: Facility Construction Traffic

Emissions: Fugitive Particulate Emissions from Traffic on Unpaved Roads

Date:

Vehicle Type Road Type

Dust Control Method

Average 

Vehicle 

Weight 1

Average 

Vehicle 

Speed

Silt 

Content2

Moisture 

Content3

RTs per 

Well Site

RT 

Distance VMT 4

Emission 

Control 

Efficiency

PM10 

Emission 

Factor5

PM2.5 

Emission 

Factor5

PM10 

Emissions6 

(controlled)

PM2.5 

Emissions6 

(controlled)

(lb) (mph) (%) (%) (miles) (VMT/pad) (%) (lb/VMT) (lb/VMT) (lb/well) (lb/well)

Primary Access magnesium 

chloride

35,000 20 5.1 2.4 100 25 2,500 85 1.54 0.24 575.88 88.30

Resource water 35,000 15 5.1 2.4 100 1.1 110 50 1.54 0.24 84.46 12.95Primary Access magnesium 

chloride

7,000 25 5.1 2.4 30 25 750 85 0.51 0.076 57.36 8.57

Resource water 7,000 15 5.1 2.4 30 1.1 33 50 0.39 0.059 6.51 0.97

Total Unpaved Road Traffic Emissions (lb/well) 724.22 110.80

Total Unpaved Road Traffic Emissions (lb/hr/well) 7 1.01 0.15

Total Unpaved Access Road Traffic Emissions (lb/hr/well) 7 0.126 0.0193

1 Average weight for gravel and semi trucks estimated at 35,000 lbs used for calculations2 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Table 13.2.2-1, "Typical Silt Content Values of Surface Material on Industrial and Rural Unpaved Roads."3 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Table 11.9-3, "Typical Values for Correction Factors Applicable to the Predictive Emission Factor Equations."4 Calculated as Round Trips per Vehicle Type x Round Trip Distance.5 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.2 "Unpaved Roads", equations 1a and 1b.6 Calculated as lb/VMT x VMT/pad x control efficiency.7 Calculated as (lb/well); 30 days/well; 24 hours/day.

Table A-17

Processing Facility Construction Traffic

Gravel haul/Semis/transport, boom, equipment, trucksLight trucks/pickups

7/10/2006
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Project: Canyons of the Ancients

Activity: Facility Construction Truck Tailpipe emissions

Emissions: Diesel Combustion Tailpipe Emissions From Heavy Construction Traffic

Date: 7/10/2006

Pollutant

Pollutant 

Emission Factor1

Total Truck 

RTs RT Distance

Total Haul

Truck Miles 

Traveled

Haul Activity 

Duration

Haul Activity 

Duration Emissions Emissions3

(g/mile) (RTs/site) (miles/RT) (miles/well) (days/well) (hours/day) (lb/well) (lb/hr/well)

CO 14.74 100 26.1 2610 10 24 84.81 0.35

NOx 11.44 100 26.1 2610 10 24 65.83 0.27

SO22 0.32 100 26.1 2610 10 24 1.83 0.0076

VOC 5.69 100 26.1 2610 10 24 32.74 0.14

1 AP-42 (EPA 1985), Volume II Mobile Sources. Heavy duty diesel engine powered trucks, high altitude, 20 mph, "aged" with 50,000 miles, 1997+ model. 2 The SO2 emission factor is calculated assuming 10 mpg fuel consumption, with 0.05% sulfur content of #2 diesel fuel, and fuel density of 7.001 lb/gal. 3 Calculated as lb/well dividied by haul duration days/well and hours/day.

Table A-18

Processing Facility Construction Truck Tailpipe 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Project: Canyons of the Ancients

Activity: O&G Production Traffic

Emissions: Fugitive Particulate Emissions from Traffic on Unpaved Roads

Date: 7/10/2006

Vehicle Type Road Type

Dust Control Method

Average 

Vehicle 

Weight

Average 

Vehicle 

Speed

Silt 

Content2

Moisture 

Content3 RTs per Well RT Distance VMT5

Emission 

Control 

Efficiency

PM10 

Emission 

Factor6

PM2.5 

Emission 

Factor6

PM10 Emissions7 

(controlled)

PM2.5 

Emissions7 

(controlled)

(lb) (mph) (%) (%) (RTs/yr) (miles) (VMT/well/yr) (%) (lb/VMT) (lb/VMT) (lb/well/yr) (lb/well/yr)

Haul trucks (Oil/condensate/water)1

Primary Access magnesium 

chloride

54,000 20 5.1 2.4 158 25 3,950 85 1.87 0.29 1,105.96 169.58 

Resource water 54,000 15 5.1 2.4 158 1.1 174 50 1.87 0.29 162.21 24.87 

Light trucks/ pickups/pumpers8 Primary Access magnesium 

chloride

7,000 30 5.1 2.4 10 25 250 85 0.56 0.08 20.94 3.13 

Resource water 7,000 20 5.1 2.4 52 1.1 57 50 0.46 0.07 13.04 1.95 

 Total Access and Unimproved Road Emissions (lb/well/yr) 1,302.15 199.53 

 Total Access and Unimproved Road Emissions (lb/hr/well) 0.5008 0.0767

Total Unpaved Access Road Traffic Emissions (lb/hr/well)7 0.0674 0.0103

1 Haul trucks weight range is 28,000-80,000 lbs. Average weight of 54,000 lbs used for calculations. 2 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Table 13.2.2-1, "Typical Silt Content Values of Surface Material on Industrial and Rural Unpaved Roads."3 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Table 11.9-3, "Typical Values for Correction Factors Applicable to the Predictive Emission Factor Equations."

4

5 Calculated as Round Trips per Vehicle Type x Round Trip Distance

6 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.2 "Unpaved Roads", equations 1a and 1b.7 Calculated as lb/VMT x VMT/well x control efficiency.8 Emissions based on trip frequency and miles traveled to one well in the field. During production, 20 wells could be visited per day. This assumption will be reflected in full-field modeled emissions.

Table A-19

O&G Production Traffic 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Project: Canyons of the Ancients

Activity: Oil and Gas Well Production Traffic - tailpipe Emissions

Emissions: Diesel Combustion Tailpipe Emissions From Heavy Truck Traffic

Date: 7/10/2006

Pollutant

Pollutant Emission 

Factor1 Annual RTs per Well

Single Well Round 

Trip Distance

Single Well Annual 

VMT

Hourly Emissions 

Single Well

Annual Emissions 

Single Well

(g/mi) (RTs/well/yr) (mi/RT) (mi/well/yr) (lb/hr) (tpy)

CO 14.74 158 26.1 4123.80 0.051541 0.06700 NOx 11.44 158 26.1 4123.80 0.040002 0.05200 

SO22 0.32 158 26.1 4123.80 0.001123 0.00146 

VOC 5.69 158 26.1 4123.80 0.019896 0.02586 

1 AP-42 (EPA 1985), Table 2.7.1 "Volume II Mobile Sources." Heavy duty diesel engine powered trucks, high altitude, 20 mph, "aged"

 with 50,000 miles, 1997+ model.

2 The SO2 emission factor is calculated assuming 10 mpg fuel consumption, with 0.05% sulfur content of #2 diesel fuel, and fuel density of 7.08 lb/gal. Lb/hr rates based on 10 hours/day times 5 days/wk

Table A-20

O&G Production Heavy Equipment Tailpipe 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Mangement Plan/Draft Environmental Imapct Statement

Project: Canyons of the Ancients

Activity: Natural Gas Compression Facility

Emissions: Compressor Natural Gas IC Engine Combustion Emissions 

Date: 7/10/2006

Fuel Combustion Source:Unit Description New Natural Gas Compression RequirementsEngine design (hp/hr) 350Operating Parameters:Operated 24 hr/day, 7 days/wk, 365 days/yrOperating hours 8,760Capacity (%) 100 (while operating) Annual Load (%) Winter 25 Spring 25

Summer 25 Fall 25

Potential Fuel Combustion for the Year for Unit:Gas consumption rate 6,601 Btu/hp-hrHeat Content 1,000 Btu/scfHourly Heat Input Rate: 2.31 MMBtu/hrVolume of Natural Gas Combusted 20.24 MMSCF/yrEmission Data: Method of Emission 

 lb/hr tpy Determination Factor1 Units

NOx 9.42623 41.287 AP-42 4.08 lb/MMBtu

CO 0.73238 3.208 AP-42 0.317 lb/MMBtuSO2 0.00136 0.006 AP-42 5.88E-04 lb/MMBtuPM10 Including condensibles 0.02290 0.100 AP-42 9.91E-03 lb/MMBtu

PM2.5 including condensibles 0.02290 0.100 AP-42 9.91E-03 lb/MMBtu

VOC 0.27262 1.194 AP-42 0.118 lb/MMBtuFormaldehyde 0.12199 0.534 AP-42 5.28E-02 lb/MMBtu

1 Based on a 4-stroke lean burn engine, taken from AP-42 Table 3.2-2 (EPA 2004). 

Table A-21

Natural Gas Compressor Facility
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Project: Canyons of the Ancients

Activity: CO2 Production Traffic

Emissions: Fugitive Particulate Emissions from Traffic on Unpaved Roads

Date: 7/10/2006

Vehicle Type Road Type

Dust Control Method

Average 

Vehicle 

Weight

Average 

Vehicle 

Speed

Silt 

Content2

Moisture 

Content3 RTs per Well RT Distance VMT5

Emission 

Control 

Efficiency

PM10 

Emission 

Factor6

PM2.5 

Emission 

Factor6

PM10 Emissions7 

(controlled)

PM2.5 

Emissions7 

(controlled)

(lb) (mph) (%) (%) (RTs/yr) (miles) (VMT/well/yr) (%) (lb/VMT) (lb/VMT) (lb/well/yr) (lb/well/yr)

Light trucks/ pickups/pumpers8 Primary Access magnesium 

chloride

7,000 30 5.1 2.4 10 25 250 85 0.56 0.08 20.94 3.13 

Resource water 7,000 20 5.1 2.4 52 1.1 57 50 0.46 0.07 13.04 1.95 

 Total Access and Unimproved Road Emissions (lb/well/yr) 33.99 5.08 

 Total Access and Unimproved Road Emissions (lb/hr/well) 0.013 0.002

Total Unpaved Access Road Traffic Emissions (lb/hr/well)7 0.0050 0.0007

1 Haul trucks weight range is 28,000-80,000 lbs. Average weight of 54,000 lbs used for calculations. 2 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Table 13.2.2-1, "Typical Silt Content Values of Surface Material on Industrial and Rural Unpaved Roads."3 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Table 11.9-3, "Typical Values for Correction Factors Applicable to the Predictive Emission Factor Equations."

4

5 Calculated as Round Trips per Vehicle Type x Round Trip Distance

6 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.2 "Unpaved Roads", equations 1a and 1b.7 Calculated as lb/VMT x VMT/well x control efficiency.8 Emissions based on trip frequency and miles traveled to one well in the field. During production, 20 wells could be visited per day. This assumption will be reflected in full-field modeled emissions.

Table A-22

CO2 Production Traffic 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Project: Canyons of the Ancients

Activity: Wellhead Separator to Oil Tank Flashing and Dehydrator Still Vent 

Emissions: VOC emissions

Date: 7/10/2006

Estimated VOC Emissions per well 20 tpy

Number of New O&G Wells 81Total VOC Emissions at maximum production 1,620 total tpy

EPA Consensus Testing Results and GRI-GLYCalc VOC Emissions for 3.6 mmscfd dehydrator 21 tpyRatioed for Estimated Throughtput for 0.1 mmscfd wellhead dehydrator 0.58 tpy/wellNumber of New O&G Wells 81Total VOC Emissions at maximum production 47 total tpy

VOC Emissions lb/hr per well (assuming 8760 hours per year) 4.70 lb/hrVOC Emissions per well 20.58 tpy/wellTotal VOC Emissions 1,667 tpy

Combined VOC Emissions from Both Processes

Table A-23

Well head Separator/Tank Flashing and Dehydrator Still Vent VOC Emissions

Dehydrator Still Vent VOC Emissions

Seperator to Storage Tank VOC Emissions
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Project: Canyons of the Ancients

Activity: Wellhead Gas Fired IC Engines

Emissions: Compressor Natural Gas IC Engine Combustion Emissions 

Date: 7/10/2006

Fuel Combustion Source:Unit Description Wellhead IC EngineEngine design (hp/hr) 50Operating Parameters:Operated 24 hr/day, 7 days/wk, 365 days/yrOperating hours 8,760Capacity (%) 100 (while operating)Potential Fuel Combustion for the Year for Unit:Gas consumption rate 10,000 Btu/hp-hrHeat Content 1,000 Btu/scfHourly Heat Input Rate: 0.50 MMBtu/hrVolume of Natural Gas Combusted 4.38 MMSCF/yrEmission Data: Method of Emission 

 lb/hr tpy Determination Factor1 Units

NOx 1.10500 4.840 AP-42 2.21 lb/MMBtu

CO 1.86000 8.147 AP-42 3.720 lb/MMBtuSO2 0.00029 0.001 AP-42 5.88E-04 lb/MMBtuPM10 Including condensibles 0.00970 0.042 AP-42 1.94E-02 lb/MMBtu

PM2.5 including condensibles 0.00970 0.042 AP-42 1.94E-02 lb/MMBtu

VOC 0.01480 0.065 AP-42 0.030 lb/MMBtuFormaldehyde 0.01025 0.045 AP-42 2.05E-02 lb/MMBtu

1 Based on a 4-stroke rich burn engine, taken from AP-42 Table 3.2-2 (EPA 2004). 

Table A-24

Well Head IC Engines
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Project: Canyons of the Ancients

Activity: Production Well head Heaters

Emissions: Emissions from Wellhead Heaters (Indirect Heaters, Sep Heaters, Dehy Heaters)

Date: 7/10/2006

Fuel Combustion Source:Unit Description Wellhead Heater Design Firing Rate (MMBTU/hr) 0.25Operating Parameters:Annual Operating Factor 0.10Actual Fuel Combustion for the Year per Unit:Gas Heat Content 1,000 Btu/scfVolume of Natural Gas Combusted 0.22 mmscf/yr 18.25 mscf/mo

Building Size (approximate):Width 8.00 ftLength 15.00 ftHeight 7 ftPotential Emission Data:

From Stack Testing Actual2 Actual Method of Emission 

(lb/hr) (lb/hr) (tpy) Determination Factors Units

NOx 0.034 0.0340 0.015 Stack test

CO 0.291 0.2910 0.127 Stack testSO2 -- 0.000 0.000 Fuel Analysis 0.0 lb/MMscfTotal PM -- 0.003 0.001 AP-42 12.0 lb/MMscfVOC -- 0.002 0.001 AP-42 8.0 lb/MMscfFilterable Particulate -- 0.001 0.000 AP-42 4.5 lb/MMscfCondensable Particulate -- 0.002 0.001 AP-42 7.5 lb/MMscf

1 Stack testing data for this heater was provided by EnCana and included five separate tests of NOx and CO emissions. 

 NOx and CO were the only pollutants for which stack testing emission were provided. The maximum of the stack test  emissions was used for calculations.

2 Actual lb/hr stack testing data for NOx and CO

Table A-25

Well head Heaters
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Project: Canyons of the Ancients

Activity: Construction Wind Erosion 

Emissions: Wind Erosion Emissions from Construction Areas

Date: 7/10/2006

Reference: Control of Open Fugitive Dust Sources, Section 4.1.3, EPA-450/3-98-008 - [Wind Emissions From Continuously Active Piles]E (lb TSP per day per acre) = 1.7 (s/1.5) (f/15)

where:

s = 5.1 silt content % AP-42 Table 13.2.2-1

f = 5.0 percentage of time that wind speed exceeds 5.4 m/s [from MVNP wind data 3 year period]

E = 1.9 lb TSP per day per acreE = 0.0289 TSP tons/acre/month

Table A-26

Construction Wind Erosion 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Oil and Gas Well Construction Emissions - Peak Construction Year

 # of New Wells/yr = 4 # of New Processing Facilities/yr = 1

Pad, Road, Pipeline 

Construction Rig Move and Drilling TOTAL

(lb/hr) (tons/well) (lb/hr) (tons/well) (lb/hr) (tons/well) (lb/hr) (tons/well) (lb/hr) (tons/plant) (tons/yr)

NOx 12.27 0.25 27.53 9.91 3.11 0.04 42.92 10.20 12.50 0.64 41.4

CO 3.82 0.08 5.96 2.14 16.87 0.21 26.65 2.43 4.12 0.23 10.0

SO2 1.46 0.03 1.82 0.65 0.0005 0.000137 3.28 0.68 1.47 0.07 2.8

PM10 6.95 0.38 2.42 0.87 0.32 0.09 9.68 1.34 22.72 3.68 9.1

PM2.5 1.82 0.06 2.02 0.73 0.05 0.01 3.89 0.81 2.32 0.44 3.7

VOC 0.92 0.02 2.23 0.80 98 1.18 101 2.00 1.03 0.06 8.1

Formaldehyde NA NA 1.05 0.38 NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.5

CO2 Well Construction Emissions - Peak Construction Year

 # of New Wells/yr = 17 # of New Processing Facilities/yr = 1

Pad, Road, Pipeline 

Construction Rig Move and Drilling TOTAL

(lb/hr) (tons/pad) (lb/hr) (tons/pad) (lb/hr) (tons/pad) (lb/hr) (tons/well) (lb/hr) (tons/plant) (tons/yr)

NOx 12.50 0.28 27.53 9.91 0.02 0.00 40.05 10.19 12.50 0.64 173.9

CO 4.12 0.12 5.96 2.14 0.02 0.01 10.10 2.27 4.12 0.23 38.8

SO2 1.47 0.03 1.82 0.65 0.0005 0.000137 3.29 0.69 1.47 0.07 11.7

PM10 9.39 0.74 2.42 0.87 0.32 0.09 12.13 1.71 22.72 3.68 32.7

PM2.5 2.11 0.12 2.02 0.73 0.05 0.01 4.18 0.86 2.32 0.44 15.0

VOC 1.03 0.03 2.23 0.80 0.01 0.00 3.27 0.84 1.03 0.06 14.3

Formaldehyde NA NA 1.05 0.38 NA NA NA NA NA NA 6.4

Oil and Gas and CO2 Production Emissions Summary

 # of O&G wells = 81

 # of CO2 wells = 69

O&G Production Truck -

per well

CO2 Production Truck - 

per well TOTAL

(lb/hr) (tons/well) (lb/hr) (tons/well) (lb/hr) (tons/well) (lb/hr) (tons/well) (lb/hr) (tons/yr) (tons/yr)

NOx 0.040 0.0520 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.015 1.105 4.840 9.4 41.3 144.7

CO 0.052 0.0670 0.000 0.000 0.291 0.127 1.860 8.147 0.7 3.2 183.9

SO2 0.001 0.0015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0003 0.001 0.0014 0.0060 0.2

PM10 0.501 0.6511 0.013 0.017 0.003 0.001 0.010 0.042 0.0229 0.1003 55.0

PM2.5 0.077 0.0998 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.001 0.010 0.042 0.0229 0.1003 9.3

VOC 0.020 0.0259 0.000 0.000 4.701 20.584 0.015 0.065 0.27 1.19 1671.9

Formaldehyde NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.010 0.045 0.122 0.53 2.4

Project Maximum Annual Emissions

Construction 

emissons 

(tpy)

Production 

emissons 

(tpy)

Total 

emissons (tpy)

NOx 215.3 144.7 360.0

CO 48.7 183.9 232.6

SO2 14.5 0.2 14.7

PM10 41.8 55.0 96.8

PM2.5 18.7 9.3 28.0

VOC 22.4 1671.9 1694.3

Formaldehyde 7.9 2.4 10.3

Canyons of the Ancients - Summary of Maximum Annual Air Emissions for Fluid Mineral Development and Production 

O&G Compression

Wellhead Heaters and 

Flashing

Completion and Flaring Facility Construction Subtotals per well pad

Completion Subtotals per well pad Facility Construction

Wellhead Small Engines
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

CANM Near-field Source Configurations

TYPEs OF STACKS

The source configuration includes 2 new well pads (and roads/pipeline construction), one new processing facility, and 2 exiting wells (with roads) (four production wells for PSD increment). Source Type Stack Height (m) Temperature (K) Exit Velocity (m/s)Stack Diameter (m)

Assume existing production wells are O&G wells, with higher production emissions because of oil and water trucking. Drill Rig 6 750 20.0 0.2Assume the new facility has 350 hp gas-fired compression operating at the same time as construction (very conservative). Flare 5 1273 20.0 1.0

Dozer 2 750 20.0 0.2

NOx, SO2, CO, and HAP Emissions - Point Source Configuration 350 hp Compress 6 750 20.0 0.2

For well construction, model rigs and flares as point sources. Well Head IC eng 2 500 4.0 0.2For processing facility construction, use construction tailpipe emissions and model through a dozer exhaust stack. Well Head Heater 2 298 0.5 0.1For production emissions, add heater and small IC engine emissions and model through a IC engine stack - (the IC engine has majority of emissions).Source ID Source Description Easting (X) Northing (Y) Base Elevation Stack Height Temperature Exit Velocity Stack Diameter Pm10 SO2 NOx CO PM25 Formaldehyde PM10 PM2.5 SO2 NOx CO Formaldehyde

(m) (m) (m) m K mps m g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec g/sec lb/hr lb/hr lb/hr tpy lb/hr lb/hr

DrilR1 Drill Rig 1 680 680 0 6 750 20 0.2 2.5E-01 2.3E-01 2.9E-01 7.5E-01 2.5E-01 1.3E-01 1.95 1.95 1.82 9.91 5.96 1.05DrilR2 Drill Rig 2 -680 -680 0 6 750 20 0.2 2.5E-01 2.3E-01 2.9E-01 7.5E-01 2.5E-01 1.3E-01 1.95 1.95 1.82 9.91 5.96 1.05Flare1 Flare 1 680 680 0 5 1273 20 1 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.2E-03 2.1E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 16.87 0Flare2 Flare 2 -680 -680 0 5 1273 20 1 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.2E-03 2.1E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 16.87 0DozePipe Dozer tailpipe 0 0 0 2 750 20 0.2 1.6E-01 1.9E-01 1.9E-02 5.2E-01 1.6E-01 0.0E+00 1.24 1.24 1.47 0.64 4.12 0ProWell1 Production Well 1 680 -680 0 2 500 4.0 0.2 6.8E-04 9.3E-06 3.5E-02 9.5E-02 6.8E-04 3.2E-04 0.005 0.005 0.0001 1.22 0.76 0.00256ProWell2 Production Well 2 -680 680 0 2 500 4 0.2 6.8E-04 9.3E-06 3.5E-02 9.5E-02 6.8E-04 3.2E-04 0.005 0.005 0.0001 1.22 0.76 0.00256ProWell3 Production Well 3 680 680 0 2 500 4 0.2 6.8E-04 9.3E-06 3.5E-02 9.5E-02 6.8E-04 3.2E-04 0.005 0.005 0.0001 1.22 0.76 0.00256ProWell4 Production Well 4 -680 -680 0 2 500 4 0.2 6.8E-04 9.3E-06 3.5E-02 9.5E-02 6.8E-04 3.2E-04 0.005 0.005 0.0001 1.22 0.76 0.00256NewComp New Compression 0 0 0 6 750 20 0.2 2.9E-03 1.7E-04 1.2E+00 9.2E-02 2.9E-03 1.5E-02 0.02290 0.02290 0.00136 41.29 0.73 0.1220

PM Emissions - Well Pad and Facility General Disturbance - Volume Source Calculations 

Start with PM emissions for new CO2 pad/pipe/road construction, which are based on 7 acre disturbance.Well pads are 100m by 100m volume sources, equal to 2.5 acres in size - so assign 2.5/7 of emissions to well pad, rest to roadway.The new facility pad/pipeline/road distrubed area is 21 acres, far too large for a 100m volume source - simply assign the same emissions as for the new CO2 well pads.Volume Source Data for new Well Pads and Facility Pad

PM10 lb/hr PM2.5 lb/hr PM10 g/sec Pm2.5 g/sec Hours of Operation

NewPad1 2.55 0.20 0.321434156 0.02470089 10 hrs/dayNewPad2 2.55 0.20 0.321434156 0.02470089 10 hrs/dayNewPadF 2.55 0.20 0.321434156 0.02470089 10 hrs/dayUse a volume source of 100 m square, so initial Sigma Y is 23.3

Release ht is 3 m, sigma Z is 2.79, based on previous BLM Rohn analysis and CDPHE guidance.

PM Emissions - Road & Pipeline - Volume Source Calculations 

All construction roadways are modeled at 10 hours operation per day.For roadway/pipeline, take CO2 well pad/pipe/road construction emissions, subtract out emissions assigned to well pad, then double remainder (for 2 wells ) and assign to roadway.It is nnot reasonable to assume traffic for 2 new wells AND new facility are all on the road at the same time.For production roads, use O&G production traffic (because production emissions are higher than for CO2 wells).Emission calculationsProcess PM10 lb/hr Pm2.5 lb/hr SO2 NOx CO PM10 g/sec SO2 NOx CO Pm2.5 g/secCONSTRUCTION lb/hr lb/hr lb/hr lb/hr lb/hr g/sec g/sec g/secCO2 Trucks 0.12636 0.01934 0.00761 0.27427 0.35339Drill Trucks 0.05439 0.00823 0.00069 0.02493 0.03213CompTrucks 0.03147 0.00478 0.00046 0.01659 0.02138FacilityTrucks 0.12636 0.01934 0.00761 0.27427 0.35339GeneralConstruct 9.18383 1.03652Total CONST ROAD 9.52241 1.08821 0.01638 0.59007 0.76029 1.199823221 0.002063877 0.074349258 0.095796159 0.137114159Prod Road 0.06740 0.01032 0.00112 0.04000 0.05154 0.008492763 0.000141491 0.0050402 0.006494104 0.001299716Volume Source DataUse a volume source for road of 12.2 m square, so sigy is 2.8Release ht is 3 m, sigma Z is 2.79, based on previous BLM analysis and CDPHE guidance.

Length/road (m) Box size (m) # boxes/seg PER BOX -> PM10 g/sec SO2 NOx CO Pm2.5 g/sec

g/sec g/sec g/sec

Construction Road 1650 12.2 67.6 1.8E-02 3.1E-05 1.1E-03 1.4E-03 0.00205Production Road 1650 12.2 67.6 1.3E-04 2.1E-06 7.5E-05 9.7E-05 1.9E-05
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

CANM Mid-Field and Class I Modeling - Source Configurations

The mid-field modeling configuration is based on peak year construction scenario of 17 new CO2 wells, 4 new O&G wells, two processing facilities, and full production emissions.For 21 new wells at total rate of 60days/well, assume four new wells constructed at one time - two oil and gas with flares, two CO2.Locate construction and operation sources at 2 areas where development could occur (2 new wells per area).Use a single volume source to distribute fugitive PM construction and production emissions in each of the 2 development areas.For full production emissions, model two 350 hp compressors at each of the 2 locations, and model 8 well head engines/heaters (each with emissions for 81/8 individual oil and gas w

NOx, SO2, CO, and HAP Emissions - Point Source ConfigurationSource ID Source Description Easting (X) Northing (Y) Base Elevation Stack Height Temperature

(m) (m) (m) m K

DrilR1 Drill Rig 1 687000 4149000 1850 6.0 750.0DrilR2 Drill Rig 2 687000 4147000 1850 6.0 750.0DrilR3 Drill Rig 3 681000 4161000 2040 6.0 750.0DrilR4 Drill Rig 4 681000 4159000 2040 6.0 750.0Flare1 Flare 1 687000 4149000 1850 5.0 1273.0Flare2 Flare 2 681000 4161000 2040 5.0 1273.0NewComp1 New Compression 1 687000 4148000 1850 6.0 750.0NewComp2 New Compression 2 681000 4160000 2040 6.0 750.0NewPro1 New Prod Well 1 687000 4149000 1850 2.0 298.0NewPro2 New Prod Well 2 687000 4147000 1850 2.0 298.0NewPro3 New Prod Well 3 681000 4161000 2040 2.0 298.0NewPro4 New Prod Well 4 681000 4159000 2040 2.0 298.0ExtComp1 Existing Compression 1 687000 4148000 1850 6.0 750.0ExtComp2 Existing Compression 2 681000 4160000 2040 6.0 750.0ExtPro1 Exist Prod Well 1 687000 4149000 1850 2.0 298.0ExtPro2 Exist Prod Well 2 687000 4147000 1850 2.0 298.0ExtPro3 Exist Prod Well 3 681000 4161000 2040 2.0 298.0ExtPro4 Exist Prod Well 4 681000 4159000 2040 2.0 298.0Questar1 261HP MAINLINE COMP 684846 4145360 1900 3.4 751.9Questar2 NATGAS FIRED 142HP E 684846 4145360 1900 2.4 872.4

Questar3 NATURAL GAS WAUKES 683111 4149208 1900 2.4 872.4Total Project Modeled (lb/hr)Total Project Modeled tpy
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

PM Emissions - Volume Source Configuration Calculations The 4 large volume Project sources (two for construction, two for production) will include the following fugitive PM emissions:Construction - fugitive PM emissions for 2 CO2 wells, 2 O&G wells, and two new facility pads.Both new and existing O&G and CO2 production traffic - PM emissions from all wells (tailpipe so small, not included).Process PM10 lb/hr PM2.5 lb/hrConstruction 78.1 12.5Prod Truck Traffic 41.5 6.35

PM10 lb/hr PM2.5 lb/hr PM10 g/sec Pm2.5 g/sec

ConV1 39.05 6.26 4.92 0.788 10 hrs/dayConV2 39.05 6.26 4.92 0.788 10 hrs/dayProV1 20.73 3.18 2.61 0.400 10 hrs/dayProV2 20.73 3.18 2.61 0.400 10 hrs/dayUse two 2km volume sources 2000 meters square. Sigma Y = 465.1Release ht is 7 m, sigma Z is 3.26, based on previous BLM Rohn analysis and CDPHE guidance.BEEST data for volume sourcesConV1 Construct Vol Source 1 687000 4148000 1850 7 253.7ConV2 Construct Vol Source 2 681000 4160000 2040 7 253.7ProV1 Product Vol Source 1 687000 4148000 1850 7 253.7ProV2 Product Vol Source 2 681000 4160000 2040 7 253.7MontNEPA Monticello NEPA 637000 4160000 1850 7 2325SOURCE GROUP INFO - ProjNAAQProjPSDNAAQSPSD
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

X Y Z (m)

Location 1 687000 4148000 1850Location 2 681000 4160000 2040

wells and assuming 25% have a well head engine).

Source ID Exit Velocity Stack Diameter PM10 SO2 NOx CO PM25

mps m G/SEC G/SEC G/SEC G/SEC G/SEC

DrilR1 20.0 0.2 2.46E-01 2.29E-01 3.47E+00 7.51E-01 2.46E-01DrilR2 20.0 0.2 2.46E-01 2.29E-01 3.47E+00 7.51E-01 2.46E-01DrilR3 20.0 0.2 2.46E-01 2.29E-01 3.47E+00 7.51E-01 2.46E-01DrilR4 20.0 0.2 2.46E-01 2.29E-01 3.47E+00 7.51E-01 2.46E-01Flare1 20.0 1.0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.92E-01 2.13E+00 0.00E+00Flare2 20.0 1.0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.92E-01 2.13E+00 0.00E+00NewComp1 20.0 0.2 2.88E-03 1.71E-04 1.19E+00 9.23E-02 2.88E-03NewComp2 20.0 0.2 2.88E-03 1.71E-04 1.19E+00 9.23E-02 2.88E-03NewPro1 0.5 0.1 6.92E-03 9.38E-05 3.96E-01 9.64E-01 6.92E-03NewPro2 0.5 0.1 6.92E-03 9.38E-05 3.96E-01 9.64E-01 6.92E-03NewPro3 0.5 0.1 6.92E-03 9.38E-05 3.96E-01 9.64E-01 6.92E-03NewPro4 0.5 0.1 6.92E-03 9.38E-05 3.96E-01 9.64E-01 6.92E-03ExtComp1 20.0 0.2 2.88E-03 1.71E-04 1.19E+00 9.23E-02 2.88E-03ExtComp2 20.0 0.2 2.88E-03 1.71E-04 1.19E+00 9.23E-02 2.88E-03ExtPro1 0.5 0.1 6.92E-03 9.38E-05 3.96E-01 9.64E-01 6.92E-03ExtPro2 0.5 0.1 6.92E-03 9.38E-05 3.96E-01 9.64E-01 6.92E-03ExtPro3 0.5 0.1 6.92E-03 9.38E-05 3.96E-01 9.64E-01 6.92E-03ExtPro4 0.5 0.1 6.92E-03 9.38E-05 3.96E-01 9.64E-01 6.92E-03Questar1 26.8 0.2 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.18E+00 1.01E-01 0.00E+00Questar2 43.7 0.1 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 7.88E-01 5.52E-02 0.00E+00Questar3 43.7 0.1 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.03E-02 2.01E-02 0.00E+00Total Project Modeled (lb/hr)Total Project Modeled tpy
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

PM10 g/sec SO2 NOx CO Pm2.5 g/sec

3.26 4.92 0.793.26 4.92 0.793.26 2.61 0.403.26 2.61 0.40

3.26 23.07 4.20 103.28 66.46 7.34
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

TYPEs OF STACKS

Source Type Stack Height Temperature Exit Velocity Stack Diameter

m K mps m

Drill Rig/Compress 6 750 20 0.2

Heater 2 298 0.5 0.1Flare 5 1273 20 1

Source ID Formaldehyde PM10 PM2.5 SO2 NOx CO Formaldehyde

G/SEC lb/hr lb/hr lb/hr lb/hr lb/hr lb/hr

DrilR1 1.32E-01 1.95 1.95 1.82 27.5 5.96 1.05DrilR2 1.32E-01 1.95 1.95 1.82 27.5 5.96 1.05DrilR3 1.32E-01 1.95 1.95 1.82 27.5 5.96 1.05DrilR4 1.32E-01 1.95 1.95 1.82 27.5 5.96 1.05Flare1 0.00E+00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.11 16.9 0.0Flare2 0.00E+00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.11 16.9 0.0NewComp1 1.54E-02 0.0229 0.0229 0.00136 9.4 0.73 0.12NewComp2 1.54E-02 0.0229 0.0229 0.00136 9.4 0.73 0.12NewPro1 3.27E-03 0.055 0.055 0.001 3.14 7.65 0.0259NewPro2 3.27E-03 0.055 0.055 0.001 3.14 7.65 0.0259NewPro3 3.27E-03 0.055 0.055 0.001 3.14 7.65 0.0259NewPro4 3.27E-03 0.055 0.055 0.001 3.14 7.65 0.0259ExtComp1 1.54E-02 0.0229 0.0229 0.00136 9.4 0.73 0.12ExtComp2 1.54E-02 0.0229 0.0229 0.00136 9.4 0.73 0.12ExtPro1 3.27E-03 0.055 0.055 0.001 3.14 7.65 0.0259ExtPro2 3.27E-03 0.055 0.055 0.001 3.14 7.65 0.0259ExtPro3 3.27E-03 0.055 0.055 0.001 3.14 7.65 0.0259ExtPro4 3.27E-03 0.055 0.055 0.001 3.14 7.65 0.0259Questar1 0.00E+00 9.37 0.80 0.0Questar2 0.00E+00 6.26 0.44 0.0Questar3 0.00E+00 0.32 0.16 0.0Total Project Modeled (lb/hr) 8.0 8.0 7.3 141.5 74.4 4.5Total Project Modeled tpy 34.9 34.9 31.9 619.7 325.7 19.6
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

CDPHE Cumulative Inventory Since December 31, 2004

st_permit_last_issue_facility_name emission_process_description CO tpy NOx tpy

5/3/06 QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT261HP MAINLINE COMPRESSOR 3.52 41.04

5/2/06 QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROATNATGAS FIRED 142HP ENGINE 1.92 27.4

QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROATNATURAL GAS WAUKESHA 170 kw GENSET 0.7 1.4

2/16/06 MUSCANELL MILLWORKS, INC. DECTON BOILER RATED AT 3.6 MMBTU/HR 8.6 7.1

2/8/06 MID-AMERICA PIPELINE CO DOVE CR STA NAT GAS FIRED SOLAR SATURN T-1300 TURBIN 31.2 16.4

1/20/068/19/05 SKY UTE SAND & GRAVEL MCNEILUS CONCRETE BATCH PLANT2/25/05 MOUNTAIN STONE INC. - KOENIG PIT FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

CDPHE Cumulative Inventory Since December 31, 2004

st_permit_last_issue_facility_name emission_process_description

5/3/06 QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT261HP MAINLINE COMPRESSOR

5/2/06 QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROATNATGAS FIRED 142HP ENGINE

QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROATNATURAL GAS WAUKESHA 170 kw GENSET

2/16/06 MUSCANELL MILLWORKS, INC. DECTON BOILER RATED AT 3.6 MMBTU/HR

2/8/06 MID-AMERICA PIPELINE CO DOVE CR STA NAT GAS FIRED SOLAR SATURN T-1300 TURBIN

1/20/068/19/05 SKY UTE SAND & GRAVEL MCNEILUS CONCRETE BATCH PLANT2/25/05 MOUNTAIN STONE INC. - KOENIG PIT FUGITIVE EMISSIONS

PM10 tpy distance

0.20.24.4

5.2 21.2

44.9

5.51 29.26.83 46.9
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

CDPHE Cumulative Inventory Since December 31, 2004

st_permit_last_issue_facility_name emission_process_description

5/3/06 QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT261HP MAINLINE COMPRESSOR

5/2/06 QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROATNATGAS FIRED 142HP ENGINE

QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROATNATURAL GAS WAUKESHA 170 kw GENSET

2/16/06 MUSCANELL MILLWORKS, INC. DECTON BOILER RATED AT 3.6 MMBTU/HR

2/8/06 MID-AMERICA PIPELINE CO DOVE CR STA NAT GAS FIRED SOLAR SATURN T-1300 TURBIN

1/20/068/19/05 SKY UTE SAND & GRAVEL MCNEILUS CONCRETE BATCH PLANT2/25/05 MOUNTAIN STONE INC. - KOENIG PIT FUGITIVE EMISSIONS

x_coordinay_coordina

684.8467 4145.361684.8467 4145.361683.1117 4149.208705.7738 4149.718679.5262 4189.715713.3471 4138.07731.0264 4154.948
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

CDPHE Cumulative Inventory Since December 31, 2004

st_permit_last_issue_facility_name emission_process_description

5/3/06 QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT261HP MAINLINE COMPRESSOR

5/2/06 QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROATNATGAS FIRED 142HP ENGINE

QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROATNATURAL GAS WAUKESHA 170 kw GENSET

2/16/06 MUSCANELL MILLWORKS, INC. DECTON BOILER RATED AT 3.6 MMBTU/HR

2/8/06 MID-AMERICA PIPELINE CO DOVE CR STA NAT GAS FIRED SOLAR SATURN T-1300 TURBIN

1/20/068/19/05 SKY UTE SAND & GRAVEL MCNEILUS CONCRETE BATCH PLANT2/25/05 MOUNTAIN STONE INC. - KOENIG PIT FUGITIVE EMISSIONS

exit_gas_fl exit_gas_te

1034 894

750 1111750 1111

6100 350

31263 917

0 700 70
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

CDPHE Cumulative Inventory Since December 31, 2004

st_permit_last_issue_facility_name emission_process_description

5/3/06 QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT261HP MAINLINE COMPRESSOR

5/2/06 QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROATNATGAS FIRED 142HP ENGINE

QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROATNATURAL GAS WAUKESHA 170 kw GENSET

2/16/06 MUSCANELL MILLWORKS, INC. DECTON BOILER RATED AT 3.6 MMBTU/HR

2/8/06 MID-AMERICA PIPELINE CO DOVE CR STA NAT GAS FIRED SOLAR SATURN T-1300 TURBIN

1/20/068/19/05 SKY UTE SAND & GRAVEL MCNEILUS CONCRETE BATCH PLANT2/25/05 MOUNTAIN STONE INC. - KOENIG PIT FUGITIVE EMISSIONS

exit_gas_v stack_diam

87.8 0.5

143.5 0.33

0 0.3

17.6 21.1

264.5 1.5

0 00 0
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

CDPHE Cumulative Inventory Since December 31, 2004

st_permit_last_issue_facility_name emission_process_description

5/3/06 QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT261HP MAINLINE COMPRESSOR

5/2/06 QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROATNATGAS FIRED 142HP ENGINE

QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROATNATURAL GAS WAUKESHA 170 kw GENSET

2/16/06 MUSCANELL MILLWORKS, INC. DECTON BOILER RATED AT 3.6 MMBTU/HR

2/8/06 MID-AMERICA PIPELINE CO DOVE CR STA NAT GAS FIRED SOLAR SATURN T-1300 TURBIN

1/20/068/19/05 SKY UTE SAND & GRAVEL MCNEILUS CONCRETE BATCH PLANT2/25/05 MOUNTAIN STONE INC. - KOENIG PIT FUGITIVE EMISSIONS

stack_heig unit_emis_limit1

11

88

3223

00
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

CDPHE Cumulative Inventory Since December 31, 2004

st_permit_last_issue_facility_name emission_process_description

5/3/06 QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT261HP MAINLINE COMPRESSOR

5/2/06 QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROATNATGAS FIRED 142HP ENGINE

QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROATNATURAL GAS WAUKESHA 170 kw GENSET

2/16/06 MUSCANELL MILLWORKS, INC. DECTON BOILER RATED AT 3.6 MMBTU/HR

2/8/06 MID-AMERICA PIPELINE CO DOVE CR STA NAT GAS FIRED SOLAR SATURN T-1300 TURBIN

1/20/068/19/05 SKY UTE SAND & GRAVEL MCNEILUS CONCRETE BATCH PLANT2/25/05 MOUNTAIN STONE INC. - KOENIG PIT FUGITIVE EMISSIONS

unit_emis_limit1_units
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

CDPHE Cumulative Inventory Since December 31, 2004

st_permit_last_issue_facility_name emission_process_description

5/3/06 QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT261HP MAINLINE COMPRESSOR

5/2/06 QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROATNATGAS FIRED 142HP ENGINE

QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROATNATURAL GAS WAUKESHA 170 kw GENSET

2/16/06 MUSCANELL MILLWORKS, INC. DECTON BOILER RATED AT 3.6 MMBTU/HR

2/8/06 MID-AMERICA PIPELINE CO DOVE CR STA NAT GAS FIRED SOLAR SATURN T-1300 TURBIN

1/20/068/19/05 SKY UTE SAND & GRAVEL MCNEILUS CONCRETE BATCH PLANT2/25/05 MOUNTAIN STONE INC. - KOENIG PIT FUGITIVE EMISSIONS

s
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

CDPHE Cumulative Inventory Since December 31, 2004

st_permit_last_issue_facility_name emission_process_description

5/3/06 QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT261HP MAINLINE COMPRESSOR

5/2/06 QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROATNATGAS FIRED 142HP ENGINE

QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROATNATURAL GAS WAUKESHA 170 kw GENSET

2/16/06 MUSCANELL MILLWORKS, INC. DECTON BOILER RATED AT 3.6 MMBTU/HR

2/8/06 MID-AMERICA PIPELINE CO DOVE CR STA NAT GAS FIRED SOLAR SATURN T-1300 TURBIN

1/20/068/19/05 SKY UTE SAND & GRAVEL MCNEILUS CONCRETE BATCH PLANT2/25/05 MOUNTAIN STONE INC. - KOENIG PIT FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

CDPHE Cumulative Inventory Since December 31, 2004

st_permit_last_issue_facility_name emission_process_description

5/3/06 QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT261HP MAINLINE COMPRESSOR

5/2/06 QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROATNATGAS FIRED 142HP ENGINE

QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROATNATURAL GAS WAUKESHA 170 kw GENSET

2/16/06 MUSCANELL MILLWORKS, INC. DECTON BOILER RATED AT 3.6 MMBTU/HR

2/8/06 MID-AMERICA PIPELINE CO DOVE CR STA NAT GAS FIRED SOLAR SATURN T-1300 TURBIN

1/20/068/19/05 SKY UTE SAND & GRAVEL MCNEILUS CONCRETE BATCH PLANT2/25/05 MOUNTAIN STONE INC. - KOENIG PIT FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

CDPHE Cumulative Inventory Since December 31, 2004

st_permit_last_issue_facility_name emission_process_description

5/3/06 QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT261HP MAINLINE COMPRESSOR

5/2/06 QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROATNATGAS FIRED 142HP ENGINE

QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROATNATURAL GAS WAUKESHA 170 kw GENSET

2/16/06 MUSCANELL MILLWORKS, INC. DECTON BOILER RATED AT 3.6 MMBTU/HR

2/8/06 MID-AMERICA PIPELINE CO DOVE CR STA NAT GAS FIRED SOLAR SATURN T-1300 TURBIN

1/20/068/19/05 SKY UTE SAND & GRAVEL MCNEILUS CONCRETE BATCH PLANT2/25/05 MOUNTAIN STONE INC. - KOENIG PIT FUGITIVE EMISSIONS

normal_da normal_ho

7 247 247 247 247 247 126 10
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

CDPHE Cumulative Inventory Since December 31, 2004

st_permit_last_issue_facility_name emission_process_description

5/3/06 QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT261HP MAINLINE COMPRESSOR

5/2/06 QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROATNATGAS FIRED 142HP ENGINE

QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROATNATURAL GAS WAUKESHA 170 kw GENSET

2/16/06 MUSCANELL MILLWORKS, INC. DECTON BOILER RATED AT 3.6 MMBTU/HR

2/8/06 MID-AMERICA PIPELINE CO DOVE CR STA NAT GAS FIRED SOLAR SATURN T-1300 TURBIN

1/20/068/19/05 SKY UTE SAND & GRAVEL MCNEILUS CONCRETE BATCH PLANT2/25/05 MOUNTAIN STONE INC. - KOENIG PIT FUGITIVE EMISSIONS

normal_ho percent_th

8760 258760 258760 258760 258760 254368 203000 20
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

CDPHE Cumulative Inventory Since December 31, 2004

st_permit_last_issue_facility_name emission_process_description

5/3/06 QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT261HP MAINLINE COMPRESSOR

5/2/06 QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROATNATGAS FIRED 142HP ENGINE

QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROATNATURAL GAS WAUKESHA 170 kw GENSET

2/16/06 MUSCANELL MILLWORKS, INC. DECTON BOILER RATED AT 3.6 MMBTU/HR

2/8/06 MID-AMERICA PIPELINE CO DOVE CR STA NAT GAS FIRED SOLAR SATURN T-1300 TURBIN

1/20/068/19/05 SKY UTE SAND & GRAVEL MCNEILUS CONCRETE BATCH PLANT2/25/05 MOUNTAIN STONE INC. - KOENIG PIT FUGITIVE EMISSIONS

percent_th percent_th

25 2525 2525 2525 2525 2520 3020 30
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

CDPHE Cumulative Inventory Since December 31, 2004

st_permit_last_issue_facility_name emission_process_description

5/3/06 QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT261HP MAINLINE COMPRESSOR

5/2/06 QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROATNATGAS FIRED 142HP ENGINE

QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROATNATURAL GAS WAUKESHA 170 kw GENSET

2/16/06 MUSCANELL MILLWORKS, INC. DECTON BOILER RATED AT 3.6 MMBTU/HR

2/8/06 MID-AMERICA PIPELINE CO DOVE CR STA NAT GAS FIRED SOLAR SATURN T-1300 TURBIN

1/20/068/19/05 SKY UTE SAND & GRAVEL MCNEILUS CONCRETE BATCH PLANT2/25/05 MOUNTAIN STONE INC. - KOENIG PIT FUGITIVE EMISSIONS

percent_throughput_fa

25252525253030
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

CDPHE Cumulative Inventory Since December 31, 2004

st_permit_last_issue_facility_name emission_process_description

5/3/06 QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT261HP MAINLINE COMPRESSOR

5/2/06 QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROATNATGAS FIRED 142HP ENGINE

QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROATNATURAL GAS WAUKESHA 170 kw GENSET

2/16/06 MUSCANELL MILLWORKS, INC. DECTON BOILER RATED AT 3.6 MMBTU/HR

2/8/06 MID-AMERICA PIPELINE CO DOVE CR STA NAT GAS FIRED SOLAR SATURN T-1300 TURBIN

1/20/068/19/05 SKY UTE SAND & GRAVEL MCNEILUS CONCRETE BATCH PLANT2/25/05 MOUNTAIN STONE INC. - KOENIG PIT FUGITIVE EMISSIONS

all
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix J

Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

APPENDIX B 

Colorado Cumulative Inventory Sources 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

CDPHE Cumulative Inventory Since December 31, 2004

st_permit_last_issue_facility_name

5/3/06 QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROA

5/2/06 QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROA

QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROA

2/16/06 MUSCANELL MILLWORKS, INC.

2/8/06 MID-AMERICA PIPELINE CO DOVE CR STA

1/20/06

8/19/05 SKY UTE SAND & GRAVEL

2/25/05 MOUNTAIN STONE INC. - KOENIG PIT

1
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

emission_process_description CO tpy NOx tpy PM10 tpy Distance X

261HP MAINLINE COMPRESSOR 3.52 41.04 0.2 684.8467

NATGAS FIRED 142HP ENGINE 1.92 27.4 0.2 684.8467

NATURAL GAS WAUKESHA 170 kw GENSET 0.7 1.4 4.4 683.1117

DECTON BOILER RATED AT 3.6 MMBTU/HR 8.6 7.1 5.2 21.2 705.7738

NAT GAS FIRED SOLAR SATURN T-1300 TURBIN 31.2 16.4 44.9 679.5262

MCNEILUS CONCRETE BATCH PLANT 5.51 29.2 713.3471

FUGITIVE EMISSIONS 6.83 46.9 731.0264

2
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Y exit_gas_fl exit_gas_teexit_gas_v stack_diamstack_height

4145.361 1034 894 87.8 0.5 11

4145.361 750 1111 143.5 0.33 8

4149.208 750 1111 0 0.3 8

4149.718 6100 350 17.6 21.1 32

4189.715 31263 917 264.5 1.5 23

4138.07 0 70 0 0 0

4154.948 0 70 0 0 0

3
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

county_fips site_id emission_unit_id process_id stack_id pollutant_code emission_process_description083 0028 001 01 001 CO 261HP MAINLINE COMPRESSOR083 0028 001 01 001 NO2 261HP MAINLINE COMPRESSOR083 0028 001 01 001 PM10 261HP MAINLINE COMPRESSOR083 0028 001 01 001 SO2 261HP MAINLINE COMPRESSOR083 0028 002 01 002 CO NATGAS FIRED 142HP ENGINE083 0028 002 01 002 NO2 NATGAS FIRED 142HP ENGINE083 0028 002 01 002 PM10 NATGAS FIRED 142HP ENGINE083 0028 002 01 002 SO2 NATGAS FIRED 142HP ENGINE083 0070 001 01 001 CO DECTON BOILER RATED AT 3.6 MMBTU/HR083 0070 001 01 001 NO2 DECTON BOILER RATED AT 3.6 MMBTU/HR083 0070 001 01 001 PM10 DECTON BOILER RATED AT 3.6 MMBTU/HR033 0009 004 01 004 CO NAT GAS FIRED SOLAR SATURN T-1300 TURBINE033 0009 004 01 004 NO2 NAT GAS FIRED SOLAR SATURN T-1300 TURBINE033 0009 004 01 004 PM10 NAT GAS FIRED SOLAR SATURN T-1300 TURBINE033 0009 004 01 004 SO2 NAT GAS FIRED SOLAR SATURN T-1300 TURBINE083 0024 002 01 002 CO NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION083 0024 002 01 002 NO2 NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION083 0024 002 01 002 PM10 NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION083 0024 002 01 002 SO2 NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION083 0091 001 01 001 PM10 MCNEILUS CONCRETE BATCH PLANT083 0091 001 02 001 PM10 FUGITIVE EMISSIONS083 0055 002 01 002 PM10 FUGITIVE EMISSIONS083 0055 002 02 002 PM10 GRAVEL PIT083 0069 001 01 001 PM10 GRAVEL PIT-TRANSFER POINTS083 0069 001 02 000 PM10 FUGITIVE EMISSIONS033 0014 002 01 002 CO NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION033 0014 002 01 002 NO2 NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION033 0014 002 01 002 PM10 NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION033 0014 002 01 002 SO2 NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION083 0033 005 01 005 CO TURBINE SMB1683 GP20388-3083 0033 005 01 005 NO2 TURBINE SMB1683 GP20388-3083 0033 005 01 005 PM10 TURBINE SMB1683 GP20388-3083 0033 005 01 005 SO2 TURBINE SMB1683 GP20388-3083 0033 004 01 004 CO TURBINE #1 MD:10-T1302083 0033 004 01 004 NO2 TURBINE #1 MD:10-T1302083 0033 004 01 004 PM10 TURBINE #1 MD:10-T1302

4
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

county_fips site_id emission_unit_id process_id stack_id pollutant_code emission_process_description083 0033 004 01 004 SO2 TURBINE #1 MD:10-T1302083 0033 003 01 003 CO TURBINE #3: SOLAR, SN: 0528521R, NATURAL GAS FIRED083 0033 003 01 003 NO2 TURBINE #3: SOLAR, SN: 0528521R, NATURAL GAS FIRED083 0033 003 01 003 PM10 TURBINE #3: SOLAR, SN: 0528521R, NATURAL GAS FIRED083 0033 003 01 003 SO2 TURBINE #3: SOLAR, SN: 0528521R, NATURAL GAS FIRED083 0072 001 01 001 CO NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION083 0072 001 01 001 NO2 NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION083 0072 001 01 001 PM10 NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION083 0072 001 01 001 SO2 NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION083 0039 007 01 007 CO NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION083 0039 007 01 007 NO2 NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION083 0039 007 01 007 PM10 NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION083 0039 007 01 007 SO2 NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION083 0031 002 01 002 CO WAUKESHA F817GU 385876083 0031 002 01 002 NO2 WAUKESHA F817GU 385876083 0031 002 01 002 PM10 WAUKESHA F817GU 385876083 0031 002 01 002 SO2 WAUKESHA F817GU 385876083 0039 009 01 * CO IC ENGINE083 0039 009 01 * NO2 IC ENGINE033 0013 002 01 002 CO WAUKESHA VRG220U PUMPJACK033 0013 002 01 002 NO2 WAUKESHA VRG220U PUMPJACK033 0013 002 01 002 PM10 WAUKESHA VRG220U PUMPJACK033 0013 002 01 002 SO2 WAUKESHA VRG220U PUMPJACK033 0013 001 01 001 CO WAUKESHA F2895GU COMPRESR033 0013 001 01 001 NO2 WAUKESHA F2895GU COMPRESR033 0013 001 01 001 PM10 WAUKESHA F2895GU COMPRESR033 0013 001 01 001 SO2 WAUKESHA F2895GU COMPRESR033 0003 001 01 001 CO WAUKESHA F817G ICE033 0003 001 01 001 NO2 WAUKESHA F817G ICE033 0003 001 01 001 PM10 WAUKESHA F817G ICE033 0003 001 01 001 SO2 WAUKESHA F817G ICE083 0028 003 01 003 CO GENERATOR SET 198HP083 0028 003 01 003 NO2 GENERATOR SET 198HP083 0028 003 01 003 PM10 GENERATOR SET 198HP083 0028 003 01 003 SO2 GENERATOR SET 198HP083 0020 003 01 003 CO GLYCOL REBOILER H-102B

5
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

county_fips site_id emission_unit_id process_id stack_id pollutant_code emission_process_description083 0020 003 01 003 NO2 GLYCOL REBOILER H-102B083 0020 003 01 003 PM10 GLYCOL REBOILER H-102B083 0020 003 01 003 SO2 GLYCOL REBOILER H-102B083 0020 002 01 002 CO GLYCOL REBOILER H-102A083 0020 002 01 002 NO2 GLYCOL REBOILER H-102A083 0020 002 01 002 PM10 GLYCOL REBOILER H-102A083 0020 002 01 002 SO2 GLYCOL REBOILER H-102A083 0018 003 01 003 CO GLYCOL REBOILER H-102B083 0018 003 01 003 NO2 GLYCOL REBOILER H-102B083 0018 003 01 003 PM10 GLYCOL REBOILER H-102B083 0018 003 01 003 SO2 GLYCOL REBOILER H-102B083 0018 002 01 002 CO GLYCOL REBOILER H-102A083 0018 002 01 002 NO2 GLYCOL REBOILER H-102A083 0018 002 01 002 PM10 GLYCOL REBOILER H-102A083 0018 002 01 002 SO2 GLYCOL REBOILER H-102A083 0057 001 01 001 PM10 GRAVEL PIT-TRANSFER POINTS083 0057 001 02 000 PM10 FUGITIVE EMISSIONS083 0056 001 01 001 CO TOTAL NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION083 0056 001 01 001 NO2 TOTAL NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION083 0056 001 01 001 PM10 TOTAL NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION083 0056 001 01 001 SO2 TOTAL NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION083 0024 003 01 003 CO NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION083 0024 003 01 003 NO2 NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION083 0024 003 01 003 PM10 NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION083 0024 003 01 003 SO2 NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION083 0024 001 01 001 CO NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION083 0024 001 01 001 NO2 NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION083 0024 001 01 001 PM10 NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION083 0024 001 01 001 SO2 NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION033 0017 002 01 002 CO AJAX DPC 360LE, SNA: 8870033 0017 002 01 002 NO2 AJAX DPC 360LE, SNA: 8870033 0017 002 01 002 PM10 AJAX DPC 360LE, SNA: 8870033 0017 002 01 002 SO2 AJAX DPC 360LE, SNA: 8870083 0067 001 01 000 PM10 SAND & GRAVEL, FUGIT.EMIS083 0067 001 02 000 PM10 SAND & GRAVEL PIT OPRTNS083 0066 001 01 000 PM10 MATERIAL EXTRACTION

6
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

county_fips site_id emission_unit_id process_id stack_id pollutant_code emission_process_description083 0065 001 01 001 CO CREMATOR UNIT A11-1801083 0065 001 01 001 NO2 CREMATOR UNIT A11-1801083 0065 001 01 001 PM10 CREMATOR UNIT A11-1801083 0065 001 01 001 SO2 CREMATOR UNIT A11-1801083 0015 001 01 001 CO DIESEL USE083 0015 001 01 001 NO2 DIESEL USE083 0015 001 01 001 PM10 DIESEL USE083 0015 001 01 001 SO2 DIESEL USE083 0064 001 01 001 PM10 CONCRETE BATCH PLANT083 0064 001 02 000 PM10 FUGITIVE DUST ACTIVITIES083 0058 002 01 002 CO AJAX MOD DP60083 0058 002 01 002 NO2 AJAX MOD DP60083 0058 002 01 002 PM10 AJAX MOD DP60083 0058 002 01 002 SO2 AJAX MOD DP60083 0058 001 01 001 CO AJAX MOD DP 60083 0058 001 01 001 NO2 AJAX MOD DP 60083 0058 001 01 001 PM10 AJAX MOD DP 60083 0058 001 01 001 SO2 AJAX MOD DP 60083 0028 007 01 007 CO WAUKESHA ENG FOR INJ PUMP083 0028 007 01 007 NO2 WAUKESHA ENG FOR INJ PUMP083 0028 007 01 007 PM10 WAUKESHA ENG FOR INJ PUMP083 0028 007 01 007 SO2 WAUKESHA ENG FOR INJ PUMP083 0039 005 01 005 CO JW WILLIAMS INLET HEATER083 0039 005 01 005 NO2 JW WILLIAMS INLET HEATER083 0034 002 01 002 CO SOLAR T4500 TURBINE083 0034 002 01 002 NO2 SOLAR T4500 TURBINE083 0034 002 01 002 PM10 SOLAR T4500 TURBINE083 0034 001 01 001 CO SOLAR T4500 TURBINE #1083 0034 001 01 001 NO2 SOLAR T4500 TURBINE #1083 0034 001 01 001 PM10 SOLAR T4500 TURBINE #1083 0027 002 01 002 PM10 S&G STORAGE AND HANDLING033 0005 001 01 001 PM10 DRY BEAN PROCESS-CLEAN083 0090 001 01 001 CO WAUKESHA, VRG155 ENG RATED AT 30HP083 0090 001 01 001 NO2 WAUKESHA, VRG155 ENG RATED AT 30HP083 0090 001 01 001 PM10 WAUKESHA, VRG155 ENG RATED AT 30HP083 0090 001 01 001 SO2 WAUKESHA, VRG155 ENG RATED AT 30HP

7
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

county_fips site_id emission_unit_id process_id stack_id pollutant_code emission_process_description083 0089 001 01 001 CO AJAX, E-42, SN: 66959 ENGINE RATED AT 50 HP083 0089 001 01 001 NO2 AJAX, E-42, SN: 66959 ENGINE RATED AT 50 HP083 0089 001 01 001 PM10 AJAX, E-42, SN: 66959 ENGINE RATED AT 50 HP083 0089 001 01 001 SO2 AJAX, E-42, SN: 66959 ENGINE RATED AT 50 HP083 0087 001 01 001 CO AJAX E-42 NATURALGAS ENG RATED AT 40 HP083 0087 001 01 001 NO2 AJAX E-42 NATURALGAS ENG RATED AT 40 HP083 0087 001 01 001 PM10 AJAX E-42 NATURALGAS ENG RATED AT 40 HP083 0087 001 01 001 SO2 AJAX E-42 NATURALGAS ENG RATED AT 40 HP083 0074 002 01 002 CO AJAX E-42 ICE SN:E-42-1083 0074 002 01 002 NO2 AJAX E-42 ICE SN:E-42-1083 0074 002 01 002 PM10 AJAX E-42 ICE SN:E-42-1083 0074 002 01 002 SO2 AJAX E-42 ICE SN:E-42-1083 0074 001 01 001 CO WAUKESHA ICE SN:364875083 0074 001 01 001 NO2 WAUKESHA ICE SN:364875083 0074 001 01 001 PM10 WAUKESHA ICE SN:364875083 0074 001 01 001 SO2 WAUKESHA ICE SN:364875033 0020 002 01 002 CO GEMINI G-26 ENGINE RATED AT 30 HP033 0020 002 01 002 NO2 GEMINI G-26 ENGINE RATED AT 30 HP033 0020 002 01 002 PM10 GEMINI G-26 ENGINE RATED AT 30 HP033 0020 002 01 002 SO2 GEMINI G-26 ENGINE RATED AT 30 HP

8
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

proc_emis_estim proc_emis_estim_units facility_name site_emis_limit1 site_emis_limit1_units distance

3.52 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT B 0.241.1 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT B 0.2

0.085 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT B 0.2

0.0051 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT B 0.2

2 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT B 0.2

27.4 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT B 0.2

0.049 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT B 0.2

0.00294 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT B 0.2

8.6 TY MUSCANELL MILLWORKS, INC. 21.27.1 TY MUSCANELL MILLWORKS, INC. 21.25.4 TY MUSCANELL MILLWORKS, INC. 21.2

31.12 TY MID-AMERICA PIPELINE CO DOVE CR STA 44.916.38 TY MID-AMERICA PIPELINE CO DOVE CR STA 44.9

2.1 TY MID-AMERICA PIPELINE CO DOVE CR STA 44.9

0.03 TY MID-AMERICA PIPELINE CO DOVE CR STA 44.9

0.7 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT A 4.4

1.37 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT A 4.4

0.018816 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT A 4.40.002881 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT A 4.4

0.261 TY SKY UTE SAND & GRAVEL 29.2

0.84 TY SKY UTE SAND & GRAVEL 29.2

6.80025 TY MOUNTAIN STONE INC. - KOENIG PIT 46.9

0.0285 TY MOUNTAIN STONE INC. - KOENIG PIT 46.9

0.1 TY FOUR STATES AGGREGATES LLC - LINE CAMP 35.43.9 TY FOUR STATES AGGREGATES LLC - LINE CAMP 35.4

16 TY QUESTAR E&P - ISLAND BUTTE #3 15.630 TY QUESTAR E&P - ISLAND BUTTE #3 15.6

0.0714 TY QUESTAR E&P - ISLAND BUTTE #3 15.60.0044 TY QUESTAR E&P - ISLAND BUTTE #3 15.6

15.8 TY MID-AMERICA PIPELINE CO DOLORES STA 41.916.2 TY MID-AMERICA PIPELINE CO DOLORES STA 41.9

2.1 TY MID-AMERICA PIPELINE CO DOLORES STA 41.9

0.0297 TY MID-AMERICA PIPELINE CO DOLORES STA 41.9

15.8 TY MID-AMERICA PIPELINE CO DOLORES STA 41.916.2 TY MID-AMERICA PIPELINE CO DOLORES STA 41.9

2.1 TY MID-AMERICA PIPELINE CO DOLORES STA 41.9

9
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

proc_emis_estim proc_emis_estim_units facility_name site_emis_limit1 site_emis_limit1_units distance

0.0297 TY MID-AMERICA PIPELINE CO DOLORES STA 41.9

15.79866 TY MID-AMERICA PIPELINE CO DOLORES STA 41.916.20162 TY MID-AMERICA PIPELINE CO DOLORES STA 41.9

1.8396 TY MID-AMERICA PIPELINE CO DOLORES STA 41.9

0.02628 TY MID-AMERICA PIPELINE CO DOLORES STA 41.9

0.888045 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION - CUTTHROAT #5 0.2

14.200048 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION - CUTTHROAT #5 0.2

0.002672 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION - CUTTHROAT #5 0.20.001796 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION - CUTTHROAT #5 0.2

52.73 TY QUESTAR E & P- ISLAND BUTTE - B 12.461.32 TY QUESTAR E & P- ISLAND BUTTE - B 12.4

0.020016 TY QUESTAR E & P- ISLAND BUTTE - B 12.4

0.01 TY QUESTAR E & P- ISLAND BUTTE - B 12.4

0.9 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION - MCCLEAN BASIN #2 3.8

13.9 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION - MCCLEAN BASIN #2 3.8

0.0275 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION - MCCLEAN BASIN #2 3.8

0.00165 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION - MCCLEAN BASIN #2 3.8

7.39 TY QUESTAR E & P- ISLAND BUTTE - B8.59 TY QUESTAR E & P- ISLAND BUTTE - B

0.406 TY QUESTAR E&P - ISLAND BUTTE A 16.14.925 TY QUESTAR E&P - ISLAND BUTTE A 16.1

0.011835 TY QUESTAR E&P - ISLAND BUTTE A 16.1

0.001 TY QUESTAR E&P - ISLAND BUTTE A 16.1

3.3 TY QUESTAR E&P - ISLAND BUTTE A 16.1

40.014 TY QUESTAR E&P - ISLAND BUTTE A 16.1

0.436892 TY QUESTAR E&P - ISLAND BUTTE A 16.1

0.005 TY QUESTAR E&P - ISLAND BUTTE A 16.1

1.460024 TY QUESTAR E&P -SPARGO #1-36 19.2

11.471626 TY QUESTAR E&P -SPARGO #1-36 19.2

0.053641 TY QUESTAR E&P -SPARGO #1-36 19.20.002299 TY QUESTAR E&P -SPARGO #1-36 19.2

2 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT B 0.2

21.1 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT B 0.2

0.0575 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT B 0.2

0.00345 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT B 0.2

0.9775 TY KINDER MORGAN CO2 CO. -HOVENWEEP CENTRAL 6.5

10
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

proc_emis_estim proc_emis_estim_units facility_name site_emis_limit1 site_emis_limit1_units distance

4.301 TY KINDER MORGAN CO2 CO. -HOVENWEEP CENTRAL 6.5

0.21114 TY KINDER MORGAN CO2 CO. -HOVENWEEP CENTRAL 6.58.42214 TY KINDER MORGAN CO2 CO. -HOVENWEEP CENTRAL 6.5

0.9775 TY KINDER MORGAN CO2 CO. -HOVENWEEP CENTRAL 6.5

4.301 TY KINDER MORGAN CO2 CO. -HOVENWEEP CENTRAL 6.5

0.21114 TY KINDER MORGAN CO2 CO. -HOVENWEEP CENTRAL 6.58.42214 TY KINDER MORGAN CO2 CO. -HOVENWEEP CENTRAL 6.5

0.9775 TY KINDER MORGAN CO2 CO. -YELLOW JACKET H10 11.1

4.5 TY KINDER MORGAN CO2 CO. -YELLOW JACKET H10 11.1

0.21114 TY KINDER MORGAN CO2 CO. -YELLOW JACKET H10 11.1

8.5 TY KINDER MORGAN CO2 CO. -YELLOW JACKET H10 11.1

0.9775 TY KINDER MORGAN CO2 CO. -YELLOW JACKET H10 11.1

4.5 TY KINDER MORGAN CO2 CO. -YELLOW JACKET H10 11.1

0.21114 TY KINDER MORGAN CO2 CO. -YELLOW JACKET H10 11.1

8.5 TY KINDER MORGAN CO2 CO. -YELLOW JACKET H10 11.1

0.050025 TY FOUR STATES AGGREGATES LLC-HAY CAMP PIT 40.54.100025 TY FOUR STATES AGGREGATES LLC-HAY CAMP PIT 40.5

15.589 TY SMITH ENERGY LP 1988 CACHE OIL FIELD 23.3

22.32 TY SMITH ENERGY LP 1988 CACHE OIL FIELD 23.30.059 TY SMITH ENERGY LP 1988 CACHE OIL FIELD 23.3

0.0048 TY SMITH ENERGY LP 1988 CACHE OIL FIELD 23.3

29.2 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT A 4.417.8 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT A 4.4

0.030144 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT A 4.40.004616 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT A 4.4

25.2 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT A 4.425.2 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT A 4.4

0.032484 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT A 4.40.004974 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT A 4.42.810542 TY BURR OIL & GAS INC. - COMPRESSOR #1 20.614.05271 TY BURR OIL & GAS INC. - COMPRESSOR #1 20.6

0.00828 TY BURR OIL & GAS INC. - COMPRESSOR #1 20.6

0.005589 TY BURR OIL & GAS INC. - COMPRESSOR #1 20.6

1.01 TY MONTEZUMA COUNTY 15.6

0.16 TY MONTEZUMA COUNTY 15.6

5.265 TY STONE CRUSHING 26.2

11
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

proc_emis_estim proc_emis_estim_units facility_name site_emis_limit1 site_emis_limit1_units distance

0.07 TY ERTEL INC ERTEL FUNERAL HOME 30.1

0.006 TY ERTEL INC ERTEL FUNERAL HOME 30.10.033 TY ERTEL INC ERTEL FUNERAL HOME 30.1

0.01 TY ERTEL INC ERTEL FUNERAL HOME 30.1

0.022858 TY SOUTHWEST HEALTH SYSTEM 30.7

0.09143 TY SOUTHWEST HEALTH SYSTEM 30.7

0.009143 TY SOUTHWEST HEALTH SYSTEM 30.70.129831 TY SOUTHWEST HEALTH SYSTEM 30.70.240127 TY MOUNTAIN STONE INC 27.7

0.170375 TY MOUNTAIN STONE INC 27.70.881195 TY GEODYNE RESOURCES INC 28.4

2.34986 TY GEODYNE RESOURCES INC 28.4

0.005 TY GEODYNE RESOURCES INC 28.4

0.0003 TY GEODYNE RESOURCES INC 28.4

0.881195 TY GEODYNE RESOURCES INC 28.4

2.34986 TY GEODYNE RESOURCES INC 28.4

0.005 TY GEODYNE RESOURCES INC 28.4

0.0003 TY GEODYNE RESOURCES INC 28.4

0.333 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT B 0.22.614 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT B 0.2

0.012385 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT B 0.20.000743 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD - CUTTHROAT B 0.2

0.23 TY QUESTAR E & P- ISLAND BUTTE - B 12.4

1.1 TY QUESTAR E & P- ISLAND BUTTE - B 12.4

0.04 TY NORTHWEST PIPELINE CORP PLEASANT VIEW 22.80.92 TY NORTHWEST PIPELINE CORP PLEASANT VIEW 22.80.01 TY NORTHWEST PIPELINE CORP PLEASANT VIEW 22.80.04 TY NORTHWEST PIPELINE CORP PLEASANT VIEW 22.80.92 TY NORTHWEST PIPELINE CORP PLEASANT VIEW 22.80.01 TY NORTHWEST PIPELINE CORP PLEASANT VIEW 22.8

0.6375 TY OLDCASTLE SW GROUP 29.3

0.268125 TY ADOBE MILLING CO INC 34.6

4.4004 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION - CUTTHROAT #8 0.7

2.61 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION - CUTTHROAT #8 0.7

0.012 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION - CUTTHROAT #8 0.7

0.00072 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION - CUTTHROAT #8 0.7

12
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

proc_emis_estim proc_emis_estim_units facility_name site_emis_limit1 site_emis_limit1_units distance

1.27 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION - CUTTHROAT #14 2.3

1.7 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION - CUTTHROAT #14 2.3

0.0175 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION - CUTTHROAT #14 2.3

0.00105 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION - CUTTHROAT #14 2.3

1.3 TY QUESTAR EXPL AND PROD - CUTTHROAT #9 7

1.700001 TY QUESTAR EXPL AND PROD - CUTTHROAT #9 7

0.0175 TY QUESTAR EXPL AND PROD - CUTTHROAT #9 7

0.00105 TY QUESTAR EXPL AND PROD - CUTTHROAT #9 7

1.16 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION - ISLAND BUTTE #7AH 13.91.54 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION - ISLAND BUTTE #7AH 13.9

0.001155 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION - ISLAND BUTTE #7AH 13.9

0.00077 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION - ISLAND BUTTE #7AH 13.9

4.4 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION - ISLAND BUTTE #7AH 13.9

2.61 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION - ISLAND BUTTE #7AH 13.9

0.000864 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION - ISLAND BUTTE #7AH 13.90.000576 TY QUESTAR EXPLORATION - ISLAND BUTTE #7AH 13.9

0.50001 TY DJ SIMMONS - PAPOOSE CANYON 25.3

2.760009 TY DJ SIMMONS - PAPOOSE CANYON 25.3

0.105 TY DJ SIMMONS - PAPOOSE CANYON 25.3

0.0063 TY DJ SIMMONS - PAPOOSE CANYON 25.3

13
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

emission_release_pt_descript exit_gas_flow_rate exit_gas_temp exit_gas_velocity stack_diameter stack_heightCATERPILLAR SN:6NB00535 1034 894 87.80000305 0.5 11CATERPILLAR SN:6NB00535 1034 894 87.80000305 0.5 11CATERPILLAR SN:6NB00535 1034 894 87.80000305 0.5 11CATERPILLAR SN:6NB00535 1034 894 87.80000305 0.5 11WAUKESHA SN:398948 750 1111 143.5 0.330000013 8WAUKESHA SN:398948 750 1111 143.5 0.330000013 8WAUKESHA SN:398948 750 1111 143.5 0.330000013 8WAUKESHA SN:398948 750 1111 143.5 0.330000013 8BOILER 6100 350 17.60000038 21.10000038 32BOILER 6100 350 17.60000038 21.10000038 32BOILER 6100 350 17.60000038 21.10000038 32SOLAR SATURN T-1300 TURBINE 31263 917 264.5 1.5 23SOLAR SATURN T-1300 TURBINE 31263 917 264.5 1.5 23SOLAR SATURN T-1300 TURBINE 31263 917 264.5 1.5 23SOLAR SATURN T-1300 TURBINE 31263 917 264.5 1.5 23WAUKESHA F1197 SN:398947 750 1111 0 0.300000012 8WAUKESHA F1197 SN:398947 750 1111 0 0.300000012 8WAUKESHA F1197 SN:398947 750 1111 0 0.300000012 8WAUKESHA F1197 SN:398947 750 1111 0 0.300000012 8CUSTOM, TURCKMIX TYPE CONCRETE PLANT 0 70 0 0 0CUSTOM, TURCKMIX TYPE CONCRETE PLANT 0 70 0 0 0SAND AND GRAVEL PIT OPERATION 0 70 0 0 0SAND AND GRAVEL PIT OPERATION 0 70 0 0 0GRAVEL PIT OPERATION-TRANSFER POINTS 0 70 0 0 0FUGITIVE EMISSIONS 0 70 0 0 0CAT GENERATOR 7DB00725 0 590 0 0.670000017 10CAT GENERATOR 7DB00725 0 590 0 0.670000017 10CAT GENERATOR 7DB00725 0 590 0 0.670000017 10CAT GENERATOR 7DB00725 0 590 0 0.670000017 10

27813 890 262.2999878 1.5 2027813 890 262.2999878 1.5 2027813 890 262.2999878 1.5 2027813 890 262.2999878 1.5 2027813 890 262.2999878 1.5 2027813 890 262.2999878 1.5 2027813 890 262.2999878 1.5 20

14
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

emission_release_pt_descript exit_gas_flow_rate exit_gas_temp exit_gas_velocity stack_diameter stack_height

27813 890 262.2999878 1.5 20

TURBINE #3: SOLAR, SN: 0528521R, NATURAL GAS FIRED 24647 770 232.5 1.5 20TURBINE #3: SOLAR, SN: 0528521R, NATURAL GAS FIRED 24647 770 232.5 1.5 20TURBINE #3: SOLAR, SN: 0528521R, NATURAL GAS FIRED 24647 770 232.5 1.5 20TURBINE #3: SOLAR, SN: 0528521R, NATURAL GAS FIRED 24647 770 232.5 1.5 20WAUKESHA ICE 655 1120 125.0999985 2.5 7WAUKESHA ICE 655 1120 125.0999985 2.5 7WAUKESHA ICE 655 1120 125.0999985 2.5 7WAUKESHA ICE 655 1120 125.0999985 2.5 7CATERPILLAR G3412TA-LCR, SN: 7DB00288, ENGINE 2563 0 15.19999981 1 19CATERPILLAR G3412TA-LCR, SN: 7DB00288, ENGINE 2563 0 15.19999981 1 19CATERPILLAR G3412TA-LCR, SN: 7DB00288, ENGINE 2563 0 15.19999981 1 19CATERPILLAR G3412TA-LCR, SN: 7DB00288, ENGINE 2563 0 15.19999981 1 19NATURAL GAS ENGINE 510 1055 97.40000153 0.330000013 8NATURAL GAS ENGINE 510 1055 97.40000153 0.330000013 8NATURAL GAS ENGINE 510 1055 97.40000153 0.330000013 8NATURAL GAS ENGINE 510 1055 97.40000153 0.330000013 8IC ENGINE RUNNING & WATER INJECTION PUMP 50 1050 0 0.5 12IC ENGINE RUNNING & WATER INJECTION PUMP 50 1050 0 0.5 12IC ENGINE RUNNING & WATER INJECTION PUMP 50 1050 0 0.5 12IC ENGINE RUNNING & WATER INJECTION PUMP 50 1050 0 0.5 12

409 1050 0 0.829999983 12409 1050 0 0.829999983 12409 1050 0 0.829999983 12409 1050 0 0.829999983 12

NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION ENGINE 1883 168 0 0.300000012 7NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION ENGINE 1883 168 0 0.300000012 7NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION ENGINE 1883 168 0 0.300000012 7NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION ENGINE 1883 168 0 0.300000012 7CATERPILLAR SN:71B900 900 1180 27.10000038 0.419999987 6CATERPILLAR SN:71B900 900 1180 27.10000038 0.419999987 6CATERPILLAR SN:71B900 900 1180 27.10000038 0.419999987 6CATERPILLAR SN:71B900 900 1180 27.10000038 0.419999987 6

4700 700 0 2 20

15
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

emission_release_pt_descript exit_gas_flow_rate exit_gas_temp exit_gas_velocity stack_diameter stack_height

4700 700 0 2 204700 700 0 2 204700 700 0 2 204700 700 0 2 204700 700 0 2 204700 700 0 2 204700 700 0 2 20

GLYCOL DEHYDRATOR 4700 700 0 2 20GLYCOL DEHYDRATOR 4700 700 0 2 20GLYCOL DEHYDRATOR 4700 700 0 2 20GLYCOL DEHYDRATOR 4700 700 0 2 20GLYCOL DEHYDRATOR 4700 700 0 2 20GLYCOL DEHYDRATOR 4700 700 0 2 20GLYCOL DEHYDRATOR 4700 700 0 2 20GLYCOL DEHYDRATOR 4700 700 0 2 20GRAVEL PIT OPERATION-TRANSFER POINTS 0 70 0 0 0FUGITIVE EMISSIONS 0 70 0 0 08 INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES, NAT. GAS FIRED 929 0 78.69999695 5 108 INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES, NAT. GAS FIRED 929 0 78.69999695 5 108 INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES, NAT. GAS FIRED 929 0 78.69999695 5 108 INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES, NAT. GAS FIRED 929 0 78.69999695 5 10CAT G342TA SN:71B1982 900 1180 0 0.400000006 6CAT G342TA SN:71B1982 900 1180 0 0.400000006 6CAT G342TA SN:71B1982 900 1180 0 0.400000006 6CAT G342TA SN:71B1982 900 1180 0 0.400000006 6CAT G3408TA SN:6NB00490 1034 894 87.80000305 0.5 11CAT G3408TA SN:6NB00490 1034 894 87.80000305 0.5 11CAT G3408TA SN:6NB00490 1034 894 87.80000305 0.5 11CAT G3408TA SN:6NB00490 1034 894 87.80000305 0.5 11AJAX DPC 360LE, SN: 8870 0 70 0 0 0AJAX DPC 360LE, SN: 8870 0 70 0 0 0AJAX DPC 360LE, SN: 8870 0 70 0 0 0AJAX DPC 360LE, SN: 8870 0 70 0 0 0

0 0 0 000 0 0 000 0 0 00

16
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

emission_release_pt_descript exit_gas_flow_rate exit_gas_temp exit_gas_velocity stack_diameter stack_heightINCINERATOR 2500 1600 20 1.700000048 18INCINERATOR 2500 1600 20 1.700000048 18INCINERATOR 2500 1600 20 1.700000048 18INCINERATOR 2500 1600 20 1.700000048 18

0 300 0 2 60 300 0 2 60 300 0 2 60 300 0 2 60 70 0 0 0

FUGITIVE EMISSIONS 0 70 0 0 0

500 0 23.79999924 0.699999988 7500 0 23.79999924 0.699999988 7500 0 23.79999924 0.699999988 7500 0 23.79999924 0.699999988 7500 0 23.79999924 0.699999988 7500 0 23.79999924 0.699999988 7500 0 23.79999924 0.699999988 7500 0 23.79999924 0.699999988 7

64 1100 12.5 0.330000013 1264 1100 12.5 0.330000013 1264 1100 12.5 0.330000013 1264 1100 12.5 0.330000013 12

481 580 4.5 1.5 15481 580 4.5 1.5 15

SOLAR CENTAUR TURBINE 63592 985 102.6999969 4 52SOLAR CENTAUR TURBINE 63592 985 102.6999969 4 52SOLAR CENTAUR TURBINE 63592 985 102.6999969 4 52SOLAR CENTAUR TURBINE 63592 985 102.6999969 4 52SOLAR CENTAUR TURBINE 63592 985 102.6999969 4 52SOLAR CENTAUR TURBINE 63592 985 102.6999969 4 52

0 70 0 0 00 70 0 0 0

WATER INJECTION PUM ENGINE--WAUKESHA 0 70 0 0 0WATER INJECTION PUM ENGINE--WAUKESHA 0 70 0 0 0WATER INJECTION PUM ENGINE--WAUKESHA 0 70 0 0 0WATER INJECTION PUM ENGINE--WAUKESHA 0 70 0 0 0

17
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

emission_release_pt_descript exit_gas_flow_rate exit_gas_temp exit_gas_velocity stack_diameter stack_heightAJAX, E-42 NATURAL GAS ENGINE 380 563 0.5 4.119999886 15AJAX, E-42 NATURAL GAS ENGINE 380 563 0.5 4.119999886 15AJAX, E-42 NATURAL GAS ENGINE 380 563 0.5 4.119999886 15AJAX, E-42 NATURAL GAS ENGINE 380 563 0.5 4.119999886 15AJAX E-42, SN: 80029 NATURAL GAS ENGINE 0 70 0 0 0AJAX E-42, SN: 80029 NATURAL GAS ENGINE 0 70 0 0 0AJAX E-42, SN: 80029 NATURAL GAS ENGINE 0 70 0 0 0AJAX E-42, SN: 80029 NATURAL GAS ENGINE 0 70 0 0 0AJAX E-42 ICE SN:E-42-1 .XP 162 800 13.69999981 0.5 10AJAX E-42 ICE SN:E-42-1 .XP 162 800 13.69999981 0.5 10AJAX E-42 ICE SN:E-42-1 .XP 162 800 13.69999981 0.5 10AJAX E-42 ICE SN:E-42-1 .XP 162 800 13.69999981 0.5 10WAUKESHA VRG155 ICE SN:364875 .XP 111 800 9.399999619 0.5 10WAUKESHA VRG155 ICE SN:364875 .XP 111 800 9.399999619 0.5 10WAUKESHA VRG155 ICE SN:364875 .XP 111 800 9.399999619 0.5 10WAUKESHA VRG155 ICE SN:364875 .XP 111 800 9.399999619 0.5 10GEMINI, G-26 RECIPROCATING ENGINE 0 70 0 0 0GEMINI, G-26 RECIPROCATING ENGINE 0 70 0 0 0GEMINI, G-26 RECIPROCATING ENGINE 0 70 0 0 0GEMINI, G-26 RECIPROCATING ENGINE 0 70 0 0 0

18
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

const_permit_last_issue_date construction_permit_number emission_unit_description normal_days_per_week normal_hours_per_day

5/3/2006 0:00 87MN240-1 CATERPILLAR,SN:6NB00535 7 245/3/2006 0:00 87MN240-1 CATERPILLAR,SN:6NB00535 7 245/3/2006 0:00 87MN240-1 CATERPILLAR,SN:6NB00535 7 245/3/2006 0:00 87MN240-1 CATERPILLAR,SN:6NB00535 7 245/2/2006 0:00 87MN240-2 WAUKESHA SN: 398948 7 245/2/2006 0:00 87MN240-2 WAUKESHA SN: 398948 7 245/2/2006 0:00 87MN240-2 WAUKESHA SN: 398948 7 245/2/2006 0:00 87MN240-2 WAUKESHA SN: 398948 7 24

2/16/2006 0:00 02MN0146 7DECTON/BURNHAM BOILER 7 242/16/2006 0:00 02MN0146 7DECTON/BURNHAM BOILER 7 242/16/2006 0:00 02MN0146 7DECTON/BURNHAM BOILER 7 24

2/8/2006 0:00 04DO0170 SOLAR SATURN T-1300 7 242/8/2006 0:00 04DO0170 SOLAR SATURN T-1300 7 242/8/2006 0:00 04DO0170 SOLAR SATURN T-1300 7 242/8/2006 0:00 04DO0170 SOLAR SATURN T-1300 7 24

1/20/2006 0:00 87MN241-2 WAUKESHA F1197, SN:398947 7 241/20/2006 0:00 87MN241-2 WAUKESHA F1197, SN:398947 7 241/20/2006 0:00 87MN241-2 WAUKESHA F1197, SN:398947 7 241/20/2006 0:00 87MN241-2 WAUKESHA F1197, SN:398947 7 248/19/2005 0:00 05MN0403 CONCRETE BATCH PLANT 7 128/19/2005 0:00 05MN0403 CONCRETE BATCH PLANT 7 122/25/2005 0:00 99MN0379F GRAVEL PIT 6 102/25/2005 0:00 99MN0379F GRAVEL PIT 6 109/24/2004 0:00 01MN0049F GRAVEL PIT OPERATION 6 159/24/2004 0:00 01MN0049F GRAVEL PIT OPERATION 6 159/26/2003 0:00 02DO0471 CAT GENERATOR 7DB00725 7 249/26/2003 0:00 02DO0471 CAT GENERATOR 7DB00725 7 249/26/2003 0:00 02DO0471 CAT GENERATOR 7DB00725 7 249/26/2003 0:00 02DO0471 CAT GENERATOR 7DB00725 7 246/12/2003 0:00 97MN0661 SOLAR SATURN 10-T1302 7 246/12/2003 0:00 97MN0661 SOLAR SATURN 10-T1302 7 246/12/2003 0:00 97MN0661 SOLAR SATURN 10-T1302 7 246/12/2003 0:00 97MN0661 SOLAR SATURN 10-T1302 7 246/12/2003 0:00 97MN0660 TURBINE #1 MD:10-T1302 7 246/12/2003 0:00 97MN0660 TURBINE #1 MD:10-T1302 7 246/12/2003 0:00 97MN0660 TURBINE #1 MD:10-T1302 7 24

19
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

const_permit_last_issue_date construction_permit_number emission_unit_description normal_days_per_week normal_hours_per_day

6/12/2003 0:00 97MN0660 TURBINE #1 MD:10-T1302 7 246/12/2003 0:00 90MN208-3 TURBINE SN:0528521R 7 246/12/2003 0:00 90MN208-3 TURBINE SN:0528521R 7 246/12/2003 0:00 90MN208-3 TURBINE SN:0528521R 7 246/12/2003 0:00 90MN208-3 TURBINE SN:0528521R 7 24

3/7/2003 0:00 02MN1019 WAUKESHA F817G 7 243/7/2003 0:00 02MN1019 WAUKESHA F817G 7 243/7/2003 0:00 02MN1019 WAUKESHA F817G 7 243/7/2003 0:00 02MN1019 WAUKESHA F817G 7 24

3/27/2002 0:00 98MN0178 CATERPILLAR G3412TA LCR 7 243/27/2002 0:00 98MN0178 CATERPILLAR G3412TA LCR 7 243/27/2002 0:00 98MN0178 CATERPILLAR G3412TA LCR 7 243/27/2002 0:00 98MN0178 CATERPILLAR G3412TA LCR 7 243/27/2002 0:00 97MN0068 WAUKESHA F817GU IC ENGINE 7 243/27/2002 0:00 97MN0068 WAUKESHA F817GU IC ENGINE 7 243/27/2002 0:00 97MN0068 WAUKESHA F817GU IC ENGINE 7 243/27/2002 0:00 97MN0068 WAUKESHA F817GU IC ENGINE 7 243/27/2002 0:00 95MN1081.XP 4 TANKS, 4000 BBL TOTAL 7 243/27/2002 0:00 95MN1081.XP 4 TANKS, 4000 BBL TOTAL 7 243/27/2002 0:00 93DO1648-2.X WAUKESHA VRG220U ENGINE 7 243/27/2002 0:00 93DO1648-2.X WAUKESHA VRG220U ENGINE 7 243/27/2002 0:00 93DO1648-2.X WAUKESHA VRG220U ENGINE 7 243/27/2002 0:00 93DO1648-2.X WAUKESHA VRG220U ENGINE 7 243/27/2002 0:00 93DO1648-1 WAUKESHA G2895GU ENGINE 7 243/27/2002 0:00 93DO1648-1 WAUKESHA G2895GU ENGINE 7 243/27/2002 0:00 93DO1648-1 WAUKESHA G2895GU ENGINE 7 243/27/2002 0:00 93DO1648-1 WAUKESHA G2895GU ENGINE 7 243/27/2002 0:00 93DO1636 WAUKESHA F817G ICE 7 243/27/2002 0:00 93DO1636 WAUKESHA F817G ICE 7 243/27/2002 0:00 93DO1636 WAUKESHA F817G ICE 7 243/27/2002 0:00 93DO1636 WAUKESHA F817G ICE 7 243/27/2002 0:00 87MN240-3.CN CATERPILLAR SN: 71B900 7 243/27/2002 0:00 87MN240-3.CN CATERPILLAR SN: 71B900 7 243/27/2002 0:00 87MN240-3.CN CATERPILLAR SN: 71B900 7 243/27/2002 0:00 87MN240-3.CN CATERPILLAR SN: 71B900 7 241/16/2002 0:00 82MN411-3 GLYCOL REBOILER H-102B 7 24

20
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

const_permit_last_issue_date construction_permit_number emission_unit_description normal_days_per_week normal_hours_per_day

1/16/2002 0:00 82MN411-3 GLYCOL REBOILER H-102B 7 241/16/2002 0:00 82MN411-3 GLYCOL REBOILER H-102B 7 241/16/2002 0:00 82MN411-3 GLYCOL REBOILER H-102B 7 241/16/2002 0:00 82MN411-2 GLYCOL REBOILER H-102A 7 241/16/2002 0:00 82MN411-2 GLYCOL REBOILER H-102A 7 241/16/2002 0:00 82MN411-2 GLYCOL REBOILER H-102A 7 241/16/2002 0:00 82MN411-2 GLYCOL REBOILER H-102A 7 241/16/2002 0:00 82MN397-3 GLYCOL REBOILER H-102B 7 241/16/2002 0:00 82MN397-3 GLYCOL REBOILER H-102B 7 241/16/2002 0:00 82MN397-3 GLYCOL REBOILER H-102B 7 241/16/2002 0:00 82MN397-3 GLYCOL REBOILER H-102B 7 241/16/2002 0:00 82MN397-2 GLYCOL REBOILER H-102A 7 241/16/2002 0:00 82MN397-2 GLYCOL REBOILER H-102A 7 241/16/2002 0:00 82MN397-2 GLYCOL REBOILER H-102A 7 241/16/2002 0:00 82MN397-2 GLYCOL REBOILER H-102A 7 24

3/1/2001 0:00 95MN763F GRAVEL PIT 5 83/1/2001 0:00 95MN763F GRAVEL PIT 5 85/5/2000 0:00 95MN183 8 ENGINES 7 245/5/2000 0:00 95MN183 8 ENGINES 7 245/5/2000 0:00 95MN183 8 ENGINES 7 245/5/2000 0:00 95MN183 8 ENGINES 7 242/2/2000 0:00 87MN241-3 CATERPILLAR, SN:71B1982 7 242/2/2000 0:00 87MN241-3 CATERPILLAR, SN:71B1982 7 242/2/2000 0:00 87MN241-3 CATERPILLAR, SN:71B1982 7 242/2/2000 0:00 87MN241-3 CATERPILLAR, SN:71B1982 7 242/2/2000 0:00 87MN241-1 CAT G3408TA 6NB00490 7 242/2/2000 0:00 87MN241-1 CAT G3408TA 6NB00490 7 242/2/2000 0:00 87MN241-1 CAT G3408TA 6NB00490 7 242/2/2000 0:00 87MN241-1 CAT G3408TA 6NB00490 7 245/3/1999 0:00 95DO002-2 AJAX DPC 360LE, SN: 8870 7 245/3/1999 0:00 95DO002-2 AJAX DPC 360LE, SN: 8870 7 245/3/1999 0:00 95DO002-2 AJAX DPC 360LE, SN: 8870 7 245/3/1999 0:00 95DO002-2 AJAX DPC 360LE, SN: 8870 7 246/4/1998 0:00 98MN0449 SAND & GRAVEL PIT OPERATN 4 76/4/1998 0:00 98MN0449 SAND & GRAVEL PIT OPERATN 4 76/4/1998 0:00 98MN0353F GRAVEL PIT 7 10

21
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

const_permit_last_issue_date construction_permit_number emission_unit_description normal_days_per_week normal_hours_per_day

2/3/1998 0:00 97MN0038 CREMATOR A11-1801 7 242/3/1998 0:00 97MN0038 CREMATOR A11-1801 7 242/3/1998 0:00 97MN0038 CREMATOR A11-1801 7 242/3/1998 0:00 97MN0038 CREMATOR A11-1801 7 246/4/1997 0:00 96MN939 2 CLEAVER BROOKS BOILERS 7 246/4/1997 0:00 96MN939 2 CLEAVER BROOKS BOILERS 7 246/4/1997 0:00 96MN939 2 CLEAVER BROOKS BOILERS 7 246/4/1997 0:00 96MN939 2 CLEAVER BROOKS BOILERS 7 246/4/1997 0:00 96MN776 CUSTOM CONCRETE BTCH PLNT 5 86/4/1997 0:00 96MN776 CUSTOM CONCRETE BTCH PLNT 5 81/2/1900 0:00 95MN924 AJAX MOD DP 60 7 241/2/1900 0:00 95MN924 AJAX MOD DP 60 7 241/2/1900 0:00 95MN924 AJAX MOD DP 60 7 241/2/1900 0:00 95MN924 AJAX MOD DP 60 7 241/2/1900 0:00 95MN923 AJAX MDO DP60 7 241/2/1900 0:00 95MN923 AJAX MDO DP60 7 241/2/1900 0:00 95MN923 AJAX MDO DP60 7 241/2/1900 0:00 95MN923 AJAX MDO DP60 7 241/2/1900 0:00 93MN1659 XP WAUKESHA VRG155U 7 241/2/1900 0:00 93MN1659 XP WAUKESHA VRG155U 7 241/2/1900 0:00 93MN1659 XP WAUKESHA VRG155U 7 241/2/1900 0:00 93MN1659 XP WAUKESHA VRG155U 7 241/2/1900 0:00 92MN878-5.XP INLET HEATER 7 241/2/1900 0:00 92MN878-5.XP INLET HEATER 7 241/2/1900 0:00 91MN343-2 SOLAR CENTAUR SN: 4441C 7 241/2/1900 0:00 91MN343-2 SOLAR CENTAUR SN: 4441C 7 241/2/1900 0:00 91MN343-2 SOLAR CENTAUR SN: 4441C 7 241/2/1900 0:00 91MN343-1 SOLAR CENTAUR SN: 4440C 7 241/2/1900 0:00 91MN343-1 SOLAR CENTAUR SN: 4440C 7 241/2/1900 0:00 91MN343-1 SOLAR CENTAUR SN: 4440C 7 241/2/1900 0:00 86MN265F S&G STORAGE & HANDLING 5 81/2/1900 0:00 86DO594 DRY BEAN PROCESS-CLEAN 5 81/2/1900 0:00 04MN0597 WAUK, VRG155, SN:364875 7 241/2/1900 0:00 04MN0597 WAUK, VRG155, SN:364875 7 241/2/1900 0:00 04MN0597 WAUK, VRG155, SN:364875 7 241/2/1900 0:00 04MN0597 WAUK, VRG155, SN:364875 7 24

22
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

const_permit_last_issue_date construction_permit_number emission_unit_description normal_days_per_week normal_hours_per_day

1/2/1900 0:00 04MN0334 XP AJAX, E-42. SN: 66959 7 241/2/1900 0:00 04MN0334 XP AJAX, E-42. SN: 66959 7 241/2/1900 0:00 04MN0334 XP AJAX, E-42. SN: 66959 7 241/2/1900 0:00 04MN0334 XP AJAX, E-42. SN: 66959 7 241/2/1900 0:00 03MN1122.XP AJAX, E-42, SN: 80029 7 241/2/1900 0:00 03MN1122.XP AJAX, E-42, SN: 80029 7 241/2/1900 0:00 03MN1122.XP AJAX, E-42, SN: 80029 7 241/2/1900 0:00 03MN1122.XP AJAX, E-42, SN: 80029 7 241/2/1900 0:00 03MN0092.XP AJAX E-42 ICE SN:E-42-1 7 241/2/1900 0:00 03MN0092.XP AJAX E-42 ICE SN:E-42-1 7 241/2/1900 0:00 03MN0092.XP AJAX E-42 ICE SN:E-42-1 7 241/2/1900 0:00 03MN0092.XP AJAX E-42 ICE SN:E-42-1 7 241/2/1900 0:00 03MN0091.XP WAUKESHA ICE SN:364875 7 241/2/1900 0:00 03MN0091.XP WAUKESHA ICE SN:364875 7 241/2/1900 0:00 03MN0091.XP WAUKESHA ICE SN:364875 7 241/2/1900 0:00 03MN0091.XP WAUKESHA ICE SN:364875 7 241/2/1900 0:00 03DO0430 XP GEMINI, G-26, SN: E1330 7 241/2/1900 0:00 03DO0430 XP GEMINI, G-26, SN: E1330 7 241/2/1900 0:00 03DO0430 XP GEMINI, G-26, SN: E1330 7 241/2/1900 0:00 03DO0430 XP GEMINI, G-26, SN: E1330 7 24

23
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

normal_hours_per_year percent_throughput_winter percent_throughput_spring percent_throughput_summer percent_throughput_fall

8760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 254368 20 20 30 304368 20 20 30 303000 20 20 30 303000 20 20 30 303600 0 20 35 453600 0 20 35 458760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 25

24
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

normal_hours_per_year percent_throughput_winter percent_throughput_spring percent_throughput_summer percent_throughput_fall

8760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 25

25
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

normal_hours_per_year percent_throughput_winter percent_throughput_spring percent_throughput_summer percent_throughput_fall

8760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 251440 25 25 25 251440 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 25

336 0 0 1 99336 0 0 1 99

0 10 30 30 30

26
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

normal_hours_per_year percent_throughput_winter percent_throughput_spring percent_throughput_summer percent_throughput_fall

8760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 252160 10 10 40 402160 10 10 40 408760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258736 25 25 25 258736 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 252080 25 25 25 252080 30 20 10 408760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 25

27
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

normal_hours_per_year percent_throughput_winter percent_throughput_spring percent_throughput_summer percent_throughput_fall

8760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 258760 25 25 25 25

28
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

unit_emis_limit1 unit_emis_limit1_units street_line1 x_coordinate y_coordinate scc_afs

3.52 TY SW NE SEC 26 T37N R19W 684.846748 4145.360923 20200202

41.04 TY SW NE SEC 26 T37N R19W 684.846748 4145.360923 20200202

SW NE SEC 26 T37N R19W 684.846748 4145.360923 20200202SW NE SEC 26 T37N R19W 684.846748 4145.360923 20200202

1.92 TY SW NE SEC 26 T37N R19W 684.846748 4145.360923 2020020227.4 TY SW NE SEC 26 T37N R19W 684.846748 4145.360923 20200202

SW NE SEC 26 T37N R19W 684.846748 4145.360923 20200202SW NE SEC 26 T37N R19W 684.846748 4145.360923 20200202

8.6 TY 20545 ROAD U 705.7738382 4149.718375 102009067.1 TY 20545 ROAD U 705.7738382 4149.718375 102009065.2 TY 20545 ROAD U 705.7738382 4149.718375 10200906

31.2 TY NE SEC 9 T41N R19W 679.5262249 4189.714783 2010020116.4 TY NE SEC 9 T41N R19W 679.5262249 4189.714783 20100201

NE SEC 9 T41N R19W 679.5262249 4189.714783 20100201NE SEC 9 T41N R19W 679.5262249 4189.714783 20100201

0.7 TY SW SE SEC 10 T37N R19W 683.1116864 4149.208439 202002021.4 TY SW SE SEC 10 T37N R19W 683.1116864 4149.208439 20200202

SW SE SEC 10 T37N R19W 683.1116864 4149.208439 20200202SW SE SEC 10 T37N R19W 683.1116864 4149.208439 20200202

5.51 TY 10400 ROAD 25 713.3470934 4138.07006 305011015.51 TY 10400 ROAD 25 713.3470934 4138.07006 305011016.83 TY NW SEC 34 T38N R14W NMPM 731.026404 4154.947966 305025016.83 TY NW SEC 34 T38N R14W NMPM 731.026404 4154.947966 30502501

4 TY 21944 HIGHWAY 145 720.1774581 4150.096491 305025014 TY 21944 HIGHWAY 145 720.1774581 4150.096491 30502501

16 TY SESW SEC 7 T38N R19W 677.6794018 4158.981842 2010020230 TY SESW SEC 7 T38N R19W 677.6794018 4158.981842 20100202

SESW SEC 7 T38N R19W 677.6794018 4158.981842 20100202SESW SEC 7 T38N R19W 677.6794018 4158.981842 20100202SW SE SEC 31 T37N R14W 727.0356801 4144.126852 20200201

16.2 TY SW SE SEC 31 T37N R14W 727.0356801 4144.126852 20200201

2.1 TY SW SE SEC 31 T37N R14W 727.0356801 4144.126852 20200201

SW SE SEC 31 T37N R14W 727.0356801 4144.126852 20200201

15.8 TY SW SE SEC 31 T37N R14W 727.0356801 4144.126852 2020020116.2 TY SW SE SEC 31 T37N R14W 727.0356801 4144.126852 20200201

2.1 TY SW SE SEC 31 T37N R14W 727.0356801 4144.126852 20200201

29
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

unit_emis_limit1 unit_emis_limit1_units street_line1 x_coordinate y_coordinate scc_afs

SW SE SEC 31 T37N R14W 727.0356801 4144.126852 20200201

15.8 TY SW SE SEC 31 T37N R14W 727.0356801 4144.126852 2020020116.2 TY SW SE SEC 31 T37N R14W 727.0356801 4144.126852 202002011.84 TY SW SE SEC 31 T37N R14W 727.0356801 4144.126852 20200201

SW SE SEC 31 T37N R14W 727.0356801 4144.126852 20200201

0.9 TY SW NW SEC 26 T37N R19W 684.8409584 4145.366963 20200254

14.2 TY SW NW SEC 26 T37N R19W 684.8409584 4145.366963 20200254

SW NW SEC 26 T37N R19W 684.8409584 4145.366963 20200254SW NW SEC 26 T37N R19W 684.8409584 4145.366963 20200254NW NE SEC 21 T38N R19W 681.3553104 4157.025782 20200202NW NE SEC 21 T38N R19W 681.3553104 4157.025782 20200202NW NE SEC 21 T38N R19W 681.3553104 4157.025782 20200202NW NE SEC 21 T38N R19W 681.3553104 4157.025782 20200202

0.9 TY SW NE SEC 15 T37N R19W 683.1834625 4148.52666 20200202

13.9 TY SW NE SEC 15 T37N R19W 683.1834625 4148.52666 20200202

SW NE SEC 15 T37N R19W 683.1834625 4148.52666 20200202SW NE SEC 15 T37N R19W 683.1834625 4148.52666 20200202NW NE SEC 21 T38N R19W 20200201NW NE SEC 21 T38N R19W 20200201NW SW SEC 7 T38N R19W 677.9461644 4159.706294 20200202NW SW SEC 7 T38N R19W 677.9461644 4159.706294 20200202NW SW SEC 7 T38N R19W 677.9461644 4159.706294 20200202NW SW SEC 7 T38N R19W 677.9461644 4159.706294 20200202NW SW SEC 7 T38N R19W 677.9461644 4159.706294 20200202NW SW SEC 7 T38N R19W 677.9461644 4159.706294 20200202NW SW SEC 7 T38N R19W 677.9461644 4159.706294 20200202NW SW SEC 7 T38N R19W 677.9461644 4159.706294 20200202

1.5 TY SEC 36 T39N R20W 676.7325458 4162.517307 20200201

11.5 TY SEC 36 T39N R20W 676.7325458 4162.517307 20200201

SEC 36 T39N R20W 676.7325458 4162.517307 20200201SEC 36 T39N R20W 676.7325458 4162.517307 20200201

2.67 TY SW NE SEC 26 T37N R19W 684.846748 4145.360923 20200202

21.01 TY SW NE SEC 26 T37N R19W 684.846748 4145.360923 20200202

SW NE SEC 26 T37N R19W 684.846748 4145.360923 20200202SW NE SEC 26 T37N R19W 684.846748 4145.360923 20200202SW SEC 6 T37N R18W 687.2940823 4151.268364 10300501

30
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

unit_emis_limit1 unit_emis_limit1_units street_line1 x_coordinate y_coordinate scc_afs

4.3 TY SW SEC 6 T37N R18W 687.2940823 4151.268364 10300501

SW SEC 6 T37N R18W 687.2940823 4151.268364 10300501

8.5 TY SW SEC 6 T37N R18W 687.2940823 4151.268364 10300501

SW SEC 6 T37N R18W 687.2940823 4151.268364 10300501

4.3 TY SW SEC 6 T37N R18W 687.2940823 4151.268364 10300501

SW SEC 6 T37N R18W 687.2940823 4151.268364 10300501

8.5 TY SW SEC 6 T37N R18W 687.2940823 4151.268364 10300501

NW SEC 13 T37N R18W 695.3310039 4149.291289 10300501

4.3 TY NW SEC 13 T37N R18W 695.3310039 4149.291289 10300501

NW SEC 13 T37N R18W 695.3310039 4149.291289 10300501

8.32 TY NW SEC 13 T37N R18W 695.3310039 4149.291289 10300501

NW SEC 13 T37N R18W 695.3310039 4149.291289 31000227

4.5 TY NW SEC 13 T37N R18W 695.3310039 4149.291289 31000227

NW SEC 13 T37N R18W 695.3310039 4149.291289 31000227

8.5 TY NW SEC 13 T37N R18W 695.3310039 4149.291289 31000227

4.15 TY SE SEC 13 T37N R15W 725.382259 4149.118807 305025034.15 TY SE SEC 13 T37N R15W 725.382259 4149.118807 30502501

5.8 TY SEC 34 & 35 T35N R20W 674.9148599 4124.196402 20200202

40.2 TY SEC 34 & 35 T35N R20W 674.9148599 4124.196402 20200202

SEC 34 & 35 T35N R20W 674.9148599 4124.196402 20200202SEC 34 & 35 T35N R20W 674.9148599 4124.196402 20200202

29.2 TY SW SE SEC 10 T37N R19W 683.1116864 4149.208439 2020020217.8 TY SW SE SEC 10 T37N R19W 683.1116864 4149.208439 20200202

SW SE SEC 10 T37N R19W 683.1116864 4149.208439 20200202SW SE SEC 10 T37N R19W 683.1116864 4149.208439 20200202

25.2 TY SW SE SEC 10 T37N R19W 683.1116864 4149.208439 2020020225.2 TY SW SE SEC 10 T37N R19W 683.1116864 4149.208439 20200202

SW SE SEC 10 T37N R19W 683.1116864 4149.208439 20200202SW SE SEC 10 T37N R19W 683.1116864 4149.208439 20200202

2.8 TY SE/SW SEC 30 T39N R19W 677.7316207 4164.470453 20200202

14.1 TY SE/SW SEC 30 T39N R19W 677.7316207 4164.470453 20200202

SE/SW SEC 30 T39N R19W 677.7316207 4164.470453 20200202SE/SW SEC 30 T39N R19W 677.7316207 4164.470453 20200202SE NW SE SEC 36 T36N R18W 696.3124103 4134.477222 30502501SE NW SE SEC 36 T36N R18W 696.3124103 4134.477222 30502501NW NE SEC 13 T35N R17W 706.4843364 4130.228454 30502501

31
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

unit_emis_limit1 unit_emis_limit1_units street_line1 x_coordinate y_coordinate scc_afs

101 N MARKET ST 713.8723437 4136.429317 50200505101 N MARKET ST 713.8723437 4136.429317 50200505101 N MARKET ST 713.8723437 4136.429317 50200505101 N MARKET ST 713.8723437 4136.429317 502005051311 N MILDRED RD 714.945717 4137.970072 201001021311 N MILDRED RD 714.945717 4137.970072 201001021311 N MILDRED RD 714.945717 4137.970072 201001021311 N MILDRED RD 714.945717 4137.970072 20100102

2 TY 6560 COUNTY RD 24.3 712.2568919 4140.098034 305011012 TY 6560 COUNTY RD 24.3 712.2568919 4140.098034 30501101

0.9 TY SE NW SEC 15 T33.5N R20W 676.375018 4118.21145 202002022.3 TY SE NW SEC 15 T33.5N R20W 676.375018 4118.21145 20200202

SE NW SEC 15 T33.5N R20W 676.375018 4118.21145 20200202SE NW SEC 15 T33.5N R20W 676.375018 4118.21145 20200202

0.9 TY SE NW SEC 15 T33.5N R20W 676.375018 4118.21145 202002022.3 TY SE NW SEC 15 T33.5N R20W 676.375018 4118.21145 20200202

SE NW SEC 15 T33.5N R20W 676.375018 4118.21145 20200202SE NW SEC 15 T33.5N R20W 676.375018 4118.21145 20200202

0.4 TY SW NE SEC 26 T37N R19W 684.846748 4145.360923 202002022.6 TY SW NE SEC 26 T37N R19W 684.846748 4145.360923 20200202

SW NE SEC 26 T37N R19W 684.846748 4145.360923 20200202SW NE SEC 26 T37N R19W 684.846748 4145.360923 20200202NW NE SEC 21 T38N R19W 681.3553104 4157.025782 10300603NW NE SEC 21 T38N R19W 681.3553104 4157.025782 10300603

12.8 TY NW NW SEC 10 T38N R17W 701.6144286 4160.829825 2020020162.7 TY NW NW SEC 10 T38N R17W 701.6144286 4160.829825 202002010.98 TY NW NW SEC 10 T38N R17W 701.6144286 4160.829825 2020020112.8 TY NW NW SEC 10 T38N R17W 701.6144286 4160.829825 2020020162.7 TY NW NW SEC 10 T38N R17W 701.6144286 4160.829825 202002010.98 TM NW NW SEC 10 T38N R17W 701.6144286 4160.829825 20200201

25350 ROAD L 713.6563602 4138.732166 3050250309006 E US HWY 666 687.1151172 4179.737482 30200782

4.43 TY SWSE SEC 26 T37N R19W 684.8538541 4144.552519 202002532.63 TY SWSE SEC 26 T37N R19W 684.8538541 4144.552519 20200253

SWSE SEC 26 T37N R19W 684.8538541 4144.552519 20200253SWSE SEC 26 T37N R19W 684.8538541 4144.552519 20200253

32
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

unit_emis_limit1 unit_emis_limit1_units street_line1 x_coordinate y_coordinate scc_afs

SE SW SEC 35 T37N R19W 684.4905234 4142.978545 20200202SE SW SEC 35 T37N R19W 684.4905234 4142.978545 20200202SE SW SEC 35 T37N R19W 684.4905234 4142.978545 20200202SE SW SEC 35 T37N R19W 684.4905234 4142.978545 20200202SE NW SEC3 T37N R19W 682.6568523 4151.84553 20200252

1.7 TY SE NW SEC3 T37N R19W 682.6568523 4151.84553 20200252

SE NW SEC3 T37N R19W 682.6568523 4151.84553 20200252SE NW SEC3 T37N R19W 682.6568523 4151.84553 20200252

1.2 TY SEC 17 T38N R19W 679.5512585 4158.014993 202002521.5 TY SEC 17 T38N R19W 679.5512585 4158.014993 20200252

SEC 17 T38N R19W 679.5512585 4158.014993 20200252SEC 17 T38N R19W 679.5512585 4158.014993 20200252

4.4 TY SEC 17 T38N R19W 679.5512585 4158.014993 202002522.6 TY SEC 17 T38N R19W 679.5512585 4158.014993 20200252

SEC 17 T38N R19W 679.5512585 4158.014993 20200252SEC 17 T38N R19W 679.5512585 4158.014993 20200252SEC 7, T39N, R19W 677.5348655 4169.318644 20200202

2.76 TY SEC 7, T39N, R19W 677.5348655 4169.318644 20200202

SEC 7, T39N, R19W 677.5348655 4169.318644 20200202SEC 7, T39N, R19W 677.5348655 4169.318644 20200202

33
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

column descriptionconst_permit_last_issue_date Construction permit latest issue date.construction_permit_number Construction permit number from CPTS.county_fips County FIPS codecounty_fips County FIPS code.distance Distance, in km, to the reference center point entered in the data extraction selection criteria.emission_process_description A text description of the Emission Process.

emission_release_pt_descript Emission release point (Stack) Description.emission_unit_description Emission unit description.emission_unit_id Unique emission unit ID reported consistently over time.exit_gas_flow_rate Numeric value of stack gas flow rate in (actual cubic feet per minute).exit_gas_temp The temperature of an exit gas stream (degree Fahrenheit).exit_gas_velocity The velocity of an exit gas stream (feet per second).facility_name The name of the facility.normal_days_per_week Normal Operating Schedule - Days per Week.normal_hours_per_day Normal Operating Schedule - Hours per Day.normal_hours_per_year Normal Operating Schedule - Hours per Year.percent_throughput_fall Seasonal throughput percentage - Fall (September-November).percent_throughput_spring Seasonal throughput percentage - Spring (March-May).percent_throughput_summer Seasonal throughput percentage - Summer (June-August).percent_throughput_winter Seasonal throughput percentage - Winter (December-January).pollutant_code Pollutant abbreviation or CAS registry number (consistant with AIRS).proc_emis_estim Process level estimated emissions in tons per year.proc_emis_estim_units Process level estimated emissions units.process_id Unique emission process ID reported consistently over time.scc_afs EPA Source Category Code (SCC) for point sources.site_emis_limit1 Site-wide emission limit.site_emis_limit1_units Site-wide emission limit units.site_id Unique site ID reported consistently over time.stack_diameter The diameter (in feet) of a stack.stack_height The hieght (in feet) of a stack.stack_id Unique emission release point ID reported consistently over time.street_line1 Line 1 of the site location address.unit_emis_limit1 Emission unit (Point) level emission limit.unit_emis_limit1_units Emission unit (Point) level emission limit units.x_coordinate

Stack X-coordinate (proj=utm units=km datum=NAD83 zone=12). Plant coordinates will be substituded if no stack data available.

34
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

column descriptiony_coordinate

Stack Y-coordinate (proj=utm units=km datum=NAD83 zone=12). Plant coordinates will be substituded if no stack data available.

35
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix J

Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

APPENDIX C 

VISCREEN Modeling Results 

Appendix J Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 

 Visual Effects Screening Analysis for 

 Source: CANM 

 Class I Area: MVNP 

 *** User-selected Screening Scenario Results *** 

 Input Emissions for 

 Particulates 96.80 TON/YR 

 NOx (as NO2) 360.00 TON/YR 

 Primary NO2 .00 TON/YR 

 Soot .00 TON/YR 

 Primary SO4 .29 TON/YR 

 **** Default Particle Characteristics Assumed 

 Transport Scenario Specifications: 

 Background Ozone: .08 ppm 

 Background Visual Range: 251.00 km 

 Source-Observer Distance: 115.00 km 

 Min. Source-Class I Distance: 115.00 km 

 Max. Source-Class I Distance: 135.00 km 

 Plume-Source-Observer Angle: 11.25 degrees 

 Stability: 6 

 Wind Speed: 1.00 m/s 

R E S U L T S 

 Asterisks (*) indicate plume impacts that exceed screening criteria 

 Maximum Visual Impacts INSIDE Class I Area 

 Screening Criteria ARE NOT Exceeded 

 Delta E Contrast 

 =========== ============ 

 Backgrnd Theta Azi Distance Alpha Crit Plume Crit Plume 

 ======== ===== === ======== ===== ==== ===== ==== ===== 

 SKY 10. 123. 135.0 45. 2.00 .619 .05 .010 

 SKY 140. 123. 135.0 45. 2.00 .177 .05 -.004 

 TERRAIN 10. 84. 115.0 84. 2.00 .804 .05 .008 

 TERRAIN 140. 84. 115.0 84. 2.00 .065 .05 .001 

 

 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix J

Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

 Visual Effects Screening Analysis for 

 Source: Monticello NEPA Project 

 Class I Area: MVNP 

 *** User-selected Screening Scenario Results *** 

 Input Emissions for 

 Particulates 96.80 TON/YR 

 NOx (as NO2) 360.00 TON/YR 

 Primary NO2 .00 TON/YR 

 Soot .00 TON/YR 

 Primary SO4 .29 TON/YR 

 

 **** Default Particle Characteristics Assumed 

 Transport Scenario Specifications: 

 Background Ozone: .08 ppm 

 Background Visual Range: 251.00 km 

 Source-Observer Distance: 165.00 km 

 Min. Source-Class I Distance: 165.00 km 

 Max. Source-Class I Distance: 185.00 km 

 Plume-Source-Observer Angle: 11.25 degrees 

 Stability: 6 

 Wind Speed: 1.00 m/s 

 R E S U L T S 

 Asterisks (*) indicate plume impacts that exceed screening criteria 

 Maximum Visual Impacts INSIDE Class I Area 

 Screening Criteria ARE NOT Exceeded 

 Delta E Contrast 

 =========== ============ 

 Backgrnd Theta Azi Distance Alpha Crit Plume Crit Plume 

 ======== ===== === ======== ===== ==== ===== ==== ===== 

 SKY 10. 114. 185.0 54. 2.00 .349 .05 .006 

 SKY 140. 114. 185.0 54. 2.00 .083 .05 -.002 

 TERRAIN 10. 84. 165.0 84. 2.00 .339 .05 .004 

 TERRAIN 140. 84. 165.0 84. 2.00 .031 .05 .001 

 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix K 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix K 

Stipulations 

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix K 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

1 

Introduction 

Oil and gas leases issued pursuant to approval and implementation of any of the action 

alternatives analyzed under this Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact 

Statement (RMP/EIS) grant the lessee the right to extract the oil and gas resource on 

affected U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands within the Monument. Section 6 

of the standard BLM lease document restricts the lease rights granted by requiring that 

the lessee conduct operations in a manner that minimizes adverse (environmental) 

impacts and takes reasonable measures deemed necessary by the lessor (BLM) to 

accomplish this intent. These prudent measures are applied through a Condition of 

Approval (COA) during the permit process for oil and gas development. 

If BLM deems it necessary to place additional restrictions on the rights of lessees in 

order to protect environmental resources, stipulations are appended to the lease. 

Stipulations clarify BLM’s intent to protect known resources or resource values. 

Stipulations that would be applied to new oil and gas leases under any of the action 

alternatives (Alternatives II through V) analyzed in the Draft RMP/EIS are listed and 

described in Table K-1, below. 

Note that existing stipulations under the Record of Decision: Oil and Gas Plan 

Amendment to the San Juan/San Miguel Resource Management Plan (BLM 1991a) 

would apply to existing leases and would be carried-forward on new leases. The new 

stipulations discussed below would apply only to new oil and gas leases. Note also that 

equivalent levels of protection would be applied to other land uses and management 

actions as a condition of their approval. Other protective measures such as special 

mitigation requirements could also be applied to land uses and management actions 

other than oil and gas (as described above, they could be required for oil and gas as a 

COA during the permitting process). 

The conditions under which each stipulation would apply, and standards that must be 

met for their application, are explicitly stated in Table K-1. These standards may be 

modified, as necessary, to provide the protections to resources for which they were 

intended. Exceptions to stipulations may be applied, should unforeseen circumstances 

arise or new information becomes available. Likewise, waivers may be applied following 

a rigorous testing process. 

The terms included in this discussion are defined in greater detail in the following: 

 Stipulation – A condition of lease issuance that provides protection for other 

resource values or land uses by establishing authority for substantial delay or site 

changes or the denial of operations within the terms of the lease contract. 

 No Surface Occupancy (NSO) – The NSO stipulation is intended for application 

only when other stipulations are deemed insufficient to achieve the level of resource 

protection necessary to protect the public interest. An NSO stipulation is not needed 

if relocating a proposed facility or activity or avoiding that activity for a specified 

period can accomplish the desired level of protection. 

 Controlled Surface Use (CSU) – The CSU stipulation is intended for application 

where standard lease terms and permit-level decisions are deemed insufficient to 

achieve the level of resource protection necessary to protect the public interest, but 

where an NSO is deemed overly restrictive. 

A CSU stipulation allows BLM to require that a proposed facility or activity be 

relocated by more than 200 meters from the proposed location if necessary to 
Appendix K Canyons of the Ancients National Monument 

 Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2 

achieve the desired level of protection. A CSU is not required if relocating a 

proposed facility or activity by up to 200 meters would be sufficient for protection of 

the specified resources. 

 Timing Limitation (TL) – This stipulation limits activity during a specified period of 

the year. A TL stipulation is intended for application where standard lease terms are 

deemed insufficient to achieve the level of resource protection necessary to protect 

the public interest, but where an NSO is deemed overly restrictive. The scope of the 

TL stipulation goes beyond ground-disturbing activities to encompass any source of 

protracted or high-intensity disturbance that could interfere with normal wildlife 

behavior and adversely affect habitat use. The limitation is applied annually for a 

specified period lasting more than 60 days. 

Under the Proposed Plan, TLs may also be applied to land uses and activities other 

than oil and gas development. 

 Stipulation Standards – the physical and temporal conditions, resources or 

resource values that must be present and met for application of a specific stipulation 

to a specific lease. 

 Exception – A one-time exemption from a stipulation. Exceptions are determined on 

a case-by-case basis, and if granted, suspend the restrictions of a stipulation for a 

specified period, location, or activity. The stipulation continues to apply to other sites 

within the stipulation area. Exceptions that conform to the RMP do not require public 

notice. Non-conforming exceptions are granted only upon RMP amendment and 

following public notice. 

 Modification – A fundamental change to the provisions of a stipulation. 

Modifications may be temporary or permanent and apply to a specific site or to all 

sites within the stipulation areas. Modifications are made if it is determined that the 

stipulation is no longer required as written, such as based on the results of 

monitoring data. While the underlying purpose of the stipulation continues, it can be 

met with less restrictive means. Modifications require an environmental assessment 

to determine potential impacts and evaluate whether an RMP amendment is needed. 

If deemed substantial, a modification requires a 30-day public notice period prior to 

implementation. 

 Waiver – A permanent exemption to a stipulation. Waivers apply to an entire 

stipulation area and are applied only after preparation of an environmental 

assessment and subsequent decision that a stipulation is no longer required to 

protect a specific resource. The decision to waive a substantial stipulation requires a 

plan amendment and a 30-day public notice period prior to waiver. 

Regulations covering exceptions, modifications, and waivers are found in 43 CFR 

3101.1-4. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix K 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

3 

Appendix Table K-1. Descriptions of Stipulations Applicable to New Oil and Gas Leases, Alternatives II to V 

Stipulation 

NSO Cultural resources (includes communities and sites [and isolated findsAlternative II]) Alternatives II, III, and V 

Goal: Ensure that the cultural objects of the Monument are protected at the landscape level and that all multiple-use resource management and 

authorizations for land and resource uses are conducted in compliance with Section 106 and Section 110 of the NHPA, as amended. Maintain the 

acoustic aspect of the traditional cultural landscape. Objective: Manage multiple-uses to ensure protection of cultural resources in compliance with Section 106 of NHPA and the Proclamation. 

Manage all sources of noise in a manner that would not change the characteristics of the traditional landscape. Management Actions: Long-term ground-disturbing activities are not permitted within 100 meters of cultural resources, defined as communities and sites (and isolated 

finds – Alternative II).Standards: 

• Presence of cultural resources, defined as communities and sites (and isolated finds – Alternative II).

• To determine potential for presence of cultural resources, a Class III Inventory (100 percent on the ground survey) will be required in 

areas of proposed long-term ground-disturbing projects. 

• Require monitoring during implementation of ground-disturbing projects even in areas having received Class III inventory where no sites 

were located, due to the potential for buried subsurface cultural deposits with no surface indications within the Monument. The 

Monument Manager may grant exceptions. Post-project monitoring may be required at Manager’s discretion. 

• Design or modify multiple-use projects or activities when possible to avoid significant cultural resources in order to result in “no historic 

properties affected” or “no adverse effect” determinations. 

• Manage maximum permissible noise levels to meet compliance with State of Colorado standards (State of Colorado Revised Statue 

[CRS]: Title 25 Health/Environmental Control: Article 12 Colorado Noise Statute - CRS§ 25-10-103). 

NSO Areas with slopes greater than 30 percent and/or soils with high erosion potential. Alternatives II through V 

Goal: Manage soil resources to sustain multiple-uses and preserve or enhance existing ecological integrity and function. 

Objective: Manage uses to prevent damage to soil resources by protecting from surface disturbance and maintaining vegetation cover on slopes 

greater than 30 percent and other areas with high erosion potential. 

Management Actions: Long-term ground-disturbing activities are not permitted on slopes steeper than 30 percent and/or soils with high erosion potential. 

Standards: 

• Presence of steep slopes that reduce the protective attributes of vegetation below a Site Conservation Threshold (point beyond which 

vegetation is unable to hold the soil in place).

• Long-term, ground-disturbing activities in areas with slopes steeper than 30 percent will not be granted for access to areas with slopes less 

than 30 percent. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix K 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

4 

Appendix Table K-1. Descriptions of Stipulations Applicable to New Oil and Gas Leases, Alternatives II to V 

Stipulation 

NSO Southwestern willow flycatcher habitat (with 0.25-mile buffer) Alternative II 

Goal: Contribute to the recovery of the southwestern willow flycatcher. Objective: Implement recovery actions as described in the August 2002 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Final Recovery Plan, or the most recent 

version of the Recovery Plan. Management Actions: Long-term ground-disturbing activities or other source of major noise disturbance are not permitted within southwestern willow flycatcher habitat 

and a 0.25-mile buffer of habitat patches. Standards: 

• Presence of southwestern willow flycatcher habitat. 

• A ground-disturbing activity may be permitted if BLM determines, following Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation with 

USFWS that the requested activity would not impair values associated with maintenance or recovery of the southwestern willow 

flycatcher habitat. In making this determination, BLM will consider the following resource factors: behavioral and ecological

requirements of the species; the type, amount, and duration of the surface disturbance; the relative extent of available habitat; the 

relationship to topography and vegetation screening; current baseline data; the type, location, duration, and intensity of potential adverse 

effects; mitigation and conservation measures to avoid, minimize, or offset the adverse effects; and other factors that may affect 

maintenance or recovery of the species or cause habitat to become unusable. 

• Approval of ground-disturbing activities granted in any given year may not constitute approval for subsequent years; approval for such 

activities must be granted (or extended) annually by BLM. The proponent of any ground-disturbing activity will provide an assessment 

with their proposal that: (a) documents anticipated compliance or non-impairment of resource values protected by this stipulation, and (b) 

considers the above mentioned resource factors. 

• During and following the project activities covered by this provision, ongoing monitoring data will be collected using widely accepted 

scientific methods and reported to BLM not less often than annually. If unanticipated types or levels of adverse effects are noted during 

monitoring, BLM will be promptly notified, and corrective measures as approved by BLM will be identified and implemented by the

proponent. This information will be used through an adaptive management process to refine the project components and associated 

mitigation measures to be applied to future proposed activities. 

• If the southwestern willow flycatcher were removed from the Federal ESA list, this stipulation would not apply to such habitat. However, 

other requirements will apply if the species remains classified as sensitive, or is otherwise protected. 

NSO Locations known to support native amphibian breeding habitat (includes potholes, seasonal pools, stock ponds, streams, or other areas of surface 

Goal: Maximize biological diversity by managing habitat for native amphibian species. 

Objective: Protect breeding habitat for amphibians. 

Management Actions: Long-term, ground-disturbing activities of locations (with a 150-foot buffer) known to support native amphibian breeding habitat (potholes, 

seasonal pools, stock ponds, streams, or other areas of surface water) are not permitted. 

Standards: 

• Presence of locations known to support native amphibian breeding habitat (potholes, seasonal pools, stock ponds, streams, or other areas 

of surface water). 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix K 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

5 

Appendix Table K-1. Descriptions of Stipulations Applicable to New Oil and Gas Leases, Alternatives II to V 

Stipulation 

water) (with 150 foot buffer) Alternative II 

• A ground-disturbing activity may be permitted if BLM determines that: (a) the activity will cause no loss of riparian vegetation or, if 

riparian vegetation is lost, that the loss is limited to no more than 0.1 acre, and 100 linear feet, per mile of stream; (b) any temporarily disturbed areas are revegetated with existing or similar species, including use of containerized nursery stock rather than seeds to replace 

woody plants on a one-to-one basis (trees) or area-for-area basis (shrubs); (c) revegetation success can be achieved within 2 years; (d) the 

activity will not impair water quality, flow regime, aquatic habitat quality, and channel and bank stability; and (e) no practicable 

alternative is available. Resource factors include topography and vegetation screening; current baseline data; the type, location, duration, 

and intensity of potential adverse effects; mitigation and conservation measures to avoid, minimize, or offset the adverse effects; and 

other factors that may affect maintenance or enhancement of the resource values. 

• Approval of ground-disturbing activities granted in any given year may not constitute approval for subsequent years; in such instances 

approval for such activities must be granted (or extended) annually by BLM. The proponent of any ground-disturbing activity will 

provide an assessment with their proposal that: (a) documents anticipated compliance or non-impairment of resource values protected by this stipulation, and (b) considers the above mentioned resource factors. 

• During and following the project activities covered by this provision, ongoing monitoring data will be collected using widely accepted 

scientific methods and reported to BLM not less often than annually. If unanticipated types or levels of adverse effects are noted during 

monitoring, BLM will be promptly notified; and corrective measures, as approved by BLM, will be identified and implemented by the 

proponent. This information will be used through an adaptive management process to refine the project components and associated 

mitigation measures to be applied to future proposed activities. 

NSO Occupied and potential habitat for threatened, endangered, candidate, or other special status plant species Alternatives II through V 

Goal: Provide for maintenance or recovery of plant species listed under the ESA (including proposed or candidate species) or those listed as 

sensitive by the BLM State Director. Objective: Protect occupied and potential habitat crucial for the maintenance or recovery of species listed under the ESA (including proposed or 

candidate species) or those listed as sensitive by the BLM State Director. Management Actions: No long-term, ground-disturbing activities within or immediately adjacent to occupied or potential habitat necessary for maintenance or recovery of 

the species will be permitted. Standards: 

• Presence of occupied or potential habitat for plant species listed under the ESA (including proposed or candidate species) or those listed 

as sensitive by BLM State Director. 

• A ground-disturbing activity may be permitted if BLM determines, following ESA Section 7 consultation with USFWS (for species listed 

under the ESA) or Field Office technical personnel, that the requested activity would not impair values associated with maintenance or 

recovery of the species. In making this determination, BLM will consider the following resource factors: behavioral and ecological 

requirements of the species; the type, amount, and duration of the surface disturbance; the relative extent of available habitat; the 

relationship to topography and vegetation screening; current baseline data; the type, location, duration, and intensity of potential adverse 

effects; mitigation and conservation measures to avoid, minimize, or offset the adverse effects; and other factors that may affect 

maintenance or recovery of the species or cause habitat to become unusable. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix K 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

6 

Appendix Table K-1. Descriptions of Stipulations Applicable to New Oil and Gas Leases, Alternatives II to V 

Stipulation 

• Approval of ground-disturbing activities granted in any given year may not constitute approval for subsequent years; approval for such 

activities must be granted (or extended) annually by BLM. The proponent of any ground-disturbing activity will provide an assessment 

with their proposal that: (a) documents anticipated compliance or non-impairment of resource values protected by this stipulation, and (b) 

considers the above mentioned resource factors. 

• During and following the project activities covered by this provision, ongoing monitoring data will be collected using widely accepted 

scientific methods and reported to BLM not less often than annually. If unanticipated types or levels of adverse effects are noted during monitoring, BLM will be promptly notified, and corrective measures as approved by BLM will be identified and implemented by theproponent. This information will be used through an adaptive management process to refine the project components and associated 

mitigation measures to be applied to future proposed activities. 

• If a species affected by this stipulation is removed from the ESA list, this stipulation would not apply to that species. However, other 

requirements will apply if the species remains classified as sensitive, or is otherwise protected. 

• This stipulation will apply to all species subsequently added to ESA list (including proposed or candidate species) or those listed as 

sensitive by the BLM State Director.

NSO Riparian/wetland area habitat Alternatives II, III, and V 

Goal: Maintain or improve riparian/wetland area habitat. Objectives: Preserve, protect, and, if necessary, restore natural functions of floodplains, wetlands, or aquatic/riparian habitats. 

Improve tributaries that would contribute to restoring threatened and endangered fish populations within the San Juan River. 

Maintain proper hydrologic function and protect adjacent riparian and wetland areas that provide habitat for special-status fish and wildlife species, 

and amphibian breeding/feeding or that provide important water quality, scenic, or recreation values. 

Management Actions: Long-term, ground-disturbing activities are not permitted with the widest boundary of riparian or wetland vegetation combining canyon bottoms, 

riparian areas, and floodplains. These areas include springs, and a combination of canyon bottoms, riparian areas, and floodplains associated with 

perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams. Ground-disturbing activities are also prohibited in springs with well-developed riparian vegetation (i.e., Blue Water, H-O, and Confluence Springs) along with a 300-foot buffer to protect adjoining wetlands. For remaining springs, grounddisturbing activities are not permitted in the springs, nor within a 100-foot buffer to protect adjoining wetlands. 

Standards:

• Presence of riparian or wetland vegetation combining canyon bottoms, riparian areas, and floodplains. These areas include springs, and a 

combination of canyon bottoms, riparian areas, and floodplains associated with perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams. 

• A ground-disturbing activity may be permitted if BLM determines that: (a) the activity will cause no loss of riparian vegetation or, if 

riparian vegetation is lost, that the loss is limited to no more than 0.1 acre, and 100 linear feet, per mile of stream; (b) any temporarily disturbed areas are revegetated with existing or similar species, including use of containerized nursery stock rather than seeds to replace 

woody plants on a one-to-one basis (trees) or area-for-area basis (shrubs); (c) revegetation success can be achieved within 2 years; (d) the 

activity will not impair water quality, flow regime, aquatic habitat quality, and channel and bank stability; and (e) no practicable 

alternative is available. Resource factors include topography and vegetation screening; current baseline data; the type, location, duration, 

and intensity of potential adverse effects; mitigation and conservation measures to avoid, minimize, or offset the adverse effects; and 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix K 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

7 

Appendix Table K-1. Descriptions of Stipulations Applicable to New Oil and Gas Leases, Alternatives II to V 

Stipulation 

other factors that may affect maintenance or enhancement of the resource values. Approval of ground-disturbing activities granted in any 

given year may not constitute approval for subsequent years; in such instances approval for such activities must be granted (or extended) 

annually by BLM. The proponent of any ground-disturbing activity will provide an assessment with their proposal that (a) documents 

anticipated compliance or non-impairment of resource values protected by this stipulation, and (b) which considers the above mentioned 

resource factors. 

• Ground-disturbing projects that are planned to benefit the health of riparian systems (i.e., exclosure fences, etc.) will be reviewed on a 

case-by-case basis and authorized by the Monument Manager. 

• During and following the project activities covered by this provision, ongoing monitoring data will be collected using widely accepted 

scientific methods and reported to BLM not less often than annually. If unanticipated types or levels of adverse effects are noted during monitoring, BLM will be promptly notified; and corrective measures, as approved by BLM, will be identified and implemented by the 

proponent. This information will be used through an adaptive management process to refine the project components and associated 

mitigation measures to be applied to future proposed activities. 

NSO Riparian/wetland area habitat Alternative IV 

Goal: Maintain or improve riparian/ wetland area habitat. Objectives: Preserve, protect, and, if necessary, restore natural functions of floodplains, wetlands, or aquatic/riparian habitats. 

Improve tributaries that would contribute to restoring threatened and endangered fish populations within the San Juan River. 

Maintain proper hydrologic function and protect adjacent riparian and wetland areas that provide habitat for special-status fish and wildlife species, 

and amphibian breeding/feeding or that provide important water quality, scenic, or recreation values. 

Management Actions: Long-term, ground-disturbing activities are not permitted within the widest boundary of riparian or wetland vegetation combining canyon bottoms, 

riparian areas, and floodplains. These areas include springs and a combination of canyon bottoms, riparian areas, and floodplains associated with 

perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams. Ground-disturbing activities are also prohibited in springs with well-developed riparian vegetation (i.e., Blue Water, H-O, and Confluence Springs) along with a 300-foot buffer to protect adjoining wetlands. For remaining springs, grounddisturbing activities are not permitted in the springs, or within a 100-foot buffer to protect adjoining wetlands. 

Standards: 

• Presence of riparian or wetland vegetation combining canyon bottoms, riparian areas, and floodplains. These areas include springs and a 

combination of canyon bottoms, riparian areas, and floodplains associated with perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams. 

• A ground-disturbing activity may be permitted if BLM determines that: (a) the activity will cause no loss of riparian vegetation or, if 

riparian vegetation is lost, that the loss is limited to no more than 0.1 acre, and 100 linear feet, per mile of stream; (b) any temporarily disturbed areas are revegetated with existing or similar species, including use of containerized nursery stock rather than seeds to replace 

woody plants on a one-to-one basis (trees) or area-for-area basis (shrubs); (c) revegetation success can be achieved within 2 years; (d) the 

activity will not impair water quality, flow regime, aquatic habitat quality, and channel and bank stability; and (e) no practicable 

alternative is available. Resource factors include topography and vegetation screening; current baseline data; the type, location, duration, 

and intensity of potential adverse effects; mitigation and conservation measures to avoid, minimize, or offset the adverse effects; and 

other factors that may affect maintenance or enhancement of the resource values. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix K 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

8 

Appendix Table K-1. Descriptions of Stipulations Applicable to New Oil and Gas Leases, Alternatives II to V 

Stipulation 

• Approval of ground-disturbing activities granted in any given year may not constitute approval for subsequent years; in such instances 

approval for such activities must be granted (or extended) annually by BLM. The proponent of any ground-disturbing activity will 

provide an assessment with their proposal that: (a) documents anticipated compliance or non-impairment of resource values protected by this stipulation, and (b) considers the above mentioned resource factors. 

• Ground disturbing projects that are planned to benefit the health of riparian systems (i.e., exclosure fences, etc.) will be reviewed on a 

case-by-case basis and authorized by the Monument Manager. 

• During and following the project activities covered by this provision, ongoing monitoring data will be collected using widely accepted 

scientific methods and reported to BLM not less often than annually. If unanticipated types or levels of adverse effects are noted during monitoring, BLM will be promptly notified; and corrective measures, as approved by BLM, will be identified and implemented by the 

proponent. This information will be used through an adaptive management process to refine the project components and associated 

mitigation measures to be applied to future proposed activities. 

NSO Potential Conservation Areas: Cannonball and Sand Canyon Alternatives III and V 

Goal: Provide a natural and undisturbed setting for conservation of habitat within the Cannonball and Sand Canyon Potential Conservation Areas. 

Objective: Protect Potential Conservation Areas (PCAs)proposed by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) from activities that would 

disturb, alter or impair these areas to be designated for conservation to CNHP and BLM standards. 

Management Actions: Long-term, ground-disturbing activities within the PCAs proposed by the CNHP are not permitted. BLM may require special design, construction, 

operation, mitigation, or reclamation measures, and/or relocation by more than 200 meters for any ground-disturbing activities, electric transmission 

lines, and other sources of disturbance within the Cannonball and Sand Canyon PCAs. Standards: 

• Areas within the boundaries of the Cannonball and Sand Canyon PCAs proposed by the CNHP. • Site specific locations for ground-disturbing activities may be allowed within the PCA only if BLM determines that the specific activity 

or requested change would not impair the natural and undisturbed qualities of the PCA. In making this determination, BLM will consider 

the impacts to the natural and undisturbed qualities of the PCA, potential for scientific research and public education, and impairments to 

conservation area designation. Approval of ground-disturbing activities granted in any given year may not constitute approval for 

subsequent years; approval for such activities must be granted (or extended) annually by BLM. The proponent of any ground-disturbing 

activity will provide an assessment with their proposal that: (a) documents anticipated compliance or non-impairment of resource values 

protected by this stipulation, and (b) considers the above mentioned resource factors. 

• During and following the project activities covered by this provision, ongoing monitoring data will be collected using widely accepted 

scientific methods and reported to BLM not less often than annually. If unanticipated types or levels of adverse effects are noted during 

monitoring, BLM will be promptly notified; and corrective measures, as approved by BLM, will be identified and implemented by the 

proponent. This information will be used through an adaptive management process to refine the project components and associated 

mitigation measures to be applied to future proposed activities. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix K 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

9 

Appendix Table K-1. Descriptions of Stipulations Applicable to New Oil and Gas Leases, Alternatives II to V 

Stipulation 

NSO Areas with wilderness characteristics, in accordance with Citizens’ Proposed Expansion Areas: Cross Canyon Mare’s Tail Canyon Tin Cup Mesa Alternatives II through V 

Goal: Protect and preserve wilderness characteristics (naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude, and primitive and unconfined recreation) 

where they occur in identified areas outside of Wilderness Study Areas. Objective: Maintain the non-impairment standard for Wilderness Study Areas, in accordance with FLPMA, to prevent undue and unnecessary 

degradation of wilderness characteristics within the areas with wilderness characteristics, in accordance with the Citizens’ Proposed Expansion 

areas. Management Actions: No long-term ground-disturbing activities in areas with wilderness characteristics, in accordance with the Citizens’ Proposed Expansion areas. 

Standards: 

• Lands within the boundaries of areas with wilderness characteristics, in accordance with the Citizens’ Proposed Expansion areas: Cross 

Canyon, Mare’s Tail Canyon, and Tin Cup Mesa. 

• A ground-disturbing activity may be permitted if the non-impairment standards under the FLPMA are met including existing nonimpairment standards and practices. (See H-8550-1, Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Land Under Wilderness Review.)

CSU Potential Conservation Areas (PCAs): Cannonball Sand Canyon Alt IV 

Goal: Provide a natural and undisturbed setting for conservation of habitat within the Cannonball and Sand Canyon Potential Conservation Areas. 

Objective: Protect Potential Conservation Areas proposed by the CNHP from activities that would disturb, alter, or impair these areas to be 

designated for conservation to CNHP and BLM standards. Management Actions: BLM may require special design, construction, operation, mitigation, or reclamation measures, and/or relocation by more than 200 meters for any 

ground-disturbing activities and/or other sources of disturbance within the Cannonball and Sand Canyon PCAs that would disturb, alter, or impair 

these areas to be designated a conservation area according to CNHP and BLM standards. Standards: 

• Areas within the boundaries of the Cannonball and Sand Canyon PCAs. • Site specific locations for ground-disturbing activities may be allowed within the CSU only if BLM determines that the specific activity 

or requested change would not impair the natural and undisturbed qualities of the PCA. In making this determination, BLM will consider 

the impacts to the natural and undisturbed qualities of the PCA, potential for scientific research and public education, and impairments to 

conservation area designation. 

• Approval of ground-disturbing activities granted in any given year may not constitute approval for subsequent years; approval for such 

activities must be granted (or extended) annually by BLM. The proponent of any ground-disturbing activity will provide an assessment 

with their proposal that: (a) documents anticipated compliance or non-impairment of resource values protected by this stipulation, and (b) 

considers the above mentioned resource factors. 

• During and following the project activities covered by this provision, ongoing monitoring data will be collected using widely accepted 

scientific methods and reported to BLM not less often than annually. If unanticipated types or levels of adverse effects are noted during 

monitoring, BLM will be promptly notified; and corrective measures, as approved by BLM, will be identified and implemented by the 

proponent. This information will be used through an adaptive management process to refine the project components and associated 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix K 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

10 

Appendix Table K-1. Descriptions of Stipulations Applicable to New Oil and Gas Leases, Alternatives II to V 

Stipulation 

mitigation measures to be applied to future proposed activities. 

TL Mexican spotted owl nest sites (occupied or historic) March 15 to September 1 Alternatives II through-V 

Goal: Contribute to the recovery of the Mexican spotted owl. Objective: Protect Mexican spotted owl nest sites. Management Actions: Ground-disturbing activities or other sources of disturbance activities (excluding research, monitoring, and routine livestock management) and/or 

excessive noise disturbance that could cause a nest to not to be used or lead to nest abandonment, failure, or mortality of fledglings are not 

permitted from March 15 to September 1 of every year. Standards: 

• Presence of known Mexican spotted owl nest site (historic or active). • Permitted or ground-disturbing activities within Mexican spotted owl Protected Activity Centers (PAC), or within a 0.5 mile buffer of a 

PAC, would be limited to mesa tops and rims to reduce impacts to canyon floors. 

• Prior to approving any permissible activity within a PAC (including tree removal, fuel reduction, vegetation treatments, and so forth) 

require a nesting survey for two consecutive breeding seasons using the protocol approved by USFWS. If management actions such as 

tree removal, fuel reduction, or vegetation treatments are deemed critical to another resource value within the PAC, consult with USFWS 

to establish design standards for these activities. 

TL Active bald eagle or golden eagle nests (with 0.5 mile buffer) March 1 to July 15 Alternatives II through V 

Goal: Protect bald and golden eagle habitat. Objective: Protect bald and golden eagle nesting and fledging habitat. 

Management Actions: Ground-disturbing activities or other sources of disturbance activities (excluding research, monitoring, and routine livestock management) and/or 

excessive noise disturbance that could cause an active nest to not to be used or lead to nest abandonment, failure, or mortality of fledglings are not 

permitted within a 0.5 mile buffer of an active nest from March 1 to July 15 of every year. Standards: 

• Presence of active bald or golden eagle nests. • Site specific ground-disturbing activity between March 1 to July 15 may be allowed if BLM determines, following consultation with 

USFWS, that the requested activity would not impair values associated with maintenance or recovery of the species or behaviors 

associated with winter roosting, nesting, fledging, or fledging habitat. In making this determination, BLM will consider the following 

resource factors: meteorological or ecological conditions during the period requested; the status of the nest (active or inactive); the type, 

intensity, and duration of disturbance; and measures required by USFWS; potential for the activity to cause the roost or nest not to be 

used; potential for nest failure; abandonment of the nest; mortality of fledglings; behavioral and ecological requirements of the species; 

the type, amount, intensity, and duration of the surface disturbance; the relative extent of available nesting and fledgling habitat; 

relationship to topography and vegetation screening; current baseline data; the type, location, intensity, and duration of potential adverse 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix K 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

11 

Appendix Table K-1. Descriptions of Stipulations Applicable to New Oil and Gas Leases, Alternatives II to V 

Stipulation 

effects; mitigation measures proposed to avoid, minimize, or offset the adverse effects; and other factors that may affect roosting or 

nesting success. 

• Approval of ground-disturbing activities granted in any given year may not constitute approval for subsequent years; approval for such 

activities must be granted (or extended) annually by BLM. The proponent of any ground-disturbing activity will provide an assessment 

with their proposal that: (a) documents anticipated compliance or non-impairment of resource values protected by this stipulation, and (b) 

considers the above mentioned resource factors. 

• During and following the project activities covered by this provision, ongoing monitoring data will be collected using widely accepted 

scientific methods and reported to BLM not less often than annually. If unanticipated types or levels of adverse effects are noted during monitoring, BLM will be promptly notified; and corrective measures, as approved by BLM, will be identified and implemented by the 

proponent. This information will be used through an adaptive management process to refine the project components and associated 

mitigation measures to be applied to future proposed activities. 

TL Known bald and golden eagle winter roost or winter concentration areas (with 0.5 mile buffer) November 16 to April 15 Alternatives II through V 

Goal: Protect bald and golden eagle habitat. Objective: Protect bald and golden eagle winter roost or winter concentration area habitat. 

Management Actions:Ground-disturbing activities or other sources of disturbance activities (excluding research, monitoring, and routine livestock management) and/or 

excessive noise disturbance that could cause a winter roost or winter concentration are to not be used are not permitted within a 0.5 mile buffer of 

such habitat from November 16 to April 15 of every year. Standards: 

• Presence of known bald eagle or golden eagle winter roost sites or winter concentration areas. • Site specific ground-disturbing activity between November 16 and April 15 may be allowed if BLM determines, following consultation 

with USFWS, that the requested activity would not impair values associated with maintenance or recovery of the species or behaviors 

associated with winter roosting, nesting, fledging, or fledging habitat. In making this determination, BLM will consider the following 

resource factors: meteorological or ecological conditions during the period requested; the status of the nest (active or inactive); the type, 

intensity, and duration of disturbance; and measures required by USFWS; potential for the activity to cause the to not to be used; and 

ecological requirements of each species; the type, amount, intensity, and duration of the surface disturbance; the relative extent of available winter roosting or concentration area habitat; relationship to topography and vegetation screening; current baseline data; the 

type, location, intensity, and duration of potential adverse effects; mitigation measures proposed to avoid, minimize, or offset the adverse 

effects; and other factors that may affect roosting or winter concentration areas. 

• Approval of ground-disturbing activities granted in any given year may not constitute approval for subsequent years; approval for such 

activities must be granted (or extended) annually by BLM. The proponent of any ground-disturbing activity will provide an assessment 

with their proposal that: (a) documents anticipated compliance or non-impairment of resource values protected by this stipulation, and (b) 

considers the above mentioned resource factors. 

• During and following the project activities covered by this provision, ongoing monitoring data will be collected using widely accepted 

scientific methods and reported to BLM not less often than annually. If unanticipated types or levels of adverse effects are noted during 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix K 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

12 

Appendix Table K-1. Descriptions of Stipulations Applicable to New Oil and Gas Leases, Alternatives II to V 

Stipulation 

monitoring, BLM will be promptly notified; and corrective measures, as approved by BLM, will be identified and implemented by the 

proponent. This information will be used through an adaptive management process to refine the project components and associated 

mitigation measures to be applied to future proposed activities.

TL Southwestern willow flycatcher habitat (with 0.25-mile buffer) April 15 to July 15 Alternative III 

Goal: Contribute to the recovery of the southwestern willow flycatcher. Objective: Implement recovery actions as described in the August 2002 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Final Recovery Plan, or the most recent 

version of the Recovery Plan. Management Actions: Ground-disturbing activities or other sources of major noise disturbance are not permitted within southwestern willow flycatcher habitat and a 0.25-

mile buffer of habitat patches permitted between April 15 to July 15 of every year. Standards: 

• Presence of southwestern willow flycatcher habitat. • A ground-disturbing activity may be permitted if BLM determines, following ESA Section 7 consultation with USFWS, that the 

requested activity would not impair values associated with maintenance or recovery of the southwestern willow flycatcher. In making 

this determination, BLM will consider the following resource factors: behavioral and ecological requirements of the species; the type, 

amount, and duration of the surface disturbance; the relative extent of available habitat; the relationship to topography and vegetation screening; current baseline data; the type, location, duration, and intensity of potential adverse effects; mitigation and conservation 

measures to avoid, minimize, or offset the adverse effects; and other factors that may affect maintenance or recovery of the species or cause habitat to become unusable. 

• Approval of ground-disturbing activities granted in any given year may not constitute approval for subsequent years; approval for such 

activities must be granted (or extended) annually by BLM. The proponent of any ground-disturbing activity will provide an assessment 

with their proposal that: (a) documents anticipated compliance or non-impairment of resource values protected by this stipulation, and (b) 

considers the above mentioned resource factors. 

• During and following the project activities covered by this provision, ongoing monitoring data will be collected using widely accepted 

scientific methods and reported to BLM not less often than annually. If unanticipated types or levels of adverse effects are noted during 

monitoring, BLM will be promptly notified, and corrective measures as approved by BLM will be identified and implemented by the

proponent. This information will be used through an adaptive management process to refine the project components and associated 

mitigation measures to be applied to future proposed activities. 

• If the southwestern willow flycatcher is removed from the Federal ESA list, this stipulation would not apply to that species. However, 

other requirements will apply if the species remains classified as sensitive, or is otherwise protected.

TL Locations known to support native amphibian 

Goal: Maximize biological diversity by managing habitat for native amphibian species. 

Objective: Protect breeding habitat for amphibians. 

Management Actions: 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix K 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

13 

Appendix Table K-1. Descriptions of Stipulations Applicable to New Oil and Gas Leases, Alternatives II to V 

Stipulation 

breeding habitat (includes potholes, seasonal pools, stock ponds, streams, or other areas of surface water) (with 150 foot buffer) during the breeding season April 1 through July 31 Alternatives II and III 

Ground-disturbing activities are prohibited within native amphibian breeding habitat (potholes, seasonal pools, stock ponds, streams, or other areas 

of surface water) and a 150-foot buffer from April 1 through July 31 of every year. Standards: 

• Presence of locations known to support native amphibian breeding habitat (potholes, seasonal pools, stock ponds, streams, or other areas 

of surface water). 

• A ground-disturbing activity may be permitted if BLM determines that: (a) the activity will cause no loss of riparian vegetation or, if 

riparian vegetation is lost, that the loss is limited to no more than 0.1 acre, and 100 linear feet, per mile of stream; (b) any temporarily disturbed areas are revegetated with existing or similar species, including use of containerized nursery stock rather than seeds to replace 

woody plants on a one-to-one basis (trees) or area-for-area basis (shrubs); (c) revegetation success can be achieved within 2 years; (d) the 

activity will not impair water quality, flow regime, aquatic habitat quality, and channel and bank stability; and (e) no practicable 

alternative is available. Resource factors include topography and vegetation screening; current baseline data; the type, location, duration, 

and intensity of potential adverse effects; mitigation and conservation measures to avoid, minimize, or offset the adverse effects; and 

other factors that may affect maintenance or enhancement of the resource values. 

• Approval of ground-disturbing activities granted in any given year may not constitute approval for subsequent years; in such instances 

approval for such activities must be granted (or extended) annually by BLM. The proponent of any ground-disturbing activity will 

provide an assessment with their proposal that: (a) documents anticipated compliance or non-impairment of resource values protected by this stipulation, and (b) considers the above mentioned resource factors. 

• During and following the project activities covered by this provision, ongoing monitoring data will be collected using widely accepted 

scientific methods and reported to BLM not less often than annually. If unanticipated types or levels of adverse effects are noted during 

monitoring, BLM will be promptly notified; and corrective measures, as approved by BLM, will be identified and implemented by the 

proponent. This information will be used through an adaptive management process to refine the project components and associated 

mitigation measures to be applied to future proposed activities. 

Lease Notice To alert lessees that no APDs will be granted where physical cultural remains are dense, continuous, and chronologically related and determined to be communities, throughout the survey area (constantno breaks) Alternatives II through V 

Goal: Ensure that the objects of the Monument are protected at the landscape level and that all multiple-use resource management and 

authorizations for land and resource uses are conducted in compliance with Section 106 and Section 110 of the NHPA, as amended.Objective: To alert lessees that no APDs will be granted where physical cultural remains are dense, continuous, and chronologically related and 

determined to be communities, throughout the survey area (constant-no breaks). Management Actions:

Lessees and potential lessees are hereby advised that no APDs will be granted where physical cultural remains are dense, continuous, and 

chronologically related and determined to be communities, throughout the survey area (constant-no breaks). 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix K 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

14 

Appendix Table K-1. Descriptions of Stipulations Applicable to New Oil and Gas Leases, Alternatives II to V 

Stipulation 

Lease Notice To alert lessees to NSO or TL for southwestern willow flycatcher habitat (with 0.25mile buffer) Alternatives II and III, respectively 

Goal: Contribute to the recovery of the southwestern willow flycatcher. Objective: Implement recovery actions as described in the August 2002 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Final Recovery Plan, or the most recent 

version of the Recovery Plan. Management Actions: Lessees and potential lessees are hereby advised of NSO and TL for southwestern willow flycatcher habitat (with 0.25-mile buffer), as defined in 

the Final Recovery Plan. 

Lease Notice To alert lessees to TL stipulation on active or historic bald or golden eagle nest sites. To alert lessees to TL for active bald or golden eagle winter roost or winter concentration habitat Alternatives II through V 

Goal: Protect bald and golden eagle nest sites and/or winter roost sites and winter concentration areas. 

Objective: Protect bald and golden eagle winter roost or winter concentration area habitat. 

Management Actions: Lessees and potential lessees are hereby advised that within a 0.5-mile radius of a nest, ground-disturbing activities or other sources of disturbance 

that could cause the nest not to be used or lead to nest abandonment, failure, or mortality of fledglings are prohibited. 

Lease Notice To alert lessees to NSO or TL on locations known to support native amphibian breeding habitat (includes potholes, seasonal pools, stock ponds, streams, or other areas of surface water) (with 150 foot buffer) during the breeding season 

Goal: Maximize biological diversity by managing habitat for native amphibian species. 

Objective: Protect breeding habitat for amphibians. 

Management Actions: Lessees and potential lessees are hereby advised of TL for locations known to support native amphibian breeding habitat (potholes, seasonal pools, 

stock ponds, streams, or other areas of surface water) (with a 150 foot buffer) during the breeding season from April 1 through July 31 of every year. 
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Appendix K 

Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

15 

Appendix Table K-1. Descriptions of Stipulations Applicable to New Oil and Gas Leases, Alternatives II to V 

Stipulation 

April 1 through July 31 Alternative II and II, respectively Lease Notice To alert lessees to NSO on occupied and potential habitat for threatened, endangered, candidate, or other special status plant species Alternatives II through V 

Goal: Provide for maintenance or recovery of plant species listed under the ESA (including proposed or candidate species) or those listed as 

sensitive by the BLM State Director. Objective: Protect occupied and potential habitat crucial for the maintenance or recovery of species listed under the ESA (including proposed or 

candidate species) or those listed as sensitive by the BLM State Director. Management Actions: Lessees and potential lessees are hereby advised of an NSO prohibiting long-term, ground-disturbing activities within or immediately adjacent to occupied or potential habitat necessary for maintenance or recovery of the species.

Lease Notice Additional required Conditions of Approval (COAs) 

Goal: Meet overall resource and multiple use objectives of the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument RMP. 

Objective: To alert lessee of all potential COAs to be applied to permitted activities in addition to lease level stipulations by the Canyons of the 

Ancients National Monument RMP. These take the form of management prescriptions specific to defined areas, Best Management Practices 

(BMPs) specific to resource values, as well as required reclamation standards and monitoring. Management Actions: Lessees and potential lessees are hereby advised of COAs, or standards that will be achieved through the use of COAs, and the location of land use 

management prescriptions in the Proposed Plan.